This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a libertarian-sounding organization that "provide(s) seniors with the choices, information, and services they need to live healthier, wealthier lives." Its president Stuart Barton believes "seniors are most upset with (proposed) cuts in Medicare (and) flat-out (opposes) Obama's plan (calling) for $313 billion dollars in Medicare cuts over ten years" and another $300 billion from Medicaid. Obama told a recent town hall meeting that AARP is "on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors."
An AARP spokesperson denied it, but members believe it's waffling by supporting Obama through the back door, while telling members no plan is being endorsed. According to its Social Impact vice president, Cheryl Matheis:
"AARP has not endorsed any plan at this point. We haven't seen provisions in legislation yet, so we're going to reserve judgment until we see them." But she admitted that so far she knows nothing to quibble with, leading members to view that as a tacit endorsement causing thousands to exit in anger. Still, the organization represents 40 million seniors, adds thousands more monthly, and loses them naturally through attrition. Whether current loses lead to greater ones may depend on what side of the health care debate AARP supports once legislative efforts are clearer.
Obama Administration Waffling
Over the August 15 weekend, the Obama administration dropped its demand for a "public option" in capitulation to the insurance giants that reject one out of hand and have lobbied ferociously against it. In its place, a Senate Finance Committee-proposed "non-profit health insurance cooperative" scheme may be adopted, similar to ones in many states that sell insurance, can pick and choose their members, reject ones judged costly, exclude pre-existing conditions, and charge premiums comparable to private insurers.
It's why critics denounce them as flawed, so we're back to square one if they're adopted. After initial government funding, they'd be on their own much like private for-profit businesses and end up operating the same way. They'll leave a dysfunctional system in place, do nothing effective to fix it, and keep private insurers and Big PhRMA in charge.
A Flawed Public Option Perhaps Abandoned
It was ill-conceived from the start as co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein explained in a July 22 commentary:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
