Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

so now there is a new bias called "ageism". 

 

 

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate is the stress that the job brings nowadays.  Politicians at the top age very quickly and heart attacks are quite common amongst them. They work long hours and lose a lot of sleep in times of crisis. The large amount of travelling they do is also bad for their health. You can often see the effects of this by comparing their photographs when they come into office and when they leave.  This is particularly the case if they serve more than one term.  Losing a president/prime minister suddenly due to ill health or death can throw a party and sometimes a country into crisis.  If times are already difficult (as they are now) it may not be a good idea to elect an elderly person as president/prime minister because that stressful job will be even more stressful.      

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

there is a new hate being spewed on the radio, etc. stating that mc cain had cancer (melanoma) 6 times (an article in the times in march noted 4 as the number) and is 72. basically, they want to know if you would trust sarah palin in the job. my answer to that is, pelosi is next in line after palin and she is around 68 1/2. (i do remember hearing somewhere that she was closer to 70-71 but somehow that info has changed recently). i know nothing about her medical history, but would you want her in that office? so now there is a new bias called "ageism".

in addition there are women's groups sending emails out that basically say the same thing about the age and health of mc cain. i say the same thing to them. would they want nancy pelosi in that seat?

twj


 

Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

ok, i understand your feelings but let's keep the playing field even. if he is old, then how do you feel about joe biden, 68 this november and the slim possibility of a nancy pelosi in the event of a tragedy, who will be 69 this march?they have to be old too, don't you think?
twj
 
Choisya wrote:

so now there is a new bias called "ageism". 

 

 

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate is the stress that the job brings nowadays.  Politicians at the top age very quickly and heart attacks are quite common amongst them. They work long hours and lose a lot of sleep in times of crisis. The large amount of travelling they do is also bad for their health. You can often see the effects of this by comparing their photographs when they come into office and when they leave.  This is particularly the case if they serve more than one term.  Losing a president/prime minister suddenly due to ill health or death can throw a party and sometimes a country into crisis.  If times are already difficult (as they are now) it may not be a good idea to elect an elderly person as president/prime minister because that stressful job will be even more stressful.      

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

there is a new hate being spewed on the radio, etc. stating that mc cain had cancer (melanoma) 6 times (an article in the times in march noted 4 as the number) and is 72. basically, they want to know if you would trust sarah palin in the job. my answer to that is, pelosi is next in line after palin and she is around 68 1/2. (i do remember hearing somewhere that she was closer to 70-71 but somehow that info has changed recently). i know nothing about her medical history, but would you want her in that office? so now there is a new bias called "ageism".

in addition there are women's groups sending emails out that basically say the same thing about the age and health of mc cain. i say the same thing to them. would they want nancy pelosi in that seat?

twj


 


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate

 

I am not far below McCain's age, and I am nowhere near elderly yet.    If he were 95, it might be an issue for me. But he's still middle-aged.  And probably in better health than the majority of the computer-and-video-game addicted young people who have no respect for age or wisdom.

 


Choisya wrote:

so now there is a new bias called "ageism". 

 

 

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate is the stress that the job brings nowadays.  Politicians at the top age very quickly and heart attacks are quite common amongst them. They work long hours and lose a lot of sleep in times of crisis. The large amount of travelling they do is also bad for their health. You can often see the effects of this by comparing their photographs when they come into office and when they leave.  This is particularly the case if they serve more than one term.  Losing a president/prime minister suddenly due to ill health or death can throw a party and sometimes a country into crisis.  If times are already difficult (as they are now) it may not be a good idea to elect an elderly person as president/prime minister because that stressful job will be even more stressful.      

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

there is a new hate being spewed on the radio, etc. stating that mc cain had cancer (melanoma) 6 times (an article in the times in march noted 4 as the number) and is 72. basically, they want to know if you would trust sarah palin in the job. my answer to that is, pelosi is next in line after palin and she is around 68 1/2. (i do remember hearing somewhere that she was closer to 70-71 but somehow that info has changed recently). i know nothing about her medical history, but would you want her in that office? so now there is a new bias called "ageism".

in addition there are women's groups sending emails out that basically say the same thing about the age and health of mc cain. i say the same thing to them. would they want nancy pelosi in that seat?

twj


 


 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

We are not electing 'computer-and-video-game addicted young people' to the office of president or prime minister so that comparison does not stand.  The fact remains that a higher proportion of elder statesmen suffer heart attacks or have to retire due to ill health and this is due to the stresses of that particular job.  'Middle age' is generally reckoned to be around 40-50 and life expectancy in the US is around 76-78 years, depending on whether you are black or white.   It would therefore seem that that the biblical number of 'three score years and ten' is still valid.   

