AARP loses members over health care stance

Grim17 · Aug 19, 2009

Smoke[MaxX] said:
Just thought it'd be a good time to point out that the seniors that left represented 0.15% of the AARP.

It's only the beginning pal... AARP members re-up yearly. We'll see how many they lose next month... and the next month... and the next month.

LaMidRighter · Aug 19, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
SouthernDemocrat said:

Numerous studies, some even peer reviewed, have found that health insurance administrative costs are much higher in the private sector than for Medicare.

Study Finds Billions Of Health Insurance Dollars Used For Administrative Costs

Click to expand...

From your link:

The findings suggest that about $230 billion in health care spending nationally is devoted to insurance administration.

Click to expand...

You know the difference between a blind, limited data suggestion and hard numbers right?

From this data, the team estimated

Click to expand...

They didn't put out hard data, just an estimate.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...BCSSCm8Q83LdsII0A&sig2=jpVKiiPZZTnJccaLA6SlSA

Click to expand...

According to the national health spending estimates from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)

Click to expand...

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf

Click to expand...

Again, limited data and estimates. Bring hard data.

So you are saying that a public option is not something that would be contributed to by all federal tax payers? Are you saying that most medicare recipients actually paid more in medicare taxes than they will draw out in benefits?

Click to expand...

Use the argument in it's proper context please. UHC is involuntary, whether you enroll or not you have to pay for it, which means some people will be paying for services for all and most people won't get the maximum benefit of it. Medicare is very specific in who is enrolled, so please stop trying to play obtuse on this, the fact is UHC is NON-CONTRIBUTORY in the fact that anyone can access with or witout paying, people on Medicare paid in, therefore it is CONTRIBUTORY.

So you want the federal government then to eliminate all taxes including those at the state and federal level?

Click to expand...

Just the one's they have no proper cause to levy, which is probably around 70% of them.

I just did a quick quote on eInsurance for me and my wife assuming we were 63 years old (they wont quote for 65 and over). I just did the same coverage levels that Medicare Part A and B provide in our zip code.

For the same coverage, policy rates were between $1033.56 a month to $1,555.00 a month depending on the policy.

That would be for the same level of coverage provided by Medicare Part A and B for a perfectly healthy 63 year old couple. Of course as you got older it would only go up and as soon as you had a heart attack or anything, well, forget about being able to afford coverage.

You honestly think the average senior will be able to save enough to swing that?

Click to expand...

Mkay, let me explain something, you are giving a singular example with little other data, for instance, how many quotes in the sample, what area of the country are you in, what are the mandatory coverages and how many of them are there, what is your health status, are you replacing, etc.
So there are probably reasonably priced options, but as an agent I can't answer that, and am not going to ask as that's none of my business since I don't have you as a client, as well, I can't in good conscience allow that to stand as a rock solid example of all insurances.

ALiberalModerate · Aug 19, 2009

LaMidRighter said:
Mkay, let me explain something, you are giving a singular example with little other data, for instance, how many quotes in the sample, what area of the country are you in, what are the mandatory coverages and how many of them are there, what is your health status, are you replacing, etc.
So there are probably reasonably priced options, but as an agent I can't answer that, and am not going to ask as that's none of my business since I don't have you as a client, as well, I can't in good conscience allow that to stand as a rock solid example of all insurances.

The rest of this post we are obviously not going to agree on so I am just going to focus on this last part.

It was from a pool of 87 quotes in the Kansas City area. The assumption was for a 63 year old non-smoking couple in good health. Now you know as well as me that you are not going to get equivalent coverage in the private sector to medicare for a 65 year old couple for 400 or 500 dollars a month. You might get a catastrophic only 5000 dollar deductible plan for that kind of money at that age, but that is not equivalent coverage to Medicare. You are letting your personal ideology get in the way of reason and common sense there. For that kind of coverage a 65 year old couple is looking at a grand a month at least and its only going to go up as they get older.

Smoke[MaxX] · Aug 19, 2009

Grim17 said:
It's only the beginning pal... AARP members re-up yearly. We'll see how many they lose next month... and the next month... and the next month.

