Serious The Aging Population and the Health Sector

[animenagai]

The population in the developed world is aging rapidly. Here's an excerpt from an The State of Aging and Health in America 2013:

The current growth in the number and proportion of older adults in the United States is unprecedented
in our nation’s history. By 2050, it is anticipated that Americans aged 65 or older will number nearly 89
million people, or more than double the number of older adults in the United States in 2010.

The rapid aging of the U.S. population is being driven by two realities: Americans are living longer
lives than in previous decades and, given the post-World War II baby boom, there are proportionately
more older adults than in previous generations. Many Americans are now living into their 70s, 80s, and
beyond. The leading edge of the baby boomers reached age 65 in 2011, launching an unparalleled
phenomenon in the United States. Since January 1, 2011, and each and every day for the next 20 years,
roughly 10,000 Americans will celebrate their 65th birthdays. In 2030, when the last baby boomer
turns 65, the demographic landscape of our nation will have changed significantly. One of every five
Americans—about 72 million people—will be an older adult.

These figures are pretty comparable to the rest of the developed world. Countries like China (one child policy) and Japan (population is actually decreasing because of aging + less children being born) are doing even worse.

Now, although the richer countries in the world may be decently equipped to handle the strains of an aging population, other countries are not. Here in New Zealand for example, no amount of government subsides or medical students will fix the problem. If we just throw more money in health, it's simply going to cripple the other facets of society. Think about it, if there's twice as many people over the age of 65, all things being equal there will be twice as many pensioners, twice as many people reliant on the government and their families, and less tax payers to support the system. The cost is simply too high. If we just train more doctors, there's still no guarantee that this will help the problem. This is an international issue, and there are plenty of other countries who are willing to pay a higher salary, with better benefits.

The average age of GP's here is around 50. GP's are the cornerstone of our health system. You can't even see a specialist without the referral of a GP here. It is impossible to get a same-day-appointment now, and the situation is only getting worse.

Great technological advances may eventually fix our problems, but what do we do about it in the mean time? Is there a way to get the public more interested in researching about health and taking more preventative measures? Is there a better way to promote exercise and good dieting? Tell me any ideas/thoughts you have.

 

[noobcubed]

The political discussions in this subforum are on the whole rather inflammatory so congrats on picking a subject that seems less divisive but still worth discussing.

The biggest problem IMO caused by this demographic shift is the forced increase in retirement age. For people in office jobs this isn't an insurmountable problem - sure, nobody in the relevant age bracket will like being denied their pension for a few more years and parties advocating it as policy might lose a few votes, but at the end of the day I suspect that people in general would admit that it is a necessary evil. But what about manual labourers? Is it reasonable to expect factory workers to keep putting in physical shifts day after day well into their seventies, even with their hip replacements, their cataracts and their irregular heartbeats?

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

The political discussions in this subforum are on the whole rather inflammatory so congrats on picking a subject that seems less divisive but still worth discussing.

The biggest problem IMO caused by this demographic shift is the forced increase in retirement age. For people in office jobs this isn't an insurmountable problem - sure, nobody in the relevant age bracket will like being denied their pension for a few more years and parties advocating it as policy might lose a few votes, but at the end of the day I suspect that people in general would admit that it is a necessary evil. But what about manual labourers? Is it reasonable to expect factory workers to keep putting in physical shifts day after day well into their seventies, even with their hip replacements, their cataracts and their irregular heartbeats?

Topics that only policy wonks want to discuss tend to be uninviting for trolls.

Talk about HBD if one wants to create an inflammatory discussion. I use to visit many HBD blogs before I came to Smogon.

BTW, manual laborers are soon to be obsolete.

http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpre...he-declining-importance-of-non-human-capital/
http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/the-declining-importance-of-non-human-capital/

 

[Outlaw]

In the early 1960s, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) acquired property in a rural area outside Poolesville, Maryland. The facility that was built on this property housed several research projects, including those headed by Calhoun. It was here that his most famous experiment, the mouse universe, was created.[1] In July 1968 four pairs of mice were introduced into the Utopian universe. The universe was a 9-foot (2.7 m) square metal pen with 54-inch-high (1.4 m) sides. Each side had four groups of four vertical, wire mesh “tunnels”. The “tunnels” gave access to nesting boxes, food hoppers, and water dispensers. There was no shortage of food or water or nesting material. There were no predators. The only adversity was the limit on space.

Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55 days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which the population growth dropped markedly. The last surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against. After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones”.

The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that when all available space is taken and all social roles filled, competition and the stresses experienced by the individuals will result in a total breakdown in complex social behaviors, ultimately resulting in the demise of the population.

Calhoun saw the fate of the population of mice as a metaphor for the potential fate of man. He characterized the social breakdown as a “second death”, with reference to the “second death” mentioned in the Biblical book of Revelation 2:11 [1] His study has been cited by writers such as Bill Perkins as a warning of the dangers of the living in an "increasingly crowded and impersonal world".[2]

This is probably fitting for this topic.

 

[Cresselia~~]

One of Singapore's solution is to attract more young labor from poorer countries, and attracrlt more elite young immigrants.
I heard this from a TV documentary.

 

[noobcubed]

One of Singapore's solution is to attract more young labor from poorer countries, and attracrlt more elite young immigrants.
I heard this from a TV documentary.

This becomes a less-and-less feasible solution as the life expectancy of developing countries skyrockets. All you end up doing is transferring the ageing crisis from a country than can handle it relatively well to one that already has enough problems.

 

[Manafii101]

This is the reason that the Australian government is heavily pushing for increased superannuation payments (a super is a privately managed fund that you generally can't access until you retire that comes as part of your salary).

Whether people will have enough superannuation to live on depends on the economic situation that develops over our lifetimes though.

Another interesting topic for discussion is retirement age. While most people I speak to think that 65 is a reasonable age to retire at, I think it'll be less common as people start living longer.

I think that ideally people in future will work less hours in the 20-60 range (maybe 4 days/week instead of 5), and then maintain part-time work until they hit ~70ish.

In terms of medical advances, I think that aging will become an increasingly large expense until it hits a breaking point where anti-aging surgeries/treatments become cost-effective without excessive government spending.

 

[Cresselia~~]

This becomes a less-and-less feasible solution as the life expectancy of developing countries skyrockets. All you end up doing is transferring the ageing crisis from a country than can handle it relatively well to one that already has enough problems.

True.
Not to mention, those once young workers will become old one day as well.

Well, a rather inappropriate one I can think of, is to legalize mercy killing, and that people with long term diseases can choose.
However, this probably only applies to a small population.

 

[Trax]

Euthanasia would free up a lot of resources.

 

[noobcubed]

Euthanasia would free up a lot of resources.

I doubt it. I don't have the data, but I don't think that many people would want to be mercy-killed regardless of their health.

There do exist euthanasia clinics in Switzerland, where the practice is legal, but a handful of people from my country (Britain) visit, to the extent it is newsworthy whenever someone does.

 

[BaffleBlend]

I think this is a problem that will just brace itself and go away on its own. We'll have to help those affected along while it's happening, definitely. But, there will be a sharp drop in the elderly population (and the population in general) in a few decades because there are generally a lot less births in modern times. I predict that there will be a sharp increase in health care expenses that will plateau and then just drop. Nothing that just repairing current policy in ways that would generally benefit everyone wouldn't help while it's happening, provided we find a way to make those fixes.

The things we're going to tell our grandkids about the days when everyone was old...