The AARP, who loved Obamacare because it would help them make all sorts of money by providing additional medical care services to seniors even though it would ulitmately lead to seniors getting the shaft through rationing, are now abandoning their boy Barry Obama. It seems they don't want the President telling the truth that the AARP worked hand in glove with the administration to get Obamacare done, wiping away any pretense of the liberal organization being non-partisan, which I have known forever....from the Washington Examiner:
President Obama invoked AARP to defend his health care law last night, prompting the influential group to release a statement telling him not to do that again.
“While we respect the rights of each campaign to make its case to voters, AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign,” the group posted in a statement. “AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party.”
Obama can perhaps be forgiven for thinking he could mention AARP given how they coordinated with him to pass Obamacare, which is a golden goose for the organization.
“Thanks to its cuts to Medicare Advantage, Obamacare is expected to expand the number of seniors buying “medigap” supplemental insurance plans,” The Washington Examiner explained in an editorial. “AARP controls 34 percent of the market for such plans.
See, seniors...it was never about helping you. It was so the young college grads who work for AARP in places like DC and who lobby for them could make bigger money by selling you products because the government would further ration care. Disgusting, isn't it? Check out this number:
According to a 2011 House Ways and Means Committee report, AARP stands to make between $55 million and $166 million from Obamacare in 2014 alone.”
Remember, the AARP was closely involved with trying to get Obamacare done....from the WSJ:
Thanks to just-released emails from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, we now know that AARP worked through 2009-10 as an extension of a Democratic White House, toiling daily to pass a health bill that slashes $716 billion from Medicare, strips seniors of choice, and sets the stage for rationing. We know that despite AARP's awareness that its seniors overwhelmingly opposed the bill, the "nonpartisan membership organization" chose to serve the president's agenda.
The 71 pages of emails show an AARP management taking orders from the White House, scripting the president's talking points, working to keep its board "in line," and pledging fealty to "the cause." Seniors deserve to know all this, as AARP seeks to present itself as neutral in this presidential election.
The emails overall show an AARP leadership—Policy Chief John Rother, Health Policy Director Nora Super, Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, Senior Vice President David Sloane—that from the start worked to pass ObamaCare, before crucial details pertaining to seniors had been addressed. This crew was in constant contact with Mr. Obama's top aides, in particular Nancy-Ann DeParle and Jim Messina.
As early as July 2009, Mr. Sloane was sending the administration—"as promised"—his "message points" on Medicare. Ms. DeParle assured him "I think you will hear some of your lines tomorrow" in President Obama's speech—which he did.
Even in November 2009, as the ObamaCare debate progressed, Ms. LeaMond worried that the Medicare spin wasn't working against public criticism of the bill. She emailed Mr. Messina and Ms. DeParle that she was "seized" with "concerns about extended coherent, strong messaging by Republicans on the Medicare savings." To pull off the legislation, she mused, "we"—the White House and AARP—will need a "concerted strategy."
In August 2009, AARP had already unveiled a national advertising blitz for ObamaCare, to ensure that "every member of Congress knows the 50-plus community wants action to fix what's wrong with healthcare." The group made this claim despite weeks of daily tracking showing its members in revolt against the president's plan.
July 23, 2009: AARP reported to the White House that 1,031 members called in against the proposed health-care changes; 77 called in support. July 28, 2009: 4,174 opposed; 36 in support. July 29, 2009: 2,656 opposed; 23 in support. Mr. Sloane told the White House that AARP lost 1,897 members in a single day "in disagreement over our position on health reform." All the reports to Team Obama were accompanied by AARP's request to keep the information "close," apparently so word didn't leak that seniors hate ObamaCare. And the ad blitz went on.
Several Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee this afternoon issued a report regarding AARP and its business activities. Among other topics, the report attempted to quantify the benefits AARP will receive as a result of the health care law. Specifically, the report found that while AARP’s Medicare Advantage and Part D plans receive a flat licensing fee from UnitedHealth Group regardless of the enrollment in their plans, AARP receives 4.95% of each Medigap premium dollar paid by senior citizens (this percentage used to be 4% of Medigap revenues, but AARP negotiated an increase in its last contract, in 2007). Because of these unique contractual arrangements, AARP has NO financial incentive to expand Medicare Advantage enrollment, but DOES have a financial incentive to expand Medigap enrollment – and Medigap enrollment will expand thanks to the Medicare Advantage cuts in the law.
Based on this information, and estimates of declines in Medicare Advantage enrollment thanks to the cuts in the health care law, the report estimates that AARP will receive between $55 million and $166 million in new revenue in 2014 alone – meaning the ten-year financial windfall received by AARP due to Obamacare could total over $1 billion.
The report also contains other information about the interlocking financial relationships between various AARP-related entities, as well as other practices – including spending on things like NASCAR sponsorship and meetings hosted at the Hotel del Coronado – that raise potential questions about the organizations’ non-profit tax status.
Last March, Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. Today’s report reveals “what’s in it” for AARP, which might explain why the organization endorsed a piece of legislation that reduces choice and access for seniors.
....Gee, could death panels be far behind? The Annointed One Barack Hussein Obama has named an avowed hater of the free market and an expert on healthcare rationing to head up Medicare and Medicaid. Seniors, you should be revoking your memberships in AARP now and going to their headquarters with signs that say traitors, et tu aarp? and the like. They have sold you out to Barack Obama and his rationing administration. Let me give you an introduction to Donald Berwick:
In a 2008 while speaking on the British health care system in the UK, Berwick said wealthy individuals must redistribute their wealth to those less fortunate for health care funding. Also during this speech, he told those in attendance that he opposes free markets.
