It just occurred to me when putting obits on my

[shraby]

website, that the main and probably only reason people are living longer and it's skewing the statistics is because they are going into nursing homes in droves and getting the meds. and care they need that causes them to live inordinately long lives.
Politicians are using these "false" figures to try to raise the retirement age. The people who are in their figures that show people are living longer, are not productive members of society except they cause a lot of other people to have jobs taking care of them.

Meanwhile the politicians tout the figures to "prove" that the retirement age needs raised! What a lot of bull roar.

[seveneyes]

1. Any politician trying to raise the retirement age

Should be retired at election time.

[wercal]

2. Its actually the reverse

People are living longer, on average, because they survive childhood better today than they did in the 1930's.

If you look at our 13+ survival rates, we've only improved 2-3 years since the 1930's. The large gains have been made in lowering infant mortality, and immunizations against a host of diseases that young children don't survive.

[shraby]

4. I'm seeing many many who died in their 90s, but not very many

from age 80+ who didn't die in a nursing home. That's the answer to the extended longevity...nursing homes and better meds., not stronger constitutions.
The children who died from disease pre-1930 wouldn't even be figured into the equations, as they didn't get soc. sec. at all, not even a number back then, because it didn't start until Roosevelt.
Not only that, but children didn't get their own numbers until around the 1980s...not sure when exactly because mine didn't get theirs in the 1960s when they were born, not until they started jobs..but my grandchildren got theirs at birth in the late 1980s.

[wercal]

6. You're not understanding

In 1940, if a man made it to 65, he could count on living 12.7 more years. In 1990, he could count on living 15.3 more years, a whopping improvement of 2.6 years longer lifespan.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

The longer lifespans we see today have nothing to do with nursing care.

[shraby]

7. I still say it does. By the age of 80 and above the vast majority

of people are in nursing homes. It shows up in their obituaries...that's where they died...from the age of 80 and up.
age 65 + 12 = 77
age 65 + 15 = 80
age 80 + most died in nursing homes. Nursing homes is what extended their lives.
They still should be allowed to retire at 65 is my premise. The body for most is giving out. No one should have to work until drop, that option should be for those who want to, not those who have to because they can't draw the social security they paid in for that very reason because congress has raised the age on them.
In addition to taking away pensions at the state level whereever they can possible do it..which makes social security that much more needed in order to simply exist, and that is what they do on social security by itself..simply exist.
The 401 fiasco is just that..a fiasco. About the time any ordinary worker gets a nice nest egg, wall street sees to it that a huge chunk disappears virtually overnight.
The perps on wall street who do that, should have to reimburse the 401K of every worker who has one, so they don't lose their retirement cushion just so those on wall street can fatten their bank accounts by selling off.

[wercal]

8. You're still not understanding

Yes 77 vs 80 years....men who reach age 65 are expected to live a grand total of 2.6 years longer now than they did in 1940. Yet our 'average lifespan' has gone up by much more.

The reason has everything to do with infant and childhood survival rates, and very little to do with nursing home care (very little being defined as 2.6 years).

Now if you go to the retirement calculator:

http://www.ssa.gov/retirement/1937.html

You will find that the full retirement age for an initial enrollee was 65. For somebody born 50 years later, its 67. So somehow, after all the changes that have been made, SS has already accounted for this 2.6 years (almost). This is the best argument to not raise the age.

People may live a lot longer today....but people who reach age 65 really don't live particularly longer. The argument you are making is the exact reverse.

[surrealAmerican]

3. It might be interesting to see a breakdown of which professions ...

... people who live longer had. I assume higher salaried professionals (and perhaps their spouses) have a significantly longer life expectancy than low-wage workers. I wonder how much longer they live.

[shraby]

5. I can't speak for other places, but most of mine were

farmers and factory workers. The key to the whole question is the nursing homes with the 24-7 care, seeing to it they have the proper meds and are taking them according to schedule.
Even with serious diseases that in earlier years would have caused death, that isn't happening because of the homes.
Also many of the main killers like T.B. was conquered but actually may be coming back because the of the drug resistant microbes.
Many adults in the 1930s died of blood poisoning, appendicitis (they didn't survive an operation), but still would have died at a younger age because of their heart (big killer) until more recent times.
The main reason they go into homes in their 80s is they just can't take care of themselves any more, so retirement at age 65 is plenty old enough..anything older is inhumane.
The body is starting to give out, plain and simple, except for a few who do enjoy better health and stronger constitutions.