K. At this rate, it'll take oh... around 7 months for it to reach one percent? *Yawn* let me know when 1% represents the majority of members of a particular group. And in addition, as bad as it to say, how many members of the AARP are dying every month of natural causes? Heck they might represent a larger percentage of the AARP than the subset that's leaving.

JimboJ · Aug 19, 2009

Goobieman said:
There's no more an insurance monopoy as there is a auto-maker monopoly.

Companies are always responsible to their stockholders, for tunring a profit.
That's why they exist.

Here is a pretty good overview of the competition in US health insurance markets: Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, 2007 Update (PDF)

Seeing a market share of 50 to 90 percent in many markets seems pretty concentrated to me. I didn't look up automaker market shares, but I can't imagine that one would see the same levels of concentration. Also the number of insurance providers seems to be quite small for most markets. Companies are certainly responsible to their stockholders. But monopolistic power does cause inefficiencies.

LaMidRighter · Aug 20, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
The rest of this post we are obviously not going to agree on so I am just going to focus on this last part.

It was from a pool of 87 quotes in the Kansas City area. The assumption was for a 63 year old non-smoking couple in good health. Now you know as well as me that you are not going to get equivalent coverage in the private sector to medicare for a 65 year old couple for 400 or 500 dollars a month. You might get a catastrophic only 5000 dollar deductible plan for that kind of money at that age, but that is not equivalent coverage to Medicare. You are letting your personal ideology get in the way of reason and common sense there. For that kind of coverage a 65 year old couple is looking at a grand a month at least and its only going to go up as they get older.

It isn't ideology, I am an agent and have seen the numbers, Medicare has some good coverage, but there are some good private plans that cover as well or better, the problem with Medicare is it has a lot of gaps, it is terrific if you are in decent health, but unless that is the case and you can find a good supplemental, your chances of a financial problem on Medicare are good, whereas the private plans would cover that area well, the biggest consideration is, at that age, why someone wouldn't have some kind of coverage to begin with, insurability isn't some kind of gray area thing, it is a process that takes place over a lifetime, so I don't buy it outright, though I will concede that you Have done some good groundwork for this particular point.

Gill · Aug 20, 2009

Smoke[MaxX] said:
K. At this rate, it'll take oh... around 7 months for it to reach one percent? *Yawn* let me know when 1% represents the majority of members of a particular group. And in addition, as bad as it to say, how many members of the AARP are dying every month of natural causes? Heck they might represent a larger percentage of the AARP than the subset that's leaving.

If you were the president of AARP, would you be more concerned that an average of 60,000 members died each month, or that 60,000 members each month were fed up with the organizations policies and quit??

We both know the answer to that don't we?

liblady · Aug 20, 2009

obama was elected on the promise of healthcare reform, in part. and it's pretty funny that medicare (gov't program) recipients are worried about cuts........quite hypocritical.

Gill · Aug 20, 2009

liblady said:
obama was elected on the promise of healthcare reform, in part. and it's pretty funny that medicare (gov't program) recipients are worried about cuts........quite hypocritical.

How can that possibly be hypocritical???

Did he announce during his campaign that he was going to cut medicare?

They are against his health care reforms because they know that health care will be rationed under his plan and they will get the short end of the stick.

PogueMoran · Aug 20, 2009

Grim17 said:
Oh my... Now even CBS News is reporting on this.

All you need is the NY Times to weigh in, and AARP is a dead duck.

I just glad to see that seniors are figuring out what us conservatives figured out a long time ago... That the AARP is a far left liberal organization, therefore, could care less about anything but their political agenda.

.

Grim did you read the original article that was posted? At the bottom of the article which came from AP was a note saying they drew their information from the CBS article. Do any of these organizations do any reporting or do they just repeat the same stuff the other paper says?

The CBS article looks like a free plug for the ASA. According to the ASA supposedly 60,000 quit AARP. Now for an organization like ASA that was little known and has had problems for years recruiting I'd call this report goofy. Did the article mention that ASA is doing a deal where if you sign up you get a year free? This would explain some influx of members. What evidence do they have that members of AARP aren't renewing with AARP while also signing up with ASA. Again the article fails to cite where it got its numbers AARP does not say itself that they've lost that amount of members. Bad reporting.

obvious Child · Aug 25, 2009

American said:
Don't bring the military into it, that's another animal.

