Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia (Post 16139216)

It is age discrimination. I would write more, but I don't wish to offend the political sensitivities of some folks.

Originally Posted by Dudelsack (Post 16139290)

It won't offend me. This is, after all, the 50+ forum.

Anyway, I don't like the paint-by-numbers mentality that is dominating the funding aspect, but that's the way it is becoming.

Originally Posted by MickeyMaguire (Post 16152972)

I am one of the colon cancer survivors on the board. I have been told that I need to be checked every three years due to the past history of cancer. If the regime wants to tell me to die gracefully and get out of the way, I will not be happy and I will let them know it.

Originally Posted by HawkOwl (Post 16153830)

Wonder if today's elders and those coming on fit the same health and medical profile as those in the study? Seems it is entirely possible the elders today by virtue of their health might live longer, experiment more with adjunctive health supplements and therefore have significantly different disease profiles than those in the study.

Originally Posted by rumrunn6 (Post 16139233)

54 and yet to do my first ...

Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia (Post 16139598)

Paint-by-numbers is exactly it.

My diabetes doc and my asthma doc both warned me about it over a year ago.

I have a friend who is French. He and his family (wife and two kids) receive top-notch health care at very little cost. He is heavily taxed but at least their healtcare system appears to be working. Which is NOT where we are going here. :notamused:

Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia (Post 16139598)

Paint-by-numbers is exactly it.

I have a friend who is French. He and his family (wife and two kids) receive top-notch health care at very little cost. He is heavily taxed but at least their healtcare system appears to be working. Which is NOT where we are going here. :notamused:

Originally Posted by HawkOwl (Post 16137954)

To me the age related testing cut off is misapplication of statistics. Based on what I've read I do not quarrel with the conclusion that these tests do not extend life, nor improve it's quality for the population as a whole. That is a whole different thing than impact on an individual in the group.

Depending on factors such as genetics, life style and current health status a 75 year old can expect to live into their mid-90s. That is a lot of time to allow cancers to grow that could have been easily taken care of if caught early.

So the industry and population as a whole saves money at the cost of individuals.

To me a better answer is better provider and patient education so better,more realistic decisions can be made.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16153927)

I believe the elders of today will be the longest-lived in our history. Unfortunately, it is looking like the group following them will not live nearly as long. We are already seeing the life expectancy curves fall off for lower income levels, and I expect the middle income folks to follow suit within the next five to ten years. That obesity/diabetes/sedentary epidemic is going to take its toll on lifespans and quality of elderly life.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 16138596)

We've had threads in the past where it has been noted that testosterone production falls off with age. A rather high percentage of deadly prostate cancers are testosterone-dependent for growth, particularly in their early years. Thus, older males have a substantially reduced risk. Coupling that with the likelihood of bad outcomes from unnecessary treatment decisions that would likely follow suspicious results from a (dubious) PSA test, and guidelines that make it more difficult/expensive to use the PSA test for older folks are pretty valid, IMO.

Originally Posted by CbadRider (Post 16156521)

This is starting to turn into a political discussion. Please keep the politics confined to one of the many healthcare threads in P&R. Thank you.