Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure why people worry so much about not smoking - not drinking - and eating kale. Only to have to worry about being demented if they live to 80+. Robyn
That is why in some Active 55 communities folks hitting 70 really throw caution to the wind.
No one else on my mom's side has it. (that I know of)
And mom -- now 88, started showing signs at 80 -- was a teacher and minister - two professions with a lot of mental stimulation and activity - which are supposed to ward off stuff like this.
My mom's family was exceptionally aware and self sufficent right up to the end. My grandfather was trimming his trees and managing his investment right up to the last months at near ninty before he just began deteriroate and died two months later. Grandma had a major stroke, but never lost her mental acuity. Mom smoked two plus packs a day and had an anurism which burst at 62. She was physically failing before our eyes, claiming nothing was wrong, but her mind was fine.
Dad had a kind of demenita where the brain literally shrinks and causes a series of ministrokes. His father died young, but his mother lived on to her 80's and was strong despite twelve kids, some raised after their father died. But he also had a blocked artery to the brain which wasn't diagnosed until he'd had several small storkes, so there is no telling how much that had to do with the complete loss of all his memories and his inventing new ones. Apparently at the end he was still pretty happy, but all he knew he'd made up to fill the void. Of the twelve chidren he's the only one with such major problems. On sister had memory problems, but not like dad.
I've always had mood problems, and a dx of bipolar 2, which I manage without drugs now. I take like one day at a time and don't intentionally dump problems on problems. I'd say at 62 I'm probably *more* together than most of my younger adulthood. I know if I feel really good today, I'll probably feel kinda 'thoughtful' tomorrow and use whatever the day brings. I live with the life I have.
Since Dad could well have had brain damage from the anurism, or the reduced blood flow, or the smoking and the great majority had no problems I'm guessing I'm just going to live life as it comes and not live with worry.
I'm not sure why people worry so much about not smoking - not drinking - and eating kale. Only to have to worry about being demented if they live to 80+. Robyn
This reminds me of my mother and one of my uncles. My mother has never smoke, never drank, but is extremely heavy (5'2" 250) and unable to get around very well at 56. She has a list of medical problems and a whole cabinet full of medicine. She's been nearly completely sedentary all her life, even when she was younger without the medical issues. She didn't put the weight on until she had me at 28. She must have gained at least a hundred pounds between 86-91. Her sister is much the same way, and that whole side of the family lived a normal lifespan, but most of them had at least ten years in poor shape. When mother gets off work, she's "too tired" to do anything, and mostly just sits in front of the TV all day.
The uncle is 58, has been a lifelong moderate cigarette/cigar smoker (only quit in the past two years), smokes marijuana regularly, moderate to heavy drinker most of his life, and occasional cocaine use. He's been active all his life - skiing, water-skiing, boating, much more reasonable diet, much more reasonable weight, etc. He really has no medical issues at all. He runs his own business and is very high income, but he's never been one to just veg out in front of the TV. He's usually on the go and doing something.
Obviously some of this is genetic just judging from the whole family, but I think the biggest determinant is being active, both physically and mentally, and not idling. You certainly don't want to go overboard on bad food and vices, but they can certainly be enjoyed. Coincidentally, the people I've known with few or no vices tend to be the ones that die younger, throwing out extreme cases of drug and alcohol abuse.
I'm not sure why people worry so much about not smoking - not drinking - and eating kale. Only to have to worry about being demented if they live to 80+. Robyn
In September, I turn 55. Retirement is probably 4-5 years away for my wife. For me it is a bit longer. I have to admit that I just get dizzy trying to sort through retirement issues. I worry about things like:
1. Will the maximum benefit I've accrued and am accruing paying for in my social security taxes be reduced just before I choose to retire?
2. Is my wife's state government pension solid? Will it somehow be reduced?
3. Will the ACA remain the law and allow us to purchase health coverage at a fairly reasonable rate if my wife chooses to take early retirement?
4. If I stick with my plan and continue working until I'm 70, will my social security benefits still end up being cut?
5. Will Medicare exist in something resembling its present form when we do retire?
On the other hand, I can't control any of these things and there isn't much point in worrying about them. Still, the level of instability makes me downright angry.
We ought to be able to count on more "constants" than this at this point in our lives. I've felt for sometime that changes need to be made to guarantee the viability of these programs for us and future generations. However, I'd like changes made now, not when we are too old to do anything about them.
