Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Obamas Healthcare Plan (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=412092)

  • Nov 6, 2009, 10:58 AM
    phlanx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    But the charge put forth is that WE, the AMERICANS were the ones forcing them to accept our values... not you Europeans. That's what the articles you put forward seem to be saying anyway.

    So unless we are now changing the accusation from it being Americans who forced their policies on Iraq to it being the USA and EUROPE TOGETHER that forced their values on the Iraqis, the point stands.

    Are you changing your accusation? If so, can you show me any evidence that European soldiers rigged the Iraqi elections?

    Elliot

    YOU ME WE

    Our two nations along with others were fighting in Iraq, I can appreciate that the inclosed almost incestual news that america seems to have can persuade you that it was just the US over there

    AND YES, YET AGAIN AND AGAIN I HAVE TO STATE TO YOU, THAT WE US, ARE THE ALLIED FORCE, NOT JUST ONE COUNTRY!!

    This is not a change, I have constantly stated that our countries, the US, UK and Europe Australia have ALL INFLUENCED IRAQ!

    WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!
  • Nov 6, 2009, 11:00 AM
    phlanx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    So... It wasn't the USA that forced it's policies on the Iraqis... it was the WTO.

    Got it.

    What you are actually saying is that the USA is innocent of all charges... the WTO is the guilty party.

    Thanks. Got it now.

    Now you are just be a single pointed argumentative human being

    IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD WORKS ELLIOT, try finding out for yourself, you will find that things are just not as simple as you make your arguments!
  • Nov 6, 2009, 11:11 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!
    For a while there Joe Biden thought he was Thomas Edward Lawrence with a blank map of Messopotamia .
  • Nov 6, 2009, 11:15 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    YOU ME WE

    Our two nations along with others were fighting in Iraq, I can appreciate that the inclosed almost incestual news that america seems to have can persuade you that it was just the US over there

    AND YES, YET AGAIN AND AGAIN I HAVE TO STATE TO YOU, THAT WE US, ARE THE ALLIED FORCE, NOT JUST ONE COUNTRY!!!!

    This is not a change, I have constantly stated that our countries, the US, UK and Europe Australia have ALL INFLUENCED IRAQ!

    WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!

    In the current era? That would be Churchill.

    In ancient times? The Babylonians made their own borders. So did the Persians right next door.

    And again, INFLUENCE is very different from FORCING or PRESSING. I should hope that we influenced them toward democracy. But we didn't FORCE them into anything.

    You seem to think that "influencing" is a bad thing. Why is that?

    Nations have been influencing each other for millennia. India influenced China with Budhism in the 2nd Century CE when Bhodi Dharma travelled through China teaching his philosophy. He never forced ANYONE to accept his philosophy, he merely influenced them... and China became an overwhelmingly Budhist society. Was that "influence" a bad thing?

    Christianity influenced the Roman Empire. It didn't force Rome to accept Christianity as the main religion of the empire, but it certainly influenced them. (The Christians didn't actually have the power to FORCE anyone to do anything until centuries later, with the advent of the Byzantine Empire.) Was such influence "bad"?

    If force had been used in Iraq, I would probably agree with you that it was a bad thing. But it wasn't. The Iraqis were influenced, yes. I freely admit that. But influence is NOT the same as force. And influence is not a bad thing, as long as the one being influenced still can choose his own path. I think that Iraq fits the bill.

    Again, if you can show me evidence of force being used... your exact word was "pressed" or "pressing", I believe... then I will be happy to review that evidence.

    Elliot
  • Nov 6, 2009, 11:17 AM
    phlanx

    Hahaha, I just had to look up who Joe Biden was?

    Has been a criteria to have certain names to gain office this year? :)

    I think TE Lawrence would be very sad to see what has happened to the area, especially as the arabs should have had it anyway
  • Nov 6, 2009, 11:36 AM
    phlanx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    In the current era? That would be Churchill.

    There was no country of Iraq until it was created by the British in 1920. In 1534 the Ottoman Turks conquered the area of what is now Iraq. Here the Ottoman empire ruled until its defeat in World War I because Turkey sided with the Central powers. After World War I, the French and British divided up the formerly Ottoman-controlled lands in the Middle East. France was given a League of Nations mandate over Syria and Lebanon; Great Britain was given the same over Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq. The modern state of Iraq was created out of the three Ottoman provinces of Basra, Mosul, and Baghdad. The defeat of the Turks may have brought to an end the Ottoman empire, but it began a century of Western imperialism.

