NYT: Social Security Underestimates Future Life Spans, Critics Say

Social Security Underestimates Future Life Spans, Critics Say
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: December 31, 2004


WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 - When the federal government assesses the long-term financial problems of Social Security, it assumes that increases in life expectancy will be slow and measured. But many population experts say they believe that Americans' life expectancy will increase rapidly in the 21st century, making the program's financial problems even worse.

President Bush and Congress are preparing for a debate over the future of Social Security, whose solvency depends not only on factors including productivity, inflation and birth rates but also on how long beneficiaries will be living.

Life expectancy at birth increased by 30 years in the last century, and many independent demographers, citing the promise of biomedical research and the experience of some other industrialized countries, predict significant increases in this century. The Social Security Administration foresees a much slower rise....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/31/politics/31benefit.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1104501210-UGKwKsRGBFJxETwjXdp/CQ

My brother that died of cancer at the age of 42 years in September!

What a pile of crap! The way people are dying of cancer and other horrible illnesses at young ages, I rather suspect no one will be living to be extremely old in the future. That is just my opinion, but I sure know of a lot of people that are dead and gone and believe me, they were all between the ages of 35-50 years old!

:kick:

Well, you can't. You see, Bush killed him and he's in the VA cemetary.

My only child died for nothing, yet the Bush kids go on stealing...

gee how many more years than my dad and mom? they both lived into their 80`s ,so am i going to live into the 90`s-100`s? more generational warfare from the whitehouse.

It is interesting that the Pear article includes no quotes from the actuaries.

I know what they are, but that doesn't make them easier to get. For example, immuno-therepy for fighting cancer, which would drastically reduce the number of deaths from that. Another example is advanced stem cell organ replacement. "Need a new liver? Grow one!"

The most critical problem is dealing with the mental degeneration.

you can take them out of the running in the old age marathon

is pushing the agenda of the regime.
What a pile of crap.

but do you doubt people might live longer than predicted? Certainly seems plausible.

are trying to sell the goofball's idea that SS will go broke and one way of doing that is to say people will live longer in the future.
I don't know if that is possible or not, yes we keep developing better methods of treating ailments, but lets also consider the growing health care crisis in this country. No one will be able to afford the treatment that will enable them to live longer because they do not have health care. It is a catch 22 if you will, Yeah the treatment has been developed but can you afford it?

I don't see were we are going to live so much longer in the future that it is going to cause problems with Social Security.
My point of the post here was that the article could be seen as pushing the agenda of shrub by supporting in some way that the system will go broke.

And the Times just covered it.

As for people living longer, I look at my parents. Both are pretty healthy and deep into their retirement. Only one of my relatives lived this long in the past. I can easily see how that could continue to happen.

I know the healthcare problems will be with us for a while, but I believe obesity will be relatively short-lived. I think it's a product of our changing environment (sedentary jobs, no exercise) and that people are adapting and will begin getting smaller.

lives. Take it away and we'll quickly return to dying younger. Life expectancy was not great in the 1800s. That seems to be where we're headed.

it is not true.

In the 80's (read GOP) predictions were based on deaths not occuring because of medical discovery.

It was very, very wrong.

The SOA had studies done, peer reviewed, and presented to the SSA in the late 90's, that showed percentage improvements caused by medical discovery do not greatly increase the life span (by 2200 we will indeed be late 80's for female, mid 80's for male, with the occassional 120 year old - but that is it.)

Pear is a good guy, but he is just repeating a GOP scare story backed by poor mathematics.

in the last 100 years. There have always been people living to 80 and beyond. What has changed is life expectancy, due mainly to the eradication of childhood disease and communicable disesases like cholera. I have no doubt actuaries have taken this into account.

They compete with the WHORESHINGTON POST to see who can flaunt wearing the most brown lipstick!

By the way, do you really expect millionaire gigolos like Nagourney and million dollar sluts like Whoreen Dowd to have any clue how the masses barely live from paycheck to paycheck?

