Second chance?: An important debate on the future of the D.C. school voucher program begins 
Click to Print
Include Comments
AARP loses members
AARP’s support for healthcare reform has sparked an exodus of members, the group revealed Monday. Since July 1, the organization has lost 60,000 senior citizens who were displeased with AARP’s healthcare stance. Although the group has not endorsed a specific bill (as President Obama incorrectly stated earlier), it has run ads in favor of healthcare reform and recently invited President Obama to conduct an online forum promoting his healthcare agenda.
“We take stands on issues that are contentious, it’s part of what we do,” [spokesman Drew] Nannis said. “And because we have so many members we’ll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership.”
AARP routinely loses about 300,000 members a month, but Nannis said the 60,000 figure represents members who specifically cited AARP’s stance on healthcare overhaul for canceling their membership.
back to top97 Comments to “AARP loses members”
AARP has always been too liberal for me. They first invited me to join when I was 21.
Report comment to moderator
Most people join AARP based on a presumed benefit. Many don’t leave because of being set in their ways and not wanting to go through much change. But since seniors are healthier now more may realise what a liberal organisation it is. and leave.
Report comment to moderator
I can add that my wife and I joined AARP when it was fighting against privatization of Social Security.
We have been heartened by their support of health care reform, and it is worth noting that in particular on drug benefits, health care reform as presently drafted will improve the coverage for medicare recipients.
Report comment to moderator
It is nice to see for once factual statements about AARP support for health care reform.
And in syaing that they support the present health care reform but do not endorse a specific bill, given that the bills are changing over time, my sense that this is a distinction without a difference!
Report comment to moderator
As Buckley said, an organization that is not explicitly conservative at its founding will over time become explicitly liberal. AARP seems to be proof that WFB was correct. Sad that all those ex-members were unaware of what their membership dues were supporting.
I expect that as more folks leave AARP it will be as representative of seniors as the National Council of Churches is of WMB blog posters. (Not very).
Report comment to moderator
Obamacare is all about rationing.
Report comment to moderator
Amusingly enouhg, I suggest the following perhaps should be considered:
a) the senior demographic remains one of the more potent political demographics in the ocuntry
b) even with the recent 20% increase in leakage, AARP remains one of the ore potent advocacy organizations for seniors
c) the amount of money they are pumping into supporting health care reform (see links I posted earlier on multi-million dollar ad buys)
AARP is one of the forces to be reckoned with in the health reform debate.
And it is not industry sponsored astro-turf!
Report comment to moderator
xion,
where in the bill does it specify rationing?
Sections please?
Report comment to moderator
xion,
and you are saying that you are in favor of high cost low value treatments? So you specificaly support health care inefficiency???
Report comment to moderator
It is easy, simple, and often misleadig to simply get one’s opinons by listening to the talking heads or reading the pundits.
But that is predigested material, and as my example using penguins from yesterday suggest, this has a perhaps unpleasant conotations.
By contrast, one can use the pundits to give you clues, but do the research for yourself. Then the information is indeed fresh, to continue with the penguin analogy.
It is interesting to see what kind of intellectual meals people prefer to “eat”.
Report comment to moderator
I suspect will see a lot more posts from Musing on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Is this the same AARP that a certain lawyer on this blog insisted didn’t speak a “peep” about the healthcare reform? That AARP? Go on lawyer, say the W word again. Everyone knows it. Just say it. It’ll be cathartic for you. It’ll make you feel better.
Report comment to moderator
Why would AARP support Death Panels though?
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof,
actually there is not much to say.
People in this blog argued that AARP did not support health care reform.
They were obviously incorrect.
WMB blog leadership has now confirmed that AARP does support health care reform. One would think that would be the end of the disucssion.
But indeed this is WMB, and accepting such a simple correction would indeed probably be too much to expect from the blog.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof,
oh my are ou trying to delibberatly throw misinformation around to excite the blog?
I posted thre actual sections in the bill describing end of life care discussions.
I challenge you to post the sections establishing Death Panels!
Go on montyfisherwoof, find them!
Because, of course you know they are not there!
Report comment to moderator
The statement that the health care reform bill establishes death panels is, as eveyrone should know by now, an explicit lie.
However as Goebbels showed, and 1984 discusses, if you say a lie loud enough and long enough, people begin to believe it is the truth.
So a number of leaders and politicians had made this claim. But that does not mean it is not a lie.
And it is an interesitng measure of the intellectual honesty of the poster/commenter on whether they get brainwashed by the “big lie” effort, or whether they have the intellectual capacity to reason out the truth based on the data.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Obamacare is all about rationing.
But private insurance will pay you every penny you claim, no questions asked, right?
Feldstein says nothing that wasn’t plain from the bill, and it’s not “rationing.” When people say “rationing,” they envision being told “Sorry, we’ve already done all the bypasss surgeries we’re allowed to this year.” And of course, the legislation does nothing like that, and Feldstein doesn’t even claim it does.
“Rationing” is just a scare word.
Report comment to moderator
MFW: Why would AARP support Death Panels though?
They wouldn’t. Which should be a clue even to one as clueless as you that there never were any such things in any of the bills.
Report comment to moderator
If my private insurance doesn’t cover something, I can still open my checkbook and pay for it myself. It’s a choice. Some might say it’s de facto rationing if the extras are not affordable. I have heard it reported in at least one socialized medicine country (I don’t remember which–UK?), this is not a choice–if it’s not covered, you simply can’t buy it, so you have to go somewhere else. Where are we headed?
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t heard precisely what reforms AARP supports. Is it in favor of cost-savings by cutting Medicare? Many drs. already refuse to participate in Medicare due to the low reimbursement rates. We know that the number of Medicare recipients will only increase since they have no opt-out choice.
