McConnell and Feinstein health issues

[wanderingback]

I know McConnell is talked about a little in the politics thread.
Both seem of them seem to be having some health issues. They’re in their 80s and 90s, so not shocking!
I know it’s ageism but they should not be working.
Do we think we’ll ever get age limits on politicians like some careers have?
It also makes me not feel too great that Biden would be 86 at the end of a 2nd term. So much health stuff can happen quickly in one’s 80s.

[mrsd2006]

Age limits and term limits are way past due.

[cous0226]

I don’t think it’ll ever happen. Mitch will die on the senate floor before he retires and gives up power.

[mpm]

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.

[rubytue]

Jul 27, 2023 15:40:01 GMT -5 mpm said:

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.

There is one part of me that says, by that standard, then a president over 75 is as intended. 

The other part of me says that life expectancy was so low because, on average, people didn’t live long and so many died very young. So yes, on average low, but if you survived past 20, it wasn’t that terrible. 

[lilac05]

I hesitate to be behind an arbitrary number set for age limits. I work in geriatrics doing speech/language/cognition, and what I notice is that there are some 65 year olds with brains of a 85 year old, and some 85 year olds that pretty much fly through the cognition tests. The diversity of ability is mind-boggling to me.

And when I think of term limits, I automatically think of the 60 year old voted in who I don’t want there for 30 years, and I’m 100% for it. However, when I think of a 35 year old doing good work and being a stable presence for 30 years, still active and engaging at 65, then I’m not so sure how I feel. Having some longevity is good for continuity, and I’m not sure where I’d draw the line.

That said, SOMETHING has to be done. Our system is broken. Feinstein is not able to represent her constituents well and she’s certainly not the only one. However, people keep voting all of the old people in…again, because so much of our system is broken.

[rubytue]

Jul 27, 2023 16:29:58 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

I hesitate to be behind an arbitrary number set for age limits. I work in geriatrics doing speech/language/cognition, and what I notice is that there are some 65 year olds with brains of a 85 year old, and some 85 year olds that pretty much fly through the cognition tests. The diversity of ability is mind-boggling to me.

And when I think of term limits, I automatically think of the 60 year old voted in who I don’t want there for 30 years, and I’m 100% for it. However, when I think of a 35 year old doing good work and being a stable presence for 30 years, still active and engaging at 65, then I’m not so sure how I feel. Having some longevity is good for continuity, and I’m not sure where I’d draw the line.

That said, SOMETHING has to be done. Our system is broken. Feinstein is not able to represent her constituents well and she’s certainly not the only one. However, people keep voting all of the old people in…again, because so much of our system is broken.

On that first part, so true. I have a working theory that around 65 people stratify and either their mind or body goes. It’s just seemed that way in among those I know.

[ECB]

Jul 27, 2023 16:29:58 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

I hesitate to be behind an arbitrary number set for age limits. I work in geriatrics doing speech/language/cognition, and what I notice is that there are some 65 year olds with brains of a 85 year old, and some 85 year olds that pretty much fly through the cognition tests. The diversity of ability is mind-boggling to me.

And when I think of term limits, I automatically think of the 60 year old voted in who I don’t want there for 30 years, and I’m 100% for it. However, when I think of a 35 year old doing good work and being a stable presence for 30 years, still active and engaging at 65, then I’m not so sure how I feel. Having some longevity is good for continuity, and I’m not sure where I’d draw the line.

That said, SOMETHING has to be done. Our system is broken. Feinstein is not able to represent her constituents well and she’s certainly not the only one. However, people keep voting all of the old people in…again, because so much of our system is broken.

this is where we could create limits - by voting. But too many in this country just vote for the same person over and over, despite their abilities.

And also, we need good young candidates!!

A friend used to work on Feinsteins staff and even a few years ago, her daughter was talking to my friend about how they need to get her mom to step down.

[mpm]

We need massive changes to how running for office can be funded. You don’t have many young candidates because it costs an enormous amount of money to run and most young people aren’t in a position to have/fundraise that amount.