 

 


Everyman wrote:

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate

 

I am not far below McCain's age, and I am nowhere near elderly yet.    If he were 95, it might be an issue for me. But he's still middle-aged.  And probably in better health than the majority of the computer-and-video-game addicted young people who have no respect for age or wisdom.

 


Choisya wrote:

so now there is a new bias called "ageism". 

 

 

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate is the stress that the job brings nowadays.  Politicians at the top age very quickly and heart attacks are quite common amongst them. They work long hours and lose a lot of sleep in times of crisis. The large amount of travelling they do is also bad for their health. You can often see the effects of this by comparing their photographs when they come into office and when they leave.  This is particularly the case if they serve more than one term.  Losing a president/prime minister suddenly due to ill health or death can throw a party and sometimes a country into crisis.  If times are already difficult (as they are now) it may not be a good idea to elect an elderly person as president/prime minister because that stressful job will be even more stressful.      

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

there is a new hate being spewed on the radio, etc. stating that mc cain had cancer (melanoma) 6 times (an article in the times in march noted 4 as the number) and is 72. basically, they want to know if you would trust sarah palin in the job. my answer to that is, pelosi is next in line after palin and she is around 68 1/2. (i do remember hearing somewhere that she was closer to 70-71 but somehow that info has changed recently). i know nothing about her medical history, but would you want her in that office? so now there is a new bias called "ageism".

in addition there are women's groups sending emails out that basically say the same thing about the age and health of mc cain. i say the same thing to them. would they want nancy pelosi in that seat?

twj


 


 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

That may be the case in England.   Given your health system, I can imagine that your older politicians may indeed have the kind of problems you are concerned about, and it might be well in your elections to take that into account.  

 

Over here, I can't offhand think of a single President we have lost to heart attack.  Certainly not in my lifetime.  Edward Kennedy may have to retire due to ill health, but so far not.   We have had senators serving vigorously into their 80s and 90s.  

 

And at any rate, statistics are useless for individual cases, as we all know.  We are not electing a cohort of fifty presidents one or two of whom might be expected to have a heart attack in the next four years; we are election one president, and both the candidates are in very good health and there is no reason at all to think that either one of them would have any more likelihood than the other of suffering a heart attack.

 

This age concern is really a smokescreen thrown up by liberals who want to find any excuse to oppose the most qualified and experienced candidate for office.   It seems stupid to me to throw away all that wisdom and experience because a person is of mature age.  We should be respecting and honoring our older politicians, not tossing them on the trash heap.  


Choisya wrote:

We are not electing 'computer-and-video-game addicted young people' to the office of president or prime minister so that comparison does not stand.  The fact remains that a higher proportion of elder statesmen suffer heart attacks or have to retire due to ill health and this is due to the stresses of that particular job.  'Middle age' is generally reckoned to be around 40-50 and life expectancy in the US is around 76-78 years, depending on whether you are black or white.   It would therefore seem that that the biblical number of 'three score years and ten' is still valid.   

 

 


Everyman wrote:

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate

 

I am not far below McCain's age, and I am nowhere near elderly yet.    If he were 95, it might be an issue for me. But he's still middle-aged.  And probably in better health than the majority of the computer-and-video-game addicted young people who have no respect for age or wisdom.

 


Choisya wrote:

so now there is a new bias called "ageism". 

 

 

One of the reasons I would worry about voting for an elderly presidential (or prime ministerial) candidate is the stress that the job brings nowadays.  Politicians at the top age very quickly and heart attacks are quite common amongst them. They work long hours and lose a lot of sleep in times of crisis. The large amount of travelling they do is also bad for their health. You can often see the effects of this by comparing their photographs when they come into office and when they leave.  This is particularly the case if they serve more than one term.  Losing a president/prime minister suddenly due to ill health or death can throw a party and sometimes a country into crisis.  If times are already difficult (as they are now) it may not be a good idea to elect an elderly person as president/prime minister because that stressful job will be even more stressful.      

