The Plight Of The Elderly: Good, Bad, Debatable
Posted: Thursday, February 04, 2010
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Discoveries over the past century, have brought unbelievable advances in drugs and other technologies. The average lifespan has almost doubled in my own lifetime. The average life expectancy a century ago was, I believe, in the mid or low forties. Although some few lived as much as 100 years, the average was very low due to infants and young children deaths. Plus the many deaths of young women in childbirth, deaths from pneumonia. malaria, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, typhoid and other such diseases which are all but eradicated now, at least in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy We salute our researchers, scientists and all those who have contributed to that, and truly, it has been a Godsend to many people. So very many young people have been able to live long and productive lives whereas they would not have lived without these modern means of curative value. I, for one have benefited greatly by those things. I am well past the average expectancy of life for men.
But, I suppose all good things have their downside. What this has done, has afforded us with a very top-heavy load of elderly people. Again we refer back to about one century ago. There was little or no help for the elderly, except for their immediate kin. Children, siblings or in some cases, even cousins, became saddled with the responsibility of caring for those who grew too frail or feeble to care for themselves. In the latter part of the nineteenth century and early years of the twentieth century, some states and counties built houses or farms which were referred to as "poor houses" or "poor farms" where dire conditions caused some elderly to have no means of subsistence otherwise, were taken in. Some able bodied people with little or no education or simply could not find work, were also taken in to those places, especially the farms where they were required to perform farm work for their subsistence.
In 1935, then president Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the Social Security Act, which at that time, covered those over 65, their survivors and the disabled, plus unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance was removed at a later date and became a separate fund. This offered dignity to those who became too old to work and had no other source of sustenance. Medicare and Medicaid also were added and life for the elderly became much easier for many. But, as with any entitlements or government giveaways, there were instances of fraud and waste, almost from the beginning. This has persisted and grown over the years.
But added to the waste and fraud, comes the extended life expectancy and other such things as the "Baby Boom" following World War II, the extraordinary increase in medical care costs. All this has resulted in the cost to sustain the elderly here in the United States having risen to a virtual unsustainable level.
The real problems which face our politicians who cannot force themselves to do things which are unpopular are not going away. There are a number of answers to easing this burden, but all are unpopular. Two of the main things which are possibly workable but seemingly unfair to many, are raising the age for eligibility for the retirement insurance payments to begin. There are some reasonable thoughts here. In 1935, when this entitlement began, one was expected to live only a very few years while drawing these funds. Now, many more are not only living to be 65, but are living a great many years wile drawing those checks. I am a perfect example, although I continued to work until I was 67 to retire and sign up for Social Security, I have now been on their payroll for 12 and one-half years.
Another is to raise the level of maximum annual payroll deductions to a level that would relieve some of the deficit. I know this does not sit well with those in higher income brackets, but it is nevertheless a partial solution. And still another partial solution is a strong effort to detect and punish fraudulent abuses. Everyone knows there are abuses out there, and a team of diligent investigators and auditors should find many millions of dollars in this. Also, one thought which perhaps is indeed unfair, but with some significance. Even though some have paid in to the system for lo, these many years, if their retirement income is say $100,000 per year or more, they have no need for the pittance of Social Security.
But, we come to one of this administration's pet projects, that of getting control of health care with clauses which will allow their restricting monies paid out for elderly health care. Fraud and waste, are legitimate items to pursue, but lowering the expenditures for easing severe pain, or withholding treatment for certain illnesses, are not. I am in agreement with the fact that highly expensive procedures which offer the possibility of an additional year or so of life, especially if that life were to be bedfast or virtually helpless, should not be paid for nor should the patient seek it.
My wife and I have living wills which we drew up long before this present political controversy arose, informing all health providers, our children or other interested parties, that we want no artificial methods used to sustain our lives if the doctor(s) are convinced there will be no more quality life for us. This would extend to the use of a respirator, methods of force feeding, and so on. Yet, I do not wish that we be euthanized, and we request to be kept as comfortable and pain free as is reasonably possible. The thing for people to do is to live their lives according to the dictates of the New Testament so the end of this life invokes no fear. The apostle Paul made the following statement which encourages us:
"According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:" (Philippians 1:20-23)
This Article has been viewed 1,435 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Thank you for writing this informative article. It was indeed an insightful read and it made me more concerned about saving up money for those unhealthy rainy days!Thank you Ravi, for your nice comment. Good for you, you will nevr regret preparing for oldeer years. We here in America depended too largely on the government's' Social Security program, which in a lot of cases is severely inadequate. And as health care became so expensive, even those of us who were fortunate to be drawing enough to survive, can no longer afford the health care we need.Living to be old in one way is a blessing, but also is a problem. Welcome to Searchwarp!.
The life average expectancy when SS was instituted was 64. Under the same criteria today you should be 79 to start getting it. I think, howerver, that if those who have retirement income above a certain figure are denied SS, it is Marxism and redistrbution of wealth.I agree, I was not advocating that route, only mentioned it. It ought to fit in pretty well with the present administration though.
Good article. My husband and I also have living wills and health directives. We also have long term health care so we will not be a burden to our children. It is important to be prepared. Thanks for sharing.Thank you for reading and commenting, Linda.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.