Your Texas Benefits People Age 65 And Older: Fill & Download for Free

Everyone has mild memory lapses from time to time. You go from the kitchen to the bedroom to get something, only to find yourself wondering what you needed. You can't find your car keys one day and your reading glasses the next.Lapses such as these are usually just signs of a normal brain that's constantly prioritizing, sorting, storing, and retrieving all types of information. So how do you know when memory loss is abnormal and warrants evaluation by a health professional? Here are some questions to consider:Does the memory loss disrupt daily living? "If memory loss prevents someone from doing activities that they had no trouble handling before—like balancing a checkbook, keeping up with personal hygiene, or driving around—that should be checked," says John Hart, Jr., M.D., professor of behavioral and brain sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas and medical science director at the Center for BrainHealth.How often do memory lapses occur? It's one thing to occasionally forget where you parked your car, but it's not normal to forget where you parked every day or to forget appointments over and over. Frequent memory lapses are likely to be noticeable because they tend to interfere with daily living.What kinds of things are being forgotten? "It's normal to forget the name of someone you just met, but may not be normal to permanently forget the name of a close friend or relative," Hart says. "It also may not be normal to never remember meeting a person after you have spent a great deal of time with them." Most people have trouble remembering some details of a conversation, but forgetting whole conversations could signal a problem. Other red flags: frequently repeating yourself or asking the same questions in the same conversation.Are there signs of confusion? Serious memory lapses may cause individuals to get lost in a familiar place or put something in an inappropriate place because they can't remember where it goes. Putting the car keys in the refrigerator is an example.There is no conclusive evidence that the herb ginkgo biloba prevents memory loss. And research has shown that the combination of estrogen and progestin increased the risk of dementia in women older than age 65.So what can you do to prevent memory loss? Clinical trials are under way to test specific interventions. While those tests are being conducted, you may want to consider hints from animal and observational studies of promising approaches. These steps are already beneficial in other ways and may help reduce the risk of developing memory problems.Lower cholesterol and high blood pressure. A number of studies in recent years have suggested that vascular diseases—heart disease and stroke—may contribute to the development of AD, the severity of AD, or the development of multi-infarct dementia (also called vascular dementia).Don't smoke or abuse alcohol. According to a research report from Harvard Medical School, "Improving Memory: Understanding Age-Related Memory Loss," smokers perform worse than nonsmokers in studies of memory and thinking skills. Heavy alcohol use can also impair memory.Get regular exercise. Physical activity may help maintain blood flow to the brain and reduce risk factors associated with dementia.Maintain healthy eating habits. According to a study published in the Oct. 24, 2006, issue of Neurology, eating vegetables may help slow down the rate of cognitive change in adults. Researchers studied 3,718 residents in Chicago who were older than age 65. Of the types of vegetables, green leafy vegetables had the strongest association with slowing the rate of cognitive decline. Also reducing foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol and eating fish with beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, such as salmon and tuna, may benefit brain health. An NIA-funded clinical trial to test the effects of omega-3 fatty acids in people with AD is now recruiting patients nationwide.Maintain social interactions. Social interaction can help reduce stress levels and has been associated with a lower risk of dementia. In the February 2007 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers found that loneliness is associated with an increased risk of late-life dementia.Keep your brain active. Some experts suggest that challenging the brain with such activities as reading, writing, learning a new skill, playing games, and gardening stimulates brain cells and the connections between the cells, and may be associated with a lower risk of dementia.Is the memory loss getting worse? Memory loss that gets progressively worse over time should be evaluated by a health professional.This Bacteria Causes Memory Loss - Read here

Social Security won't stop writing checks, even if the trust fund runs out, unless the US Government fails. But the need for reform is real and very urgent. The problem is that most reforms talk about raising taxes or decreasing benefits, and doing either is political suicide for politicians who would vote for such a plan.What we call Social Security was designed to save up your own money for you by involuntarily taxing you, collect interest on the money that was raised through the tax, and then pay you benefits when you are eligible due to age, death of a parent or spouse, or disability. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) withholding tax you pay goes to a trust fund formally known as the Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance fund, or OASDI. Ideally, the money coming in would build up a huge fund, and the money going out would be in proportion to what the beneficiary put in. FICA taxes are always coming into the fund, but we're drawing it down way faster than we're building it. So at the time we "run out of money", we'd merely have to have the outgoing checks start matching the incoming payroll tax revenue, which might mean a sudden 20% or larger drop in benefits. The Simpson-Bowles Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had a large section on Social Security, and a chart that showed this effect, was projected to happen in 2037. Now, only three years later, the new guess might be 2033.The thing is, any date you hear is going to be based on a whole lot of assumptions. I don't know how many grandchildren I'm going to have, much less whether they'll make a lot of money, and neither do the trustees of the Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance trust fund, as