25 replies to this topic

[VictorBjoerk]

http
://www.expressen.se/halsa/1.1246560/ko...ard-tredubblas

soon our society will collapse entirely due to the aging problem......

[VictorBjoerk]

"Kostnaderna för sjukhusvård beräknas samtidigt öka med 270 procent. För att klara det krävs skattehöjningar,"

85% of all health care money goes to people over 65. It's just sick, a burden to society and taxes will have to go up dramatically.

Edited by Shonghow, 31 July 2008 - 10:24 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Does anyone know any statistics about how much of the healthcare money that is spent on elderly in america?

[forever freedom]

This is something many european countries are struggling with. Not to meantion the fact that it's populations are shrinking.

So we have a population shrinking and growing older at the same time. Of course, this sucks. On a possible bright side, maybe this could motivate europeans to fund more researches on anti aging?

As for the US, the problem is not so serious (although it's pretty bad too, since SS has no money) because the population there is still growing, and is expected to keep growing for the next decades.

I think that the age of retirement should be drastically increased by, say, a decade. But of course old people don't think the same way, and i wouldn't either if i were old. This is a very sensitive problem and i believe that in the future, mainly in developed countries, there is going to be a constant struggle between the older population that wants to keep all it's benefits, and the younger one trying to breathe from the heavy taxes that support the oldies.

[niner]

This isn't horrible news, in a way it's good news.  The good news is that by attacking aging itself, governments all over the world have a chance to do something about an otherwise crushing demographic burden.  This is the essence of the "longevity dividend" that S. Jay Olshansky and others talk about.  Educating decision-makers about this is one of the most powerful things we could do to enhance funding for longevity.

[VictorBjoerk]

But probably it will take a long time before they wake up and realize that something actually can be done about aging.

[Dmitri]

sam988, on 31-Jul 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

This is something many european countries are struggling with. Not to meantion the fact that it's populations are shrinking.

So we have a population shrinking and growing older at the same time. Of course, this sucks. On a possible bright side, maybe this could motivate europeans to fund more researches on anti aging?

As for the US, the problem is not so serious (although it's pretty bad too, since SS has no money) because the population there is still growing, and is expected to keep growing for the next decades.

I think that the age of retirement should be drastically increased by, say, a decade. But of course old people don't think the same way, and i wouldn't either if i were old. This is a very sensitive problem and i believe that in the future, mainly in developed countries, there is going to be a constant struggle between the older population that wants to keep all it's benefits, and the younger one trying to breathe from the heavy taxes that support the oldies.

I read it's estimated that by the year 2030 there will be 3 million Americans over the age of 100 (right now there are only 60,000). By that time we'll begin to see huge problems with social security (Medicare is expected to run out in a decade).

[VictorBjoerk]

Is that really true? statistically there are only one centenarian in 5000?

[Dmitri]

Shonghow, on 1-Aug 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Is that really true? statistically there are only one centenarian in 5000?

If I'm not mistaken I read it in MSN.com news. I'll see if I can find a link (the story was written some time ago).

[Dmitri]

Shonghow, on 1-Aug 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Is that really true? statistically there are only one centenarian in 5000?

I found this on wikipedia.org (I know it's not a great source but they aquired their info from the U.S. Census)

"The United States currently has the greatest number of centenarians in the world, numbering over 55,000 in the year 2005. The U.S. number is partly a function of America's large population in 1890-1905, and an increased emphasis on long-term care facilities."

[Lazarus Long]

I believe Shonghow is confusing Centenarians with *Supercentenarians*.  Supercentenarians are those over 110.

[VictorBjoerk]

no I'm actually not, roughly only one in 5 million live to 110 and one in 5000 live to 100.

Without technological progress it seems very unrealistic to expect that there will be 3 million centenarians in the united states in 2030 when there are only 55000 now.

[Lazarus Long]

Quote

Without technological progress it seems very unrealistic to expect that there will be 3 million centenarians in the united states in 2030 when there are only 55000 now.

