Move On says AARP selling out medicare

I wonder whether anyone can show me expressions of displeasure with AARP prior to their support for this Republican-led bill. I may be wrong, but from where I'm sitting it looks like people are just overreacting out of petty partisan bias. I read not one word of displeasure with AARP anywhere in these discussions before now, but suddenly many of you are suggesting that AARP has been "headed" in a bad direction for some time. Where are your complaints of this from 3 months ago? 6 months? A year or more?

Lots of us hated AARP, have done for several years, snarl and scowl at it for reasons I mention in my post above, Scrat. But it has also been useful to many -- for me in particular, a "foreigner" when it comes to healthcare in the US, it helped me clarify insurance issues when I first signed up. Same was true when it came to buying into a Medicare supplement.

That said, when I used health insurance for the first time -- in 2001 -- and incurred a substantial hospital bill for which I had full coverage, United Healthcare (which does this all the time, apparently) refused coverage (no justification). It took four months and serious punitive threats from the (State of) Texas Insurance Commission to get them to pay up. (UHC does this refusal regularly as a delaying tactic, trying to spread its payments over particular market-related segments of time. The Texas legislature acted quite appropriately after that, putting a cap on the number of days an insurance company could withhold payment without cause.

Where was AARP in all of this? Although it managed and sold this UCH group policy, it refused to intervene. That was my first solid evidence that it was working with insurance companies, not with their members, though I'd surmised that since I first got a policy through AARP. Because it has a virtual monopoly on group plans for seniors (and there are many seniors like myself who don't have residual employment insurance because we've been self-employed or have lived out of the country or a combination of facators), one has to think twice before cutting up one's membership card!

Can you cite me any post by you or any other person in A2K where you attacked AARP as you are now prior to the drug bill?

I don't think I've mentioned my attitude towards AARP here until the recent flap -- no cause to do so. I haven't mouthed off about my discontent with State Farm's homeowners' policies in Texas either, until PDiddie raised the issue. Nor Verizon Wireless. We all have our betes noirs, Scrat, but we don't necessarily rage about them in online chatrooms!

This is what I like to call "Monday morning quarterbacking".

I don't doubt that some or many may have had issues with AARP, but today you and others are attacking them for being an evil corporate monolith purely because you perceive them to have laid down with the other side. I mention it because I think this is a defining trait amongst far-left liberals. Anyone who goes against you must be demonized and punished for using their freedom of choice in ways you would not choose.

aarp
I never joined the AARP because I thought it wrapped itself in senior representation in order to sell insurance, its main business. It is a Trojan Horse organization that finally showed its true mission.

BBB

Sorry the facts and personal experience don't sit well with you Scrat -- please don't waste my time in the future.

Funny, Tart, but I didn't notice you offering any "facts". Of course, I appreciate your sharing your "personal experience", but that isn't what I asked for, so, if that's all you've got, you might want to stop wasting your own time.

I pointed out that I've seen no EVIDENCE of such hatred of AARP before this issue, and asked if anyone could cite any EVIDENCE of same. I suspect that no one can, because I suspect this anger did not exist before this issue; this issue created it. I believe that you and yours were happy enough with AARP as long as AARP stayed within the liberal "fold". But they did the unthinkable and got in bed with conservatives, and for that they must be punished.

And to argue that you were unhappy with them, but not unhappy enough to mention it before simply proves my point; this issue drove you and others to speak against them where nothing they had done before made you speak up. You are punishing them for backing what you see as a conservative bill.

That's what I see. Now, you can either offer me EVIDENCE that I'm wrong, so that I can learn that I am mistaken in my belief, or you can waste your own time bleating at me about my failure to alter my question to suit your answer.