It seems the so-called death panels would be an outcome of the government “comparative effective ness panel” determining the cost-effectiveness of treatments based on quality of life adjusted years.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t understand the numbers posted. AARP loses 300K people a month? Do they die or leave the organization? How many people belong anyway that they can lose so many and seem to shrug it off. And if they are losing 300K per month, why would 60K in two months matter?
What am I missing?
Report comment to moderator
Our parents left AARP years ago. They are odd in that they tend to look beyond their own generation.
Report comment to moderator
It looks like this is going to be our health-coverage thread for the day, so I’ll post my thought here. I heard an interesting point on the radio (yes, AM conservative talk radio) the other day. By the very laws of economics, when the demand for something goes up and the supply stays the same, the cost rises. So if we are going to provide coverage for more people so that more people can tap into the static pool of medical resources, the cost of health care for all of us will go up.
Mind you, I’m not saying this is a reason to be against broader coverage, but it seems like it would be a factor in the projected cost of the program. So PLEASE don’t say, “OK there goes another Christian who doesn’t care about the well-being of other people.” It’s just that we are hearing that the proposed plan will lower costs and save us all money but I’ve not heard anywhere that this economic principle has been considered.
Report comment to moderator
RKG,
and you will still be able to open your check book after the health reform gets passed.
Nothing in the bill will forbids individuals for paying for extra services.
Report comment to moderator
mommy,
but has been noted by several conservatvies in thie blog already, these people get health care: it is just ineeficiently delivered and paid for (easiest item is the CNN estimate of $12B of wasted ER costs).
Health reform has at least the potential of reducing certain costs by making the process more efficient.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy, I think the Congressional Budget Office has looked at all sides, and their conclusion is this will not lower costs. That’s what the White House would like to ignore. I think the people who are in support of the current proposals should at least admit that they support it no matter how much it costs.
Report comment to moderator
3545,
if you argue that effectiveness reasearch will result in death panels, could you explain what in the bill would allow this aproposed aspect of the process to occur?
As given, the final coice of treatment is between the doctor and the patient.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, maybe so. But it won’t create a static system. Whether or not you reach the same conclusion, there is sound economic analysis that says the private insurers won’t be able to compete forever with a public option that not only doesn’t have to make a profit, but gets to make the rules for everyone else. President Obama has already said (despite his recent denial) that he is in favor of a single-payer system eventually. I simply don’t take him at his word that this massive regulation is not designed to propel us towards a single-payer system. Certainly the current proposal is not that; but it would shift the power to the government to decide what happens next.
Report comment to moderator
My copy of H.R.3200 requires the federal government to monitor how well physicians are utilizing end-of-life discussions, judged on citeria developed by the Secretary of Health & Human Services.
This as part of the bill’s title: To provide affordable, qualiity health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending and for other purposes.
A creepy scenario in which the government has no business.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING -27: Section 1233 does not create death panels, but it still puts the governmenet between you and your dr. in lowering health care costs. That’s what the entire bill purports to do.
Report comment to moderator
Even if the AARP wasn’t such a leftist group, I’d never pay dues just so they can keep sending out invitations to young people to join.
I was so offended when I turned 30 and got a letter from AARP inviting me to join now that I was a senior citizen!
Report comment to moderator
3545: If Section 1233 is so bad, why did Republicans overwhelmingly support a near-identical measure in the Medicare Reform Act of 2003?
Report comment to moderator
AARP has 40 million members, so 60k leaving is small potatoes. But I would like to see a survey of AARP members to know what percentage of them agree or disagree with their organization’s stance.
I find it ironic that most of those leaving, according to the conservative seniors’ group ASA, “are most upset with cuts in Medicare.”
In other words, they’re leaving not because government-run insurance is terrible, but because they like it and they’re afraid they’ll lose it!
This looks like another triumph of the right-wing propaganda machine.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, even 30,000 out of 40,000,000 can be fooled by lies. That leaves 39,970,000 who aren’t.
Report comment to moderator
280,000,000 Americans are insured. The vast majority of them are satisfied with their coverage. A figure of 40 millions uninsured is aimlessly tossed around., Maybe only 10-12 million are not insured for valid reason.
We have a bill before us that looks to totally overhaul what is working for 88% of Americans.
The major provisions that would bring about significant health care reform are not even being talked about because they are “republican” issues.
Tort reform, small business allowed to pool their employees to get a better rate, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and individuals who purchase their own insurance being given a tax credit, are all valid issues that are being ignored in favor of a government take over, if not now, then eventually.
There has been no honest debate about alternatives. There are half dozen bills, being pushed to a hasty decision. Senators and Reps are getting an earful. Whether it is organized or just grassroots, it doesn’t change the fact that more people are responding to this issue than any other in recent memory.
If I was leading a group that lost 300,000 members per month, I would be concerned about any issue. When 60,000 state emphatically it is because of their support for what the government is passing as health care, I would definitely pay attention.
Report comment to moderator
I’m insured. It’s not working for me. My insurance company has stiffed me in the past, and it looks poised to do it again. (We need some vaccinations that they won’t cover because our daughter is 6 and not 5).
It’s not working for friends of mine that make very little but don’t qualify for Medicaid for their two children because they already have crappy private insurance at $600 per month.
And it’s not working for the thousands of Americans who get dropped when they develop a condition, who get denied coverage for frivolous reasons, or who see their premiums skyrocket.
Report comment to moderator
Musing (#25)
I believe that for the most part, the uninsured are currently getting only urgent and emergency care and getting it from emergency rooms (at least that’s how it’s been presented in these conversations). Under the O-plan they’ll be getting the full range of care (and encouraged to get preventative care), especially since they will view it as being “free” (which it may very well be for some). And, they’ll be going to a primary care doc, not the emergency. So two factor negate your comment: 1) the uninsured will be using far more medical services than they are today and 2) the demand on primary care services will increase.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG-32:
I don’t know that they did. If so, why put a “near-identical measure” in this egregious bill?