    So the ansser to the question which was not really a question, was David Lloyd George, as he was PM to King George V

    Quote:

    And again, INFLUENCE is very different from FORCING or PRESSING. I should hope that we influenced them toward democracy. But we didn't FORCE them into anything.
    Influence is [noun] a power to affect persons or events especially power based on prestige

    So YEP I do think we Influenced them

    Quote:

    You seem to think that "influencing" is a bad thing. Why is that?
    Here we go again, trying to put words in my mouth to twist an argument around, so you know you have no answers to what I have said - I am the one that has constantly stated to YOU matey, that influence is greater than political say. I have been a pro influence understanding all along, I am sorry that it has missed you, you might have learnt something

    Quote:

    If force had been used in Iraq, I would probably agree with you that it was a bad thing
    .

    Putting words in my mouth again elliot!

    For goodness sake man, you are speaking english, how much more of an example do you want of how influence works!

    Quote:

    But it wasn't. The Iraqis were influenced, yes. I freely admit that. But influence is NOT the same as force. And influence is not a bad thing, as long as the one being influenced still can choose his own path. I think that Iraq fits the bill.
    So by trying to twist my argument, you then slip it in and state you agree that influence played a major part in how Iraq is won, thank you for a very backward way of accepting this point

    Quote:

    Again, if you can show me evidence of force being used... your exact word was "pressed" or "pressing", I believe... then I will be happy to review that evidence.

    Elliot
    You will have to show me where I stated pressed first, as I cannot find it to see in what context it was said if ever at all, or just another attempt at twisting the argument

    Why don't you just simply say, I see and agree with your point of view - it would be a lot easier and for me I would gain more respect for you
  • Nov 6, 2009, 12:51 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    You will have to show me where I stated pressed first, as I cannot find it to see in what context it was said if ever at all, or just another attempt at twisting the argument


    Here it is.

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2068200

    Quote:

    However Elliot, you are saying when your attacked then it is okay to press your values on another country?
    That sounds like an accusation of "pressing our values" on the Iraqis to me. And it was an accusation against the USA, not ALL countries... since you specify in that post that you are talking about the country that was attacked.

    Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

    Perhaps I am putting words in your mouth... but they were YOUR WORDS TO BEGIN WITH.

    Elliot
  • Nov 6, 2009, 02:14 PM
    phlanx

    Have you read that statement - that's where the sentence starts, and ends, this then gives you the context of the sentence - I suggest you read it all!!

    Are you on drugs?
  • Nov 6, 2009, 05:40 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post

    This is not a change, I have constantly stated that our countries, the US, UK and Europe Australia have ALL INFLUENCED IRAQ!

    WHO Do you think made the borders of Iraq in the first place!

    Elliot I think it can be said that Australia made precious little difference to the outcome in Iraq either militarily or politically. It certainly wasn't our system of government that was imposed on Iraq. As I recall the UK and France may have had some influence in settling the borders and political structure in the middle east after WWI, but all that has gone and what you now have is a uniquely American not Muslim idea with a little tinkering at the edges by the Iraqi. It is good that they abandoned the idea of a President as an all powerful executive. Must have had the opportunity of observing the American system in action. Why you keep ducking the reality of this eludes me
  • Nov 6, 2009, 06:09 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Now that we're done talking about Islamo-fascism, back to the Obamacare debate. The GOP alternative would cost $61 billion, reduce the deficit by $68 billion and cut insurance premiums, as opposed to the Democrat plan which will cost as much $1.8 trillion, cut Medicare benefits and increase the already mammoth deficit.



    And by the way, unemployment just hit 10 percent and the economy is what won NJ and VA for Republicans. Go ahead, support your fiscal and health care nightmare and ignore common sense solutions.

    Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says - WSJ.com


    Quote:

    What the government will require you to do:

    • Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

    • Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

    See the article for more wonderful details of the Pelosi plan.


    G&P
  • Nov 7, 2009, 08:16 AM
    tomder55
    The bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.(can you say deth panels ?)Don't forget ;Dr Zeke Emanuel has written extensively about applying "cost/benefit analysis" to determine who should get care and to what extent.

    No wonder Madame Mimi broke her pledge to publish this on line for 72 hrs before the vote. They are still doing back room changes in the bill hours before the vote.
  • Nov 7, 2009, 10:05 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

    Link us up to text of the bill that shows this please.
  • Nov 7, 2009, 05:14 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Link us up to text of the bill that shows this please.