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

there is a new hate being spewed on the radio, etc. stating that mc cain had cancer (melanoma) 6 times (an article in the times in march noted 4 as the number) and is 72. basically, they want to know if you would trust sarah palin in the job. my answer to that is, pelosi is next in line after palin and she is around 68 1/2. (i do remember hearing somewhere that she was closer to 70-71 but somehow that info has changed recently). i know nothing about her medical history, but would you want her in that office? so now there is a new bias called "ageism".

in addition there are women's groups sending emails out that basically say the same thing about the age and health of mc cain. i say the same thing to them. would they want nancy pelosi in that seat?

twj


 


 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

That may be the case in England.   Given your health system, I can imagine that your older politicians may indeed have the kind of problems you are concerned about


 

That's a rather odd conclusion to draw given that the UK's average life expectancy is higher than that of the US.  

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

 

UN link

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-03-2008 07:57 AM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

This age concern is really a smokescreen thrown up by liberals who want to find any excuse to oppose the most qualified and experienced candidate for office.  

 

Not just by the liberals. Sarah Palin has made comments about the age of Joe Biden. I don't think people made much of Dick Cheney's age, but more his heart condition. But it didn't change the outcome of the election. If McCain doesn't win, it won't be because of his age. People that think he's the most qualified will vote for him regardless. If someone is voting on age alone, they probably don't know anything about the issues and could easily be swayed to vote for whoever has the better smile or something equally unimportant. There will be people who won't vote for Obama simply b/c of his race. We can't only allow informed voters to vote.

 

 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

hi choisya,
if the life expectancy, in your view is three score and ten, you have to decide if that negative is the same for all, democrats and republicans alike.

you can't just like old democrats! most of congress is old by your standards. the three congressmen who stood at the microphone to announce that the bail out plan passed the senate, looked older than dirt!

harry reid is 69 in december. pelosi is 69 in march, biden is 68 in november. that would mean he hasn't got much time left if anything happened to obama (g-d forbid). oh, oh, that means nancy pelosi of the tuna fish scandal and the grandstanding debacle of the first bailout vote, would step in and she is the same age 68 so who comes after her? (she omitted american samoa from the minimum wage hike to benefit her san fran constituent, (delmonte...
that vote just didn't pass the smell test. )

btw, senator byrd was born in 1917! now that is old but he is still a functioning and thriving democrat. strom thurmond, another long serving democrat, died at 100.

i hope you realize the aforementioned comments are tongue in cheek but let's try and look at this objectively.

twj


Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

[ Edited ]

thewanderingjew wrote:

strom thurmond, another long serving democrat, died at 100.



 

I don't think calling him a "long serving democrat" is entirely accurate given that he switched over to the Republicans back in 1964!

 

As to the age issue in general: its often been an issue in presidential politics, but I think instead of complaining about it, McCain's campaign and supporters could take a lesson from Reagan.  Age was thrown around even more during the 84 race than this one, but instead of lamenting "ageism" Reagan's campaign skillfully turned the issue around by running a campaign that reached out to youth and through his famous remark "I will ot make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".  Even some of Reagan's strongest critics recognize how well he played the issue. 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-02-2008 12:37 PM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

he was a democrat originally and i wasn't trying to write a biased political piece, i was merely addressing the age comments and mentioned those that served until they were "old". i said my remarks were tongue in cheek. i am sorry you viewed them as complaining. as long as you brought it up though, i think that implying that mc cain is too old for the office when many of them who are supposed to be the check on the presidency are the same age, is utterly ridiculous!

twj 

Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

TWJ, I don't think Jon was stating that you were complaining about it, but that  McCain's camp is complaining and that they should address it the same way Reagan did when this issue was brought up during his campaign. For every person that is saying McCain is too old, there is a person that is saying Obama is too young. That is also discrimination. This stuff will always happen unless we no longer have elections. Mudslinging comes from both sides.

 

I think that you are a person that stands up for the underdog. I am that way too. What's interesting is that I think you see McCain as the underdog( and by that I mean the one getting the most criticism) and I see Obama as the underdog. But I'm sure that neither of them sees themselves that way.


thewanderingjew wrote:

he was a democrat originally and i wasn't trying to write a biased political piece, i was merely addressing the age comments and mentioned those that served until they were "old". i said my remarks were tongue in cheek. i am sorry you viewed them as complaining. as long as you brought it up though, i think that implying that mc cain is too old for the office when many of them who are supposed to be the check on the presidency are the same age, is utterly ridiculous!

twj 


 

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

Looking at overall raw numbers is much too simplistic, Jon.  Our populations are quite different.  In order to get an accurate comparison between two countries, rather than just looking at the total population you need to look at longevity statistics for different groups, and then factor he longevity and size of those groups into the final figure.  We tend to have larger numbers of those groups which have shorter longevity times, pushing down our national average relative to other countries.  