Report comment to moderator
Why would AARP support Death Panels though?
For example, an AARP member has terminal cancer, no longer treatable. This grandma wants medical advice about eventual possible choices, but Medicare won’t pay for such a consultation and her particular Medicare Advantage plan doesn’t either. Grandma would have to pay out of her own pocketbook, so she postpones asking for an appointment. Meanwhile, Grandma’s heart stops. Doctors use compression to restart her heart. Unfortunately, her ribs break, leaving her in excruciating pain with each breath.
For example, another AARP member has high blood and a small stroke. This grandpa also wants medical advice, but can’t afford it either. He gets a great big stroke and falls into a coma. The hospital keeps him alive on a feeding tube and his children and grandchildren have a big fight over it.
The AARP supports coverage for these appointments because it understands that sometimes seniors and their families don’t know what to think about death and would take advantage of medical consultations with their doctor, if available through Medicare. Also, coverage for end-of life consultations is ethical, humane, and good.
Report comment to moderator
3545 at 38:
We are talking about a measure that defines how often Medicare will pay for patients to consult with their doctors about end-of-life options: Once every five years.
What is different about the new version is that it makes the coverage available to all Medicare recipients. The original version, passed in 2003, limited it to patients who already had been diagnosed with a terminal condition.
From this, people infer “death panels.” It boggles the mind.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy at #37: And why is it bad for people to get better healthcare? If they’re going to primary care doctors, they’re not overtaxing the emergency rooms. If they’re getting regular care, they’re less likely to develop sudden life-threatening emergencies.
This is evil because .. why again? Because the majority of people will be contributing some tax money to make it possible?
It really is all about keeping your money in your pocket, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG-40:
If it isn’t enough that Medicare already offers terminally ill patients end-of-life consultations every five years, why was the improved benefit dropped from the Senate bill?
Why haven’t the Democrats been able to demonstrate that this was necessary so that people wouldn’t think it worrisome? The Dems have all the votes they need to pass it and there’s no lack of Obabma’s explanations?
I think people don’t want to choose their end-of-life options from a dr. being monitored by the government.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG: If you haven’t already, please see my posts 20, 29 & 30.
Maybe you could take a more balanced look at both sides.
The more things the government controls, the less people trust it.
Report comment to moderator
If it isn’t enough that Medicare already offers terminally ill patients end-of-life consultations every five years, why was the improved benefit dropped from the Senate bill?
Because once people become convinced, thanks to opponents deliberately inciting fear, that it’s about “death panels,” it’s really hard to show them they’re mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG at 41: This has never been about whether health care is good or bad. And it’s also not about greedy Christians and conservatives wanting to hoard their money. (We voluntarily give more than Democrats and liberals). This is about the government taking control of healthcare when it has no business doing it, will increase the cost of it, and will deliver it inefficiently.
It’s not compassionate to TAKE money from your neighbor to provide healthcare to the poor. There’s nothing stopping you from giving your money to a hospital, a clinic, or a nonprofit that provides health care to the poor. There’s nothing stopping you from starting your own nonprofit with other like-minded people to provide healthcare to the poor with donated (not taken) money. Being accountable to your donors, I have no doubt you would do it efficiently and with better results than a government department. Stop looking to the government to solve non-government problems. You have the freedom to help whomever you want.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG: If you haven’t already, please see my posts 20, 29 & 30.
I did. Comparative effectiveness research is simply about studying treatments to see which are most cost-effective. It has been going on for decades, and the government has been involved in it since at least the 1970s. The measures in the current legislation were largely about improving and standardizing it.
Doctors use this information in prescribing, and insurance companies use it in determining what they’ll cover. Private insurance does this. As I said in another thread, my own insurance company has denied me a blood pressure medication that my doctor believes would be better than the one they will pay for. Bureaucrats already come between you and your doctor — this is the system the opponents of reform would like to preserve.
It seems the so-called death panels would be an outcome of the government “comparative effective ness panel” determining the cost-effectiveness of treatments based on quality of life adjusted years.
If that’s your definition, they’re already here, with any private plan.
Section 1233 does not create death panels, but it still puts the governmenet between you and your dr
It doesn’t at all. It only allows the government to pay your doctor the cost of the voluntary consultation, rather than the patient having to. Why are people so terrified of that? I don’t get it at all.
As for what you say in #29, that part I’m not familiar with. What’s the actual bill language?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (41), It would be helpful if you could follow along better. My original post (23) had nothing to do with it being bad for people to get better health care (it even included this sentence “So PLEASE don’t say, ‘OK there goes another Christian who doesn’t care about the well-being of other people.’”) It was purely a point that more access to a static pool of primary care providers will drive up the cost.
Thank you, RKG, for trying to explain this.
And, you know what, SteveG, since you seem to think I want to keep so much of my own money, I’m going to tell you what our regular giving is: $300 per WEEK to our local congregation; $38 a month to Compassion International to support a child in Uganda; $100 a month to missionaries through Wycliffe; $50 a month to a missionary I met on this blog; and $100 a month to a (minority) college student whom I knew could use the extra money to cover expenses. And we are not wealthy. Care to share what your giving is?
Report comment to moderator
RKG,
when you say:
“But it won’t create a static system. Whether or not you reach the same conclusion, there is sound economic analysis that says the private insurers won’t be able to compete forever with a public option that not only doesn’t have to make a profit, but gets to make the rules for everyone else.”
I merely looked surprised and note that the rules will be the same for everyone, public or private and are you telling me that private insurance is not more efficient than public insurance?
If it is not more efficient, why are we effectviely subsidizing it?
Report comment to moderator
3545,
actually when you say:
“MUSING -27: Section 1233 does not create death panels, but it still puts the governmenet between you and your dr. in lowering health care costs. That’s what the entire bill purports to do. ”
I disagree.
