AARP backs healthcare bill

[chanel]

Let's follow the money. AARP takes in more than half of its $1.1 billion budget in royalty fees from health insurers and other vendors that market services with the organization's name. Medicare supplementary policies, called "Medigap" plans, make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue.

A Washington Post front-page story on Oct. 27 questioned whether AARP has a conflict of interest in appearing to represent seniors while watching Congress cut Medicare.

"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, according to health-care experts, legislative aides and documents," the Post reported.

Medigap plans are a cash cow for AARP.

AARP's tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors -- chicagotribune.com

 

[editec]

The AMA and AARP both sign onto HC reform.

Good for them.

Of course, based on what I understand of the HC plan, thus far, I can see why the AMA is signing onto the concept.

Doctors are going to continue enjoying raising fees when we give HC benies to those 40,000,000 Americans who currently don't have it.

 

[mudwhistle]

The AMA and AARP have always been supporters of the Democrats health care reforms.

The press and Obama act like this is something new.

Obama announced this yesterday knowing that he's always had their support, then he walked out of the room like a spoiled brat without answering a single question from the press. The look on his face when he left was very telling. He was getting out before he had to further explain himself. What an asshole.

So much for Transparancy.

 

[saveliberty]

This might wipe that smug look off his face:

Pelosi still dealing as vote nears - Yahoo! News

Pelosi says she'll have 218 votes by Saturday. That was after telling us she had them already earlier in the week. Hey Nancy, got votes? This one vote will define you for the 2010 election Democrats. No is the wawy to go.

 

[Oldandtired]

May have been said here already...

But I am sure all are aware that AARP is going to have a corner on the market for the medicaire insurance that is being eliminated in the bill.....I think it is called Medicare advantage or something like that......

Anyone wonder whether or not that may have something to do with their support?

 

[Oddball]

The AMA and AARP both sign onto HC reform.

Good for them.

Of course, based on what I understand of the HC plan, thus far, I can see why the AMA is signing onto the concept.

Doctors are going to continue enjoying raising fees when we give HC benies to those 40,000,000 Americans who currently don't have it.

AARP is a bunch of lobbyists and the AMA represents less than 1/3 of all MDs.

Hardly resounding endorsements.

 

[Oldandtired]

The AMA and AARP both sign onto HC reform.

Good for them.

Of course, based on what I understand of the HC plan, thus far, I can see why the AMA is signing onto the concept.

Doctors are going to continue enjoying raising fees when we give HC benies to those 40,000,000 Americans who currently don't have it.

AARP is a bunch of lobbyists and the AMA represents less than 1/3 of all MDs.

Hardly resounding endorsements.

AMA membership makes up 17% of all medical professionals with their doctorates currently practicing in the US.

Hardly a majority.

 

[Christopher]

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

The rest of the world gets it, why don't you?

I see you ignored my questions. Can't defend them huh? Let's take France, one of your favorites. France has a 40% tax rate. How much of that is necessary to pay for health care? Doctors get paid $55,000 a year. How many doctors do you think will practice at that pay rate? France pays for doctors to go to college. Is that figured into health care costs? It is cheaper. Is that why I should give up my insurance? You act as though peolpe without coverage don't get care. That is not the case. You just want to control me. I get it.

No, you don't get it.

In France medical schools are cheap, therefore their are many more doctors per capita than we have here. More doctors, cheaper medical care. Pretty simple really.

And their tax rate has nothing to do with it. They still pay much less per capita for healthcare than we do. Nice try at lying about the cost of healthcare in France, but you can't fool me with bullshit.

Please explain how the currently proposed health care bill will address the United States' doctor supply. We already have a hard time keeping up with demand for nurses. What will happen to costs when 30 million more people begin going to the doctor because they now have coverage if the doctor/nurse supply does not increase to handle these people?

Using what countries pay per capita without looking into the reasons why is foolish. Too many people apply numbers and statistics to a situation and reach an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Oddball]

Chrissy is famous for his endless and truly unintelligent post hoc ergo propter hoc claims.

You might as well get used to it.

 

[Chris]

I see you ignored my questions. Can't defend them huh? Let's take France, one of your favorites. France has a 40% tax rate. How much of that is necessary to pay for health care? Doctors get paid $55,000 a year. How many doctors do you think will practice at that pay rate? France pays for doctors to go to college. Is that figured into health care costs? It is cheaper. Is that why I should give up my insurance? You act as though peolpe without coverage don't get care. That is not the case. You just want to control me. I get it.

No, you don't get it.

In France medical schools are cheap, therefore their are many more doctors per capita than we have here. More doctors, cheaper medical care. Pretty simple really.

And their tax rate has nothing to do with it. They still pay much less per capita for healthcare than we do. Nice try at lying about the cost of healthcare in France, but you can't fool me with bullshit.