it is formally called. They often make optimistic assumptions about how the economy is going to fare in the future. So 2033 and a 22% drop is just a plausible guess (see The 2013 OASDI Trustees Report)Make no mistake -- this is the sort of problem that only gets bigger the longer we ignore it. Many criticized Republicans for wasting time discussing Big Bird and Planned Parenthood in 2011, because, as they correctly noted, the real money is in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense. I think some are dismayed that the sights are now trained on Social Security after all. Now is the time to begin reform, because we need to give fair warning to future retirees about their anticipated benefits. And here's a hint: they won't be what they are now for everyone - the math doesn't work.Originally, Social Security was passed because Americans were becoming more and more likely to live to an age where they were physically not able to earn an income. It covered survivors partly because women live longer than men and they were likely to become widowed housewives without a job history or other skill that was valued highly. It covered children, who would otherwise have fallen into terrible poverty, and it covered those who were injured or disabled and were unable to continue working in factories, fields and other typically physical jobs.Republicans tend to trust people to take care of themselves. If you are saving money for your retirement, you want to have control of your own money as you save it. If you invested poorly, you'd become poor, and there would be other government programs that would take care of you (though not comfortably). The 2008 downturn virtually killed this idea, because it's absolutely a fact that many people lost a big part of their private retirement funds if they sold their stocks at the bottom of the market. On the other hand, nobody lost money they put into Treasury bills, which is what the wiser investors did as they approached retirement. Nobody lost Social Security payments in this crash, because the government can change the law at will, raising or lowering taxes, changing benefits (as they did in 1983), or even injecting general income tax revenue into the fund. That would be one way to "rescue" Social Security, but here's a little irony: Social Security has had to rescue the rest of the budget, in the sense that a trillion and a half dollars of the fund has been loaned to the general fund. Talk about rearranging the deck chairs...Discussions about the Social Security trust fund often focus on factors that I'll discuss below, including tax rates, demographics, employment levels and life expectancy. But I personally think the much more basic question we're not asking often enough is where the program is most needed, and where it isn't needed. In my opinion the role of government should be to help the disadvantaged and those who are most in need, and in many cases that's not what Social Security does. It's a great example of a well-intentioned idea that becomes a massive one-size-fits-all government program that solves problems that don't exist, and creates new and bigger ones. It's a major feature of our safety net, needless to say. It consumes a whopping 7% of our GDP. Supposedly, it is a savings program (not a need-based program) that serves everyone who works, as well as their families, when they reach retirement age or if they are disabled. Who could oppose such a thing? It does a lot of good, so it must be a good program, right? I have a different take on it entirely. It should be restructured to help only the people who need it, to the extent they need it, and those who can look after themselves should do so. This is a Republican idea that was part of the Republicans' Path for Prosperity budget for fiscal year 2012. This "Ryan Plan" was met with great protest by those who like a big federal program for the sake of having big federal programs. In reality, means testing was in the Simpson Bowles report. And in fact, to go back to the beginning of the history of the entire program, Franklin Roosevelt himself said "We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts."In the end, I think we have two choices. We can continue to think of Social Security as an imposed savings plan that benefits anyone who pays into it, or we can treat it more like other government programs that are directed to the needy. The problem with the first idea is that it's a really lousy investment for most people, as it turns out. And both the fund and the tax contain the word "insurance", suggesting that the original concept was to protect people if something went wrong and they needed money. I want to means-test Social Security -- making it a program for the needy and not a program for the rich. Many Republicans will continue to press that idea, and they will continue to be excoriated publicly and greeted by commercials showing little old ladies being pushed off cliffs. The simple reality is that Republicans don't want to pay Social Security benefits to rich people, and Democrats who defend the current system do. Republicans see payroll taxes as regressive and disproportionately burdensome on the poor, (and by extension, there is inevitably even a disproportionate impact on people of color). This issue is not called the third rail of politics for no reason. Proposing cuts in Social Security payments is a thankless job. Demagogues and interest groups will do what they can to end the public careers of those who even propose the idea. But we could increase benefits for the poor and cut taxes for everyone by means testing.Now I'll review the usual-suspect category of possible solutions, which I think are bad ideas or wishful thinking:1. Raise revenue through higher tax ratesHigh tax advocates are correct in saying that the trust fund can't run out, assuming you are willing to raise payroll taxes indefinitely. This is exactly what was done from the time the law was passed in 1937 until 1990.Since 1990 the tax stands at 6.2% of your paycheck, which you might notice and miss if you're one of those who looks at their pay stub (which increasingly doesn't exist; you just see some money deposited directly in your bank account, and don't notice that the total of all deposits doesn't match your nominal income). But wait! There's another 6.2% of your paycheck that the employer is required to pay, which is painless and invisible to all workers, and virtually unknown by many. The great majority don't even realize that