What it does do, however, is put the government between you and your health insurer so that the consumer has an even chance.
Report comment to moderator
It’s good that your family is so generous, Mommy. Most are not.
For some, the amount you can afford to give away in a month is more than their family’s monthly income. You can afford quality health insurance under the current system. They cannot.
And you both face this problem under the current system: if someone in your family gets seriously ill, you could lose your coverage when your insurer bails on you. Or you could be stuck with astronomical bills if they can find an excuse for denying coverage.
That’s something people on Medicaid don’t have to worry about. That’s something health care reform seeks to address.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy at #47: I apologize, I had not seen your original post. I was responding just to the later one.
I’ll keep my giving private because I don’t think it’s polite or fair to compare. I’ll just say that I also sponsor a child through Compassion, and I sometimes give $10 or $20 to people on the street, but in general I’m doing a bit less than you.
As for the supply and demand question, I think it’s offbase. The law of supply and demand is based on limited quantities. If you have 100 cars to sell and only 80 buyers, you mark the prices down to try to encourage a few more. If you have 100 cars and 140 buyers, you can raise the prices.
Health care is not so limited. There are only so many providers, but there are enough, and there is always the ability to train more. And health care can be subject to price regulation, so that providers don’t have the option to raise costs beyond set ceiling levels. It already is in a way … there are “usual and customary” prices for various standard services that insurers use to determine how much they’ll pay.
Report comment to moderator
Musing at 48: The rules may be the same for everyone, but they will be set by the government. There’s nothing to stop the government from requiring all insurers to provide more coverage than their premiums will support. I don’t care how efficient you are, when you have to sell a product for less than it costs to produce it, you go out of business. Unless, of course, you are the government.
Report comment to moderator
Pardon me, but I didn’t use the word “peep” at all, and when I posted they had not endorsed Obama’s plan and were playing coy. They still are.
I’m in favor of health care reform, too, which should dovetail with immigration reform, but I am not in favor of a government takeover, a single-payer system or a government option that would turn into a single-payer system.
I believe in freedom and the free market. I also believe in people doing hard work to earn their benefits, not handing them benefits so that they don’t have to pull themselves out of poverty. The truly poor I have no problem in assisting; the lazy, those who think the government owes them (and that includes the leftys here) fail to comprehend that nothing is free in this deal and they prefer to live off the hard work of others. As a worker, I resent that. I want to spend my money on my family.
Report comment to moderator
And I will remind those who think it is unChristian — and why leftys are turning to Jesus on this one I don’t know, they don’t for anything else, but I suppose you would if you were a desperate lefty — there is the parable of the five wise and the five foolish virgins. What do the wise ones say when they are asked for oil? Learn from that parable before you accuse Christians of not wanting to help the poor.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle #21 – I was confused as well by the 60k number, seems like a drop in the bucket. According to the article AARP has 40 million members and according to the 2000 census there were only 36 million people over the age of 65 and 166 million between the age of 20-64 (averaging 3.8 million per year). So, that would make approximately 89 million eligible (50 and over)for membership with 45% belonging to the organization (nice share). They also stated that they regularly loose 3.6 million people per year.
So that would mean that 3.8 million become eligible each year and 3.6 million either quit or die. so it would seem that an extra 30k per month loss (360k per year potential) out of the potential new gain of 200k could be significant.
Report comment to moderator
The federal government will be monitoring doctors on how well they utilize end-of-life discussions and gives wide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Is it unreasonable to wonder, since the bill is aimed at cutting costs, that part of the judgment of doctors’ performance will include how successfully they are in reducing end-of-life expenditures?
Physician’s Quality Reporting Initiative – Sec. 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act…is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
IN GENERAL-For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.
With government dictating the terms, we have no recourse.
Private insurers, including the non-profits will, eventually go out of business as they can’t compete with a government deending on our taxes to keep the entitlement afloat.
Report comment to moderator
I would agree with Mommy and NJL many times over about the difference between a liberal and his money and a conservative and his money (or her). There is no comparison…..BHO made over $3 million in 2008 and his charitable giving was just under $10,000 which is .3% of his income. So saying that conservatives and Christians are not concerned about the poor is totally false….most of a Christian’s giving goes to support the poor in their community and I know of many people who selflessly give to make sure that people in poorer communities don’t go without, including paying for medical care for children.
What if we could all agree on a couple of things: 1) we need tort law suit reform to bring down the amounts the health industry has to spend on malpractice insurance to defend frivolent law suits. 2) we need immigration reform so that either the illegal immigrants who are here now are encouraged to become citizens or encouraged to go back to their home countries. 3) we need health “CARE” reform in the form of putting limits on pre-existing conditions and insurance companies being able to just drop a patient for no seemingly good reason (other than non-payment of premium). 4) we need to see the un-insured given a road where if they WANT to they can purchase affordable health care for what they can afford (not an entitlement program paid for by tax payers through a government program which will take a large percentage for their administrative costs especially when creating an agency from the ground up).
What we do not need is one MORE government program or agency or committee or “company”.
Start with what we need. Scrap all versions of this health care and take the time to come up with something that will work for the benefit of all.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG says: “There are only so many providers, but there are enough, and there is always the ability to train more.”
First, while there may be that ability, it won’t happen by the time a rushed-through health coverage package is implemented.
Second, have you been following the trend of medical professionals avoiding the primary care practice? There are a plethora of reasons and I would suspect that tons of gov’t paperwork would be one more reason to add to the list.
Report comment to moderator
“there are “usual and customary” prices for various standard services that insurers use to determine how much they’ll pay.”
