Maybe a President's Age Doesn't Matter That Much

[Autumn]

Statistically, all the remaining 2020 candidates can survive two terms. But older leaders might make decisions differently.

Donald Trump is the second-oldest president in U.S. history. If he wins re-election in November he would pass Ronald Reagan to become the oldest president ever around the middle of his final year in office. Three of the Democratic contenders to replace him, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden (listed in descending order of age), would break the record on Inauguration Day. Elizabeth Warren would break it during a second term.

Sanders, Bloomberg (who is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News) and Biden have already passed the average life expectancy of a male American, recently estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at 76.2 years. Does this mean they’re living on borrowed time? Well, no, life expectancy doesn’t work that way. Once an American man has made it to 78 years and 5 months, as Sanders has, he can expect to live to 88, according to the Social Security Administration’s life expectancy tables. Here are the estimated additional years of life expectancy, based solely on gender and age, for him and other significant remaining candidates.



All these candidates are in the upper reaches of the income distribution (Pete Buttigieg, the poorest, has a taxable income right around the 90th percentile), which in recent years has translated into much longer-than-average lifespans. As president, they would also have access to the very best medical care, and though the office is known to age its occupants in superficial terms, a 2011 study by longevity researcher S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois at Chicago concluded that it did not appear to shorten their lifespans. There are obviously risks specific to individual candidates, such as Sanders’s heart troubles or Trump’s weight, but I think it’s fair to describe the life expectancy estimates in the chart as quite conservative for all of them.

Still, while all the candidates can expect to see through two terms in office, the risk that Sanders or Bloomberg or Biden wouldn’t make it is clearly a lot higher than Tulsi Gabbard’s risk. In a white paper published last year by the American Federation of Aging Research, Olshansky and five co-authors estimated the chances that each of the then-declared candidates would survive one and two terms based on the Social Security tables and a “third-degree monotone cubic spline using Hyman filtering.” For one term, Sanders came in at 76.8%, Biden 79.2%, Trump 84.8% (to make it through a second term), Warren 91.8%, Tom Steyer 93.7%, Amy Klobuchar 96.8%, and Buttigieg and Gabbard 99%. For two terms, it was Sanders 66.6%, Biden 70%, Warren 88%, Steyer 91.6%, Klobuchar 95.7%, and Buttigieg and Gabbard 98.7%. Bloomberg wasn’t a candidate at the time, and the authors haven’t run exact percentages for him yet, but they would come in slightly lower than Biden’s.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-25/age-doesn-t-matter-much-for-trump-sanders-bloomberg-biden

[gredinger]

1. Epigenetic Age

I'm curious to the epigenetic age of these candidates.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/obr.12991

This study shows how obesity impacts the epigenetic clocks of humans. I'd imagine the impact on our current president would be quite severe.

[Autumn]

3. If Trump weren't wealthy he would be in a nursing home or dead with his unhealthy habits.

Goes to show what healthcare can do.

[RKP5637]

12. Yep, absolutely true. Image tRump without his orange pancake mix

sprawled on his face and his fake dyed hair all white and scraggly, the real tRump.

[Autumn]

13. He's a nightmare as it is. That would transition him into a horror show freak.

[RKP5637]

16. ...

[NYMinute]

2. This doesn't apply to Sanders

The life expectancy in someone who is 78 and has had a stent is drastically reduced.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartDiseaseLivingWith/story?id=4224509

[Autumn]

5. What you are ignoring from your article is Sanders has not had previous multiple heart attacks

or other serious medical problems. His three cardiologists stated that his heart is healthy.

How long a patient is expected to live after getting a coronary stent inserted depends. It depends primarily on the underlying heart disease, age, and medical condition of the patient. A younger patient, for example, who has a strong heart and has never experienced a heart attack, will be expected to live a full and active lifespan. On the other hand, someone who perhaps is in their seventies or eighties, and has a weak heart from previous multiple heart attacks, and has other serious medical problems, their life expectancy of course will be shorter after a stent insertion.

[MrsCoffee]

7. Right, a heart attack and stent after 75 has no effect on life expectancy.

Are we now anti-science? Is this a faith based thing?

[Autumn]

11. Said no one ever. Dr. Rihal is a doctor so he maybe into science. If you think that the

doctor quoted is anti science or faith based healer take it up with the person who posted it. I commented on one section of the article they are using to prove Bernie is unhealthy and liable to keel over any day .

Star Member NYMinute (2,801 posts)

2. This doesn't apply to Sanders

The life expectancy in someone who is 78 and has had a stent is drastically reduced.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartDiseaseLivingWith/story?id=4224509

[MrsCoffee]

14. That article has nothing to do with the nonsense you are selling.

Bernie doesn’t have a normal life expectancy as a white male over 75 who just had a heart attack.

Why are you pretending that the chart you posted is the OP is relevant?

[Autumn]

17. I'm selling nothing. I commented on an article another poster posted in this sub thread.

Why are you pretending that the chart in the article I posted in my op is irrelevant? Just because you say so?

If you don't like the OP you are free to trash it. Or you can alert on it if you think it doesn't meet the SOP for this forum or is against the rules. You have options MrsCoffee, we all do.

[Autumn]

19. That chart in the OP is based on gender and age using the Social Security life expectancy calculator

It is very relevant to my OP. In fact it was a part of the OP.

[MrsCoffee]

20. Well that chart says Sanders has a life expectancy of 9.6 years.

Science says something much different. I hope he beats science and lives a long healthy life.

[Autumn]

21. I'm sure.

[Cary]

30. Autumn, by your logic you ignore Sanders' age

In my business, trial lawyer, I was taught that one is more credible when they admit the weaknesses in their own argument. That makes a litigator more credible and shows that they aren't afraid.

