• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AARP loses members over health care stance

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.com

About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.

The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.
One of the largest voting blocs in the nation is doing a bit of early voting with their feet on GovernmentCare. They don't want it.

This country is making one message loud and clear--these health care "reform" efforts are not what the people want.

So why is the majority party ignoring the people who elected them?
 
AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.com


One of the largest voting blocs in the nation is doing a bit of early voting with their feet on GovernmentCare. They don't want it.

This country is making one message loud and clear--these health care "reform" efforts are not what the people want.

So why is the majority party ignoring the people who elected them?

So you are saying that the majority of seniors don't want "GovernmentCare". That's great. Looks like we all have a large tax cut coming as soon as we get all these seniors off their Medicare "GovernmentCare" and their Social Security "GovernmentCare" and of course lets not forget about those that are on Disability "GovernmentCare".

It looks as though the conservative movement feels like they have hypocrisy nailed down on the moral issues so they are moving on to government programs.
 
So you are saying that the majority of seniors don't want "GovernmentCare". That's great. Looks like we all have a large tax cut coming as soon as we get all these seniors off their Medicare "GovernmentCare" and their Social Security "GovernmentCare" and of course lets not forget about those that are on Disability "GovernmentCare".

It looks as though the conservative movement feels like they have hypocrisy nailed down on the moral issues so they are moving on to government programs.

Somebody sounds bitter.

I remember not that long ago, how Libbos were going on and on and on about how the republican party was dead; America, in one voice rejected the Republicans and Conservatism; that people were leaving the Republican party and becoming born again Democrats. Anyone else remember that? In just a couple of weeks, this failed and irrelevant political movement has shaken the Dems to their very core; caused them to fear the American people; caused them to turn their back on their flagship legislation. All that by an insignificant political party.
 
Somebody sounds bitter.

I remember not that long ago, how Libbos were going on and on and on about how the republican party was dead; America, in one voice rejected the Republicans and Conservatism; that people were leaving the Republican party and becoming born again Democrats. Anyone else remember that? In just a couple of weeks, this failed and irrelevant political movement has shaken the Dems to their very core; caused them to fear the American people; caused them to turn their back on their flagship legislation. All that by an insignificant political party.

Not bitter, just pointing out the hypocrisy here. If you are on socialized medicine, and at the same time screaming about how you want the government to "stay out of your Medicare", then you are either stupid or a hypocrite (which is pretty much the Republican Party's target demographic these days).
 
Not bitter, just pointing out the hypocrisy here. If you are on socialized medicine, and at the same time screaming about how you want the government to "stay out of your Medicare", then you are either stupid or a hypocrite (which is pretty much the Republican Party's target demographic these days).

Section 1233 did the bill in, as far as the seniors go, IMO. But, it's dishonest to day that all seniors are on medicare.
 
Section 1233 did the bill in, as far as the seniors go, IMO. But, it's dishonest to day that all seniors are on medicare.

What are you talking about? At least 95% of seniors over the age of 65 are on Medicare. It is the single largest socialized medicine program on earth.
 
What are you talking about? At least 95% of seniors over the age of 65 are on Medicare. It is the single largest socialized medicine program on earth.

The ones that are on it say it's broken, too. Why would they support ane ven bigger government insurance plan?
 
The ones that are on it say it's broken, too. Why would they support ane ven bigger government insurance plan?

You are wrong again.

Medicare has higher satisfaction rates among its beneficiaries than any private insurer does.

68% of Medicare recipients are satisfied with the program while just 48% of those on private insurance are satisfied with their insurance company.

National Journal Online - Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance?

Instead of just spouting off constant inaccuracies, why don't you bother informing yourself rather than arguing from ignorance. Seniors love their Medicare, they are scared to death someone will touch it.
 
AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.com


One of the largest voting blocs in the nation is doing a bit of early voting with their feet on GovernmentCare. They don't want it.

This country is making one message loud and clear--these health care "reform" efforts are not what the people want.

So why is the majority party ignoring the people who elected them?

What do you mean they don't want government care? They already have it, Medicade and Medicare. They don't want others to have it. They're worried about their government care going down if everyone got it.
 
Not bitter, just pointing out the hypocrisy here. If you are on socialized medicine, and at the same time screaming about how you want the government to "stay out of your Medicare", then you are either stupid or a hypocrite (which is pretty much the Republican Party's target demographic these days).
Yep -- you're bitter.
 
Not bitter, just pointing out the hypocrisy here. If you are on socialized medicine, and at the same time screaming about how you want the government to "stay out of your Medicare", then you are either stupid or a hypocrite (which is pretty much the Republican Party's target demographic these days).

The old folks think the younger ones are gonna decide it's cost effective to take 'em out rather than pay for their hip replacements and what not.
 
The old folks think the younger ones are gonna decide it's cost effective to take 'em out rather than pay for their hip replacements and what not.

Hmmm....that does work in favor of my "kill all humans and human sympathizers" policy.
 
The old folks think the younger ones are gonna decide it's cost effective to take 'em out rather than pay for their hip replacements and what not.

