Many reformers have been uncertain as
to whether they could rely on the Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
to support progressive health care reform. After all, AARP has close ties to the insurance industry.
But
this evening, the Associated Press (AP) reported that “In a coup for
House Democrats, AARP will endorse sweeping health care overhaul
legislation headed for a history-making floor vote
“An
announcement from the 40-million member group is expected Thursday
[tomorrow], said officials with knowledge of the group's decision. They
spoke on condition of anonymity because the endorsement is not official
yet.
“Backing the 10-year, $1.2 trillion House bill is a tricky move for AARP. Many retirees are concerned about cuts in Medicare payments to medical providers, which will be used to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage to millions of working families who now lack it. Also,
AARP says its membership is about evenly divided among Democrats,
Republicans and independents, meaning its endorsement in today's highly
politicized atmosphere could anger many members.
“Floor
votes on the House bill could come as early as this weekend” the AP
report notes. “Obama planned to visit the Capitol on Friday, according
to congressional officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity
because the meetings have not been announced.
“Last-minute
changes to the legislation, released late Tuesday night, started a
72-hour legislative clock and cleared the way for votes as early as
Saturday.”
Those 11th hour changes, announced today, would
launch a federal-state crackdown on what reformers call "unjustified
premium increases." Under the bill, insurance companies would have to
publicly disclose the justification for premium increases before they
go into effect. The federal Health and Human Services department
would monitor patterns of premium increases, and could take action if
the price hikes are out of line. The bill would also provide $1 billion
to state insurance commissioners, allowing them to ramp up their own
enforcement.
Supporters said
the tougher approach is needed to keep insurance companies from
artificially boosting premiums in advance of the major reforms taking
effect in 2013.
AARP’s Ties to the Insurance Industry
AARP
licenses its name to UnitedHealth Group Inc. which offers seniors
AARP-branded Medicare Advantage and Medigap plans. As the Wall Street
Journal pointed out on October 27: “As of Sept. 30, UnitedHealth had
2.6 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in AARP -branded Medigap
policies and about one million more in AARP-branded Medicare Advantage
plans . . . (Private sector Medigap policies supplement Medicare,
covering some Medicare co-pays, and reimbursing for some services that
Medicare doesn’t cover.)
The health care legislation now on the
table would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100
billion over 10 years. (And for good reason: these plans cost the
government an average of 14% more per beneficiary than traditional
Medicare.)
Opponents of healthcare reform have suggested that it
might be more lucrative for AARP if seniors dropped out of Medicare
Advantage (MA) and signed up for MediGap policies.
But the
truth is that Medicare Advantage has served as a huge boondoggle for
insurers. The overpayment for MA has been keeping many insurers afloat.
Meanwhile,
the insurance industry has made it clear that it loathes the House
bill. (In an October 16 post, I wrote about how the industry had
declared itself “the enemy” of progressive reform).
Hat’s off to AARP for stepping forward and standing up for change.
I just heard the President announce the endorsement of the AMA, in addition to AARP. I wonder why he didn’t mention Consumer’s Union?
To me AARP endorsement is great news.
AMA endorsement less so
The AMA is desperate to remain relevant or to even survive?
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
Agree that the AARP endorsement is good news, if you favor Pelosi & Co.’s plans. Remember, that Obama made deals with many stakeholders months ago, bonds that are being strained now as Congress attempts to unravel these agreements. If Obamacare prevails, I wonder how much support senior citizens will still have when the ultimate consequences fall on them. I take care of these folks. They have come to expect access to Cadillac care at Chevy prices. Does anyone really doubt that their individual costs will rise and that they won’t be able to get all the medical care that they have become accustomed to? Let’s see how enthusiastic they are when the government’s cost control efforts affect them directly. Cutbacks are always more palatable when their coming out of someone else’s pie. http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
I just keep remembering what life without healt care reform will be like. America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of health care in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people, without providing any actual health care whatsoever.
Health benefit costs will jump (again) more than ten percent next year. When costs increase ten percent a year, they double every seven years. With current family premiums in the $15,000 range, employers and employees will be paying $30,000 per family by 2016. And that’s not including deductibles and copays, which are sure to rise.