    What bill? The most ethical and transparent Congress ever won't post it.
  • Nov 7, 2009, 05:23 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    What bill? The most ethical and transparent Congress ever won't post it.

    So how did tom get his info then?
  • Nov 8, 2009, 02:08 AM
    tomder55

    What you are admitting then is that you did not read In's posting preceding mine.
    Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
  • Nov 8, 2009, 02:38 AM
    tomder55

    The Pelosi unconstitutional socialized medicine monstrosity passed late last night in the House of Representatives . The vote was 220-215 . Only one Republican voted for it while 39 Democrats voted for it. The bipartisan effort was in the opposition to the bill.

    I question the constitutional mandate for passing entitlements in the 1st place . This congress has taken it to new depths of depravity.They have passed a law that criminally penalizes people who refuse to exercise the entitlement.
  • Nov 8, 2009, 02:40 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    What you are admitting then is that you did not read In's posting preceding mine.
    Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

    a) where did he get it then if it's not available as you say?
    b) your quote simply says that, for example, in situation "a" procedure "b" is the best course. What's wrong with that?
  • Nov 8, 2009, 03:09 AM
    tomder55

    a.There were many revisions right up until the vote . The Speaker promised to post the final bill on line for 72 hrs before a vote. It was a LIE !
    That section of the bill was available .

    b. I can read between the lines and the legalese . The administration plans on placing people like Zeke Emanual at the head of any agency related to this gvt, plan ;and Emanuel has made his position clear. It will not advise a physicican ;it will dictate tp physicians.

    If this bill ,or any version of it ,makes it through the Senate ;seniors on Medicare are going to get screwed . Of that there is no debate .Whatever imaginary savings the Democrats think are in the bill are directly taken from the benefits seniors already have.
  • Nov 8, 2009, 03:11 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    That section of the bill was available .

    But you can't point us the actual text. :rolleyes:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    b. I can read between the lines and the legalese .

    No what you do is make up scare tactics instead of posting the actual parts of the bill.
  • Nov 8, 2009, 06:26 AM
    George_1950

    Similarly, "When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'"

    CNSNews.com - When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'
  • Nov 8, 2009, 08:07 AM
    George_1950

    What a paradox: a government that refuses to protect its citizens from illegal immigration, now proposes to lock-up those same citizens who do not choose to purchase health insurance. Makes you appreciate why Barack wants that civilian police force, as well trained and funded as the US military; wonder why he needs that?
  • Nov 8, 2009, 08:49 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    What a paradox: Makes you appreciate why Barack wants that civilian police force, as well trained and funded as the US military; wonder why he needs that?

    Hello again, George:

    Sooo, you only appreciate a well trained police force as long as it's doing the social engineering YOU approve of, huh? Yes, I'm speaking about the DEA.

    THAT'S the paradox, my friend.

    excon

    PS> At THIS point in time, we have a REAL bill that passed the House. Therefore, REAL words count this time. Although, you're going to have to show me the words in the bill where they LOCK people up who don't do their bidding, I don't see a whole lot of difference in locking people up because you don't like what they smoke, and locking 'em up because they don't buy what you want 'em to buy...

    Frankly, the precedent for HUGE government intervention into the personal lives of Americans was started, and is STILL supported by the likes of you. Poor Righty's. You reap what you sew.

    excon
  • Nov 8, 2009, 10:32 AM
    Catsmine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post

    Frankly, the precedent for HUGE government intervention into the personal lives of Americans was started, and is STILL supported by the likes of you.
    excon

    The Federalists?
  • Nov 8, 2009, 05:49 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    But you can't point us the actual text. :rolleyes:

    No what you do is make up scare tactics instead of posting the actual parts of the bill.

    It already happens. Insurance companies as well as the gov [ medicare and medicaid ] don't pay for things they deem not necessary. This is after the fact - the treatment rendered. So the doctors and the hospital eat the costs. You say big deal - well then doctors and hospitals start to limit services and it is the public that suffers - the poor, the uninsured, and the insured as costs are passed on as higher private insurance premiums, or higher taxes, or doctors just leaving the area.

    Here is a current example

    Today's Hospitalist :: UTIs: no longer another cost of doing business

    Now on the face of it preventing urinary tract infections is a good goal, but the reality is that there are reasons that a foley catheter is needed; urinary retention, incontinence and immobility - to prevent infections like bed sores which are much harder to treat. This is stuff in the trenches, but gov lawmakers have to interfere.