The market will no longer be able to establish those “usual and customary prices” for standard services once government has crowded private insurance out of the marketplace by establishing its own public option funded at taxpayer expense that hide the true costs. The government does not create any wealth from which to pay its bills. It is our money that we earned that government expropriates for its uses. If it doesn’t tax it directly, it devalues our wealth by printing more currency. Either way, private insurance can’t compete with a government option. When the government option gobbles up the health insurance market, their is no longer any effective standard for determing accurate costs.
Living wills and end of life treatment directives should be discussed with lawyers, not doctors, and especially not government beaurocrats with a vested monetary interest in our early exits. Such legal advice is readily available now and there is no need for the heavy hand of the federal government to squeeze out liberty.
Report comment to moderator
I quit AARP when they opposed the option of individual savings accounts for my children & grandchildren…and never looked back…just another liberal lobbying group.
Report comment to moderator
#36 JJF: So it’s not working for you because your insurance company won’t pay for a few shots.
I think I see the problem. I think it’s called “unreasonable expectations.”
Part of what is wrong with the public’s expectations for insurance companies is that they don’t want to accept that routine health care should be paid for out of pocket.
My dealership won’t change my oil, top off my coolant, window washer, power steering and brake fluid. They don’t fill my car with gas, wash it when it gets dirty, maintain my tire pressure or vacuum my interior. And guess what, Geico won’t do it either.
As for your friends, their situation is a bit different. My suggestions #36 would go a long way to making them qualified to get better health care and insurance.
If you are annoyed by your insurance company, walk away from it. You haven’t? I’m not surprised. Most of the surveys and polls taken prove that the solid majority of Americans are satisfied with their present coverage.
I don’t want to see a total overhaul so that everyone can have their vaccinations for free.
Report comment to moderator
Following up Metanoia at 61, the reform we need is reform of the employer based system. I buy insurance through my employer that includes a lot of coverages I never have the opportunity to bargain for. So I get a pre-paid health care plan full of stuff I’ll never want or need, or if I do, I would be willing to pay for it myself. Keep the states from telling insurance companies what they must include in their plans, and let me buy the coverage I want, directly from the insurer, for whatever price I can negotiate.
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone say that our current healthcare system is without errors? At least you can sue someone if something goes wrong.
Malpractice insurance is enormous? This in itself is enough to raise prices on healthcare. People can sue for anything. There are plenty of needy lawyers out there who will take the case. Not saying you should sue, just saying you shouldn’t have to pay costs if docs mess up. Happens a lot.
Will happen more when we get what we pay for. No lawsuits allowed in gov’t healthcare. And don’t expect the doctor to say he messed up. Could be a penalty? Hospitals don’t want you back for same problem. Penalty on them.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, hey, hey….Ken, RKG, Metanoia and 3545….you are going to have to stop this now…..you guys are actually thinking for yourself and you actually think that YOU can make a better decision about what you need in health care than our Federal government? I mean you are proposing the end of the world…you are literally saying that you, a non-beauracratically elected citizen, could make better decisions about your health care if the government would just get their mitts off?
Not going to happen….the government is here to take care of us.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe they should lump all the TAXES under one heading. Then you only get to retire if you are unable to work. At that point you get an appointment with THE COMMITTEE that lets you know what’s next. That should take care of Social Security. That could work.
How many companies will allow you to work until you are 75? Isn’t that the current SS draw age being looked at for the future. You can “retire” you just can’t draw any money. You might start thinking about having children who will take of you in your old age.
Did they have homeless people living on the street in Nazi Germany?
Report comment to moderator
3545
I don’t understand the thing you said about AARP and kids not having savings accounts. Was it control of any bank? And why did they oppose it?
Report comment to moderator
You’re right NEWS2ME, I should have specified HSAs – Health Savings Accounts. It’s been a long day.
Report comment to moderator
AARP probably loses members when they find out their name and addresses are sold. Also, AARP fills mailboxes with garbage.
I joined because I didn’t know any better. It’s what everyone did. I quit shortly after. I figured out that they didn’t really offer me anything. You can’t even get a meal at senior citizen prices. Most restaurants use the age that the government uses.
They used my money for their political preferences. And their choices were not what I wanted my money supporting.
I still get garbage from them. My husband never became a member.
Where do they get our names from? We aren’t “retirement” age.
Report comment to moderator
Good question, NEWS, I was 55 when it targeted me and I understand it goes after even younger ones now to increase their membership. How did the White House get the email addresses of people who never signed up for their propaganda? Lots of plausible explanations for that in this free-wheeling internet era – eh?
Report comment to moderator
#53, you’re correct. I was wrong. You didn’t say “peep”. You used THESE exact words from the WV Thread on 8-12.
We DON’T have the AARP jumping in to accept this plan. If it were good for seniors, they’d be in there fighting for it. They are not. You haven’t heard a squeak from them.
This was disproved 7 days ago by the clear evidence presented. Also, in this thread YOU brought up AARP. You said that the didn’t make a squeak. AGAIN today, Ms. Chapman clearly says AARP’s support for healthcare reform . . . You don’t need to be disingenuous about being wrong. When you’re wrong you’re wrong. It helps you to admit it and to lose the Jezebel Spirit.
Report comment to moderator
The AARP is smart to throw that 60,000 under the bus. Far more than that number will be grateful to an organization that promotes reform. If R’s shoot down Obamacare, Medicare is next, folks! They’ll claim a mandate to end socialism. The public sector is to the AARP as gun control is to the NRA: reason to exist.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, finally a health care thread that I can actually read without rolling my eyes and feeling depressed. Throwing around invective, hyperbole, and paranoia never helps anything. Still too much of that in this thread, but for the reasonable discussion, thanks RKG, Metanioa, Mommy (and SteveG, and others).
Report comment to moderator
I doubt that AARP cares that they lost the 60,000. Most of the members don’t care or are oblivious to the politics of the organization – thinking they must be getting some benefit.