What a pile of steaming BS. Who knows what all of those chemicals are going to do.

Never mind the overweight epidemic, lack of exercise, poor diets, high stress in midlife...

I think life expectancy is going to be decline, for sure.

This is what I believe led to my brother developing cancer and dying. He was under so much stress, he had a horrible diet, he WAS overweight (died at 125 lbs. after losing about 100 lbs.). He got some exercise, but wow, dying at such a young age of cancer is unbelievable to me.

He did not smoke, drink, take drugs or anything else. Literally he was here one day and gone not long after wards.

And, yeah he paid into Social Security for about 20+ years and never got a dime out of it either.

:(

:kick:

:(

on google to refute. Here is the table on LIFE EXPECTANCY AT AGE 65, which is, oddly enough, THE NUMBER THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html <<< oh look its the SSA itself.

In 1940 it was 12.7 years for men, now it is 15.3. Thats it. That is the HUGE F*ING CRISIS.

Somebody should take the NYT out and shoot it.

They are well on their way to being totally useless! No doubt the Bush Crime Family sees that as a way to reducing the surplus population!

Have had this lung infection 4 weeks now, one increasingly strong antibiotics, and it is simply NOT going away. Also on steroids for the inflammation, which helps. This is the first time antibiotics have not knocked out an infection for me. It's very scary.

But the little bacteria may well be doing so.

The Bush Crime Family is waiting for just the right moment to release it in Harlem, Watts, Chicago, Atlanta and DC. Get rid of all those pesky uninsured folks!

they live longer under their gov. system even if we are the "Greatest"

working in this country using phoney SS numbers. They will never be eligable for benefits.

I would like to know who is actually paying these supposed "independent" demographers.

Over and over again, I see financial advisors creating hysteria and telling people they will live to ridiculous ages that most people cannot possibly hope to see. It's great for the industry because it keeps the money invested, but it cheats the person of ever being able to relax and actually enjoy what that person has worked and saved life long. I know a man over 100 years old, almost blind and deaf now, who is still afraid to spend his money. It is truly sad. Con artists ended up getting a lot of my older relative's investments.

The promise of biomedical research is irrevelent to Social Security, a U.S. program, as most of us will not be able to afford to avail ourselves of new discoveries. Indeed, we are going backwards -- drugs seem to be jerked off the market faster than new ones can be invented as there is no longer any understanding of acceptable risk and improvement of quality of life is seen to be of no value. When you know someone begging to be put to sleep because he cannot escape his chronic pain, then you know the value of pain medicine. Believe me, without sufficient pain relief, suicide alone will take care of lots of our elders. Some of these "futurists" truly live in Ivory Towers, is all I can figure. Or they just make a point of not actually getting to know any real-life seniors, preferring only to cherry-pick and make the acquaintance of those who can still play golf!

One fund family actually runs an ad showing a 90 year old bungee jumping ... yeah, like that is going to be more than one 90 year old in a million.

So excuse me if I take all this long life crap with a BIG grain of salt. They need to make it a little less obvious that they want all the old people to die so they can grab their Social Security and other investments.

the future USA should not be bothered by long lifespans.
Any day now, I expect the bushies to reopen and stock the Molokai Leper Camp.

to the increase in life span?

This sounds like some propaganda to back up bushie's crisis theory. While a few people may actually live to be that advanced age most will not. We already have many of the baby boomers collecting ssa because of disability and more who have died already. We should not forget that many of the boomers were burning the candle at both ends and it will not help their longevity. Also the use of all those industrial chemicals in food, nature, etc. are not going to help us live longer.

:puke:

Why is privatization the only answer? Why can't we discuss means testing or raising the ceiling on SS tax or, if the demographers are right how about raising retirement age? There could be plenty of ways of heading off this "crisis".
Bush's answer to the problem is a goddamn Ponzi Scheme. Remember how IRA's, 401k's, Investing in the stock market was gonna make us all rich?