    It is also in the news about reducing readmissions; another good and ideal thing. The reality is that people get readmitted to the hospital for reasons beyond the doctor's or the hospital's control. Heart falure, emphysema, coronary artery disease are chronic conditions. They are not cured, thy can be managed. For example, a person who has asthma or emphysema that smokes - they are likely to be hospitalized more than a person with the same condition who does not smoke. What is an emergency room to do with the smoker who comes back in a week after just being hospitalized and needs to be admitted again. Currently we treat the person and their illness. Under gov mandates there is and will be mandates, penalties, financial pressure NOT TO TREAT this person.

    Ask any veteran in the VA system how much choice, how convenient the VA system is.
    Ask Ex why he does not get his care exclusively through the VA system .


    G&P
  • Nov 8, 2009, 08:02 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    It already happens. Insurance companies as well as the gov [ medicare and medicaid ] don't pay for things they deem not necessary. This is after the fact - the treatment rendered. so the doctors and the hospital eat the costs. You say big deal - well then doctors and hospitals start to limit services and it is the public that suffers - the poor, the uninsured, and the insured as costs are passed on as higher private insurance premiums, or higher taxes, or doctors just leaving the area.


    You certainly have some weird sort of beauracracy over there, so bent on cost reduction and micro-management. It must be a risk management approach to health care, a sort of everyone has one chance to get well, without managing the patient's condition. In such circumstances it is easier to have a co-payment system where the patient is rebated a set and known proportion of the cost.
  • Nov 8, 2009, 08:32 PM
    inthebox

    Rebates:

    Os a good idea, that way people will know the real costs and therefore make their own choices as to whether running to the ER for a cold is really worth the cost. The initial upfront cost should come from pre-tax dollars or tax free HSAs [health saving acconts ].

    Interqual criteria judges intensity of service and severity of illness to determine if a hospital admission/"medical loss" is justified.


    G&P
  • Nov 8, 2009, 09:54 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    Rebates:

    Os a good idea, that way people will know the real costs and therefore make their own choices as to whether running to the ER for a cold is really worth the cost. The initial upfront cost should come from pre-tax dollars or tax free HSAs [health saving acconts ].

    Interqual criteria judges intensity of service and severity of illness to determine if a hospital admission/"medical loss" is justified.


    G&P

    Yeh, we do it here as part of a government paid scheme but the ER isn't included, that's free whatever, so people go the doctor and use the ER after hours
  • Nov 9, 2009, 09:11 AM
    George_1950
    1 Attachment(s)
    Here's a funny cartoon...
  • Nov 9, 2009, 01:51 PM
    speechlesstx

    And here's the organizational chart for Pelosicare:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...rt_11-7-09.jpg
  • Nov 9, 2009, 07:09 PM
    paraclete
    Isn't great, you finally got more than half of you to agree on something. I saw the stack of paperwork, it certainly isn't simple. No doubt your lawyers will have field day making money out of this. But it looks like a camel, you know, a horse designed by a committee.

    If you wanted a camel, why didn't you say so? We have a million going cheap and in full working order, you didn't have to design your own :)
  • Nov 10, 2009, 01:56 AM
    phlanx

    Looks like it's a picture designed to scare someone!

    Any national company with thousands of offices have a similar complicated link chart!

    I am just amazed that one republican voted for the bill - there is hope that the most powerful nation on the planet will start to look after his fellow human, and then just maybe, the reputation of the US will change
  • Nov 10, 2009, 06:47 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    I am just amazed that one republican voted for the bill
    Here's the inside scoop on that. The Congressman just won in a solid Democrat district because the Dem who had the seat got caught taking bribe money and shoved it in his freezer.

    The Republicans waited until the vote was decided and then released the Congressman to vote in favor of the legislation to give him political cover next year. Had the decision still had been in doubt he would've voted with the Republicans.

    Truth is that the only real bipartisanship in this was in oppposition to this hostile takeover of 20 % of the US economy.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 02:01 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    Truth is that the only real bipartisanship in this was in oppposition to this hostile takeover of 20 % of the US economy.

    Well they may as well go for 100%, they already have Banking, Insurance, Auto, Military, why not get the last 20%
  • Nov 11, 2009, 10:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Bill Clinton told Dems yesterday (besides digging at "tea-baggers), "The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want."

    Yeah that's it, we elected these people to "just pass the bill." I mean who cares if it's a "rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill" that's a "nightmare," as Camille Paglia put it. We can always trust them to fix it later, right?
  • Nov 11, 2009, 10:37 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Besides digging at "tea-baggers"
    Bubba is walking on thin ice with those sentiments.


