Older people need belonging, meaning, sexual intimacy, fun? Man, have you got it wrong.

According to the Abbott government - and the ALP government before that - what older people need is to keep putting up the retirement/pension age.

Apparently, there's nothing that makes a 65-year-old happier than having to keep on working until they're 70 and, no doubt, once the pension age is raised a few more times, 75 or even 80

A good article.
The author has made many good suggestions re aging, and I agree that we all need to try and keep happy and healthy if we want to enjoy our retirement ( whatever age that will be!).
The physio's tell us we need to use it or lose it.

Our residential care facilities need to move with the times and start catering for ALL the resident's needs, and not just food and sleep. They need to be as happy as possible, as well as having their physical needs met.

A lovely new Aged care home has just been built near us.
It has a movie theatre, coffee shop (for anyone to use from in and outside the facility), heated pool, large internet and book library, it's own bus for outings, big single rooms with ensuite and sitting area, and a well stocked shop.
All it needs now are some of those vibrating beds...

Hmm.
It raises the question.
Are men and women essentially the same? Or mainly different?

Do we get more similar as we sit in the nursing home gibbering, with a shawl over our knees,
"Sans eyes, sans hair, sans everything"?

This is the most troubling aspect of the article for me...

"What policies should governments adopt in regard to aging?"

The assumption being that it is the government's business to legislate specifically for the aging, as opposed to legislating for all Australians.

On what possible logical, ethical or economic grounds would we require them to do this?

Bronte, nothing changes with the different genders once they get to Nursing Homes, believe me!
Having worked as a nurse in Aged care homes for several years recently, I can tell you that the men are still very interested in the young (and the not so young!) female carers, and the women still enjoy a good gossip, as well as showing interest in any males around!

Hello, Pericles!
I paid taxes every day I worked - part time while at school and uni and full-time for some 50 years
- I still pay tax when I work casual, now

- I pay GST on tons of stuff (and will pay more and on fresh food if the boffins have their way)

- I was conscripted to fight in Vietnam but luckily failed the medical

- we are all subsidising the privateers e.g. who bought Sydney Airport for a song and the guys who have expensive corporate lunches but work for some semi government owned quango

Why wouldn't I expect this dumb government to give me something back for everything I have contributed? We can afford millions to put troops in Afghanistan, we fought in two pointless Iraq wars, we pay money to Indonesia - God knows why.

Why wouldn't I expect the government to do something useful for older people!

Of course you did, Bronte.

>>I paid taxes every day I worked<<

We all did.

The difference is that you seem to believe that the simple act of paying your taxes is sufficient justification for the government to make it their business to look after you.

This idea is only very recently come into vogue. For the vast majority of our civilization's history, governments took the view that your life was your own, and the decisions you made were your decisions, and therefore the consequences yours also.

For some reason - possibly the shock of two almost consecutive world wars - this idea of self-reliance was thrown out of the window in the latter half of the twentieth century, and we were fed the idea that we would be looked after, whether we liked it or not. And over time,it became the rule rather than the exception: health, employment, education, old age, all came under the heading of "it's not our problem, it is the government's".

And it has had the most unbelievable corrupting influence on the way we work, earn and spend, and on our attitudes towards family responsibilities (what are they, I hear you ask).

We sow. We reap.

We are now only a heartbeat away from having created our very own cargo cult. Hungry? The government should do something. Homeless? The government should do something. Sick? The government should do something. Obese? The government should do something.

Sorry. I don't buy it. We need to be less mollycoddled, not more.

Pericles

'health, employment, education, old age, all came under the heading of "it's not our problem, it is the government's".'

I'd say it's BOTH our problem AND the government's. And hopefully most mature, compassionate people agree.

Not so the hyper-darwinists like yourself, who would like nothing better than a return to the good ol' days of Merrie England, with cesspit slums, workhouses, debtors' prisons, people having to steal to stay alive, 12-year old prostitutes, lifespans of 40 years (before exhaustion and preventable diseases catch up with you), infants lucky to be alive at 12 months ... while the genteel 'worthy' folk on their private incomes while away their time at the club playing whist.

Of course, you're one of the worthy ones, so you'll be completely happy in that world.

Well I hope you will all be contributing to Men's Health Week.

Even if you know that men are ultra-privileged and get the best of everything

I can agree with that, Killarney.

>>I'd say it's BOTH our problem AND the government's. And hopefully most mature, compassionate people agree.<<

My concern is that tendency is to consider them increasingly as only the government's problem, in that they should be forever "doing something about it". To my mind, this is an insidiously corrupting influence on society. Not least because it will encourage successive governments to increase their control over the citizenry, simply because that seems to be what they vote for.

In terms of absolutes, I'll bet you that the first category that we will lose complete control over will be free speech.