Interesting this. Typically, I look at the information that I receive from AARP and its AARP Bulletin with skepticism (full disclosure, yes, I am of a certain age and am a member of AARP). I have heard it said on progressive talk radio that AARP is little more than an insurance company itself, and the mailings I receive encouraging me to buy auto insurance, term life insurance, and other insurance products from AARP tend to support this as the subtext to AARP's mission statement.
Nevertheless, I was rather surprised, if not shocked, when I received the new AARP Bulletin today that had two articles concerning the healthcare debate: "THE HYPE THE LIES THE FACTS: How to tune out the fear-mongering and misinformation and make sense of the health care reform debate" (page 12) and "AARP: Where We Stand" (page 8).
More below the fold (apologies if this has been covered, but I looked and could not locate any other similar posting)...
In the first article in the AARP Bulletin, A. Barry Rand, CEO and Jennie Chin Hansen, President of AARP, address members with the statement that <the American healthcare system>
"costs too much, wastes too much, makes too many mistakes and gives us back too little value for our money."
Rand and Hansen clearly indicate that AARP has not endorsed any comprehensive health care reform plan thus far, however, AARP is 'fighting' (1) to lower drug costs and strengthen Medicare, (2) to protect our health care choices, and (3) to end discrimination by insurance companies.
Lowering drug costs and strenthening Medicare involves, according to Rand and Hansen, closing the Medicare Part D 'doughnut hole,' ensuring access to doctors, maintaining copays, and cracking down on fraud and wasteful spending. (Another full disclosure, I am a Medicare provider, however, I am not presently a Medicare Advantage provider.)
Protecting healthcare choices would ensure that individuals can select their own doctors, select their own healthcare plans, and choose where to receive medical care. Ending discrimination by insurance companies would mean eliminating pre-existing condition clauses and force insurance companies to offer insurance to all.
Now, despite the stated AARP neutrality on healthcare reform, the second article ("The Assault on Truth") slams the rumor mongers on rightwing talk shows and on the lunatic fringe internets. Patricia Barry answers several questions:
Q. Will the government take over health care so we end up with socialized medicine?
Barry answers succintly, "No..." Of course Barry does not point out that we have a socialized mail delivery system, a socialized military, a socialized transportation system, a socialized educational system, etc. Thinking here that if the government can operate the U.S. Postal System, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Marines, the interstate highway, railway, and airway systems, and public education rather successfully, then they just might be able to run the healthcare delivery systems as well. But, given the precarious state of the public option at present, this may be moot.
Where did this myth come from? Barry states that opponents of health care reform use the term 'government-run health care' to disparage reform proposals.
Q. Will private insurance be outlawed or wither on the vine?
Please, from Barry's lips to God's ears. Barry's answer, "No..." For me, if CIGNA, UnitedHealthCare, United Behavioral Health, Pacificare, and Anthem Blue Cross withered on the vine, I do not think that neither my patients nor I myself would suffer much remorse.
Where did this myth come from? Barry identifies the Lewin Group, a research consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, as the source of some of the misinformation. Lewin estimated that 119 million persons would switch from managed care to the public options if given the choice, however, as a follow-up, they narrowed the figure to only 34.9 million who would exit private insurance. Rightwing lunatics cited the 119 million, not the latter figure, in attempts to distort the impact on private insurance.
Q. Will the government encourage euthanasia to save costs?
Barry answers, "No..." Though, one could only but hope that the death panels if they existed might begin to look at Karl Rove, that Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and others who might benefit from such.
Where did this myth come from? Barry reports that the myth of death panes came from Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant Governor of New York who on July 16, said on rightwing talk radio that
"Congress would make it mandatory...that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner...all to do what's in society's best interest."
On July 24, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, stated that the health care reform plans could lead us down the path to systematized euthanasia.
Q. Will Medicare be eliminated or gutted to pay for reform?
Barry again says, "No..."
Where did this myth come from? Barry identifies that political reprobate Dick Morris as the originator of this myth. Morris wrote a blog (damn bloggers) that began stating that Obama's plan will be the ultimate demise of Medicare. The rest is his story, not history. Barry reports that within days, 281,000 websites picked up the Morris mantra.
Q. Will the government ration care? As expected, Barry again answers, "No..."
Where did this myth come from? Barry concludes that this myth plays on the myth that countries with national health care delivery systems short-change the health care consumer. Barry reports that Republican strategist Frank Luntz provided the talking points on this myth that were framed in a way to resonate with the American voter.
Although AARP states that it is neutral on the comprehensive health care reform plans in the offing, clearly AARP has taken a stance on the lunatic fringe talking points and attempts to derail genuine health care reform. For that, my proverbial hat is off to AARP. Hopefully, its millions of members will read these two articles and come to reasonable conclusions concerning the myths cited above.