“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”
With Congress officially on recess, President Obama will on Wednesday use his ability to make recess appointments to name one of his more controversial nominees: Donald Berwick, nominee to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The April nomination of Berwick -- president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement -- was in trouble and might not have been able to meet Senate confirmation due to comments Berwick made in the past about rationing health care. Even if Berwick could have been confirmed by the Senate, Democrats have little appetite for another round of fighting about changes to the health care system, Democrats said.
In an interview last year with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said society makes decisions about rationing all the time, and that the "decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."
He has also praised the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which he said had "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn."
Said Berwick, "You can say, 'Well, we shouldn’t even look.' But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited -- we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base."
Berwick said the degree to which the knowledge base is "linked directly to policy and decision is a matter of choice. You could make it advisory, or you could make it mandatory, or you could make it a policy rule. But to remain ignorant of the cost implications of a drug that is marginally better than what is already out there is simply bad policy."
I am sure Zeke "Mengele" Emmanuel is pleased to have another person who advocates killing the very young and elderly, not everyone is happy, including some Dems:
Echoing Republicans, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on Wednesday blasted the Obama administration for sidestepping Congress to install Donald Berwick atop the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
"Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered," Baucus said in a statement.
Berwick had not been vetted by the Finance panel, nor had Baucus scheduled a hearing to examine the nominee.
Well, Maxi, if you hadn't help get Obamacare out of committee with that ignorant RINO dupe Olympia Snowe ("When press exposure calls, I whore out), we wouldn't have to worry about the implications of having a lunatic rationer who wants old people to hurry up and die in charge of Medicaid and Medicare.
“Either you’re a voice for the elderly or you’re an insurance company—choose one….They put themselves forward as non-biased observers, but they’re very swayed by business interests.”
— Independent consultant Dean Zerbe, quoted in Washington Post expose
Press reports indicate that AARP may endorse Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill as soon as Thursday. However, even as AARP teams up with Democrats to challenge a recent study demonstrating that premiums would rise under Democrats’ government takeover of health care as an “insurance industry hatchet job” that’s not “worth the paper it’s printed on,” an analysis of the organization’s operations reveals that it functions as a de facto insurance company—one that has participated in ethically questionable dealings:
· A letter from AARP admits that during the years 1999-2008, AARP received an average $339.7 million dollars per year in “royalty fees” from licensing its brand name to various insurance products. Extrapolating this average over the entire decade, AARP received nearly $3.4 billion in windfall profits from selling health insurance and other similar products.
· Moreover, a review of its financial statements finds that relying on average “royalty fees” over the last decade significantly underestimates AARP’s existing revenue base, as the organization has focused heavily on increasing its “royalties” in the past few years. In 2008 alone, AARP received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from selling products like Medigap supplemental insurance policies—$652.7 million in direct “royalties and fees,” an increase of more than 31 percent from $497.6 million in similar fees in 2007. While royalty revenues now comprise more than half—60.3 percent—of all AARP revenues, a Bloomberg news analysis published in December found that in 1999, royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization’s total revenues.
· AARP’s financial statements also note that of the $657.2 million in “royalty fees” received in 2008, 63 percent—more than $414 million—came from United Health Group, an insurance company which markets AARP-branded Medigap and Medicare Advantage supplemental insurance policies. Nearly 40 percent of AARP’s 2008 revenue came from United Health Group—more than it received in membership dues, grants, and private contributions combined.
Most concerningly, the growth in “royalty” revenues has resulted in a series of business practices and controversies which AARP members and independent outside observers questioning whether the organization is serving its members, or its own bottom line: · The Bloomberg article highlighted what one observer called AARP’s “dirty little secret”—overcharging its senior members, many of whom who felt betrayed after paying hundreds of dollars above market price for AARP-branded coverage. One of its own members noted that “AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal….This is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen.” Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization’s leadership asking whether AARP had a “‘special relationship’ with [insurance carriers] by which it receives commissions, incentives, rebates, or dare I say ‘kickbacks?’”
“There’s an inherent conflict of interest….They’re ending up becoming very dependent on sources of income.”
— Former AARP Executive Marilyn Moon, quoted in Bloomberg article
· While the AARP website claims that the organization supports “guaranteeing that all individuals and groups wishing to purchase or renew coverage can do so regardless of age or pre-existing conditions,” a review of the New York State Insurance Commissioner’s website finds that AARP-branded Medigap coverage imposes a six-month waiting period for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Some may therefore question whether the AARP’s desire to sell insurance coverage bringing the organization high “royalty fees” is interfering with its mission to serve seniors, including those in most need of medical coverage.
· In November, news sources reported that AARP suspended the sale of “limited-benefit” health insurance policies, largely as a result of pressure from Republican Members of Congress concerned that the organization was selling policies advertised as a “smart option for the health care insurance you need,” even though the policies would only pay up to $10,000 for surgery costs. However, the fate of the more than 1 million policy-holders who purchased limited-benefit coverage from AARP remains unclear—and the organization has made no public offers to return the “royalty fees” on the “bare bones” policies it sold under questionable pretenses.
While the Pelosi bill includes strict restrictions on virtually all other forms of insurance, it includes no additional restrictions on Medigap policies—thus allowing AARP to continue making billions of dollars in “kickbacks” by overcharging seniors for insurance policies and denying access to seniors with pre-existing conditions. With Speaker Pelosi calling insurance companies “immoral villains,” and Sen. Jay Rockefeller deriding them as “rapacious,” many may question why Democrats are so quick to rely on an organization that has received billions of dollars in windfall profits from those same insurers as an “independent” source to support their government takeover of health care. More importantly, a fundamental question presents itself: With its own members believing that AARP is “making money on the backs of old people,” who should believe that the organization is looking out for seniors’ interests and not its own?