 

Actually, since the issue raised here was about about older politicans seeking high office, you need to look at that group.  You have to knock out infant mortality, adolescent mortality, etc.  Those people don't get to run for office in their 60s or 70s. 

 

So you need to look at people who have already reached, say, 60, are presently in good health (people in bad health don't run for high office), with a significant degree of wealth (people with no wealth don't run credible campaigns for high political offices).  When we talk about the issue of age in those seeking high political office, then, what is really at issue is the longevity expected by this group of people, not by the general population.  

 

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.   For example, at the time of that report, the waiting time for a cataract operation was eight months.  When my need for a cataract operation was identified, I was in the hospital within two weeks, and it could have been sooner except that I had to wait for a day when my wife was free to drive me (it's an all day trip from here to Seattle and back).   The waiting time for a hip operation in England at the time was 11 months; when my father in law and his doctor decided that it was time to get his hip replaced it was scheduled for the same week.    These waiting times matter when you're talking about senior ongevity and the ability to keep active working in a stressful job. 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

That may be the case in England.   Given your health system, I can imagine that your older politicians may indeed have the kind of problems you are concerned about


 

That's a rather odd conclusion to draw given that the UK's average life expectancy is higher than that of the US.  

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

correction to my email: i just found another website and joe biden is going to be 66. he was born:

November 20, 1942, (unless i can't add anymore, either! lol) it is funny, but the same thing happened with nancy pelosi, once. i thought she was older too. either they are changing their birthdays or the websites are not accurate. i think that may be the truth! well at least i fixed it. i think the last website was more reputable.

sorry.

twj 


edited: i wrote:...biden is 68 in november

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

This issue shows more about the age differences of the voters than the candidates.

Jon_B wrote:

Tenderheartedness wrote:

storm Drummond, another long serving democrat, died at 100.



 

I don't think calling him a "long serving democrat" is entirely accurate given that he switched over to the Republicans back in 1964!

 

As to the age issue in general: its often been an issue in presidential politics, but I think instead of complaining about it, Moccasin's campaign and supporters could take a lesson from Reagan.  Age was thrown around even more during the 84 race than this one, but instead of lamenting "ageism" Reggae's campaign skillfully turned the issue around by running a campaign that reached out to youth and through his famous remark "I will to make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".  Even some of Reggae's strongest critics recognize how well he played the issue. 

Message Edited by John on 10-02-2008 12:37 PM

My generation grew up watching Reagan in action. When he was diagnosed with alzheimers, it explained a lot of his earthlier behavior. To us his age was a major factor.

 

A great many of my generation desire younger candidates for newer values and fresh ideas. Yes I know a young age is no guarantee, but it increases the odds. I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country. Pilosi isn't from my state, so I couldn't vote against her. Had I the choice I would have. 

 

But I think age is more about ideas and value systems. Not health. 

 

What's the physical exam they give to test pilots and astronauts? Let give all the candidates a mild version of that, if they don't keel over they can run.

Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

regarding illness and elderly politicians, fyi, being concerned about the health of mc cain, i recently asked my dermatologist about mc cain's melanoma. she said if it was the same one recurring, no problem. if it occurred in different parts of the body he would have been gone by now. i don't know if anyone knows more about it. this is just the info she gave me.

i recently lost a dear friend to cancer. she used the health system in britain. i don't know why, but it took about 7 years for her to finally work through the system and reach the specialist she needed who could correctly diagnose her condition. then it took several months to arrange the appt., i believe it was more than 6 and this was with some pull because she had medical doctors in her family.

when she finally saw the specialist she was asked, "who told you that you didn't have a problem?" so much time had been wasted. they treated her but the treatment was too late and unsuccessful.
for years, she questioned the doctors about her problem and was put off and told to live with it; they basically said that nothing could be done to improve her condition and nothing was seriously wrong. perhaps someone can explain to me, the hierarchy that exists in order to get medical care in england regarding referrals and specialists. i understand there are private doctors also, for the wealthy, but how available are they, as well. is there also a long wait? do more people need hip replacements, etc., so that the wait time is longer or are there fewer orthopedic surgeons and/or hospital beds? my friend's ordeal was kafkaesque. is this out of the ordinary?

i find that all of these entitlement programs, good and bad alike, generally encourage abuse. people overuse them because they are free. is this a problem in england?
twj


Everyman wrote:

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.   For example, at the time of that report, the waiting time for a cataract operation was eight months.  When my need for a cataract operation was identified, I was in the hospital within two weeks, and it could have been sooner except that I had to wait for a day when my wife was free to drive me (it's an all day trip from here to Seattle and back).   The waiting time for a hip operation in England at the time was 11 months; when my father in law and his doctor decided that it was time to get his hip replaced it was scheduled for the same week.    These waiting times matter when you're talking about senior longevity and the ability to keep active working in a stressful job. 

