The AARP, along with the American Medical Association, announced yesterday that they support the proposed House version of healthcare reform. For people that have accused the AARP of being nothing more than a left-wing advocacy group, calling them such things as the “American Association of Radical Politicosâ€, the fact that they support the Pelosi version will comes as no surprise. The 60 Plus Association and others have even accused AARP of merely supporting legislation that they stand to profit from via their insurance offerings to members. The validity of this argument depends on who you listen to and which facts you look at.
I’ve been watching the American Seniors Association (ASA), a self-described “conservative seniors groupâ€, more closely since I last wrote about the group attracting disaffected AARP members to their ranks. I’ve been curious to see if they will successfully capitalize on the media attention they’ve been given. The instant I heard AARP endorsed the House bill, I wanted to see how the ASA would respond. To date I have not seen a specific response to AARP’s endorsement or read about any solution ASA suggests. Stuart Barton, President of the ASA, wrote the following in this opinion piece:
My organization has three major concerns with the proposals advanced by the Obama administration:
- A government-run plan would limit patient-doctor choice;
- there would be an employer mandate that would kill jobs and lower wages; and
- the current House legislation attacks baby boomers and seniors — in fact, every American — by paying for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health care with new taxes and by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years.
Particularly outrageous is a section of the House bill mandating that a senior citizen must go to counseling every five years with a government bureaucrat in order to basically learn how to prepare to die.
So is the idea behind this current legislation to let baby boomers and seniors die more quickly so the government doesn’t have to care for them in old age? Is that a plan you can believe in?
The merits of the first 3 points Barton mentioned are open to debate, but the latter point, that the government wants baby boomers to die early in order to save money, is absurd. It’s the same “death panel†claim pushed by Sarah Palin. It’s not only false, but to anyone that knows anything about advance directives, it’s a deliberate attempt to mislead individuals and spin facts.
I’m disappointed. While I don’t necessarily subscribe to all the ideas a liberal or conservative group promotes, I respect the opinions of individuals and organizations that tell the truth. IF the AARP is a “true†liberal advocacy group, having a conservative organization pose counterpoints only helps promote honest debate and real solutions. I had hopes that the ASA would stick to their claim that they offer members “real, useful information so you can make up your own mind.†At this stage, I’m just note seeing it.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
It is obvious AARP is a Democrat organization. It is just as obvious that you are a Democrat. Not only are there death panels, there is funding for abortion and illegal aliens as well. And language that already establishes some of this “infrastructure” was snuck into the already passed so called “Stimulus” law. Sarah Palin is right as is Mr. Barton and if anything, they downplay the downside of socialized medicine. If is simply unAmerican and unconstitutional. The truth hurts but you must deal with it.
Poor Don! He drank the kool-aid. The bill simply allows for health care providers to be paid IF a patient wants a consultation on advance directive. I defy Don or Sarah Palin to show the text of the bill that proves otherwise. Facts matter.
Well, if I drank anything it was also served to the people who wrote our Constitution. I suggest you stop drinking whatever is warping your judgment and read page 1001 of the bill.
Here is page 1001 of the congressional bill. Under that find page 1001 of the senate bill. Please point out the death panel part. It is clear that the bills are bad, they do not need death panels for that. But this may be all we’re going to get. (there is no page 1001 of the stimulus bill )
1001
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(B) is—
2 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
3 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
4 life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
5 ‘‘(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,
6 in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
7 the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
8 Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordi9
nator for Health Information Technology, and the Sec10
retary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods
11 for—
12 ‘‘(A) including in the registry, in a manner con
13 sistent with subsection (f), appropriate information
14 to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
15 type, model, and serial number or other unique iden
16tifier;
17 ‘‘(B) validating methods for analyzing patient
18 safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
19 for linking such data with the information included
20 in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), in21
cluding, to the extent feasible, use of—
22 ‘‘(i) data provided to the Secretary under
23 other provisions of this chapter; and
24 ‘‘(ii) information from public and private
25 sources identified under paragraph (3);
Here is page 1001 of the senate bill.
1001
•S 1796 PCS
1 1851(e)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
2 1395w–1(e)(3)(B)) is amended—
3 (1) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
4 (2) in clause (iv)—
5 (A) by striking ‘‘and succeeding years’’
6 and inserting ‘‘, 2008, 2009, and 2010’’; and
7 (B) by striking the period at the end and
8 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
9 (3) by adding at the end the following new
10 clause:
11 ‘‘(v) with respect to 2012 and suc12
ceeding years, the period beginning on Oc13
tober 15 and ending on December 7 of the
14 year before such year.’’.
15 SEC. 3205. EXTENSION FOR SPECIALIZED MA PLANS FOR
16 SPECIAL NEEDS INDIVIDUALS.
17 (a) EXTENSION OF SNP AUTHORITY.—Section
18 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–
19 28(f)(1)), as amended by section 164(a) of the Medicare
20 Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008
21 (Public Law 110–275), is amended by striking ‘‘2011’’
22 and inserting ‘‘2014’’.
23 (b) AUTHORITY TO APPLY FRAILTY ADJUSTMENT
24 UNDER PACE PAYMENT RULES.—Section 1853(a)(1)(B)
VerDate Nov
It’s unconstitutional any way you slice it and, as for me, if they pass it I will not obey and if they tax it I will not pay!