Samantha Olewnik

Aging and Social Policy - Take Home Final

Professor Erickson
May 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 1970s 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 peoples 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 countrys 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 dont 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. Id 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. Mollys 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 1930s to the
1960s, 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 1970s, 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 todays 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 its 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 wouldnt 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 Medicares absence
of long term care coverage.
4. If I could create a program for older adults that doesnt 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 arent 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 pharmacists 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 Id hope that it would be a welcome
change seeing as I dont think it would cost the government any extra
money. The idea doesnt 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.