Here's Bob Novak's take on the machinations related to passage of the bill in the House:

Health Industry Bidding to Hire Medicare Chief

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: December 3, 2003

[]ASHINGTON, Dec. 2 — The federal official who runs Medicare and was intimately involved in drafting legislation to overhaul the program is the object of a bidding war among five firms hoping to hire him to advise clients affected by the measure.
Though the official, Thomas A. Scully, is not widely known outside Washington, his exhaustive knowledge of the Medicare program and the intricacies of the legislation, approved by Congress last week, would make him a prize catch for any law firm or private equity firm.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Scully said that his discussions with potential employers complied with federal ethics regulations and that he had seen no reason to recuse himself from work on the legislation. He said he had consulted with the top ethics officer for the Department of Health and Human Services and received a waiver allowing him to continue work on the bill.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/national/03MEDI.html?th

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Medicare fix is
a bad deal for seniors

A doctor's advice to the elderly: Fight this turkey

By DR. MARC SIEGEL

In recent days, many of my patients have been asking if the changes to Medicare that President Bush is expected to sign into law on Monday will help them. My answer is no.
Here's why: First, the government will be forbidden to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices. This is a problem, because the companies inflate their prices to cover the high costs of marketing that is often designed to lure consumers away from cheaper, equally effective medicines. But the Medicare drug program will be compelled to eat these costs by paying retail prices with tax dollars.

Second, the new plan, due to take effect in 2006, will involve $35 per month in premiums and a $250 deductible. Then, only 75% of the first $2,200 in drug costs will be covered. The next $3,600 will come right out of patients' pockets. This doughnut, as it's being called, is hardly tasty, since patients will be paying top dollar for their drugs. Traditionally, pharmacies have been compelled to charge their highest prices to customers paying the full cost of their prescriptions. The insurance companies, which will be exempt from the new law's nonnegotiation clause, get their drugs on the cheap but don't allow the pharmacies to share in the profits.

So patients are looking at about $4,800 in out-of-pocket expenses at top prices for the first $5,800 of drugs they have to buy. Some coverage!

By 2010, when insurance companies are allowed to come riding to the rescue in six test areas, including New York, many Medicare patients will be hungry for real drug coverage. The HMOs will be signing them up by the thousands. By then, most Medicare patients will have forgotten the bitter pill they had to swallow with HMOs before - restrictions on tests, referral and precertification requirements. They abandoned the HMO plans by the hundreds of thousands and chose straight Medicare instead.

But in 2010, here the HMOs come again. With the government's negotiating hands tied behind its back, some wise guy is bound to say that the private sector is actually saving the health care system money. This will be the final knife in the back of traditional Medicare.

When my patients ask me what they can possibly do about all this. I say, "Rebel." Meaning, let every politician you can get hold of know this turkey isn't going to fly.

Siegel, a professor of medicine at New York University,
has a new book, "Fight or Flight," coming out in 2004

I'm surprised so little of this discussion has focused on whether or not the feds ought to be wading into this at all. I'm certainly dismayed that Republicans are now trying to "out-big" Democrats in the big-government game.

Heck, it might be interesting if some Dems used that point in their campaigns... pointing out that the Republicans seem to be turning their backs on their own core principles. Even if Dems agree with their actions (in broad terms) those actions do call into question the values and adherence thereto of said Republicans.

scrat
The republicans apparently do not consider it big government when it is used to payoff their contributors.

Neither, apparently do the democrats.

The Medicare bill is a mafia bust-out, Washington-style

Republicans are scum.
WASHINGTON — Democrats and a legal watchdog group have asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate allegations that Republicans offered a House member $100,000 in contributions for his son's election campaign if he would vote for a Medicare prescription drug benefit passed by Congress last month.

A revealing vignette. It's a window into how politics works, and how closely tethered contributors are to their respective parties, and how they work hand in hand in getting their way legislatively.


Such an offer could be interpreted as a bribe that violates federal law, Democrats and outside legal experts said. Ashcroft spokesman Mark Corallo said Thursday that the attorney general's office will review a letter requesting an investigation from Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-partisan legal watchdog group, also wrote Ashcroft demanding an investigation. "The attempted bribery and extortion of a member of Congress on the House floor destroys the heart of our democracy," she wrote.