[wanderingback]

Jul 27, 2023 16:29:58 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

I hesitate to be behind an arbitrary number set for age limits. I work in geriatrics doing speech/language/cognition, and what I notice is that there are some 65 year olds with brains of a 85 year old, and some 85 year olds that pretty much fly through the cognition tests. The diversity of ability is mind-boggling to me.

And when I think of term limits, I automatically think of the 60 year old voted in who I don’t want there for 30 years, and I’m 100% for it. However, when I think of a 35 year old doing good work and being a stable presence for 30 years, still active and engaging at 65, then I’m not so sure how I feel. Having some longevity is good for continuity, and I’m not sure where I’d draw the line.

That said, SOMETHING has to be done. Our system is broken. Feinstein is not able to represent her constituents well and she’s certainly not the only one. However, people keep voting all of the old people in…again, because so much of our system is broken.

Well 65 is vastly different than 85 and 90.
My dad is 68 and still flies planes and I 100% trust him.
My grandfather lived to 93 and was pretty much in good health until his last 3 months when he went on outpatient hospice. Yet he was in no condition to be working at that age.

The current life expectancy is around 78 so I think once you get to around there it’s time to reconsider! I have some aunts and uncles in their early 80s and they’re also relatively healthy (my grandmother, their mother is about to turn 106), but they have no business working a taxing and strenuous job at that age.

[lilac05]

Jul 27, 2023 17:45:08 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Jul 27, 2023 16:29:58 GMT -5 lilac05 said:

I hesitate to be behind an arbitrary number set for age limits. I work in geriatrics doing speech/language/cognition, and what I notice is that there are some 65 year olds with brains of a 85 year old, and some 85 year olds that pretty much fly through the cognition tests. The diversity of ability is mind-boggling to me.

And when I think of term limits, I automatically think of the 60 year old voted in who I don’t want there for 30 years, and I’m 100% for it. However, when I think of a 35 year old doing good work and being a stable presence for 30 years, still active and engaging at 65, then I’m not so sure how I feel. Having some longevity is good for continuity, and I’m not sure where I’d draw the line.

That said, SOMETHING has to be done. Our system is broken. Feinstein is not able to represent her constituents well and she’s certainly not the only one. However, people keep voting all of the old people in…again, because so much of our system is broken.

Well 65 is vastly different than 85 and 90.
My dad is 68 and still flies planes and I 100% trust him.
My grandfather lived to 93 and was pretty much in good health until his last 3 months when he went on outpatient hospice. Yet he was in no condition to be working at that age.

The current life expectancy is around 78 so I think once you get to around there it’s time to reconsider! I have some aunts and uncles in their early 80s and they’re also relatively healthy (my grandmother, their mother is about to turn 106), but they have no business working a taxing and strenuous job at that age.

Of course there’s generally a huge difference. I was referring to term limits. If you set an arbitrary number of years that someone can serve, it means very different things based on their age at election.

Age is just a funny thing. I’m shocked at how “old” some 61 year olds are and how “young” some 90 year olds are. There are just so many factors at play. Some 70 year olds are at a really sweet spot of wisdom and experience and “big picture” stuff while others are getting their drivers licenses taken away. It’s why I don’t think I could get behind a written age limit that applied to everyone. That said, as a voter, I do take age and perceived cognitive status into consideration when it comes time to vote. However, at this stage in the game, I’m likely to just choose whoever isn’t a Republican, age and cognitive status aside. (Which is why I think we need a whole revamp of the system.)

[4speedy]

Jul 27, 2023 15:54:06 GMT -5 rubytue said:

Jul 27, 2023 15:40:01 GMT -5 mpm said:

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.

There is one part of me that says, by that standard, then a president over 75 is as intended. 

The other part of me says that life expectancy was so low because, on average, people didn’t live long and so many died very young. So yes, on average low, but if you survived past 20, it wasn’t that terrible. 

But they died young because of lack of antibiotics, no plumbing, poor hygiene, difficult circumstances, etc. they were basically young and healthy right up until the event or sickness that killed them, for the most part. Most of them did not live long enough to have declining cognitive abilities so it’s not really the same.

[pixy0stix]

I wish all of these people could put their egos aside and retire gracefully. RGB fell into this category.