they're really already paying 12.4% of their income in Social Security taxes.In 2011 and 2012, the government temporarily came to its senses and remembered that high taxes like this hurt the economy in general, and workers in particular, so they temporarily lowered the Social Security tax rate for new employees. But they're back up now, and we're back to pretending that we don't think that high taxes that transfer wealth from the poor to the rich don't harm anyone. It's hard to imagine how much more we can raise this tax, in my opinion. At some point it becomes pretty tempting to just wait tables and not report your tips, or become a professional pool shark and keep all your winnings, which is not good for anyone in the long run.Social Security is a "payroll" tax (as is Medicare). That's completely different from "income" tax. Somehow. This is the sort of thing that any ten year old would call b.s. on. To review very briefly, we hear (and I hope we know now) that income taxes in the US are more progressive than in almost any other country, and that the top 1% of earners pay 35+% of the total income tax revenue collected, and the top 50% of tax returns represent 97% or so of all income tax receipts. Mitt Romney was entirely correct about the numbers on income tax; 47%, cumulatively, pay almost nothing. But payroll taxes are separate.Payroll taxes don't apply to investment income, such as interest or dividends. They don't apply to capital gains when you sell something you bought at a lower price, like real estate or a boat. In fact, if you are a "regular" worker bee like a VP of a bank, they do apply to your salary, but only the part below $113,700. So if you make $160k or 300k or $850k in salary, you don't pay any more than the person making $114k. Gee, there's pattern emerging... How would you describe people who make all their money in investments and very high incomes? Social Security benefits are paid after you reach retirement age (65 to 67) and continue to your death. This is important: if you live to be 70, you get three to five years of benefits. If you live to be 90, you get 25 or so years of benefits. If your child's father was never your husband, you don't get survivor benefits. Your benefits are based on your income while you were paying payroll taxes, so lower income means lower benefits. So the people who benefit most from Social Security are those who make a lot of money, get married and live a long time. You'd be getting a comparatively bad deal if you were not making a lot of money, had children without marrying, or died comparatively early -- which sounds to me like another case of the usual state of affairs: it's better to be rich than to be poor. We need to take less money from the poor and stop giving it to the rich.2. Cut benefit expenses by raising the retirement ageOne way to cut expenses is to raise the retirement age. And it's been done already. My retirement age is not 65 - it's 66 years and ten months. I'm sorry to see those 22 months of my life go to The Man, as I will have to continue in wage slavery before beginning my life of ease under Social Security. Do we want to hand our grandchildren a system that requires that they work until five or ten years before they die? Isn't that the opposite of what we should be trying to do?3. Increase revenue by changing demographicsWhere could we get more taxpayers? Immigration and higher birth rates add to the number of employees paying into the fund. Moderate levels of immigration have made Texas an economic rocket engine; a large percentage of the jobs added in America are in Texas, which gets immigration from the south as well as from other states in the US. But for many reasons we can't absorb infinite levels of immigration. Birth rates are declining all over the world, so that's surely not a solution. In any case, both become a Ponzi scheme -- something that isn't really a fair description of the current Social Security system except in this scenario, where we use mathemagic and posit that the number of workers will grow forever.4. Decrease expenses by lowering life expectancyPeople are living longer much longer now. This is hardly a problem -- an opinion that I hold more dearly as I grow older. I suppose a cataclysmic epidemic would address this issue, or we could take proactive government policy measures, a la Jonathan Swift, perhaps. In his (satirical) novel Boomsday, Christopher Buckley's character Cassandra Devine (good name for someone who sees into the future, right?) suggests that our nation's elderly help eliminate the trust fund shortfall by eliminating themselves altogether, voluntarily, which they do, to her shock and surprise. Cross this one off the list.5. Increase revenue in a better economy with more jobsAnother thing that would make the Trust Fund healthier would be more workers paying current rates rather than being unemployed and paying no tax at all. Unfortunately, current high unemployment is having the opposite effect. People are dropping out of the work force and no longer even hoping to find a job. This lowers the denominator in the unemployment rate, making that statistic look less scary, but be aware that the number of Americans actually working full time jobs has not recovered to 2008 levels even in absolute terms, much less kept up with population growth.Total full time employed civilians - 2001 to 2013 (click to see enlarged, with labels):The civilian labor participation rate (the percentage of the working age population that is working) is falling and is roughly where it was when the Shah ruled Iran and Jimmy Carter ruled the United States.Labor participation rate - 1977 to 2013 (click to see enlarged, with labels):For heaven's sake, and the sake of your children, save money for your retirement and take out private insurance policies in case you die or are disabled. You don't want to be dependent on Social Security income. If you do need government aid, so be it; we must make sure that the funds are available. Use the Social Security Administration's Calculators, and get this firmly into your head: seven percent of our GDP is not enough money to keep you comfortable when you stop working due to age or disability. Will the trust fund ever be completely depleted? I think not. But will we all continue to receive the benefits now built into the system? No. I sincerely hope that you and I and everyone we know will not need Social Security at all, and can reallocate our share of the fund to those who cannot do without it.