Please explain how the currently proposed health care bill will address the United States' doctor supply. We already have a hard time keeping up with demand for nurses. What will happen to costs when 30 million more people begin going to the doctor because they now have coverage if the doctor/nurse supply does not increase to handle these people?

Using what countries pay per capita without looking into the reasons why is foolish. Too many people apply numbers and statistics to a situation and reach an incorrect conclusion.

You really are clueless.

The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, you don't get it.

In France medical schools are cheap, therefore their are many more doctors per capita than we have here. More doctors, cheaper medical care. Pretty simple really.

And their tax rate has nothing to do with it. They still pay much less per capita for healthcare than we do. Nice try at lying about the cost of healthcare in France, but you can't fool me with bullshit.

Please explain how the currently proposed health care bill will address the United States' doctor supply. We already have a hard time keeping up with demand for nurses. What will happen to costs when 30 million more people begin going to the doctor because they now have coverage if the doctor/nurse supply does not increase to handle these people?

Using what countries pay per capita without looking into the reasons why is foolish. Too many people apply numbers and statistics to a situation and reach an incorrect conclusion.

You really are clueless.

The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.

Yet you assume they "pay less" (though we know most don't) just because the government pays for it ... that's more clueless.

 

[elvis]

Please explain how the currently proposed health care bill will address the United States' doctor supply. We already have a hard time keeping up with demand for nurses. What will happen to costs when 30 million more people begin going to the doctor because they now have coverage if the doctor/nurse supply does not increase to handle these people?

Using what countries pay per capita without looking into the reasons why is foolish. Too many people apply numbers and statistics to a situation and reach an incorrect conclusion.

You really are clueless.

The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.

Yet you assume they "pay less" (though we know most don't) just because the government pays for it ... that's more clueless.

what have I told you about picking on mental midgets?

 

[Chris]

Please explain how the currently proposed health care bill will address the United States' doctor supply. We already have a hard time keeping up with demand for nurses. What will happen to costs when 30 million more people begin going to the doctor because they now have coverage if the doctor/nurse supply does not increase to handle these people?

Using what countries pay per capita without looking into the reasons why is foolish. Too many people apply numbers and statistics to a situation and reach an incorrect conclusion.

You really are clueless.

The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.

Yet you assume they "pay less" (though we know most don't) just because the government pays for it ... that's more clueless.

Link?

 

[KittenKoder]

You really are clueless.

The rest of the world pays less per capita for healthcare because national health insurance is more effective and cheaper than the emergency room.

Yet you assume they "pay less" (though we know most don't) just because the government pays for it ... that's more clueless.

Link?

A link to show the assumption you made in the post I quoted?

Clueless? Did I call you clueless? I meant, extremely stupid.

 

[Chris]

Yet you assume they "pay less" (though we know most don't) just because the government pays for it ... that's more clueless.

Link?

A link to show the assumption you made in the post I quoted?

Clueless? Did I call you clueless? I meant, extremely stupid.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

 

[DiveCon]

Link?

A link to show the assumption you made in the post I quoted?

Clueless? Did I call you clueless? I meant, extremely stupid.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

now prove it would cost less to have the government do it here

 

[KittenKoder]

Link?

A link to show the assumption you made in the post I quoted?

Clueless? Did I call you clueless? I meant, extremely stupid.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

First ... you don't have anything more recent?

Second ... that does not address how you came to your assumption that the government paying their healthcare costs influences the price ... a rather flimsy assumption really.

 

[Chris]

A link to show the assumption you made in the post I quoted?

Clueless? Did I call you clueless? I meant, extremely stupid.

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

First ... you don't have anything more recent?

Second ... that does not address how you came to your assumption that the government paying their healthcare costs influences the price ... a rather flimsy assumption really.

Two years ago is not recent enough?

That's hysterical.

The rest of the world uses national health insurance to keep costs down and provide basic coverage for everyone. We need to do the same.

 

[elvis]

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

First ... you don't have anything more recent?

Second ... that does not address how you came to your assumption that the government paying their healthcare costs influences the price ... a rather flimsy assumption really.

Two years ago is not recent enough?

That's hysterical.

The rest of the world uses national health insurance to keep costs down and provide basic coverage for everyone. We need to do the same.

yes, comrade stalin.

 

[KittenKoder]

Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 — Infoplease.com

First ... you don't have anything more recent?

Second ... that does not address how you came to your assumption that the government paying their healthcare costs influences the price ... a rather flimsy assumption really.

Two years ago is not recent enough?

That's hysterical.

The rest of the world uses national health insurance to keep costs down and provide basic coverage for everyone. We need to do the same.

How does having the government pay for everyone keep the costs down?