Samantha OlewnikAging and Social Policy - Take Home FinalProfessor EricksonMay 5, 2013

1. I think that scapegoat ageism may not be so prevalent in the media today

because there is really no escaping the fact that the elderly population is

rapidly growing. In the 1970’s when scapegoat ageism first began to

emerge, our society was based around the needs of the young; senior

citizens were not viewed as relative to the working of the country. There has

been a shift in recent years towards a fight for equality and care for all

members of the national community, and I think this push has helped change

some people’s views of the elderly. The fact that there is now a degree

offered in Gerontology in some universities is proof that many young people

value the older population. Lastly, if for no other reason, the media is no

longer bashing the elderly because of the sheer number of elders that are

alive today. This cohort can take a stand against policies it is unhappy about

and make a difference; or at least get the country’s attention.

If we move to a view that is neither compassionate ageism nor scapegoat

ageism, I think it might affect social policy by making rulings more objective.

Whenever there is a stigma present for a group, the process of making

adjustments to policies for that group is going to be skewed. During the

Great Depression, for example, when Social Security was established, the

main reason for enacting the program was to “help” the elders. The goal was

to aid them economically, but the actual situation unfolded because the

stigma that seniors are weak and helpless was in place. If lawmakers

approach policies regarding seniors with neither thoughts of compassionate

nor scapegoat ageism in their brains, I think their political decisions could be

based more strongly on facts and the needs of the population, helping elders

receive the rulings that will be most beneficial for their needs.

2. If I was the head of the Administration on Aging and was given the

opportunity to promote three issues from student presentations by the

President, I would choose the issues involving LGBT elders, end-of-life issues

in prisons, and issues regarding elder financial literacy.

I think that LGBT issues within the elderly community are especially relevant

now because of the rapidly increasing population of this group, let alone

elders in general. Our culture has been trying to become more accepting of

all members in recent years, so the programs and support available today are

allowing more and more LGBT elders to be open about their sexuality.

However, as Rachel stated, a lot of discrepancies remain in regards to the

treatment of members of this senior community. If we raise awareness about

the neglect that occurs to these members in nursing homes and assisted

living facilities, as well as the financial policies involved at the end of life

when a couple cannot be legally married in their state, I think it could make a

big difference in the ways that laws and public advocacy are directed for this

community.

As for end-of-life issues in prisons, I think this is relevant in the fact that an

ever-increasing elder population in the country means an ever-increasing

elder population in prisons. Inmates are frequently given life sentences

today, but judges probably don’t think about the fact that a life sentence

means that the jail will have to literally care for the prisoner until they die;

there are diseases and special needs that must be taken into account for the

elderly! This discrepancy has led to abuse within the prison system simply

because many wardens do not have the proper training for dealing with

senior citizens, especially those with diseases like dementia. I’d hope that

raising awareness about these issues, as well as promoting the expansion of

programs in place to help these inmates, such as the Golden Coats as Sarah

mentioned, and uncovering the insufficiency of current compassionate

release procedures could help make a change for the better within our prison

systems.

Lastly, as head of the Administration on Aging, I would promote the disparity

present involving financial literacy and older adults. Molly’s questions

reinforced my feeling that financial workings are confusing, so I can only

imagine how hard this might be for elders, especially those with dementia or

other mental impairments. I would promote the creation of more

organizations geared towards teaching senior citizens what they need to

know regarding their finances, or at least try to expand he practices of

current companies that offer financial advice in the workplace for employees.

Maybe they could also operate in assisted living facilities or advertise their

services to the general population so elders or their children can make

arrangements for their financial situation to be sorted out by a professional.

If the consumer is unaware of how their money works, it can be easy for a

dishonest vendor or hacker to take advantage of the situation, something

that I think should start being openly addressed.

3. In general, responsibility for older adults has shifted from a feeling of high

responsibility to one of low responsibility, followed by the current almost

neutral feeling of responsibility in the past 100 years. From the 1930’s to the

1960’s, the elderly population was viewed as frail and in need of assistance.

This was evidenced by the creation of various government programs geared

around benefits for seniors, including the Social Security Act in 1935, the

Older Americans Act in 1965, and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid also

in 1965. Following this period of compassionate ageism was a wave of

scapegoat ageism in the 1970’s, which remained the view right up until just

recently in history. The success of the aforementioned programs led the

elderly to be looked upon as in a place of excessive financial security, while in

reality seniors only seemed so well off because of the benefits that they were

receiving from the government due to their inadequate financial situations.

This shift has led to the constant threat of Social Security and other programs

being cut or altered dramatically to better suit the needs of the “entire”

population as a whole. I think that today’s view is the best balance because

we are at a point in time when our government is looking to try to make

everyone happy and equal, not just targeting specific groups that are thought

to “need” more benefits.

I think that the government is doing pretty well with the programs it currently

offers for seniors, but it might be nice if they tweaked them just a little to

cover more critical expenses that many seniors will need to take advantage

of in their lifetime. I know it’s easy to look at insurance and say that covering

everything will make the company lose money, but I think that more people

would buy into certain plans that advertised coverage for various services

like long term care. If Medicare were designed to cover part of long term

care, then people wouldn’t have to spend down in order to be eligible for

Medicaid. The purpose of a government aid program should be to help

citizens improve their quality of life, not encourage them to get rid of most of

their belongings in order to be eligible for help with a service that they

critically need. I government aid programs associated with income, though,

are pretty good at the moment. Social Security is continuing to keep many

people out of poverty and is a good motivation for younger generations to

keep working. I just think that the government should reevaluate some of

the workings of the current health care system and tweak them to best suit

the needs of the most people possible, as in the case of Medicare’s absence

of long term care coverage.

4. If I could create a program for older adults that doesn’t exist in the U.S.

today, I would create a program that requires elders with more than five

prescriptions to meet with a pharmacist once a month to make sure that

there aren’t any complications that have arisen from the daily combination of

medications. Doctors frequently prescribe various medications to elders

without fully analyzing the prescriptions they already have, and even though

it is the pharmacist’s job to decide whether or not a reaction will occur when

a patient goes to fill out their prescription, there is always the possibility for

latent side effects from multiple medications mixing. Requiring patients to

meet with a pharmacist once a month to decide whether or not the

prescriptions are having adverse reactions with each other will not only

prevent many medical emergencies and save lives, but give elders who

might not otherwise have great social lives an opportunity to have a personal

relationship with someone new. Lives would not only be saved because of

medical precautions, but the friendship that might be kindled could help by

eliminating the loneliness that many seniors battle with on a daily basis.

I could probably appeal to various self-help organizations or write to Congress

to propose my idea, but I’d hope that it would be a welcome change seeing

as I don’t think it would cost the government any extra money. The idea

doesn’t exactly lean toward a certain political party because it centers on the

welfare of individuals who are already paying for prescription drugs and

taking advantage of the current health care system. If anything it would be

beneficial for the economy in the fact that patients would have to buy gas to

get to these appointments, and if they end up happier from the personal

attention, they just might go out shopping or out to eat, helping the economy

further.