 


 

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country.

 

And just what is wrong with 50s values?  They were pretty darn good values.  Sure, we had some issues to deal with, mlstly concerning civil rights, but the streets were safe, there was no gang activity to speak of, children were raised to be respectful to their elders, college was affordable, nobody wore their pants hanging half way down their butt, people read books instead of spending all their hours playing video games, if we wanted to watch movies we went to the theater for a social community event instead of holing up in our houses with DVDs,  we had just come out of as good a war as there could be, America was the envy of the world.  

 

We should be so lucky as to go back to 50s values.


TiggerBear wrote:
This issue shows more about the age differences of the voters than the candidates.

Jon_B wrote:

Tenderheartedness wrote:

storm Drummond, another long serving democrat, died at 100.



 

I don't think calling him a "long serving democrat" is entirely accurate given that he switched over to the Republicans back in 1964!

 

As to the age issue in general: its often been an issue in presidential politics, but I think instead of complaining about it, Moccasin's campaign and supporters could take a lesson from Reagan.  Age was thrown around even more during the 84 race than this one, but instead of lamenting "ageism" Reggae's campaign skillfully turned the issue around by running a campaign that reached out to youth and through his famous remark "I will to make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".  Even some of Reggae's strongest critics recognize how well he played the issue. 

Message Edited by John on 10-02-2008 12:37 PM

My generation grew up watching Reagan in action. When he was diagnosed with alzheimers, it explained a lot of his earthlier behavior. To us his age was a major factor.

 

A great many of my generation desire younger candidates for newer values and fresh ideas. Yes I know a young age is no guarantee, but it increases the odds. I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country. Pilosi isn't from my state, so I couldn't vote against her. Had I the choice I would have. 

 

But I think age is more about ideas and value systems. Not health. 

 

What's the physical exam they give to test pilots and astronauts? Let give all the candidates a mild version of that, if they don't keel over they can run.


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.

 

Waiting times in the US are dependent upon the ablity to pay or to pay for adequate insurance in the first place. In the UK waiting times may be longer in the major conarbations but in general there are few delays and treatment is given within a reasonable period of time.  I have had four children on the NHS, several major operations, prolonged teatment for depression both in and out of hospital and currently have ongoing treatment for diabetes. At no time in my life have I experienced a major delay and neither have my children or grandchildren.  Heart attacks can be dealt with within half an hour by para medics, prior to hospitalisation.  We are advised to wait for hip replacements until pain relieving drugs no longer work because they are 'once in a lifetime' operations.  If your need for an operation significantly impairs your daily life or ability to earn you will be fast tracked. 

 

Despite the press scare stories, our health system works well and is available to everyone 'from cradle to grave' irrespective of their income or mental/physical state.  We are also able to access health care in Europe and so, for instance, when I forgot my diabetes medication last year, I was able to visit a Belgian hospital for replacement insulin etc. and when I was attacked and injured in Rome I was hospitalised for two days without charge. 

 

Hierarchy: Everyone should be registered with a local doctor (GP) and it is that doctor who is your initial point of contact for a diagnosis and who refers you on to a specialist at the local hospital if necessary.  Doctors have daily surgeries (except Sunday) and you can generally get an appointment within a few days, instantly if it is urgent.  GPs also come out to visit if you are too ill to attend a surgery. Specialists report back to your doctor as to the medication recommended or, if an operation or other hospital type treatment is needed either the specialist treats you at a local hospital or you are referred on to a specialist one.  You can change your GP or ask to see another specialist at any time.  You can also ask to be treated in a different area, say where your relatives are, or even in the EEC if waiting times are better there.  Anyone who wants to pay still has access to private treatment of course but the majority are content with NHS provision, even high earners.     