    The definitive " cat out of the bag" confession of the true statists motives for this is found in an essay by The New Yorker's John Cassidy
    Some Vaguely Heretical Thoughts on Health-Care Reform: Rational Irrationality : The New Yorker

    Quote:

    So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government's spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.
    That takes me back to where I began. Both in terms of the political calculus of the Democratic Party, and in terms of making the United States a more equitable society, expanding health-care coverage now and worrying later about its long-term consequences is an eminently defensible strategy. Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted. But as an economics reporter and commentator, I feel obliged to put on my green eyeshade and count the dollars.
  • Nov 12, 2009, 07:52 AM
    speechlesstx
    Pelosi says Obamacare will be our "Christmas present."



    Has anyone told these people it's not their damn money, that our tax dollars are not their personal Christmas fund? As Allahpundit put it, this is like “borrowing” a friend’s credit card, buying a car with it, then presenting them with the car on Christmas morning as their “gift.”

    Where's the window to return this Congress and administration?
  • Nov 12, 2009, 08:14 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Has anyone told these people it's not their damn money, that our tax dollars are not their personal Christmas fund?

    Hello again, Steve:

    Of course, you believe the right wing schtick about it COSTING money..

    Whereas, the truth of the matter is, the program SAVES us money as opposed to the Republicans plan. But, more importantly, NOT doing anything to reform health care WILL bankrupt us, absolutely, positively and without a doubt. As folks who tend to be numbers oriented, I don't know why you don't look at that.

    excon
  • Nov 12, 2009, 08:40 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Of course, you believe the right wing schtick about it COSTING money..

    Whereas, the truth of the matter is, the program SAVES us money as opposed to the Republicans plan. But, more importantly, NOT doing anything to reform health care WILL bankrupt us, absolutely, positively and without a doubt. As folks who tend to be numbers oriented, I don't know why you don't look at that.

    I bet you're a sucker for sales ads, too. You know, the more you spend the more you save. Do tell, how is Obamacare going to save money? Death panels and such?

    Quote:

    The health overhaul bill that narrowly passed the House on Saturday includes a provision to nudge more people to confront such choices: It would pay for end-of-life counseling for Medicare patients.

    Supporters say counseling would give patients more control and free families from tortuous decisions. Critics have warned it could lead to government ''death panels.'' What few on either side note is that counseling could lead more people to choose less intensive care when they're dying, and ultimately trim government-funded health bills.
  • Nov 12, 2009, 08:50 AM
    tomder55

    By the way . I found out why AARP was so willing to throw seniors under the bus.

    AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors, but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets.

    The AARP has endorsed the gargantuan PelosiCare bill that just passed the House, despite the fact the bill proposes more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare, which is certain to lead to rationing, inferior care and "death panels" for vulnerable senior citizens.

    Why? As they say, follow the money. PelosiCare will also cut Medicare Advantage by $170 billion. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase private insurance with their Medicare payments, but these cuts will drive many of these seniors into inferior Medigap plans.

    AARP has a vested interest in seniors being driven out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans because AARP makes a fortune in royalty fees from Medigap plans.

    More than one-half of its $1.1 billion budget comes from such royalty fees, and Medigap plans make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue by far. The more seniors are forced out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans, the more money AARP makes. In other words, under PelosiCare, seniors lose but AARP wins - big time.

    Even the Washington Post noted the conflict of interest on Oct. 27, when it said, "Democratic proposals to slash reimbursements for...Medicare Advantage are widely expected to drive up demand for private Medigap policies like the ones offered by AARP."
    AARP's tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors -- chicagotribune.com
  • Nov 12, 2009, 12:04 PM
    speechlesstx
    AARP sucks. I hope they crash and burn and take Pelosi with them. Pelosi now tells us it's "very fair" to jail people for not buying her "Christmas present." Man, Christmas just keeps getting better and better. Rep. Peter Roskam asks the right question in Saturday's floor discussion:



    Quote:

    We’ve heard from the best and the brightest all afternoon, and not a one of them have answered why it is that you have to criminalize people to coax them into a plan that’s so fabulous. It makes no sense. … The other side, with all due respect, with all the adjectives and all the flourishing speech, have failed to answer that question.
    Ed Morrisey provides the answer the Dems can't or won't give, "Statism always requires force, and it always strips people of liberty. It always comes with handcuffs. That’s how we know it’s coming."

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:22 AM.