I often hear Republicans like governor Christie recommend that we solve the alleged social security funding crisis by advancing the retirement age to 69 or 70. The argument is that people are living longer than before and therefore can manage to work until a later age.
However, I wonder if this is a factually based, scientific argument. People are living longer than before but have improvements in science allowed them to be productive until a later age? Perhaps medical science can give people transplants to help them live longer or attach them to machines to give them a few extra years of life. Perhaps medical science can administer medication to individuals in old age homes to keep them alive a bit longer than in times past. But has science suddenly found a way to reverse aging? Is a 70 year old today biologically younger than a 65 year old was 20 years ago? Have the root causes of aging been addressed? Has oxidative stress been eliminated? Have telomeres been lengthened? Has science found a way to undo the cross-linking of proteins that results from the normal human aging process? Or do people after the age of 65 continue to age as they always have done and has science found ways to lengthen life without actually prolonging productive life?
If we eventually solve the aging process, we can eliminate the need for social security. But right now we still need it and we need it at the same age as before, Once again Republicans are ignoring science and refusing to base their arguments on the scientific facts.