Don't you think technological progress on this is possible, if not probable?

[VictorBjoerk]

yes I think it may be possible by 2030.But the statisticians making such predictions have likely not counted with that.

[Lazarus Long]

Also just applying your statistic about the world's population of centenarians; there are presently roughly 1,230,000 centenarians alive today in the world and that is based on just 1 in 5000.  Remember the global population has already passed 6.3 billion.

[Lazarus Long]

I should add that the cause of global overpopulation is having babies beyond ecological resource capacity not extended life spans.  To quote an old joke:

"The leading cause of death in this world is birth".

Even if the article was correct in its assumptions, the percent of total population that will reach these extended ages by 2030  or 2040 is minuscule.  The issue isn't at the extreme, it actually is middle agers and current youth in the time that are going to have to compete for jobs with a far older work force.

[VictorBjoerk]

however if you read the swedish article at the top it is clear that it is an enormous problem. the amount of people over 65 will increase from 17% to 24% before 2040.

[Ghostrider]

niner, on 31-Jul 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

This isn't horrible news, in a way it's good news.  The good news is that by attacking aging itself, governments all over the world have a chance to do something about an otherwise crushing demographic burden.  This is the essence of the "longevity dividend" that S. Jay Olshansky and others talk about.  Educating decision-makers about this is one of the most powerful things we could do to enhance funding for longevity.

I agree, it is good news.  People do not always respond to ethical obligation, but they do respond to crisis.

[Heliotrope]

it's a good thing in the  free world,  free democratic world  where the old people's favorite activity is  going to the voting booth in busloads. they don't wanna age,  they don't wanna die , forced to retire or something,  AARP and those orgs catering  to old people interest will intervene, make them  healtheir ,live longer etc, lessen the strain.


Not so good in a   totalitarian  dictator ruling  place,  where the dictator will simply come up with a "Final  Solution" and  exterminate, gas, mass-kill,  bring genocide  to the "geezers" /old  folks

[VictorBjoerk]

of course they don't want to age and die but noone is aware of even the slightest possibility to do anything about it. So they accept their fate without putting pressure on governments to do something about it.

[Brainbox]

Prevention by healthy lifestyles (and sufficiently proven preventive medicine) are key factors for reducing medical costs at macro level on short notice. Right now, this is mainly a matter of individual choices, which is basically a good thing. What is lacking is the average individual sense of awareness regarding what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. Education is one of the major issues that needs improvement, combined with better research of preventive and proactively corrective medicine like SENS.

However, in our current health care model, these issues are very hard to turn into viable business cases for the pharmaceutical industry.

Furthermore, healthy lifestyles are perceived as cost driver. But is that really the case? I doubt that but I'm not able to provide sufficient proof.

If we want to give life extension a better name, we should research the cost of healthy living, hopefully resulting in the notion that the costs are manageable for "average people". They probably are if you apply the 80/20 rule. The right effort increase of 20% will result in a 80% improvement. And quiting smoking will reduce cost of living enormously, but is also an example of the kind of behaviour that is quite difficult to change.

Another important notion is that LE is not only about increasing lifespan, but doing so while quality of life is increased at the same time. I would go this far: if we are not able to increase lifespan, but are, for starters, able to increase quality of life and health within the existing lifespan, we would be enormously successful in the next couple of decades.

For instance, the study results of the Sinclair study on healthy mice revealed that resveratrol did not increase lifespan, but only increased health within the existing lifespan (ok, I'm cutting some important corners here, but just for the sake of my argument ). The irony is that this almost was perceived as debunking the effect of resveratrol. Amazing how we are able to look to the sky of great possibilities and then stumble over the first stone that is right in front of us or miss the small opportunities that are within reach.

Important side note: Surely, resveratrol still needs a huge effort of research before it can be used generally (I'm not using it in high dosage because I think that's to risk full), but was using it to illustrate the process of mild cognitive dissonance we are all suffering once in a while imo.

