half a T is real
sorry
You're right, there is a reason, a big one.
Like everyone else in this pay for play scheme, they were bought off.
j-mac
Too easy to write it off that way. They've been pretty strong as advocates for the elderly. They lose too much if they throw them under the bus.
But I must commend you again, as someone who hates bias reporting, for again using a completely no biased source (not).
Andrew Breitbart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And if you look at the language of your source (Health Care Scheme), you'll see what I'm talking about.
However, I don't mind bias. I mind accuracy. If their members buy MediGap, they need them. And if they throw those members under the bus, they lose them. They have as much reason to watch out for their consumers as any insurance company, any business. And they have a pretty good history of doing well by their people as far as I can see.
So, other than you just not liking their support, can you show any objective evidence of them not caring about seniors?
I did provide evidence of why they were doing what they are doing, and you simply dismiss it in an attack the messenger type of retort. It should be clear to anyone reading this that certain supporters of Obama's plans will hear nothing that steps in the way of total fealty, and completion no matter how it will hurt the country.
You say that the given response is simplistic, and I would refer you to the adage that proclaims Occam's Razor. You ignore the fact that people are leaving AARP in droves, and continue to whistle past the graveyard of our liberty.
I just don't know if any genuine debate can be had with you.
j-mac
No, you provided an opinion as to why. That's not really evidence. And I have not seen any evidence presented of people leaving AARP (some pundent saying they are wouldn't be evidence either btw). But, I would be willing to look at evidence. And then you have to provide evidence as to why. Someone's opinion wouldn't be evidence either. It would be an opinion.
I'm not sure you understand what is and isn't legitimate debate. You seem to think based on this and other conversations that throwing out any opinion equals prove positive. It doesn't. Sorry.
That must be only for me, or those that disagree with you, and your sycophantic adoration of "The One" then. Because I have over the years seen you provide more than your share of "opinion" pieces and then declare, and defend them as fact.
You may not like the facts Joe, but they are what they are. Get used to it.
j-mac
AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.comNo, you provided an opinion as to why. That's not really evidence. And I have not seen any evidence presented of people leaving AARP (some pundent saying they are wouldn't be evidence either btw). But, I would be willing to look at evidence. And then you have to provide evidence as to why. Someone's opinion wouldn't be evidence either. It would be an opinion.
I'm not sure you understand what is and isn't legitimate debate. You seem to think based on this and other conversations that throwing out any opinion equals prove positive. It doesn't. Sorry.
Two wrongs doesn't make a right. If it's an opinion piece who cares what BRad has posted in the past, it's not fact.
The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership...
[...]
...on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month...
[...]
...AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.
AARP loses members over health care stance - USATODAY.com
Doesn't seem that members "leaving AARP in droves" over this health care bill is much of an anomaly.
The point wasn't about the effect of quitting, it was whether they were quitting or not.Doesn't seem that members "leaving AARP in droves" over this health care bill is much of an anomaly.
That must be only for me, or those that disagree with you, and your sycophantic adoration of "The One" then. Because I have over the years seen you provide more than your share of "opinion" pieces and then declare, and defend them as fact.
You may not like the facts Joe, but they are what they are. Get used to it.
j-mac
I think it is a pretty damning statement that as many have left that are. I mean look, the elderly are not big proponents of change, and when they have something they are hard pressed to leave it. Some may be holding out that the Government will come to its senses on the issue, I don't know. But one thing is for sure, there are many reasons for the elderly to be up in arms over this thing, and they have shown it if not by token.
Remember this?
YouTube- AARP Town Hall Meeting on Health Care - Dallas, August 4, 2009
the denial, a lie. The disdain of its own members, very real. The utter BS that AARP expects its members to swallow without question is unreal. But that is exactly what they expected, and when they started to get push back from those members, they shut the meeting down....Is that representative of this open society that is America? I think not.
j-mac
Now you're claiming one meeting, in Texas no less, represents the whole? Really?
Perhaps you can find some valid statistical evidence?
Well, I believe that AARP thought better of their campaign to hold these meetings after this one.
But as far as a snipe hunt for some study that may or may not exist, I'll let you do that.
After all it is your claim that this is not happening to AARP, I should think you have figures to back that up.
j-mac
You're free to believe what you want. But I see no evidence this was more than just a Texas, a local affair. If you have evidence on any of this, I would love to see it.
As for my claim, again, the negative is always harder to prove. Your claim, the positive, that they are, should be much easier, if it's true. For my claim, absence of evidence is evidence. It is the negative.
:roll:
Maybe you missed American's article, it's just above..... But thanks for your permission to believe what I wish.....I'll keep that in mind.
j-mac
:roll:
Maybe you missed American's article, it's just above..... But thanks for your permission to believe what I wish.....I'll keep that in mind.
j-mac
Though AARP has lost tens of thousands of members over the health care reform issue....
Aging Right Wingers Revolt Against AARP
150,000 Seniors Drop AARP Membership in Revolt Over Health Care Endorsement...
AARP Online Community: Health Action Now Mythbusters - "150,000 Seniors Drop AARP Membership in Revolt Over Health Care Endorsement"
Senior citizens are putting the Democratic Party's 2010 election prospects and their health care reform proposals on a collision course.
Outraged over Democratic plans to cut between $400 billion and $500 billion from Medicare in the next decade, voters over the age of 65 are poised to make the party suffer even steeper losses at the polls than have already been predicted for the midterm election.
"Seniors bear the brunt of these bills as they are currently funded," said Betsey McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York and conservative health care policy expert. "It's a medical assault on seniors."
Democrats argue that Medicare is going bankrupt and must be reined in, and the cuts on the table will for the most part address wasteful spending and not take away benefits. But many seniors, who tend to make up a larger proportion of the electorate in off-year elections, are not convinced. They turned out in huge numbers at town hall meetings this summer, and poll numbers support what appears to be wide opposition among them.
A new survey from Rasmussen Reports found only 33 percent of voters over the age of 65 are in favor of the Democratic health care plan outlined by President Obama -- eight points lower than the electorate as a whole. Of those seniors against the Obama plan, 46 percent said they "strongly oppose" it.
Democrats unable to quell health care revolt among seniors | Washington Examiner
Should I continue?
j-mac
Yes. Something like the other one, with more verifiable fact and less opinion.
My point was...Meh, not a big deal.The point wasn't about the effect of quitting, it was whether they were quitting or not.