 

WJ: I do not understand the lengthy delay your friend experienced because cancer treatment is fast tracked here and there should be only a month's delay between diagnosis and treatment.  I have friends who had cancer who had instantaneous treatment.  Perhaps it was a form of cancer which is not detectable until an advanced stage or perhaps she did not access the system properly.  Free breast and cervix scans are available and we are encouraged to use them. If she was not a permament resident or married to a UK citizen she would have to pay for treatment and that may have delayed her accessing a specialist, although consultations and treatment are given in advance of payment and you do not have to prove you have funds.  If we are in work we pay a small percentage towards our medicines.  We pay a National Insurance premium/tax through our wage packet if we are in work and our health burden is therefore shared nationally. (This is the case throughout the EEC although Germany, for instance, has a mixed private/public system.)  There seems to have been a breakdown in communications with your friend and I am very sorry that she was unable to access earlier treatment here:smileysad:.       

 

Of course there are abuses of the system and delays, poor treatment etc. but this is the case in any system.  Overall the NHS works very well indeed and has greatly improved the health of our nation and no-one here, whatever their circumstances, need suffer for want of health care during their lifetime.  Infant mortality in the UK is better than in the US and the elderly live longer and this is due to better universal health provision.

 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:
regarding illness and elderly politicians, fyi, being concerned about the health of mc cain, i recently asked my dermatologist about mc cain's melanoma. she said if it was the same one recurring, no problem. if it occurred in different parts of the body he would have been gone by now. i don't know if anyone knows more about it. this is just the info she gave me.

i recently lost a dear friend to cancer. she used the health system in britain. i don't know why, but it took about 7 years for her to finally work through the system and reach the specialist she needed who could correctly diagnose her condition. then it took several months to arrange the appt., i believe it was more than 6 and this was with some pull because she had medical doctors in her family.

when she finally saw the specialist she was asked, "who told you that you didn't have a problem?" so much time had been wasted. they treated her but the treatment was too late and unsuccessful.
for years, she questioned the doctors about her problem and was put off and told to live with it; they basically said that nothing could be done to improve her condition and nothing was seriously wrong. perhaps someone can explain to me, the hierarchy that exists in order to get medical care in england regarding referrals and specialists. i understand there are private doctors also, for the wealthy, but how available are they, as well. is there also a long wait? do more people need hip replacements, etc., so that the wait time is longer or are there fewer orthopedic surgeons and/or hospital beds? my friend's ordeal was kafkaesque. is this out of the ordinary?

i find that all of these entitlement programs, good and bad alike, generally encourage abuse. people overuse them because they are free. is this a problem in england?
twj


Everyman wrote:

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.   For example, at the time of that report, the waiting time for a cataract operation was eight months.  When my need for a cataract operation was identified, I was in the hospital within two weeks, and it could have been sooner except that I had to wait for a day when my wife was free to drive me (it's an all day trip from here to Seattle and back).   The waiting time for a hip operation in England at the time was 11 months; when my father in law and his doctor decided that it was time to get his hip replaced it was scheduled for the same week.    These waiting times matter when you're talking about senior longevity and the ability to keep active working in a stressful job. 

 


 

 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians.

TB wrote: 

I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country. 

 

I am not of your generation but I agree and as someone who worked within the political system most of my working life and who has seen senior politicians age and grow mentally more feeble in office, I feel that in this stressful day and age it is very necessary to have younger, fitter people at the top, although in the lower ranks the elderly have valuable parts to play.  People of my generation do not understand 'the times' as well as those brought up within them and IMO to apply our nostalgic values to modern problems is not the way to run modern, progressive countries.  We cannot put the clock back to our 'salad days' and so we must trust those younger than ourselves to govern us - not too young, say the middle aged. 

 

In days gone by 'senates' were comprised of elderly, privileged people who had little understanding of the lives of ordinary folks or of the world, and the pace of life was much slower.   We now need legislators who have such understanding and who have the mental and physical ability to keep up with the ever increasing pace of things.   

 

 

 

 

 

 


My generation grew up watching Reagan in action. When he was diagnosed with alzheimers, it explained a lot of his earthlier behavior. To us his age was a major factor.

 

A great many of my generation desire younger candidates for newer values and fresh ideas. Yes I know a young age is no guarantee, but it increases the odds. I don't want another person raised on 1950'tys values running the country. Pilosi isn't from my state, so I couldn't vote against her. Had I the choice I would have. 

 

But I think age is more about ideas and value systems. Not health. 