I remember one time we went to a motel with my mother-in-law where the price we were quoted over the net was, according to the person at the front desk, supposed to be for only AARP members. I told him that we wouldn’t ever join because of it’s ultra liberal political agenda and went back to the car and began talking to my wife and her mom. The motel clerk quickly came out and said that we would be able to get the rate we were quoted.
Report comment to moderator
What is the Free-Market Approach to Health Care Reform?
Here is what we should be pursuing.
Report comment to moderator
A few shots that will cost us $200 without insurance. And given that we specifically chose (and pay for) a plan that (supposedly) covers child wellness and vaccinations, I don’t think my expectation unreasonable at all.
And notice that if we had gotten these shots when she was 5, the insurance company would have covered them. Because she’s 6, they won’t. We had no way of knowing that when we chose her vaccination schedule. Therein lies my point — they can have all kinds of hidden rules and provisos to deny us coverage whenever they can. And health insurance companies in general do it
All. The. Time.
My other example of being screwed by my insurance company is more egregious, more expensive, but far more personal, so I have no desire to divulge it in this rather cantankerous debate.
I haven’t left my insurance company because changing plans now would incur premiums 3 and 4 times higher. Not at all because I am satisfied, but simply because I cannot afford other options.
Let me be clear about how much I hate my insurance company. If a public option were available, I would pay to get into it, up to twice what I currently pay, just for the peace of mind I’d gain in knowing that it wasn’t run by people who profit by denying me care.
Report comment to moderator
Too bad the Republicans didn’t pursue it in the 15 years they controlled the Congress after defeating HillaryCare. Then we’d have had time to see if those principles might work. But instead they promised the same thing they’re promising now — “look, we all want reform, but it has to be the right reform. We’ll kill this and then come up with something better.” And then nothing.
We did get a couple kick-a** wars though, right?
I certainly see no reason to believe the “trust us we’ve got something better in mind” Republicans again.
Report comment to moderator
JJF….me too…..stupid Republicans….let’s keep the Democrats in office for the rest of our lives….yeah.
Which fortunately with the introduction of government health care will be a much shorter period of time than if we let the private sector figure this out. I think that with the Democrats in power forever we will have a utopia in America. Never again will we go to war….bad, bad wars – bad, bad Republicans for causing those wars. Never again will we have to worry about taxes and paying too much….we will all work for the government and they will get their tax money to pay us from ….from…from…..oh heck why worry about money when everything will be free and handed to us by the Democrats.
America is going to be so awesome when we are ruled by the Democrats forever….we will have our first openly gay admiral who will then request that we get rid of that filthy gray color and paint the ship all pink. The utopia we will live in….it will be awesome and so freeing and so wonderful.
Little butterflies and birdies and other animals will live freely and we will never worry about them being killed again because nobody but top government officials and their body guards will be allowed to have guns.
We won’t have any criminals because we will all love each other and life will be just grand.
That’s right…..DEMOCRATS FOREVER….UTOPIA LIVES!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Do you know how to do anything other than rant?
Report comment to moderator
Too bad the Republicans didn’t pursue it in the 15 years they controlled the Congress after defeating HillaryCare. Then we’d have had time to see if those principles might work. But instead they promised the same thing they’re promising now — “look, we all want reform, but it has to be the right reform. We’ll kill this and then come up with something better.” And then nothing.
That’s true enough. Health care was way too far back on their list of priorities.
Did you see the organization behind that link? The libertarian Cato Institute – hardly a partisan Republican group. The type of reforms enacted under Bush – NCLB, and the pharmaceutical (sp?) bill – were hardly libertarian in nature. When the Bush admin did push for a libertarian reform – partial privatization of Social Security – it was defeated; not even the GOP united in support for the reform. This was probably due partly to poor handling of the effort by the White House, and more to Democratic and media scare tactics about the reform.
The GOP overall was not promoting libertarianism under Bush; rather it was promoting a big-government version of “compassionate conservatism.” This was a mistake. But that is not what the CATO Institute was promoting.
Report comment to moderator
JJF:
I don’t think I was clear. Let me restate it.
I think I see the problem. I think it’s called “unreasonable expectations.”
Part of what is wrong with the public’s expectations for insurance companies is that they don’t want to accept that routine health care should be paid for out of pocket.
My dealership won’t change my oil, top off my coolant, window washer, power steering and brake fluid. They don’t fill my car with gas, wash it when it gets dirty, maintain my tire pressure or vacuum my interior. And guess what, GEICO won’t do it either.
You don’t want to divulge your personal issues and I can appreciate that. But I bet I can easily top your “debacle” with my personal testimony of dealing with insurance companies (hint, I have personally paid almost $100,000 in the past 3 years in health care costs, mostly for my wife, apart from almost $1,000 per month premiums that my employer picks up). The difference between you and me seems to be:
“unreasonable expectations.”
Reform is needed, but not the kind that is being proposed.
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia, do you and you wife have insurance? Did you have an extra $33K a year hanging around to pay or did you have to beg and borrow to take care of it? Sounds tough, but you might have had it a little better than others that I know. Do you think that if you can’t afford the healthcare that you should just grin an bear it and wait to die? Just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
Scott:
I have shared bits and pieces of my situation over the past couple of years on WMB. I’ll give you a nutshell.
My earlier comment stated that my employer pays almost $1000 per month for health coverage.
No begging or borrowing. Over the past 26 years I have purchased and sold two homes to cash in on the equity to pay for my wife’s medical care.
I have always had a modest income (by just about anybody’s standard) for my labor in the Christian ministry. We have saved as much as we could, given as much as we could, and spent very carefully.
We have gone through periods of not being insured. My wife’s accident was during one of those periods and as such made it impossible for us to get insurance until we became part of a group. Our biggest medical expenses over the past 3 years have come from our pain specialist using a treatment scenario that is not approved by the FDA but has brought her some much needed relief. All of the expenses are out of pocket.