If you google, you will find lots of exercises for fall prevention:The sit-to-stand exercise builds leg strength and improves body mechanics and balance, which are all important in reducing falls.Start by sitting on a sturdy chair of standard height, and make sure that it won't slide or roll. ...Lean your chest forward over your toes, shifting your body weight forward.More items...Fall Prevention: Balance and Strength Exercises for Older Adultswww.hopkinsmedicine.org › wellness-and-preventionPrevent Falls and Fractures | National Institute on Agingwww.nia.nih.gov › health › prevent-falls-and-fracturesFind tips on fall prevention, how to avoid tripping and slipping, and ways to lower your ... If you fall, you could break a bone, like thousands of older men and women do each year. ... Regular exercise improves muscles and makes you stronger.The 6 Best Exercises for Preventing Falls in Older Adults ...health.usnews.com › Wellness › FitnessDec 4, 2017 - Building strength, balance and cognitive function can keep nasty slips at bay. ... if you fall because of inadequate muscle mass, you may be more likely to ... Here are six exercises that can help keep you strong and stable through the years: 1. ... A woman jogs while using a fitness tracker app on her phone.Fall Prevention: Why Older Adults Fall & What to Dobetterhealthwhileaging.net › why-aging-adults-fallHow understanding why aging adults fall can help you keep an older parent — or yourself ... the specific reasons an older person may be falling, you'll then be able to: ... risk for falls might be that her blood pressure medications are too strong, ...10 Simple Fall Prevention Exercises Seniors Can Do at Home ...dailycaring.com › 10-simple-fall-prevention-exercises-s...Fall prevention exercises reduce senior falls by improving strength & balance. ... No equipment is needed so they can easily be done at home. ... Encourage them to keep doing the exercises with you at their side – they will improve over time. ... It's best to use a cane or another person to provide support on the other side.Simple exercises to prevent falls - Harvard Healthwww.health.harvard.edu › staying-healthy › simple-exe...Harvard Women's Health Watch ... Strengthen supporting muscles and hone your balance to avoid a tumble. This year, one out of every three people ages 65 and older will experience a fall, according to the Centers for Disease Control and ...Preventing Falls in Older Adults - Aging.comaging.com › preventing-falls-in-older-adultsSeniors who fall can become more afraid of falling, and this fear can reduce their ... Women are more likely to fall, and are also more likely to suffer serious injury or ... approach or assistance that can help older adults avoid falls in their homes. ... People with stronger muscles will also be able to walk more effectively and ...Exercises to Prevent Elderly Falls | Elder Options of Texaswww.elderoptionsoftexas.com › article-exercises-to-pre...Learn about exercises to prevent elderly falls and the benefits of Tia Chi for seniors to ... If your a senior citizen make your muscles stronger and more flexible; Improve ... such as hip fracture, can have a serious impact on an older person's life.15 Ways to Reduce Fall Risk and Help Prevent Fall for Seniorshomecareassistance.com › blog › 4-long-term-conseque...Dec 20, 2018 - How Caregivers can Reduce Fall Risk for Seniors ... Rates of fatal falls among men exceed that of women for all age ... While you may not be able to always stop a senior from falling, you can take some steps to help reduce the risk. ... Exercising can help prevent falls by keeping stabilizing muscles strong.What Causes Falls in the Elderly? How Can I Prevent a Fall ...www.aafp.org › afpApr 1, 2000 - Falls are also the main cause of serious injuries and accidental deaths in older people. Even older people who appear to be strong and well ...