[Jalapeñomel]

It also sets a precedence that we are supposed to work until we die.

If the president can run a country at 80, we should all be able to do our jobs until we are 80 (or 90 or whatever). Retirement is for the lazy.

[nsl]

We also can't overlook the fact that having mostly geriatric lawmakers means that very few people making big decisions about policy in this country have any idea what life is like for those of us who are starting careers/mid-career, having young families, dealing with the day-to-day life that is reality for a majority of Americans.

[mpm]

Jul 27, 2023 19:48:40 GMT -5 nsl said:

We also can't overlook the fact that having mostly geriatric lawmakers means that very few people making big decisions about policy in this country have any idea what life is like for those of us who are starting careers/mid-career, having young families, dealing with the day-to-day life that is reality for a majority of Americans.

THIS.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Ideally, we wouldn't need them because people should have the sense to retire before they're in their 80s... I know that's asking a lot though.

I'm more in favor of a mandatory retirement age than term limits.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 27, 2023 15:40:01 GMT -5 mpm said:

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.

Life expectancy was low though not because your average person died around 35, but because lots and lots of people died as very young children.

[jeaniebueller]

Jul 27, 2023 20:00:15 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Ideally, we wouldn't need them because people should have the sense to retire before they're in their 80s... I know that's asking a lot though.

I'm more in favor of a mandatory retirement age than term limits.

Do what they do with state court judges in my state, you can’t run again after a certain age. In my state, it’s 70.

[mpm]

Jul 27, 2023 20:03:18 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 27, 2023 15:40:01 GMT -5 mpm said:

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.

Life expectancy was low though not because your average person died around 35, but because lots and lots of people died as very young children.

Yes, we know how averages work. But that was not the only reason why life expectancy was lower pre-penicillin. In general, we have had great medical advances over the last few hundred years that have allowed bodies to live longer but not quite as much luck keeping minds sharp as that happens. And I don’t think people staying in office into their 90s was an issue that was fully contemplated when the constitution was drafted. Nor was a completely dysfunctional House of Representatives for that matter.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 27, 2023 21:34:52 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Jul 27, 2023 20:00:15 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Ideally, we wouldn't need them because people should have the sense to retire before they're in their 80s... I know that's asking a lot though.

I'm more in favor of a mandatory retirement age than term limits.

Do what they do with state court judges in my state, you can’t run again after a certain age. In my state, it’s 70.

Mine is the same.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 27, 2023 21:40:35 GMT -5 mpm said:

Jul 27, 2023 20:03:18 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Life expectancy was low though not because your average person died around 35, but because lots and lots of people died as very young children.

Yes, we know how averages work. But that was not the only reason why life expectancy was lower pre-penicillin. In general, we have had great medical advances over the last few hundred years that have allowed bodies to live longer but not quite as much luck keeping minds sharp as that happens. And I don’t think people staying in office into their 90s was an issue that was fully contemplated when the constitution was drafted. Nor was a completely dysfunctional House of Representatives for that matter.

Ok, but it seemed your point was that people only lived to 35 so they wouldn't have anticipated a geriatric president or congressperson. When I think they clearly did because if you survived to adulthood, your chances of living to at least 75 were high.

If that wasn't your point, I apologize but have to admit I don't get what your point was.

[mpm]

Jul 27, 2023 21:44:23 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 27, 2023 21:40:35 GMT -5 mpm said:

Yes, we know how averages work. But that was not the only reason why life expectancy was lower pre-penicillin. In general, we have had great medical advances over the last few hundred years that have allowed bodies to live longer but not quite as much luck keeping minds sharp as that happens. And I don’t think people staying in office into their 90s was an issue that was fully contemplated when the constitution was drafted. Nor was a completely dysfunctional House of Representatives for that matter.

Ok, but it seemed your point was that people only lived to 35 so they wouldn't have anticipated a geriatric president. When I think they clearly did because if you survived to adulthood, your chances of living to at least 75 were high.

If that wasn't your point, I apologize but have to admit I don't get what your point was.