Edited by SubZero, 02 August 2008 - 11:43 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Quote

however if you read the swedish article at the top it is clear that it is an enormous problem. the amount of people over 65 will increase from 17% to 24% before 2040.

Again Stronghow to put it in perspective, that is only a 7% increase in total population and still 3/4ths would be much younger.  Also the issue is not about caring for the elderly, though in one aspect it is, it's about the economic transition to a world of active octogenarians staying productive in the work force and society at large but demanding a different world around them because they neither retire nor tolerate the BS that politicians and business are prone to.

A larger percentage of that generation of vivacious elderly would retain the wealth, political clout, experience and ability to do something about the world around them and frankly, when it comes to the larger issues, paraphrasing the line from the movie Network:  They might get mad as hell and not take it anymore.  Humans will start caring a lot more about the world they live in when they start realizing they are going to occupy it far longer than they ever expected.

[Dmitri]

Shonghow, on 1-Aug 2008, 06:04 PM, said:

no I'm actually not, roughly only one in 5 million live to 110 and one in 5000 live to 100.

Without technological progress it seems very unrealistic to expect that there will be 3 million centenarians in the united states in 2030 when there are only 55000 now.

2030 is 22 years from now; it's obvious there will be technological advancements. In 1998 the life expectancy in the U.S. was 75 (73 for men, 78 for women), 10 years later in 2008 the life expectancy is 80 (76 for men and 84 for women). If these numbers keep up in the next 20 years it's likely that by 2030 the life expectancy in the U.S. could reach 90. So, the 3 million centenarians estimation is not out of the question.

[VictorBjoerk]

Dmitri, on 4-Aug 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Shonghow, on 1-Aug 2008, 06:04 PM, said:

no I'm actually not, roughly only one in 5 million live to 110 and one in 5000 live to 100.

Without technological progress it seems very unrealistic to expect that there will be 3 million centenarians in the united states in 2030 when there are only 55000 now.

2030 is 22 years from now; it's obvious there will be technological advancements. In 1998 the life expectancy in the U.S. was 75 (73 for men, 78 for women), 10 years later in 2008 the life expectancy is 80 (76 for men and 84 for women). If these numbers keep up in the next 20 years it's likely that by 2030 the life expectancy in the U.S. could reach 90. So, the 3 million centenarians estimation is not out of the question.

I'm not trying to be pessimistic but have a look at this

http://www.scb.se/te...rt____25830.asp

Sweden is one of the countries where all people have access to good medical care and have fairly equal income distribution.

I doubt it will ever exceed about 85 if no Anti-aging therapies emerges.
The day average life expectancy is 90 years we have likely cured aging or managed to post-pone it because it wont happen otherwise.

[John Schloendorn]

Quote

Educating decision-makers about this is one of the most powerful things we could do to enhance funding for longevity

The problem is of course how to phrase it such that it becomes interesting to somebody whose event horizon stretches only up to the next election.  In other words, with by targeting politicians, the longevity dividend is at risk of misfiring -- it should really be aiming at the voters.  But that's hard and expensive.  So I don't see how to get the point across efficiently to somebody who would care.

[niner]

John Schloendorn, on 4-Aug 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

Quote

Educating decision-makers about this is one of the most powerful things we could do to enhance funding for longevity

The problem is of course how to phrase it such that it becomes interesting to somebody whose event horizon stretches only up to the next election.  In other words, with by targeting politicians, the longevity dividend is at risk of misfiring -- it should really be aiming at the voters.  But that's hard and expensive.  So I don't see how to get the point across efficiently to somebody who would care.

Decision makers could include people in the Corporate or Foundation world, too.  I'm not cynical enough to think that all politicians care only about getting reelected.  Of course they all care about it, but that doesn't have to absolutely exclude all other concerns.   Since they have done such a good job of training Americans to expect a Free Lunch, like more benefits AND lower taxes, the Longevity Dividend should be particularly attractive to them, since it is a form of "free lunch".  They can get out of a looming demographic explosion without raising taxes.