Pensions Planning: The NUMBER

Thrugelmir

justme111 wrote: »

Do you have any data showing that people who do so do not need care in later life ? We know for certain they still die.

Only on family experience. My grandmother lived to 99years 4 months. Still climbed the stairs every day. Eventually suffered a stroke in bed. My mother has recently passed away at 89. Took keep fit classes for 52 years. Only retired at 86 due to problems with her feet. Suffered breast cancer, hip replacements etc. None

westv

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Far easier to look after oneself well. Eat and sleep properly. Exercise. Approach life with a positive attitude.

justme111 wrote: »

Do you have any data showing that people who do so do not need care in later life ? We know for certain they still die.

It's a fact that doing so will greatly improve your chances of a healthier old age but it won't guarantee it.

justme111

westv wrote: »

It's a fact that doing so will greatly improve your chances of a healthier old age but it won't guarantee it.

what is a fact - that people with a healthy lifestyle have longer able life on average ? If so than agreed , I do not even need data to prove it. We were discussing not so able period in a human life though and I have not come across any info stating that healthy lifestyle ones die without debilitating ilnesses preceeding death. Do you have any data ?

westv

justme111 wrote: »

what is a fact - that people with a healthy lifestyle have longer able life on average ? If so than agreed , I do not even need data to prove it. We were discussing not so able period in a human life though and I have not come across any info stating that healthy lifestyle ones die without debilitating ilnesses preceeding death. Do you have any data ?

Some debilitating illnesses are liifestyle related and some can be lifestlye related.

justme111

Sure. Does not prove that healthy lifesttle ones have shorter period of needing care before death .

jamesperrett

DairyQueen wrote: »

"... in 2005-07 a woman could expect to live another 10.7 years free from disability at 65, this peaked in 2010-12 at 11.2 and has now fallen back to just 10.9. Meanwhile men could have expected 10.2 years free from disability in 2005-07, peaking at 10.6 before declining to 10.3."

Yep, you read that right, the average (mean) age to begin suffering some form of age-related disability, for those who reach 65, is only 75! The report suggests that the average person can expect to experience increasingly complex medical and care needs after age 75 regardless of how long they live.

Does the report include smokers? If so, I'm not surprised as a large number of smokers seem to encounter problems in their late 60's/early 70's. Also having an age related disability doesn't necessarily mean that you'll need to live in a care home - there are plenty of disabilities that can be managed at home.

DairyQueen

jamesperrett wrote: »

Does the report include smokers? If so, I'm not surprised as a large number of smokers seem to encounter problems in their late 60's/early 70's. Also having an age related disability doesn't necessarily mean that you'll need to live in a care home - there are plenty of disabilities that can be managed at home.

The report states that all people still living at age 65 (so, regardless of lifestyle factors) on average live another 10 years free of any disabling conditions. That's the mean so there will be a large range of individual differences across the whole of the UK population. I'm sure that those whom lead healthy lifestyles are less at risk of acquiring some of those conditions but others are not lifestyle related (e.g. arthritis).

If you review the recent posts you will see that one of the main points under discussion has been the marginalisation of 'at home' care as a factor in retirement planning. Residential care is given plenty of media space (as evidenced by your comment) but there is little awareness that the need for help with activities of daily living in a person's OWN home begins (on average) several years before someone enters residential care. It's this form of care where the demand is soaring and the supply has reduced to a trickle.

The whole point of the discussion being that there are already many more people who need help at home than are in residential care, but even those with very severe disabilities can expect the absolute minimum of support at taxpayer expense regardless of their financial position.

The vast majority are not receiving the care they need unless they have a family bridging the care gap as adult social services is on its knees financially. With a massive increase in the 65+ age group forecast over the next 20 years there is little chance that anyone who cannot afford to fund their own care needs AT HOME will be enjoying a decent quality of life. As a person's home cannot be used to self-fund care in this situation (other than by equity release or downsizing) the discussion has been around whether retirement plans should include a contingency to self-fund this form of care as this is far more likely to be required than residential care, and it will be required at a younger age, and for longer.

DairyQueen

justme111 wrote: »

Sure. Does not prove that healthy lifesttle ones have shorter period of needing care before death .

Exactly so.

The shock of this report is that it highlights issues that I was completely unaware of when I began planning for retirement.

Like many people I have factored in the possibility of residential care. However, until recently, I had not considered the much higher risk of needing to fund care in my own home.

Having a healthy lifestyle is known to increase your chances of living longer. It also decreases the risk of acquiring some disabling conditions. However, a healthy lifestyle does not significantly reduce a person's risk of needing care in their own home at some point in later life.

They may not require care as early in their retirement as (say) a smoker, and they may suffer arthritis, or dementia, rather than COPD or heart disease. The point being that the average person suffers from at least one disabling condition from age 75, and the further beyond age 75 the more numerous, and the more disabling, the health issues. The report makes clear that the average age of death has increased, but the average age at which people begin to suffer health problems due to ageing has not. The latter is stubbornly fixed at approximately 75 for both genders. Those extra years of life are also extra years of ill-health.

The average age of death for those currently age 65 is 83 (men) and 86 (women). Those who currently die at those average ages are unlikely to be residents of care homes as between two and three times as many will be receiving care in their own homes from social services, and many more will be cared for by their families (18% of the adult population are carers).

Over the last 10 years social services has reduced the number of elderly it helps by 25%, and this at a time when the elderly population is increasing. They are so cash-strapped that now they are supporting only those with the most acute needs.

By the time the 'average' person dies at the 'average' age, approx 70% will have high blood pressure. 30% will have heart disease, 15% will have suffered a stroke, 20% will be diabetic, 12% will have COPD, 10% will be dementia sufferers, 15-20% will have suffered from at least one fall. Most will fall into several categories.

That list excludes debilitating conditions such as arthritis. Note that 20% of men and 30% of women age 65+ need help with at least one activity of daily living. The majority of those will be age 80+.

This makes very depressing reading but I would rather plan around reality than stick my head in the sand.

The bottom line: Regardless of lifestyle factors, only a small minority live a long and healthy life and I intend to insure myself against the very real possibility that I will be 'average' and will require care at home.

fatbeetle

!!!!!! the reports, statistics, and projections. Eating healthily, regular exercise for body and brain, and periods of calm reflection and relaxation aren't going to do you any harm, and potentially are going to do you much good.

I'm now 58, will retire at 59, and have invested heavily in staying well to enjoy the next 10/20/30 years as much as I can. That includes, gym 5 x a week, walking dogs every day, lots of meaningful hobbies, time set aside to meditate, and eating healthily, (includes home grown, caught and foraged foods, ) and exercising my brain (in part by arguing on forums.)

You cannot beat fate, but you sure as hell can give yourself a fighting chance.

OldMusicGuy

DairyQueen wrote: »

All the pundits emphasise the need to fund a 30-year retirement but nobody mentions that the chances are pretty high that 50% of that time will be spent suffering health issues. It certainly focuses my mind on the need to retire as early as possible. Every year you delay is deducted from the finite time available for a carefree retirement.

I really agree with you here. When I really started to look at what will happen to me after age 60, I got out of the "I'll just keep working one or two more years" mindset and decided to retire early at 60. The years 60 to 70 could really be quite valuable for us and I want to enjoy them rather than just keep flogging myself into an early grave in an increasingly pressurized job.

I am hoping we will both be reasonably fit after 70 and we will both be working hard to stay fit, healthy and active but realistically the decline has to happen sometime. So I want to enjoy the early retirement years together.