Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?      Home login  
Joined: 8/5/2006
Msg: 7
view profile
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
Yup - the UK and Canada, and Australia are all in the same bind for the growing burden of seniors who require excessive health care.

Thats why they are living in poverty. Lets take a look at the OP: Smokes and drinks > 3 times per week.

Go into the Over 30 and Over 45 forums and see how many smoke and are overweight.

Fewer than 15% get off their kesters to simply walk 15 min a day. Most get no exercise at all. You need at least 45-60 min of moderate walking to attain a modest benefit by walking.

I rest my case.

I think the growing problem is not that the elderly are any less healthy then they have been in other generations. Fact is, humans are living longer than ever, so I have no idea what you're getting at.

The gap in life expectancy for men and women in Canada has narrowed to 4.9 years, according to mortality statistics for 2002 from Statistics Canada. While the life expectancy for women at birth stayed the same at 82.1 years, it went up to a record high for men of 77.2 years.

The overall life expectancy for both sexes in Canada was 79.7 years.

The 2002 mortality statistics show that the life expectancy for men has improved by 5.8 years since 1979, while the life expectancy for women has improved by 3.3 years.

I think the biggest problem that we North Americans face is the retirement of the Baby Boom Generation. There will be a huge influx that both Canada and the US are unprepared for. I truly believe this will be a problem of paramount proportions and consequences.
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 17
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 1/31/2007 7:48:58 PM
The fact of the matter is that our governments out here in the West and North American don't even give a damn about elderly. They have used their youth and worked hard and paid taxes, now it is time for them to get those low pensions and try to survive. All our governments think about is use you when you are young. And once you are old, you are worth nothing. That's how it works and will continue to go that way.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 18
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 12:55:07 AM
Perhaps then, the answer once again is not to put your trust in any federal programs. Time and time again we are re-taught this lesson, but we never seem to want to believe it. 'Tis a hard lesson indeed, but the answer is certainly not to pump out more social program funding, 'tis a matter of education and planning :)
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 24
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 10:40:13 AM
No etownboy79, it is a matter of "caring", and our two countries getting their priorities right.

Unfortunately, the only way for that philosophy to work would be if EVERYONE cared about EVERYONE. As you know, that is not the case, and you can't force people to care about you, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't be allowed to force people to pay your way into the later years of your life. In accordance with that, you should not have been forced to pay into pension plans in your youth, and therefore you would've been able to put that tax money aside for retirement, and, as long as you did that, you would have no complaints. The minute you promote the idea of forced retirement savings via the federal government's treasury is not only the minute you have set yourself up for dissapointment, it's also the minute you hand over a piece of your FREEDOM!

The big problem is they are mismanaged and money is wasted.

And what makes you think that will ever change? Basic rules of economics will tell you that a state operated program is doomed to failure since there is no vested interest in keeping the operation alive like there would be if it was a privately owned operation. The attempt to "crack down" on political spending is like trying to teach an old dog new tricks, it just won't happen.

Without it, they would be out on the streets, using the ER for healthcare visits, and YOU the taxpayer would foot that new tax increase along with your healthcare insurance premium increase

That logic doesn't make sense to me since I am clearly promoting the abolition of such tax funded programs like healthcare. No it would not cost me more money if I had things my way, but if we weren't tax burdened the way we are we'd all have more money saved to help our friends and family in need of medical support, like your clients :)
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 27
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 11:52:23 AM
Further proof of my original statements that incite you to take care of yourself first, and not place your trust in a federally operated machine.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 28
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 12:03:13 PM
not all families had parents that their adult female children want to take care of nor should they if they were/are abusive

But you are incinuating that if the immediate family doesn't want to take care of their own that I should be forced to even if I don't want to? That seems ridiculous, the first owness should be on the family of that recipient...not me.

There was a thread that was deleted entitiled "Is government attacking the family?". It contmeplated the entire scenario surrounding the everymans dependence on social programs and how that action was tearing apart families. In summation, by forcing the state to care for individuals' finances, and not just their freedoms, we tear apart the family unit to a point where people no longer want to care for their mothers and fathers. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, and worse yet, is that I'm expected to increase my tax contribution to pick up their slack. Rubbish! More important to me is my freedom to take care of my own parents in their time of need and have the freedom to opt out of paying into a social program, than is my desire to see Michael UK above the poverty line. Sorry folks, but if my priorities were otherwise, I'd have my head examined.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 30
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 1:04:40 PM
No one is saying that the child has to care for elders...that would be an infringement on freedom. An equally disturbing infringement would be to force me to pay for someone elses care.

The bottom line is that we as a society are all responsible for each other.

Absolute non-sense. Let me ask you a question... If you were told that you HAVE to choose between option A, B, or C, what would it be?

A: Care for your sick mother while you earn 100% of your wage, tax free, to ease the expense of a nursing home should you choose to put her there.

B: Have your wages cut nearly in half by income taxes, GST's, taxes on fuel, Pension taxes etc, all of that money to be thrown into a collective pot that you have no say in it's management, but you know from history will be poorly managed and the social rewards reaped from your money will equate to about half of the expense you put in

C: Do nothing and exercise your right to freedom.

Why does "B" seem like the choice that you 2 want to make? What are your agenda's...I mean really, are you hoping for a free ride one day as you suck out the life from the collective gravy train? I have news, that ride will never be free. The answer should be A or C. And no, I should not be forced to pay if I don't want to, and if I choose not to than I'm not entitled to any of the benefits of such programs. Forcing me to pay is totally anti-constitutional in American terms, and is an infringement on basic human freedoms and rights...unquestionably!
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 38
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 6:14:24 PM
Cape....for the second time...I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULD BE FORCED TO CARE FOR THEIR PARENTS. That would be silly, the parents should also have been smart enough to plan for their retirement and old age needs. The child taking care of the parent is offered as an alternative only, and by all moral rights it should be what happens as long as the parent wasn't a raving lunatic or anything, however, since it won't always happen it is the person's job to plan for these kinds of things. It certainly isn't my job to care for someone else's poor planning.

News...I don't believe that your era of youth had any kind of economic least not moreso than now. That was a poor effort at attempting to win my favour, because I'm quite aware of economic situations in recent history, and the 50's and 60's were more a plateau than a recession. Besides, there was still rich people in those days, you could have tried harder to be one of them, and any reason for not being one can only be blamed on yourself.
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 40
Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?
Posted: 2/1/2007 9:54:36 PM
In the meantime I should decide how I spend my money...if I want to "invest" in a social program I may need to make use of one day, I should have that right. I should equally have the right to possibly dig my own grave by not contributing to these programs, it should simply be my decision alone...not yours.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Poverty among the elderly in the UK. Is it the same in America ?