Are you afraid?

[thesquanderer]

9. re: "The life expectancy in someone who is 78 and has had a stent is drastically reduced."

Actually, your link does not say that. It says:

someone who perhaps is in their seventies or eighties, and has a weak heart from previous multiple heart attacks, and has other serious medical problems, their life expectancy of course will be shorter after a stent insertion {compared to a younger patient who has a strong heart and has never experienced a heart attack}.

Sanders does not meet either of the two "ands" (much less both of them). Nor does the passage ever use the word "drastically."

I'm not arguing whether you're right or wrong, I don't know, I'm just saying that the link you provided to support your statement doesn't support your statement.

[NurseJackie]

25. The great level of care given to the hair-splitting and hyper-parsing and nit-picking...

The great level of care given to the hair-splitting and hyper-parsing and nit-picking reveals a position of weakness in this argument.

Fact of the matter is, he does have other ongoing issues that we can easily observe (his worsening osteoporosis for one) and others that we know about (the "fainting" spell, and the abdominal hernia were both in the news) and the absence of the full and complete medical report (as originally promised) rather than a quick "doctor's note" summary... well, all I'm trying to say is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, if there was nothing to hide, it would obviously be in his campaign's best interest to fully share this type of info. If there was absolutely nothing to hide, then it would surely help and benefit his campaign and put and end to the speculation. Yet... here we are, still wondering what's been left out and still speculating.

Obviously, someone at campaign headquarters has decided that the speculation is somehow "less threatening" to the campaign than the truth and openness and honesty. Otherwise, why withhold that which was previously promised? These are fair questions and the voters deserve answers that are honest and forthcoming. That's not too much to ask. Is it?

[SidDithers]

4. But their health does...

https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-health-risk-profile-campaign.html

Granular data from one of the most influential cardiovascular trials of the 21st century shows that upon release from the hospital after a heart attack like Sanders’, the 12-month risk of either another heart attack, a stroke, or death deemed to have been caused by another cardiovascular problem in men 75 or older was at least 18.3 percent, or a little better than 1 in 5.

The good news for Sanders is that he’s fared well in the first four months after his heart attack, which is when about two-thirds of these complications generally occur. That means his risk for the remainder of the year is now likely to be around 6 percent. But because he hasn’t released the full record from his October hospitalization, we don’t know if that number is actually substantially higher or lower. Both are possible. Knowing the results of his first cardiac blood tests (which appear to have been abnormal, though the precise language we’ve been given makes this a little vague), the presence of certain key features on his electrocardiogram (the information his doctors released is conspicuously vague on this), and how long it was from the time he first experienced symptoms related to his heart attack to when his coronary arteries were stented open could markedly alter this estimate, in either direction.

snip

From the day they left the hospital, the one-year risk of at least one rehospitalization for any reason in Medicare beneficiaries who suffered a heart attack like Sanders’ was about 50 percent (the baseline annual risk among his age cohort is more like 1 in 6). Again, by virtue of four incident-free months on the trail, that number is now lower for Sanders. But his chance of another hospitalization between now and November alone likely remains between 30–35 percent

He'd be handing the White House to Trump if he needs another hospitalization if he were to win the candidacy.

Sid

[MrsCoffee]

6. What is the life expectancy for a man who suffers a heart attack after 75?

[thesquanderer]

10. It varies based on things like whether they are a smoker or are obese, but...

...you can get some idea of the relative risks of the candidates based on their ages and health conditions form the info here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287598203

It's based on actuarial info as used by life insurance companies. Which at least are accurate enough to make a lot of money for life insurance companies. Though of course, no one can predict precisely for any one individual.

[MrsCoffee]

18. The median average is 3.1 years for those over 75.

For those over 65, 65% die within eight years. 50% die within that timeframe even if they had stents placed.

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/acute-coronary-syndrome/study-65-older-mi-patients-die-within-8-years

[thesquanderer]

23. Median and average are two different things.

That figure is median, meaning half live longer than 3.1 years, and half live shorter.

Though again, these life expectancy figures are not allowing for whether someone is obese, or whether someone is a smoker, or whether someone is poor, all of which alter the numbers. Sanders, not being any of those three, would more likely be in the "more successful outcome" half.

[MrsCoffee]

24. The fact that this is even a discussion that has to be had raises red flags everywhere.

He promised transparency and didn’t follow through. More red flags.

I’m not one of the faithful. I don’t think he is physically fit for office or likely to complete a full term.

This is going to be an issue for voters whether we like it or not.

[thesquanderer]

27. I was merely addressing the math. It was no statement on Sanders' suitability for nomination. nt

[Sloumeau]

8. Life expectancy merely based on age is not enough in the case of Sanders.

The fact that he has had a heart attack changes the numbers.

[TwilightZone]

15. Only if one ignores context.

Would anyone really argue that Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have almost exactly the same life expectancy relative to their ages?

That's just not realistic. Pretending that other factors don't or shouldn't apply is disingenuous.

[highplainsdem]

22. Age doesn't matter as much as health does. You can't excuse Sanders refusing to release his full

medical records, after promising to, by just focusing on age and saying it doesn't matter.

[NurseJackie]

28. ... why withhold that which was previously promised?

Obviously, someone at campaign headquarters has decided that the speculation is somehow "less threatening" to the campaign than the truth and openness and honesty. Otherwise, why withhold that which was previously promised? These are fair questions and the voters deserve answers that are honest and forthcoming. That's not too much to ask. Is it?

[ehrnst]

26. The health of the individual POTUS absolutely does. Age affects health.

Men more than women, and it differs by individual, but age does affect health.

[JudyM]

29. Are folks clamoring about Sanders' physical condition also overlooking Biden's cognitive condition?

Asking for a friend.