I have been extremely hard on AARP for their support of the Obama Administration’s healthcare reform – whoops, just like “global warming” morphed into global climate change when the evidence pointed to the possibility of global cooling – the Obama Administration is no longer pursuing healthcare reform when it appears there are significant negative consequences in their plan, they are NOW pursuing healthcare insurance reform.

The only things you need to know and question …

Why is the Obama Administration and democrat Congress willing to decimate the current healthcare system or adversely affect the ability of private insurers to offer their products – to cover a marginal number of people (with millions of illegal aliens)? Destroying a system which serves 85% of the population to gain coverage for another 12 –20 million people at a cost to the taxpayer of trillions of dollars?

Why does the democrat Congress plan to exempt themselves, elected officials  and unionized government workers from the plan although millions of people are employed by the government?

Why does Obama Administration demand that millions of people be covered with no corresponding increase in physicians and/or facilities?

Why does the Obama Administration demand that a “best practices” approach be used to limit the type and amount of care that might be offered by the government plan?

Why are there minimal programmatic safeguards against waste, fraud and corruption?

AARP’s appeal to its membership to get out AARP’s version of the truth …

AARP’s truth ….

Another look at AARP’s facts …

Fact 1 – Medicare will not be initially impacted … but how can any comprehensive plan be developed that promotes competing and overlapping dual or triple healthcare delivery systems? At some point in time, Medicare will be buried within the new system.

And speaking of Medicare, why haven’t the democrats or the Obama Administration concentrated more on the dysfunctional systems within Medicare or started to eliminate waste fraud and abuse that is occurring now? 

The government cannot adequately fund and manage Medicare, what might happen when the program extends to cover everybody?

Fact 2 – It is true that there is “No legislation currently in Congress would mandate the rationing of care.” Of course not, they would not be so stupid as to use those very words. The code words for rationing are “best practices.” Under a best practices approach, a committee decides on what are best practices based on outcomes which are closely related to age, physical condition and the nature of the affliction. Those things that are not on the “best practices list” will not be covered for payment by the system. Since most senior citizens consume their most expensive healthcare at the end of their lives, one might deny payments for procedures and drugs – given the short-term prognosis is not encouraging. Diagnostic tests, expensive drugs and costly procedures may be outlawed by this approach.

Fact 3 -- There is no provision of any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any kind. Of course not – this is a very sore subject with those who believe only God has the right to determine lifespan. But the counseling will include “end of life” decisions with the goal of making a “living will” possibly to specify that there is a “do not resuscitate” order issued for those who are ill or planning for the future. Or planning for “hospice care” which provides pain management drugs to deal with problems that will arise as you surrender your rights to further medical treatments to prolong your life. It could be thought of as a form of controlled euthanasia as the morphine cocktails will eventually cause you to slip away from kidney failure. 

Fact 4 – While they do not overtly endorse the Obama plan, they do provide the venue for the President to expound on his plans, suspend all critical thinking and send e-mail blasts that surely seem to support the President’s plan.

Bottom line …

AARP seems to have taken a position that is contrary to the wants and needs of their membership – a membership which is not being polled as to what they want their organization to say on their behalf.

Perhaps someone should point out the inherent conflict of interest of AARP’s profit-making business selling insurance and drugs to senior citizens with their so-called representation of senior citizens? Perhaps the commercial side of AARP is counting on a windfall of profits under Obamacare?

Ask AARP how they can come to a conclusion about what is contained in the healthcare plan when the final draft copy of the plan still has not been written – and much of the authority for healthcare decisions are left to the Secretaries and unelected, unconfirmed czars?

Apparently I am not the only one that believes AARP has sold out seniors to secure favor with the Obama Administration ...

Check out this editorial in Investor's Business Daily ...

"AARP denies being in league with the administration in pushing its medical insurance agenda. But as Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor for the Washington Examiner reports, that claim may be bogus despite a statement by AARP CEO Barry Rand in the July 31 issue that 'AARP has not endorsed any of the bills currently being debated in Congress.'"

"On Monday, Connie Hair of Human Events reported on a memo from Pelosi in which the speaker described the Democrats' plan to 'partner' with AARP as part of a planned August recess PR blitz for government expansion of medical insurance. The fiasco in Dallas was an example of that partnership."

"The memo said: 'The leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August.' How can the AARP claim to have not endorsed the administration's health care agenda as it works to get its member to embrace it?"

"The explanation for the memo was that it was just a 'draft' composed by an 'overzealous staffer.' Fact is, AARP has long worked to accumulate power in the hands of the government, with the organization's hierarchy opening up its wallets to support Democrats and this administration in particular."

In the final analysis, why should we rush this plan through the Congress when President Obama took six months to pick his children’s dog?

-- steve

_______________________________________________

OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …