I’d be for a cognitive exam. Ideally screening out various personality disorders, too.
But this thread is riddled with the usual ageist tropes and stuff about term limits. None of which will fix anything about our broken system.
Having some hard-coded age put into our legal system is bound to end badly. First of all, what is considered the typical years of health span I expect to change, most especially for the higher class (even if America’s health advances stall out thanks to the Republicans, other countries will continue forward and the upper echelons will definitely have access to such care). Secondly, even if it doesn’t, the typical years of health span vary wildly person to person. Telling someone at 73 they are too old to do the job, apropos of nothing else but the number of times they have been around the sun? That’s just plain stupid and it should be up to the voters to decide that.
I think term limits are definitely reasonable, regardless of age. We don’t need one person in a specific government role indefinitely.
Age limits, I’m kind of inclined to agree that would be hard to pin down. Frankly 73 is a bit young in my experience to be as far gone as John Kennedy seemed to be. Certainly it drops off and drops off suddenly at some point for people, but you do have people into their 90s with their cognition intact. Bernie Sanders is in his 80s and he seems mentally still there.
I’ve just never seen a very compelling case for term limits. I don’t think they’ll fix anything and in my anecdotal experience, the most prominent supporters tend to be rightwing cranks, so it makes me all the more suspect of the idea.
It’s one of those things that might sound really good to say, especially when someone has just had it up to here with the outcomes of legalized bribery and a corrupt government in the hands of incompetents and radicalized right wingers.
And yeah, when it comes to things like healthspan, I am not a fan at all of trying to apply some upper bound on age, especially when we may be poised on a revolution in things related to aging. Our government is already famously slow in catching up to other developments, this would be yet another where we are ushering people out of job long before it makes sense…
The problem is that as people age cognitive decline can be rapid. You elect somebody at 70 with no symptoms for a 6 year term. By 73 you get this type of issue.
A cognitive test would only work if it was administered yearly. If they show signs of cognitive decline they are immediately relieved of duties. You’d have to set up an independent body of physicians to administer the test and have the physician chosen at random to prevent shenanigans. The rich and powerful would still find a way to rig the system.
Or you can just set rules to prevent the issue.
64 is the oldest anyone can run for office and 70 is mandatory retirement age for all positions in government service. Yes some people still have a lot of life left in them at that age They can do something else.
As we’ve seen over and over again one dement old person in a position of power can cause pain and suffering or even the loss of life to millions.
I have a friend who retired from government service at 58 after 35 years. He then started his own business now at 79 it’s large and prosperous. Just because he “retired” doesn’t mean he stopped being of value to society. Hell his business has more impact now that he ever did in his government job.
Unfortunately old age is starting to catch up with him. He had a mild stroke last year and his brain isn’t what it used to be.
Fuck no… Just because the rich killed a bunch of people and hoarded all of the medicine for themselves does not mean because they live longer they should be in charge.
I don’t think anyone would necessarily be hoarding anything; I’m just pointing out that health spans are likely to change as things advance. Maybe the average American might lag a bit behind the top 10% or so, but I very much doubt that these people will be aging the same way that people age now or ten years ago.
Setting some hard-coded thing now will be hard to change later to adapt with the times.
I’d be for a cognitive exam. Ideally screening out various personality disorders, too.
But this thread is riddled with the usual ageist tropes and stuff about term limits. None of which will fix anything about our broken system.
Having some hard-coded age put into our legal system is bound to end badly. First of all, what is considered the typical years of health span I expect to change, most especially for the higher class (even if America’s health advances stall out thanks to the Republicans, other countries will continue forward and the upper echelons will definitely have access to such care). Secondly, even if it doesn’t, the typical years of health span vary wildly person to person. Telling someone at 73 they are too old to do the job, apropos of nothing else but the number of times they have been around the sun? That’s just plain stupid and it should be up to the voters to decide that.
Well there’s age limits v. term limits.
I think term limits are definitely reasonable, regardless of age. We don’t need one person in a specific government role indefinitely.
Age limits, I’m kind of inclined to agree that would be hard to pin down. Frankly 73 is a bit young in my experience to be as far gone as John Kennedy seemed to be. Certainly it drops off and drops off suddenly at some point for people, but you do have people into their 90s with their cognition intact. Bernie Sanders is in his 80s and he seems mentally still there.
I’ve just never seen a very compelling case for term limits. I don’t think they’ll fix anything and in my anecdotal experience, the most prominent supporters tend to be rightwing cranks, so it makes me all the more suspect of the idea.
It’s one of those things that might sound really good to say, especially when someone has just had it up to here with the outcomes of legalized bribery and a corrupt government in the hands of incompetents and radicalized right wingers.
And yeah, when it comes to things like healthspan, I am not a fan at all of trying to apply some upper bound on age, especially when we may be poised on a revolution in things related to aging. Our government is already famously slow in catching up to other developments, this would be yet another where we are ushering people out of job long before it makes sense…
The problem is that as people age cognitive decline can be rapid. You elect somebody at 70 with no symptoms for a 6 year term. By 73 you get this type of issue.
A cognitive test would only work if it was administered yearly. If they show signs of cognitive decline they are immediately relieved of duties. You’d have to set up an independent body of physicians to administer the test and have the physician chosen at random to prevent shenanigans. The rich and powerful would still find a way to rig the system.
Or you can just set rules to prevent the issue.
64 is the oldest anyone can run for office and 70 is mandatory retirement age for all positions in government service. Yes some people still have a lot of life left in them at that age They can do something else.
As we’ve seen over and over again one dement old person in a position of power can cause pain and suffering or even the loss of life to millions.
I have a friend who retired from government service at 58 after 35 years. He then started his own business now at 79 it’s large and prosperous. Just because he “retired” doesn’t mean he stopped being of value to society. Hell his business has more impact now that he ever did in his government job.
Unfortunately old age is starting to catch up with him. He had a mild stroke last year and his brain isn’t what it used to be.
Every one of those aholes that want to run for office should take a basic science exam.
When there are legislators getting all het up about chem trails I know we’re going down the drain.
I’d get behind this 100%. Maybe throw in some screening for things like the dark triad and a basic test on critical thinking as well.
Fuck no… Just because the rich killed a bunch of people and hoarded all of the medicine for themselves does not mean because they live longer they should be in charge.
I don’t think anyone would necessarily be hoarding anything; I’m just pointing out that health spans are likely to change as things advance. Maybe the average American might lag a bit behind the top 10% or so, but I very much doubt that these people will be aging the same way that people age now or ten years ago.
Setting some hard-coded thing now will be hard to change later to adapt with the times.