That goes to show how effective scare tactics are. I am against the health care overhaul, but I am also against the lies that are being spread that are scaring the bejesus out of seniors. There is a good way to argue the issue, and it's also honest. That is the cost.
 
Actually medicare works pretty well. It's accepted most anywhere. The insured rarely ever has to get involved in billing, etc.
Eh, not really. The government only parts of Medicare are truly ****, that's parts A & B, the private options(supplementals) work very well but can get quite pricey, depending on the companies.
 
Eh, not really. The government only parts of Medicare are truly ****, that's parts A & B, the private options(supplementals) work very well but can get quite pricey, depending on the companies.

Truly crap compared to what? For doctors medicare sucks because it doesn't pay well. But the same is true for many HMOs.

For patients medicare is pretty decent. This is especially true when compared to other HMOs.

There's no "primary care dr." that a patient must see for everything.
There's no list of drs. that are ok.
There's no referrals needed for specialists.
There's no deductible.
It pays 80% I think on drs. visits.

That's pretty decent insurance.
 
Not bitter, just pointing out the hypocrisy here.
Except that these seniors had to pay into that system if they worked, they funded this thing even though the government wasted their contribution, we are now paying their way, but they did everything right, what you are calling hypocrisy is completely incorrect, under a UHC some of us will be paying for everyone's care, whether they contribute or not and will in fact have our own care rationed like everyone else. The difference is these seniors contributed, otherwise they wouldn't be in part A of Medicare and guess what, they have to pay a monthly premium for part B, sound socialized to you?
If you are on socialized medicine, and at the same time screaming about how you want the government to "stay out of your Medicare", then you are either stupid or a hypocrite (which is pretty much the Republican Party's target demographic these days).
So what does that say about someone who, to make a talking point better fit their argument, doesn't differentiate between a contributory system with very specific requirements for activation versus a UHC where everyone simply is in the system ?
 
Actually medicare works pretty well. It's accepted most anywhere. The insured rarely ever has to get involved in billing, etc.

It's a broken system and sucks, should be done away with along with sweeping reforms that take the crap out of the way and let doctors and patients be the prime points of costs and care.

Any ANY TIME you have a "Guaranteed" government coverage for a service, that service is going to cost more, is going to be filled with fraud, waste and abuse.

By Craig C. Callewart, MD
Orthopedic Spinal Surgeon
Baylor University Medical Center

"You broke your neck, you’re going to live, but it’s likely you’ll have some problems." Several times a week, I say this to patients while I’m taking emergency room trauma call.

Unfortunately, I must add, "I am no longer a Medicare provider," when the trauma victim is a Medicare beneficiary. "I’m covered to provide service to you during this initial hospitalization. After that, you must pay me directly without using your Medicare Part B insurance, or try to find another physician to care for you." It is unlikely that another physician will take such a high-risk case.

This horrid situation occurs because of the unimaginable economics.

Medicare currently pays a physician such as me $232 to manage this patient and his broken neck - not just during the hospital visit, but for the subsequent 90 days. That is less than $3 a day! Never mind that this type of case is the highest malpractice litigation risk for any human condition. When one realizes that it costs me more than $3,500 a day to run a surgical office, no one can argue that the economics are quite skewed.

And the crisis is worsening. Half of Dallas physicians will not see any Medicare patients or new Medicare patients. This percentage is predicted to grow to 70 percent if the next round of Medicare cuts begins. Physicians already have endured a multitude of fee cuts in the past 10 years, with the actual real dollar payments being 15 percent below 1995 levels (MEI data).
Medicare Broken
The clock is running out for Congress to address a double-digit pay cut to physicians who care for Medicare patients. The 10.6-percent cuts will slice into the program July 1, potentially leaving many senior citizens without a doctor.

However, one piece of legislation could stop the cuts, but it needs to pass the U.S. Senate immediately. A vote is scheduled today to begin floor consideration of Senate Bill 3101, the "Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act," introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT). The bill would halt the pay cuts. The Texas Medical Association (TMA) and Texas physicians believe the reprieve will protect patients while buying time to develop a rational, long-term solution.

If not, Medicare cuts will squeeze more doctors out of the program, so many patients will face greater difficulty finding a physician to care for them, according to the most recent TMA physician survey. Only 58 percent of Texas physicians surveyed said they accept all new Medicare patients. If the problem does not get fixed, more than 42 percent of Texas doctors would consider opting out of the Medicare program altogether.
Physicians To Congress: Fix Broken, Unfair Medicare System Now

Nothing is more annoying then people blindly saying something like Medicare works well cause... they HAVEN'T DONE THEIR HOMEWORK.

It doesn't work, it's a bloated, expensive WASTE that more often then not, hurts us all.

GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF COVERING FOR HEALTHCARE.
 