It seems that expectations for the first generation out of WWII are high, despite a shallow history of security in our country. We have gotten used to the relatively secure upbringing many of us enjoyed in the post-WarII period, the immense nationwide growth and prosperity of the 1950s and 60s, into the 70s when many of us were starting out on our own.
There was plentiful access to education, even for the middle class (perhaps for the first time), access to jobs and relatively affordable housing and commodities, and we boomers carried forth the energetic and optimistic model that unfolded for the GIs when they returned home. Times looked secure (even though our parents and grandparents, unless they were family-wealthy, had not had the benefit of the kind of securities we boomers were handed).
So how long in an historic curve can prosperity and stability hold anyway? History is rife with varying periods of stability (up and down) back to back. Who could predict that the huge expansion of the Industrial Age would be shattered by two world wars within several decades along with a Great Depression?
Taking history into consideration, it's easy to see why there are no answers we can rely on. As the OP says "We just don't know" and no one in any developed country (esp now that we are progressed to a global economy) can possibly "know." Japan was making everything and shipping it for decades; today it's China. Who knows who and what will emerge on top and who and what will fall behind in the ongoing cycle, given the factors of natural resources, human health challenges and costs, and economies?
It seems that expectations for the first generation out of WWII are high, despite a shallow history of security in our country. We have gotten used to the relatively secure upbringing many of us enjoyed in the post-WarII period, the immense nationwide growth and prosperity of the 1950s and 60s, into the 70s when many of us were starting out on our own.
There was plentiful access to education, even for the middle class (perhaps for the first time), access to jobs and relatively affordable housing and commodities, and we boomers carried forth the energetic and optimistic model that unfolded for the GIs when they returned home. Times looked secure (even though our parents and grandparents, unless they were family-wealthy, had not had the benefit of the kind of securities we boomers were handed).
So how long in an historic curve can prosperity and stability hold anyway? History is rife with varying periods of stability (up and down) back to back. Who could predict that the huge expansion of the Industrial Age would be shattered by two world wars within several decades along with a Great Depression?
Taking history into consideration, it's easy to see why there are no answers we can rely on. As the OP says "We just don't know" and no one in any developed country (esp now that we are progressed to a global economy) can possibly "know." Japan was making everything and shipping it for decades; today it's China. Who knows who and what will emerge on top and who and what will fall behind in the ongoing cycle, given the factors of natural resources, human health challenges and costs, and economies?
Seeing as how we have become a nation of consumers rather than producers, and seeing as how our national health care costs are heading towards 20% of GDP and seeing as how China now "owns" our former manufacturing industry, plus the majority of our borrowed debt--and has taken our place as the world's Super Power. . . I don't think it is much of a secret as to what the future holds, economically, in this country.
Seeing as how we have become a nation of consumers rather than producers, and seeing as how our national health care costs are heading towards 20% of GDP and seeing as how China now "owns" our former manufacturing industry, plus the majority of our borrowed debt--and has taken our place as the world's Super Power. . . I don't think it is much of a secret as to what the future holds, economically, in this country.
There can always be emerging economies; China may not stay in its position forever. The tech industry? who knows how much if any we can hold onto. (I guess there's no such thing as a "we" anymore.)
In September, I turn 55. Retirement is probably 4-5 years away for my wife. For me it is a bit longer. I have to admit that I just get dizzy trying to sort through retirement issues. I worry about things like:
1. Will the maximum benefit I've accrued and am accruing paying for in my social security taxes be reduced just before I choose to retire?
2. Is my wife's state government pension solid? Will it somehow be reduced?
3. Will the ACA remain the law and allow us to purchase health coverage at a fairly reasonable rate if my wife chooses to take early retirement?
4. If I stick with my plan and continue working until I'm 70, will my social security benefits still end up being cut?
5. Will Medicare exist in something resembling its present form when we do retire?
On the other hand, I can't control any of these things and there isn't much point in worrying about them. Still, the level of instability makes me downright angry.
We ought to be able to count on more "constants" than this at this point in our lives. I've felt for sometime that changes need to be made to guarantee the viability of these programs for us and future generations. However, I'd like changes made now, not when we are too old to do anything about them.
I don't think this kind of political instability has occurred in my lifetime, at least not at any point that I can remember. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make long-term plans if you don't want what kind of wrenches politicians will throw into the plans.
Far too many people seem to downplay politics and government action/inaction in long-term planning. I have no faith in the current administration or Congress to do anything correctly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