During those times of not being insured, we judiciously consulted with doctors, negotiated with them for payment for their services, researched the best and cheapest medications we could use for her treatment and although we often had “tough” times financially, we survived and thrived.
Do you think that if you can’t afford the healthcare that you should just grin an bear it and wait to die?
Your scenario is hyperbole for most cases. We live in America and everyone has access to some level of health care. No one will be denied. And despite our wonderful world of medicine, not everything is curable, or treatable and sooner or later with or without “health care” we will, in your words “bear it and wait to die.” Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a believer.
When our children had accidents or illnesses that required emergency room care, we bit the bullet and tightened our belts and “miraculously” we somehow got through.
The Constitution guarantees me the right to “the pursuit of happiness” but not happiness itself. Happiness can be elusive, but contentment can be learned.
Hard work, personal responsibility, using the good head God put on your shoulders, loving family, and simple faith in God is a good formula for making it. We have taught our children these simple principles by precept and example.
Report comment to moderator
But SteveG my friend, my comrade….that wasn’t a rant…..that was me coming over to your side of thinking. I love you and JJF and Arcadia and Musing….you enlighten me with your love and your knowledge and I just want to be like you. I want the Democratic party to be in power forever so we can live in a utopia. Never again will we have this debate.
How could you possibly call that a rant? Aren’t you supposed to praise me or throw me a bone or something. After all I am just like you now.
Stupid Republican pigs.
Report comment to moderator
Oh and I forgot all hail Lord Obama and Princess Pelosi and Prince Reid….our sovreign rulers…may they live forever and have free botox treatments fovever.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks METANOIA. I don’t really think it’s hyperbole when 47 million fellow Americans are uninsured. Are they all just stupid? Are they all not taught correctly? And even if they are stupid or not taught correctly, does that mean we shouldn’t treat them? It’s an interesting point you make though. Do you REALLY think that people don’t die because they don’t get treatment that they cannot afford? They do die. I can find you some statistics if you need me to find them for you. They sit and wait to die. Some of them I know personally. Isn’t it in our best interesting to try to keep our population healthy?
Report comment to moderator
With all due respect Scott: I didn’t say most of what you think I said. Let’s start with 47 million uninsured Americans. The surveys show that the number of uninsured Americans who “can’t” get insurance is actually about 10-12 million. Lots of young people who choose not too (they feel invincible in their youth), lots who choose to opt out of employer provided insurance because they don’t want to pay their portion, and lots that are temporarily uninsured because of layoff or between jobs.
I did not say they shouldn’t be treated, access to minimum (but often heroic measaures of) health care is available to all who live in America, legally or illegally.
People die, period. Some tragically, some because of lifestyle choices, some because they didn’t get to the hospital in time (and they did have health insurance) and some (not as many as you may have been lead to believe) because they “didn’t” have access to health care.
Isn’t it in our best interesting to try to keep our population healthy?
Access to health care does not necessarily keep people healthy as testified to by the numerous people who unnecessarily contract diabetes and heart disease due to obesity.
Uninsured people is an issue that has a stiff emotional component to it. But decisions made out of emotion are often wrong. A more reasonable and rational approach needs to be taken. There is reform needed, but not the kind that is being suggested and pushed by this administration.
Report comment to moderator
You really honestly think that health care is a valid option for those 47 million people and they just don’t take advantage of it? Really? That doesn’t even make sense. They take themselves out of it because they can’t afford it.
The cost of “free” healthcare for the indigent comes from somewhere, right? Don’t we already pay for it?
If you really don’t think that people die because they cannot afford treatment, perhaps you should take some time to come to the big city and see the underbelly. See the working class folks at Walmart who have to pick up food from a food bank before heading home. See the veterans living in the streets (not all of them get VA benefits). See people from all walks of life who simply can’t afford healthcare for their children. See some of those 47 million people and you can tell one of them NO, sorry, you have to go it alone directly to their faces. I can’t do it.
By the way, that 47 million is only those under 65 years of age.
Report comment to moderator
Forget hyperbole. Repetition of the 47-million figure on Scott’s part betrays an unseriousness about the issue that borders on self-parody. Because somehow if you’ve got problems with the current plans wending their way through the legislative process, your moral inferiority is obvious? Your lack of concern for folks in hard circumstances is demonstrable? Perhaps to someone who traffics in simplisms, but probably not to the grownups on either the left or right side of the adult table.
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia: Access to health care does not necessarily keep people healthy as testified to by the numerous people who unnecessarily contract diabetes and heart disease due to obesity.
Obesity itself is a disease. Contrary to popular belief, serious obesity has nothing to do with simple laziness or poor eating habits.
The people who eat too much high-calorie food and don’t get any exerise will, if they’re otherwise normal, put on 10 or 20 extra pounds in their middle years. People who are 50 or 100 or more pounds overweight are not just slobs. (Peter L’s opinion nonwithstanding.)
I recommend you read Gina Kolata’s books Ultimate Fitness and Rethinking Thin. She marshals a great deal of research done over the past several decades and makes a very good case that for people with actual obesity, no diet or exercise regimen in the world is going to help much.
A severely calorie-restricted diet can take the weight off, but the person’s metabolism drops to starvation levels, so the the body is burning calories very slowly. As soon as the person returns to normal eating — not over eating, just a normal diet — the weight comes right back.
And exercise also does not burn enough calories to make a difference. It’s good for the cardiovascular system and musculature, but it does not help burn off any significant extra energy. Even that old myth about “turning fat to muscle” and thereby burning off more calories because muscle burns more is not helpful — the difference between what a pound of fat and a pound of muscle burns is four calories per day. If you could lose ten pounds of fat and gain ten pounds of muscle, which would take a herculean effort and several months, congratulations, you can now eat 40 calories a day more than before.