Though lobbying for support is common during close votes, the Republicans' successful effort in the wee hours of Nov. 22 stands out for several reasons. GOP leaders held the vote open for nearly three hours. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who customarily leaves partisan arm-twisting to others, was actively involved. So was Tommy Thompson, President Bush's secretary of Health and Human Services, even though Cabinet members seldom enter the House or Senate chambers.

Media reports have alleged that an undisclosed Republican told Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., that if he voted for the bill, business interests would contribute $100,000 to help his son, Brad, succeed him. Smith is not seeking re-election in 2004. His son is one of several Republican candidates running for the seat.

"Not only was this bribe offered to a member of Congress, it was offered on the floor of the House of Representatives by another member of Congress," McAuliffe wrote Ashcroft.

The allegation was first reported Nov. 27 by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Kurt Schmautz, head of Smith's congressional staff, said Smith confirmed Novak's account as "basically accurate." He said Smith had no further comment.

Brad Smith said he did not believe a dollar amount was mentioned. He said his father was told "there's an opportunity for substantial support for your son" if he voted for the bill. He refused to say who made the offer but said his father didn't regard it as a bribe.

The younger Smith said the incident has "backfired" in his district. "A lot of primary voters are disgusted with the hardball politics in Washington," he said.

Smith did not support the bill. It passed, 220-215, after GOP leaders spent almost three hours rounding up votes. Smith was among a group of conservatives who opposed the 10-year, $400 billion bill because they feared it would cost even more in the future. The bill was a priority of the Bush administration and Republican leaders. The Senate approved it, 54-44, Nov. 25. Bush plans to sign it into law Monday.

Since the House vote, others have urged Smith to say who offered the $100,000 in campaign contributions. In an online column on Slate.com, Timothy Noah wrote, "Stop protecting him, congressman!"

Smith told Gannett News Service on Nov. 24 that he had been lobbied heavily to support the bill. He said he had received promises that business interests and GOP leaders would help his son's campaign in exchange. He said he also was told those same groups would work to defeat his son if Smith voted against the bill.

Hardball tactics are customary in the House when votes are needed to pass legislation. But they more often involve promises of plum committee assignments, visits to districts for campaign help or specific additions to legislation.

Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a public-interest research group, said such an episode would be "a revealing vignette."

"It's a window into how politics works, and how closely tethered contributors are to their respective parties, and how they work hand in hand in getting their way legislatively," Lewis said.

Lewis said there was little chance the Justice Department or the House ethics committee would investigate. In the House, Democrats and Republicans have an unspoken agreement not to initiate ethics inquiries, and only a member's request can trigger a committee investigation. House Democratic leaders avoided comment on Smith's allegations Thursday.

American Enterprise Institute political analyst Norman Ornstein said that if the reports are true, the incident "cuts across a whole series of lines." He said Thompson's presence and Hastert's lobbying were highly unusual. "I've never heard of anything like this on the floor," Ornstein said. "It just stains the speakership."

Ornstein said an inducement of campaign money "is by every standard a violation of the law." But he added, "Will anything be done about it? I'm very skeptical."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-01.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-01.htm

Hmmm...I wonder if God is a Republican, Democrat, Independent,Socialist,Fascist or Communist?

According to GW God is a Republican, hmmmm... old line or Neo con?

extoling the virtues
I listened to Newt for an hour talkin' how great the Medicare Bill is.

What benefits are there to seniors with this bill in your view of it?

New Medicare Bill Bars Extra Insurance for Drugs

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: December 7, 2003

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill to be signed on Monday by President Bush, the legislation says.
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a little-noticed provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available.
This is one of many surprises awaiting beneficiaries, who will find big gaps in the drug benefit and might want private insurance to plug the holes — just as they buy insurance to supplement Medicare coverage of doctors' services and hospital care.
Congress cited two reasons for banning the sale of Medigap drug policies. Lawmakers wanted to prevent duplication of the new Medicare benefit. They also wanted to be sure that beneficiaries would bear some of the cost. Health economists have long asserted that when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services.
Gail E. Shearer, a health policy analyst at Consumers Union, said she had mixed feelings about the prohibition.

Unbelievable. We have met the enemy and it is congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/politics/07MEDI.html?th