Truly crap compared to what? For doctors medicare sucks because it doesn't pay well. But the same is true for many HMOs.
HMO's suck, they shouldn't even be legal, but they were created in the 70's by government legislation.....Ted Kennedy authored the bill that allowed them to exist(surprise surprise), but Medicare has a very specific pay schedule, so if you are a senior in bad health you are in potential financial crisis, Medicare pays dependent on days hospitalized and there isn't a lot of leeway, along with the fact that some doctors either quota out Medicare patients or have left the system, options aren't superior.

For patients medicare is pretty decent. This is especially true when compared to other HMOs.
Got ahead of myself, but the above is pretty accurate for this as well.
There's no "primary care dr." that a patient must see for everything.
true
There's no list of drs. that are ok.
As long as they agree to be in the system, however people could lose their long trusted physician simply by retiring and letting their private coverage lapse.
There's no referrals needed for specialists.
Not exactly, there are non-approved surgeries and some limits.
There's no deductible.
And there are also areas of no-coverage, there are time limits, and there is some out of pocket.
It pays 80% I think on drs. visits.
I don't remember, will have to look at my rate sheets again.

That's pretty decent insurance.
No, it really isn't, I actually know some people who stay working simply to keep their private insurance, Medicare has some really big pitfalls.
 
So you are saying that the majority of seniors don't want "GovernmentCare". That's great. Looks like we all have a large tax cut coming as soon as we get all these seniors off their Medicare "GovernmentCare" and their Social Security "GovernmentCare" and of course lets not forget about those that are on Disability "GovernmentCare".

It looks as though the conservative movement feels like they have hypocrisy nailed down on the moral issues so they are moving on to government programs.

I hope they are cut and cut deep considering Medicare has done practically nothing to increase the life expectancy of elderly people and has only increased medical inflation.

I welcome its demise with open arms.
 
So you are saying that the majority of seniors don't want "GovernmentCare". That's great. Looks like we all have a large tax cut coming as soon as we get all these seniors off their Medicare "GovernmentCare" and their Social Security "GovernmentCare" and of course lets not forget about those that are on Disability "GovernmentCare".

It looks as though the conservative movement feels like they have hypocrisy nailed down on the moral issues so they are moving on to government programs.

Ever stop to think that the seniors are happy with the way things are right now?.... like most of the people in this country?

It's going to be a blood bath in 2010. :mrgreen:
 
Except that these seniors had to pay into that system if they worked, they funded this thing even though the government wasted their contribution, we are now paying their way, but they did everything right, what you are calling hypocrisy is completely incorrect, under a UHC some of us will be paying for everyone's care, whether they contribute or not and will in fact have our own care rationed like everyone else. The difference is these seniors contributed, otherwise they wouldn't be in part A of Medicare and guess what, they have to pay a monthly premium for part B, sound socialized to you? So what does that say about someone who, to make a talking point better fit their argument, doesn't differentiate between a contributory system with very specific requirements for activation versus a UHC where everyone simply is in the system ?

The money seniors paid in while they were working subsidized their parents and grandparents Medicare benefits. The majority of seniors will get far more in Medicare benefits than they ever paid in.

If you think the 96 dollars a month seniors pay for Medicare covers the plan for them then you are in a dream world. We, the workers, are subsidizing their health care. Its the very definition of socialism and any senior that would rail against socialism in one breath and demand their medicare in the next is a hypocrite.
 
Ever stop to think that the seniors are happy with the way things are right now?.... like most of the people in this country?

It's going to be a blood bath in 2010. :mrgreen:

The way things are now is they are bleeding the system dry. That's why things have to change. Unless you want a massive fica tax increase in a few years, Medicare has to be reformed.
 
The money seniors paid in while they were working subsidized their parents and grandparents Medicare benefits. The majority of seniors will get far more in Medicare benefits than they ever paid in.
I already covered that, the seniors paid in, it isn't their fault that the fund was mismanaged, and they are in fact entitled to the system by law and by promise because they followed the rules, and they also contributed to the system at some point and time.

If you think the 96 dollars a month seniors pay for Medicare covers the plan for them then you are in a dream world. We, the workers, are subsidizing their health care.
Also covered that, but we also get those benefits when we retire, not that I think it's a great deal, but it is the way it works, UHC is different in that it's an automatic entitlement that many users do not contribute to, which would make the seniors concerns and arguments both different and completely valid respectively.
Its the very definition of socialism and any senior that would rail against socialism in one breath and demand their medicare in the next is a hypocrite.
Medicare is a socialist program, I never denied that, Medicaid is the very definition of socialism in that users are not all contributory, we pay for it and don't use it, we will all have the benefit of Medicare(probably not actually) if we work for the number of quarters required and meet the criteria, that does not change the fact that if you don't work the required amount of quarters and pay taxes, you don't get into the system, unlike UHC which is an automatic entitlement, so yes, the seniors do have a valid and unhypocritical argument as they aren't complaining about the same thing.
 
The way things are now is they are bleeding the system dry. That's why things have to change. Unless you want a massive fica tax increase in a few years, Medicare has to be reformed.
Unless that reform includes alternative funding mechanisms and taking it out of the general fund then it won't be effective.
 
Back
Top Bottom