 

What's the physical exam they give to test pilots and astronauts? Let give all the candidates a mild version of that, if they don't keel over they can run.


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Elderly politicians. Health care.

[ Edited ]

Looking at overall raw numbers is much too simplistic, Jon.Our populations are quite different.  In order to get an accurate comparison between two countries, rather than just looking at the total population you need to look at longevity statistics for different groups, and then factor he longevity and size of those groups into the final figure.  We tend to have larger numbers of those groups which have shorter longevity times, pushing down our national average relative to other countries.  

 

Not simplistic at all.  Yours is a statistically inaccurate way of looking at longevity. All groups are taken into consideration by the WHO when measuring national averages and necessary adjustments are made by statisticians when looking at different countries.  (The figures Jon gave were from the WHO statistics which also show infant mortality per 1000 live births in 2008 as 6.30 in the US and only 4.93 in the UK.)

 

If you have 'larger numbers with shorter longevity times' you must ask why - are you talking about immigrants, for instance, because the UK has a larger proportion of immigrants from the developing world than does the US.  One reason, beside health care, longevity is affected in the US is that the size of families are generally larger and this has always been a factor in life expectancy. This may be because of ethnicity and/or religion.  Whatever the reason, it is a fact that life expectancy is lower in the US than in the UK and most commentators accept that universal health provision has had a positive affect on this in the UK. Why else do we try so hard to increase health provision in developing countries?  Why else do many countries try to reduce birth rates?  The fact that every child in the UK has free milk and access to regular health care from birth and throughout its school life and that elderly people get free flu and pneumonia jabs, free hip, knee and heart replacements etc MUST have an effect on longevity. Free birth control measures are also available on the NHS which, in turn, has an effect on the size of our families and therefore on infant mortality statistics.

 

Incidentally, the European Union is now showing 6.38 for infant mortality because there has been a significant increase of deaths in childbirth since the Eastern bloc joined the EU. Again, this is because family sizes are larger and their health provision is not yet 'up to scratch'.  As with Spain, Portugal and Southern Ireland, the EU will make grants available for improving health provision and in due course I would expect to see that figure to be nearer the UK one, although ethnicity and opposition to birth control may keep it higher.        

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Looking at overall raw numbers is much too simplistic, Jon.  Our populations are quite different.  In order to get an accurate comparison between two countries, rather than just looking at the total population you need to look at longevity statistics for different groups, and then factor he longevity and size of those groups into the final figure.  We tend to have larger numbers of those groups which have shorter longevity times, pushing down our national average relative to other countries.  

 

Actually, since the issue raised here was about about older politicans seeking high office, you need to look at that group.  You have to knock out infant mortality, adolescent mortality, etc.  Those people don't get to run for office in their 60s or 70s. 

 

So you need to look at people who have already reached, say, 60, are presently in good health (people in bad health don't run for high office), with a significant degree of wealth (people with no wealth don't run credible campaigns for high political offices).  When we talk about the issue of age in those seeking high political office, then, what is really at issue is the longevity expected by this group of people, not by the general population.  

 

As the BBC has noted, the waiting  time for operations in Britain can be very long, whereas in the US these operations are much more quickly available, leading to a better health condition for the older residents who are generally more in need of operations and less able to tolerate long waiting periods.   For example, at the time of that report, the waiting time for a cataract operation was eight months.  When my need for a cataract operation was identified, I was in the hospital within two weeks, and it could have been sooner except that I had to wait for a day when my wife was free to drive me (it's an all day trip from here to Seattle and back).   The waiting time for a hip operation in England at the time was 11 months; when my father in law and his doctor decided that it was time to get his hip replaced it was scheduled for the same week.    These waiting times matter when you're talking about senior ongevity and the ability to keep active working in a stressful job. 

 


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:

That may be the case in England.   Given your health system, I can imagine that your older politicians may indeed have the kind of problems you are concerned about


 

That's a rather odd conclusion to draw given that the UK's average life expectancy is higher than that of the US.  

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf


 

 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-03-2008 08:53 AM
Frequent Contributor
READERJANE
Posts: 63
Registered: ‎01-21-2008
0 Kudos

Re: sara palin

I think that she is pandering to the executive working women  with the way that's she displays her wealth. It is just a shame that she does not have the wealth of knowledge or experience to go with her display of money. Of course this pandering just goes lock step with Mc Cain who pandered to women when he picked her. She does not speak for me, a woman, no matter what her wealth is