August 03, 2004

• I'm annoyed - they are very unclear in their use of life expectancy statistics in the first bit. They don't get them actually wrong, but are ambiguous enough to let people go on making the mistake that if life expectancy is only 40-something, most adults won't live past 40. Most of the dying before old age was in childhood - I wish someone would publish life expectency stats for those who live through to 15. Sure, there were many fewer old people, what with high childhood mortality, and then deaths due to disease, childbirth and accidents. But there were still a fair number of old people, even people who claimed a century. And enough old people for the English government to be concerned with providing support for the old poor in 1601 - and to start giving old age pensions in 1906. Sorry. That's just one of my pet peeves. The points about the demographic shifts are all spot on. An epidemiogist once showed me these graphs of populations by age that were fascinating - they were stacked bars for age ranges, and developing countries had a pyramid shape, while Western Europe, etc were all getting quite square shapes.
• I'm pretty ignorant about this stuff. I assume it would be really hard to raise the ages for Medicare and stuff, which is why they don't just do it?
• Because a lot of senior citizens vote, and it's hard to take away what you've given. Also, there are still a lot of 60 year olds affected by chronic illness, and they are the ones who most need health coverage. Of course, there are also a lot of 50-somethings with chronic illness who need health coverage, but in most developed countries they have that. /yes, snarky, but lack of health care in the US is another pet peeve. But I shouldn't assume this article is about the US - the changing demographics are most pronounced in Western Europe, though other developed countries are following.
• Well, I guess I'll be dead before the real crises hits. Nahnnie nee nah nah NAH nah! Oh, wait...
• i see something jarring about this commentary. it seems that we 'over fifty or so' folks, put a lot of effort into developing the social system improvements that so many now depend on. i also think it's wonderful that those generations coming behind us have such a higher proportion with college education. every parent wants their child to achieve more than themselves and we boomers seem to have accelerated that process on a generational scale. so why do i feel left feeling kinda guilty that i may be a burden on this system i helped build and contributed to? *promises to keep herself as healthy and fit as possible*
• Well, Dx, once upon a time we ol’ folks were the reservoirs of the collected tribal wisdom, and, as such, were highly regarded. Nowadays, with them there new fangled libraries and computers, we’re just a major nuisance and we dress funny. What yer supposed to do now is take your tired, wrinkled arse and shuffle off to die somewhere without puttin’ a burden on the young’ens.
• Life-extension movement gains momentum as baby boomers push to live longer Is approaching immortality immoral?
• Wot is vile in my book is hogging all the bananas for yourself and not letting any of the thinner monkeys have any, not even the peels.
• I don't think people really think that, Blue Horse : ) There are worries about unbalancing the ratio between working and retired people - one of the solutions is increased immigration to developed countries. The other issues are regarding the nature of the babyboom generation itself - through none of their own fault or concious action, they are the largest single cohort in North America, at least. So they have both buying and voting power over that of any other generation, though the echo will also be significant. Some people have pointed to the changing medicare in the US as an example of this, but personally, I think it's just a good idea (seniors already have free prescriptions in Canada, because they need them)