That's still socialized medicine.

Yes Medicare is socialized, but it is not the same program being trotted through Congress right now, so let's concentrate on one program at a time.

Except that's not what the GOP is doing. SD is dead on the money that those who piss and moan about socialized medicine while using Medicare are giant flaming hypocrites. Furthermore, ever Republican in Congress who pisses about socialized medicine is a giant hypocrite. They got no problem using it themselves, but when others want it, the sky is falling. The level of honesty there is not measurable. The GOP is essentially playing class warfare here, pitting the young and relatively poor against the old.

You had 40 years to debate Medicare, but you choose now to do so. Your point? Maybe you'd like to discuss Social Security now too, as a whole?

How is this a discussion on me? I asked you HOW SD was wrong. Did you answer? Of course not. You're American. You NEVER back your statements up. Typical. And Medicare/Aid are broken on the finances and Social Security, which in premise is not a bad idea has allowed Americans to ignore their own savings.

But the point still is, if you use socialized medicine, you are a hypocrite for arguing against it. Do you have a reply to that or are you going to weasel out of that subject which was the reason I posted.

And you don't actually reply to what you quoted nor ever back your statements up.

Again HOW is SD wrong?

Is he wrong? Or are you just going to make snide commentary as usual adding nothing to the discussion?

Don't make me quote that again.

ALiberalModerate · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
How can that possibly be hypocritical???

Did he announce during his campaign that he was going to cut medicare?

They are against his health care reforms because they know that health care will be rationed under his plan and they will get the short end of the stick.

No one is proposing any Medicare benefit cuts. The cuts in Medicare spending have to do with waste, fraud, and abuse, not benefit cuts.

American · Aug 25, 2009

I thought Medicare was waste, fraud and abuse. j/k :mrgreen:

Gill · Aug 25, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
No one is proposing any Medicare benefit cuts. The cuts in Medicare spending have to do with waste, fraud, and abuse, not benefit cuts.

Of course no one is proposing cuts, but they are inevitable under this plan.

PogueMoran · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
Of course no one is proposing cuts, but they are inevitable under this plan.

Again this is becoming just as absurd as the death panel claim or the new one about the death books for vets. I could pretty much say that about anything in the bill. It's inevitable that we'll have forced boobjobs hey its not in the bill but its inevitable under this plan.

ALiberalModerate · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
Of course no one is proposing cuts, but they are inevitable under this plan.

I am not arguing for or against the plan, but there are no Medicare cuts proposed in the plan - that is a fact.

However, if nothing is done to curb future Medicare costs and health care cost inflation, there will be huge Medicare benefit cuts in store in just a few years down the road.

Gill · Aug 25, 2009

PogueMoran said:
Again this is becoming just as absurd as the death panel claim or the new one about the death books for vets. I could pretty much say that about anything in the bill. It's inevitable that we'll have forced boobjobs hey its not in the bill but its inevitable under this plan.

Feel free to come back when you have something to add to the conversation.

PogueMoran · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
Feel free to come back when you have something to add to the conversation.

You didn't add anything. I'm saying if its not in the bill you don't have much of a case at this point. You could say everything is inevitable based on the logic you used.

Gill · Aug 25, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not arguing for or against the plan, but there are no Medicare cuts proposed in the plan - that is a fact.

However, if nothing is done to curb future Medicare costs and health care cost inflation, there will be huge Medicare benefit cuts in store in just a few years down the road.

The cuts are to the government payment to private insurers that offer the Medicare Advantage program. The millions of seniors that have Advantage will either have to pay more for it, or they will get less services.

ALiberalModerate · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
The cuts are to the government payment to private insurers that offer the Medicare Advantage program. The millions of seniors that have Advantage will either have to pay more for it, or they will get less services.

The problem with Medicare Advantage is that it costs an average of 12.4% more than traditional Medicare.

The Cost of Privatization: Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans--Updated and Revised - The Commonwealth Fund

All the plan would do is require private sector companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program to offer the same coverage as traditional Medicare at the same costs to the taxpayer. I don't see what is wrong with that. The current Medicare Advantage program amounts to nothing more than pure tax payer subsidized corporate welfare to an industry that does not need any help.

