Old-Age Policies, Politics, and Ageism

Abstract

A foundation for both positive benefits and negative stereotypes. The impact of ageism in public policy arena has had both positive and negative effects on older Americans. On one hand, it has facilitated in United States construction of an old-age welfare state that has been very beneficial for older people. On other hand, it has provided foundation for negative stereotypes of older people and their political behavior. COMPASSIONATE AGEISM From enactment of Social security in 1935 through late 19705, U.S. public policy issues concerning older people were framed by a compassionate ageism-the attribution of same characteristics, status, and just deserts to a heterogeneous group that was artificially homogenized and labeled the aged. The lowest levels of economic status, health, and functional capacities that could be found among older people became familiar as common denominators in public discourse (Neugarten, 1974). Elderly people tended to be seen as poor, frail, and dependent, as objects of discrimination, and above all as deserving (Kalish, 1979). The stereotypes expressed through this ageism, unlike those of racism or sexism, were not wholly detrimental to well-being of its objects, older people. Indeed, during five decades American polity implemented construct of compassionate ageism by creating many old-age government benefit programs, as well as by enacting laws against age discrimination. During 19605 and 19705, just about even' issue or problem affecting some older people that could be identified by advocates for elderly became a governmental responsibility. Programs were enacted to provide older Americans with health insurance; nutritional, legal, supportive, and leisure services; housing; home repair; energy assistance; transportation; help in getting jobs; protection against being fired from jobs; public insurance for employer-sponsored pensions; special mental health programs; and on and on. By late 19705, if not earlier, American society had learned catechism of compassionate ageism very well and had expressed it through a great many policies. Although many of old-age policies enacted during that period made distinctions among older people in determining their eligibility for assistance (e.g., through low-income and asset tests for participation in Medicaid, public housing, and energy assistance program), a number of them treated all older people exactly same regardless of their personal circumstances. All people age 65 and older were entitled to an extra personal deduction in filing their federal income tax. The more than 90 percent of people in this age category who were eligible for Medicare received precisely same benefits and paid precisely same premiums in order to participate in supplemental portion of program, regardless of economic status. All people age 60 and older and their spouses were eligible for supportive services and nutrition programs funded through Older Americans Act. Beginning in late 19705, however, Congress began to revise some of ageist features of policies on aging. Through a new legislative trend that has continued through today, policies on aging have been reformed incrementally to reflect diverse economic and social characteristics of older people. Starting in late 19708, amendments to Older Americans Act (OAA) began targeting funds for services programs to older people in greatest economic and social need and to low-income minority elders. In addition, policy changes have permitted OAA programs to charge for supportive services (through cost sharing) based on income level of clients, and to accept donations from participants in congregate meal programs. As part of a package of 1983 Social security reforms to deal with an immediate crisis in financing benefit payments as well as anticipated future problems, Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASi) benefits received by wealthier older people were made subject to federal income tax, but those of other OASI recipients were not. …