Lloyd Streeter

AARP sent out an email to it’s members asking them to promote it’s talking points about health care.  The talking points are just propaganda.  I am going to discuss here the AARP talking points, but I am not going to say what AARP wants me to say.

“FACT #1:  Medicare will not be ended, and no benefits or services will be cut.”

My Response:  There is no final bill as yet.  It is still a work in progress, and no one knows exactly what will be in it.  So, neither AARP nor anyone else knows if Medicare will be ended or cut.  What some members of congress have suggested, however, is that there should be a new federal health insurance and that people presently receiving Medicare should be shunted into that new program.  The idea is that all of the problems with Medicare could thus be solved.  In that case Medicare would end.  The real question is:  Will America break faith with its Seniors?  After all, Seniors bought and paid for Medicare.  Will there now be a “bait and switch?”  Medicare should be looked upon as a form of annuity, a financial instrument that is bought before the time of need.  If seniors had not been forced to buy Medicare, they might have had money to buy some other plan.  There have already been many cuts in both Medicare and Social Security, and there are many in Congress who want to make more cuts in benefits.

“FACT #2: No legislation currently in Congress would mandate the rationing of care.  Period.”

My response: Of course there isn’t.  Why would anyone in Congress write that into a bill?  The real question is:  Will rationing be the logical consequence of national health insurance?  The answer is, YES.  Under a national health insurance program, providers (Doctors and hospitals) would be told that the pay schedule for various procedures will be so much, about 1/3 of what the providers are now charging.  The consequence of the government’s pay schedule will be that in the future there will be fewer and fewer providers, and far fewer QUALITY providers.  You ask, “How do you know that the government program will pay far less than Doctors now paid?”  Answer: Because that is what has happened with Medicare.  The result of having fewer providers will be rationing of health care.  It is inevitable.   In every socialist country, this is what has happened!  Nationalized care leads to a cut in remuneration for providers, and that leads to rationing.

“FACT #3:  There is no provision of (sic) any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any kind.”

My response: No.  It would take a real idiot of a Congressman to write something like that into a proposed bill, provided, of course, that he wanted it to pass.  The real question is:  Will the inevitable rationing of health care result in the government refusing to pay for procedures that might keep seniors alive?  Some in the Administration and in Congress are on record as being in favor of turning down care for old people when the money and resources are needed for young people.  These are the horrible realities of health care rationing.  Rationing can best be avoided by letting the free market system work, resulting in both young and old alike receiving the care they need.

“FACT #4:  We have not endorsed President Obama’s plan.”

My response:  Words are tricky, sometimes.  Endorsed? How about promoted?  Obama does not have a plan yet.  But is AARP pushing for a nationalized health care insurance program?  Yes.  And does Obama have AARP “in the tank” for a nationalized health insurance program?  Yes.  In fact, the President said as much yesterday.  The AARP leadership and Board does not speak for a majority of it’s membership on this.  That is why AARP is speaking out of both sides of it’s mouth on this issue.

FACT #5: “So what is AARP fighting for in health reform?  1. Stopping insurance companies from charging older Americans unaffordable premiums because of their age.  2.  Ending the practice of excluding people from insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  3.  Holding down health costs and making insurance coverage more affordable for all Americans.  4.  Making prescription drugs more affordable by narrowing the Medicare doughnut hole, bringing generics to market faster, and allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices.”

My response:  Comprehensive nationalized health care is not needed in order to achieve  these worthy goals.  These are worthwhile goals.  And you could add, 5. Give financial incentives to medical schools and prospective new doctors.   6.  Kick some of the illegal borderjumpers out of our country, because they are bleeding the health care system dry.  7.  Fix the tort system.   It should also be added that the 4th item above has already been achieved through the cooperation of the drug companies who are going to narrow the doughnut hole by making drugs cheaper for those who reach the $2,700 limit.  The other goals mentioned here could be reached with out having a nationalized health care system.  We do not need a government takeover of the health and insurance industries.