My point, as I explained, was that the situation we’re in wasn’t foreseen back in the 1700s. You seem to be fixating on a very small part of what I said.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 27, 2023 21:48:43 GMT -5 mpm said:

Jul 27, 2023 21:44:23 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Ok, but it seemed your point was that people only lived to 35 so they wouldn't have anticipated a geriatric president. When I think they clearly did because if you survived to adulthood, your chances of living to at least 75 were high.

If that wasn't your point, I apologize but have to admit I don't get what your point was.

My point, as I explained, was that the situation we’re in wasn’t foreseen back in the 1700s. You seem to be fixating on a very small part of what I said.

Yes, I'm fixating on what you typed as your reason for that belief. If that wasn't actually relevant to your overall point, why start your entire premise with it?

[wise_rita]

The Onion had a very, very funny bit on McConnell today on Insta, but I'm not repeating it.

Go check it out.

[cattledogkisses]

Jul 27, 2023 20:03:18 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 27, 2023 15:40:01 GMT -5 mpm said:

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.

Life expectancy was low though not because your average person died around 35, but because lots and lots of people died as very young children.

Yeah, IIRC, if you managed to survive infancy/childhood, life expectancy then wasn't much different than it is now.

[cattledogkisses]

Jul 27, 2023 21:44:23 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jul 27, 2023 21:40:35 GMT -5 mpm said:

Yes, we know how averages work. But that was not the only reason why life expectancy was lower pre-penicillin. In general, we have had great medical advances over the last few hundred years that have allowed bodies to live longer but not quite as much luck keeping minds sharp as that happens. And I don’t think people staying in office into their 90s was an issue that was fully contemplated when the constitution was drafted. Nor was a completely dysfunctional House of Representatives for that matter.

Ok, but it seemed your point was that people only lived to 35 so they wouldn't have anticipated a geriatric president or congressperson. When I think they clearly did because if you survived to adulthood, your chances of living to at least 75 were high.

If that wasn't your point, I apologize but have to admit I don't get what your point was.

I also agree with this.  If you look at the Founding Fathers themselves, Thomas Jefferson lived to be 83, John Adams lived to be 90, Benjamin Franklin lived to be 84, and James Madison lived to be 85.  Washington was a bit of an outlier who died at 67.  But I don't think the idea of someone living into their old age and potentially serving in office was a totally foreign concept to them.

[gretchenindisguise]

Age limit of 75 seems reasonable to me. I could see 70 as well, but think it would be a harder sell.

If you are elected at 74, you still must be out at 75. We replace you with whichever rules are already in place for replacing an elected official in that capacity.

[msmerymac]

Term limits are something I lean against because it will necessarily eliminate a lot of institutional knowledge. Look at Pelosi - she's stepped aside from leadership, but she's still sharp, and she's still AROUND - she just finally realized that it was time to pass to a new generation who could be a bit more in touch with the Dem electorate.

I've often thought that continuing to work until later in life keeps you sharp, using people at the top of the government as an example... though clearly not always. And keep in mind that in general these are all people who WANT to work vs. needing to work to pay their bills, and have access to quality medical care.

Anyway, yes, the voters need to not elect 86 year old senators, WTF California.

(Also, my state has the mandatory retirement age set for judges at 75. It used to be 70, but the GOP put something on the ballot a few years ago about "Setting a mandatory retirement age for judges at 75" and most people voted for it because they didn't know the mandatory age was 70 - and then the republicans were able to keep some of their judges around a few more years during a Democratic governor's term.)

[rubytue]

Jul 27, 2023 21:48:43 GMT -5 mpm said:

Jul 27, 2023 21:44:23 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Ok, but it seemed your point was that people only lived to 35 so they wouldn't have anticipated a geriatric president. When I think they clearly did because if you survived to adulthood, your chances of living to at least 75 were high.

If that wasn't your point, I apologize but have to admit I don't get what your point was.

My point, as I explained, was that the situation we’re in wasn’t foreseen back in the 1700s. You seem to be fixating on a very small part of what I said.

There were two sentences. It was literally half of what you said:

Age limits would need to be voted on by Congress and they’re not the most functional bunch right now.

Life expectancy in the 1700s was around 35 so this is not really something they anticipated in the early years of the country.