If the private sector cannot compete in terms of cost with public sector in terms of providing Medicare coverage then what is the point of the Medicare Advantage program?

Gill · Aug 25, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem with Medicare Advantage is that it costs an average of 12.4% more than traditional Medicare.

The Cost of Privatization: Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans--Updated and Revised - The Commonwealth Fund

All the plan would do is require private sector companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program to offer the same coverage as traditional Medicare at the same costs to the taxpayer. I don't see what is wrong with that. The current Medicare Advantage program amounts to nothing more than pure tax payer subsidized corporate welfare to an industry that does not need any help.

If the private sector cannot compete in terms of cost with public sector in terms of providing Medicare coverage then what is the point of the Medicare Advantage program?

Of course it costs more, it's a supplemental insurance that millions of seniors rely on. Every senior I know has it. If Obama cuts payments to Advantage insurers by 14% as stated in the bill, it is inevitable that it will either cost more or provide less coverage.

ALiberalModerate · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
Of course it costs more, it's a supplemental insurance that millions of seniors rely on. Every senior I know has it. If Obama cuts payments to Advantage insurers by 14% as stated in the bill, it is inevitable that it will either cost more or provide less coverage.

You are mistaken. Medicare Advantage is not a supplement. What Medicare Advantage was originally intended to do was to see if the Private Sector could offer equivalent coverage to Medicare Parts A and B for a lower cost than traditional Medicare. They have not been able to do so though as evidenced by the fact that it costs us 12% more than traditional Medicare.

Gill · Aug 25, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
You are mistaken. Medicare Advantage is not a supplement. In fact, you can still have a Medicare supplement when you opt for benefits under Medicare Advantage rather Medicare Part A / B. What Medicare Advantage was originally intended to do was to see if the Private Sector could offer equivalent coverage to Medicare Parts A and B for a lower cost than traditional Medicare. They have not been able to do so though as evidenced by the fact that it costs us 12% more than traditional Medicare.

Advantage offers the same coverage as Medicare A/B, but in almost all cases offers supplemental coverage also. There are around 8 million seniors in the Advantage program.

Medicare Advantage plans are supplemental Medicare optional insurance delivered in a managed care or private insurance environment. A Medicare Advantage insurance plan can be an HMO, PPO, FFS, Medical Savings Account program, or Special Needs program. All are still part of Medicare and all require enrollment in Part A and Part B. Medicare Advantage plans are sometimes called Part C.

Most managed care plans offer extra services and benefits not covered by original Medicare and are attractive as well because they cost less than most MediGap plans. The limitation is in being required to use in network providers and facilities to receive maximum or in some cases any benefits.

ALiberalModerate · Aug 25, 2009

Gill said:
Advantage offers the same coverage as Medicare A/B, but in almost all cases offers supplemental coverage also. There are around 8 million seniors in the Advantage program.

But why on earth should taxpayers be subsidizing part of the supplemental coverage for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans when they don't for seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare Parts A and B?

That's nothing but a handout. Even if these proposals are enacted, seniors can keep their Medicare Advantage plans if the Medicare Advantage plans can operate at the same costs to taxpayers as traditional Medicare does. What is wrong with that?

Gill · Aug 25, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
But why on earth should taxpayers be subsidizing part of the supplemental coverage for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans when they don't for seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare Parts A and B?

That's nothing but a handout. Even if these proposals are enacted, seniors can keep their Medicare Advantage plans if the Medicare Advantage plans can operate at the same costs to taxpayers as traditional Medicare does. What is wrong with that?

Yeah, and the government never gives handouts do they?

The insurance companies administer the Advantage program, which costs money. Would you like private insurance to pull completely out?

Millions of seniors prefer the Advantage program over standard medicare.

AARP loses members over health care stance

Battle Ready

Klattu Verata Nicto

Pragmatist

Active member

Klattu Verata Nicto

pirate lover

Well-known member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Pragmatist

Trump Grump Whisperer

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Well-known member

Pragmatist

Pragmatist

Pragmatist