For this reason, the only really effective weight loss method for most significantly overweight people is the stomach-reduction surgery, which makes the calorie restriction permanent. But that is, guess what, far too expensive for someone without really good insurance or great personal wealth to afford.
(This is something I struggle with myself, so I have a vested interest in the information. After about 30 years of trying to lose the excess weight with no lasting success, I can attest it has nothing to do with simple bad habits.)
Report comment to moderator
For anybody who’s interested, now that I got myself started in the post above … Kolata describes one study in which the researchers took naturally thin people and had them eat enormous calorie loads, up to 10,000 a day, to gain weight. They did, although not as much as expected. They also took a group of obese people and put them on severe calorie restriction to get them down to weights comparable to the first group.
Both groups had similar metabolic rates at their starting weights. Their bodies burned calories at the needed rate to maintain their weight, whether thin or fat. After the dietary regimes, they all weighed similar amounts, looked like one group of people .. but the formerly thin people were burning calories at a furious rate as their bodies fought to get them back down to their thinner weights, while the formerly fat people were barely burning calories at all, as their bodies went into starvation mode to return them to their heavier weights.
There’s a lot more going on here than bad habits.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
And the disease of obesity is now pandemic?
Report comment to moderator
You really honestly think that health care is a valid option for those 47 million people and they just don’t take advantage of it? Really? That doesn’t even make sense. They take themselves out of it because they can’t afford it.
Scott: With all due respect, you did it again. You said something that I didn’t say. I questioned the 47 million figure based on a number of studies, articles and just plain common sense.
Go here: http://trusted.md/feed/items/system/2008/01/07/more_clarity_to_the_47_million_uninsured_number
and here:http://www.jlbghealth.com/blog/archives/68-Washington-Times-Opinion-Edition-Examines-Five-Health-Care-Myths.html
as samples of dozens of articles deploring the 47 million figure.
If you really don’t think that people die because they cannot afford treatment, perhaps you should take some time to come to the big city and see the underbelly.
Never said people didn’t die because they can’t afford treatment. I said that using that approach is hyperbolic as it suggests a norm rather than an exception.
I’ve spent my entire life in the “big city” 50+ years in Chicago (not the suburbs. I lived in one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the city. The local public elementary school had over 45 English as a second language demo groups represented). I currently live in a city of almost 900,000.
I have seen poverty up close and personal as I grew up in it. That’s why I chose to do ministry in that environment because I have seen the systemic evil and problems and government can’t and hasn’t been able to put a dent in it beginning with the “War on Poverty (LBJ) and the attempt to takeover health care by PresBO.
I don’t think you really want to go there.
As for people from all walks of life who simply can’t afford healthcare for their children. There are a number of programs to protect children who don’t have heath care coverage and many are not signed up for it.
It seems that pro-Obama health care folks have been hypnotized from the real facts and are willing to follow the piper over the cliff.
You and I are in agreement on this. Reform is needed. Where we differ is that the kind of reform that is being proposed is not the right kind of reform.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G: Obesity is a disease. Sorry, I don’t buy it. Obesity causes disease.
Yes there are metabolic problems that manifest themselves in a small percentage of the population. But the scale is clear (pardon the pun). The relative wealth, availability of food, sedentary lifestyles and lack of self-control are still the primary reasons for obesity.
Every person I know who has had a stomach staple, clamp or reduction lost tons of weight. Because they couldn’t eat a gazillion calories. Eventually, because they were so miserable on such restricted diets, every last one of them became grazers. The ate 100 calories at a time, all day long. Their caloric intake didn’t change much. As a result, they slowly gained most of their weight back.
Moderation in all things is needed. Smaller portions, more chewing, physical activity and staying away from high calorie junk food works for the vast majority as a prevention against the “disease.”
Report comment to moderator
Every person I know who has had a stomach staple, clamp or reduction lost tons of weight. Because they couldn’t eat a gazillion calories. Eventually, because they were so miserable on such restricted diets, every last one of them became grazers. The ate 100 calories at a time, all day long. Their caloric intake didn’t change much. As a result, they slowly gained most of their weight back.
You should read my messages again, and the books I recommended.
Yes, I will grant you, if a person with no stomach surgery could, through sheer willpower, limit themselves to 800 or so calories a day, they could maintain weight loss. But that is not sustainable for anybody.
There are very real differences in the body chemistry of people who tend toward leanness and people who tend toward fat. Lifestyles can make a difference of 20 or 30 or 40 pounds. If we’re talking about 75 or 100 pounds, or more, we’re no longer talking about habits and self-control.
This is has been established beyond any real doubt (Kolata details the many studies that have confirmed it), even though it’s not common knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
No offense SteveG, but if this was the silver bullet of obesity it would be “common knowledge.”
I stand by my position. The overwhelming scientific community understands that moderation in eating and physical activity will result in a healthy weight and life for the vast majority of people. Those with true metabolism and thyroid problems are the exception. I don’t thing that we have that many people with metabolism problems in America.
Report comment to moderator
OK well, I’m not going to argue about it. Just one more point:
I stand by my position. The overwhelming scientific community understands that moderation in eating and physical activity will result in a healthy weigh
For normal people, this is true. For the person who’s been thin all his or her life until middle age and a sedentary job put 25 pounds on, this is true.
For the person who has been 100 pounds overweight since age 25 and struggled with 40 or 50 extra pounds even as a teenager, and whose diet and exercise habits are NOT all that different from everybody else’s, it’s not true.
But that’s all I’ll say. Read the books if you’re seriously interested, they’re written by a veteran science journalist who knows how to interpret and report research. Or continue blaming the victim. I don’t really care.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
The ‘disease’ of obesity must have mutated – that’s why it is pandemic now.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!