When enough Americans lose their coverage, when cost-shifting gets to the point where those left with insurance are paying thousands in premiums to cover those without, when local taxes to pay for teachers’ and police benefits get so high that folks are losing their houses, when Medicare finally goes insolvent, when hospitals are collapsing due to the cost of indigent care, when big pharma and device companies are no longer making the gazillions they so richly deserve, then, and only then, will the screaming hordes at Town Hall meetings decide that any health care coverage is better than none.
What happens then? We’ll end up with single payer, or Medicare for All. The false patriots championing freedom and the American tradition of independence and all that other hooey will find themselves drowned out by the moms and dads desperate for insurance to cover their kids and parents.
Unlike the distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies being spread by the right-wing, this is the real deal. So fight against reform if you wish, but don’t complain later when you can’t afford insurance, your employer can’t afford insurance, your taxes are going up to pay for private insurance company incentives, and our economy is sinking under the weight of health care costs.
I think they call that the “status quo?”
Gregory:
I heard a few years ago that “ststus quo” was Latin for “the mess that we’re in.”
I agree with much of what you said, except for the environment in which the screaming hordes will say any health care is better than none.
Realistically, I believe we are at that point today.
People are screaming now, but too few of them are screaming for what we really need.
Insurance is, in its purest form, the community supporting those who are hurting.
It is a very personal, intimate type of dynamic.
Neither big insurance companies, nor big government forcing us to partake in a broken system facilitates the community relationships that insurance is intended to be.
Don Levit
Lisa, Rick, Michael, Gregory, Don
Lisa- CU’s endorsement is great. (And as I geatly admire CU’s health care unit initiative)
But CU is one of many non-profits supporting the legislation
By contrast, AARP and the AMA have great wealth, power, and reasons Not to support reform. That is why their suppport was newsworthy.
It was a surprise.
Rick– I agree. I’m more excited by the AARP endorsement than the AMA endorsement.
Michael–
There is no evidence that the president made any deals with any lobbyists.
The current legislation suggests that he didn’t.
Privately, the White House has been talking to Pelosi, Reid and others driving the legislation. Congressional leaders don’t always follow the White House advice.
But if the presdient had made a “deal” with insurers promising that there would be no public option, it would not now be in both the Senate and the House bill.
If he had made a “deal” with Pharma, I doubt there would be a provision in the House bill that calls for Medicare to negotiate discounts with Pharma.
Gregory–
You are absolutely right.
If we don’t have refrorm
premiums will double in 9 years (based on rising costs over the past 10 years.)
Don–
An interesting remark.
I too, believe that insurance should be communal—with stronger members of the community helping those who are hurting.
But I think a good government can lead that kind of reform. In other developed countires, government does oversee and regulate insurance that is designed to help those who are hurting–with everyone contributing to the common pool.
If this has happend in so many other countries, I see no reason why it can’t happen in the U.S.
Lisa, Rick, Michael, Gregory, Don
Lisa- CU’s endorsement is great. (And as I geatly admire CU’s health care unit initiative)
But CU is one of many non-profits supporting the legislation
By contrast, AARP and the AMA have great wealth, power, and reasons Not to support reform. That is why their suppport was newsworthy.
It was a surprise.
Rick– I agree. I’m more excited by the AARP endorsement than the AMA endorsement.
Michael–
There is no evidence that the president made any deals with any lobbyists.
The current legislation suggests that he didn’t.
Privately, the White House has been talking to Pelosi, Reid and others driving the legislation. Congressional leaders don’t always follow the White House advice.
But if the presdient had made a “deal” with insurers promising that there would be no public option, it would not now be in both the Senate and the House bill.
If he had made a “deal” with Pharma, I doubt there would be a provision in the House bill that calls for Medicare to negotiate discounts with Pharma.
Gregory–
You are absolutely right.
If we don’t have refrorm
premiums will double in 9 years (based on rising costs over the past 10 years.)
Don–
An interesting remark.
I too, believe that insurance should be communal—with stronger members of the community helping those who are hurting.
But I think a good government can lead that kind of reform. In other developed countires, government does oversee and regulate insurance that is designed to help those who are hurting–with everyone contributing to the common pool.
If this has happend in so many other countries, I see no reason why it can’t happen in the U.S.
Why would AARP endorse the Pelosipalooza? Follow the money.