AARP's Changing Tune
Recently, AARP has announced its support for the latest health care plan. However, this summer they were singing a different tune. When Congress was on the verge of its summer break and many members were planning town hall meetings to listen to the concerns of their constituents regarding health care, AARP had what they touted as a "listening session" to listen to the concerns of their members and to voice what the group's position regarding health care. At that meeting (which took place on August 4, 2009 in Dallas, Texas), a male volunteer for AARP specifically stated, "AARP does not endorse any legislation. AARP does not endorse any member of Congress." On that very same day, Glenn Beck had a guest on his show named David Certner, who happens to be AARP's legislative policy director. He said, "AARP would not support rationing of any kind. We don't believe in that and we don't believe these bills would do that and we would oppose any bill that would do that." Really?
H.R. 3962, the latest in a line of health care bills (which was introduced on October 29, 2009), includes a provision in Title I, Sec. 101 that would call for immediate implementation of a national "high-risk" pool, which would be for Americans who cannot afford private insurance, have been turned down due to a pre-existing condition, are not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and are not eligible for insurance through their place of business. Under that same section, concerning the medical eligibility requirements for people to be part of the high-risk national pool, it states that the eligible medical conditions would be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. The scary part? Sebelius has NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND. Before becoming part of the Obama cabinet, she was the Governor in the state of Kansas. Her college degrees include a Bachelor of Arts from Trinity University and Master of Public Administration from the University of Kansas.
I know that Sebelius will not be making the decisions solely on her own and I'm sure she'll probably consult individuals in the medical field but my main points are that this IS rationing of care and it's not rationing done by anyone in the medical field. It's rationing of medical care being done by bureaucrats in Washington who get their pockets greased by groups like AARP or the AMA (which, by the way, only represents 15% of doctors in the United States).
What exactly does AARP stand to gain by supporting risky legislation, which includes cuts to Medicare? To the casual observer, it would seem that AARP would profit from cuts to Medicare but in fact it would spell a loss for them because one major part of the cuts includes the Medicare Advantage program, one of AARP's products. When you consider that AARP's membership dropped by 60,000 from July 1 through August, that should send a message to the organization that taking a stance in support of drastic and dangerous legislation would be a bad move for their bottom line.
H.R. 3962, the latest in a line of health care bills (which was introduced on October 29, 2009), includes a provision in Title I, Sec. 101 that would call for immediate implementation of a national "high-risk" pool, which would be for Americans who cannot afford private insurance, have been turned down due to a pre-existing condition, are not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid and are not eligible for insurance through their place of business. Under that same section, concerning the medical eligibility requirements for people to be part of the high-risk national pool, it states that the eligible medical conditions would be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. The scary part? Sebelius has NO MEDICAL BACKGROUND. Before becoming part of the Obama cabinet, she was the Governor in the state of Kansas. Her college degrees include a Bachelor of Arts from Trinity University and Master of Public Administration from the University of Kansas.
I know that Sebelius will not be making the decisions solely on her own and I'm sure she'll probably consult individuals in the medical field but my main points are that this IS rationing of care and it's not rationing done by anyone in the medical field. It's rationing of medical care being done by bureaucrats in Washington who get their pockets greased by groups like AARP or the AMA (which, by the way, only represents 15% of doctors in the United States).
What exactly does AARP stand to gain by supporting risky legislation, which includes cuts to Medicare? To the casual observer, it would seem that AARP would profit from cuts to Medicare but in fact it would spell a loss for them because one major part of the cuts includes the Medicare Advantage program, one of AARP's products. When you consider that AARP's membership dropped by 60,000 from July 1 through August, that should send a message to the organization that taking a stance in support of drastic and dangerous legislation would be a bad move for their bottom line.