AARP Endorses Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (game over)

[papau]

AARP Endorses Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - AARP threw the weight of its 35 million members behind a planned Medicare prescription drug benefit on Monday, handing Republicans a pivotal endorsement as they fight Democratic critics.

"We're going to work to get it passed," said AARP chief executive William Novelli in an interview with The Associated Press.

Novelli said the AARP will "pull out all the stops" to get the bill passed, including a three-day television campaign this week.

Novelli said the bill is not perfect, "but the country can't afford to wait for perfect. On balance, it's the right thing for seniors in America and their families." <snip>




http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4217483.html

AARP endorses Medicare prescription drug benefit
Associated Press Published November 17, 2003 AARP18

WASHINGTON -- The 35 million-member AARP on Monday endorsed a largely Republican-written bill to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and increase the role of private insurers in the government health care program for the elderly.

[LittleApple81]

1. How do they know if not even the Democrats have seen it yet? n/t

[GRClarkesq]

30. Wrong bill

You are thinking of the energy bill.

[CMT]

2. If the economy continues to improve noticeably and

seniors get a drug benefit we could have a tough fight of it next year.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Yep, they're undercutting Dean here

which is why national defense/security will decide the show.

[RetroLounge]

19. Is this a Dean thread????

Oh, wait, you don't care. Any reason to bash...

If the AARP is behind the Republicans, doesn't that undercut ALL the Dem Candidates?

Duh...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. It takes away his "medical expertise" edge

Duh. And leaves his anti-war liberal image as his "strength".

[CMT]

21. actually Dean might do best

because he is against the war while some of the others voted for the war and there will be a real debate on that issue. The price of the war in both casualities and dollars along with Bush's deceptions will be a key issue and Dean is best suited to lead the attack.

[w4rma]

48. The bill is crap and won't do anything, especially before the election.

They can say they passed a "prescription drug bill", but since noone will *ever* see any positive results from *this* bill, health care is *still* going to be a huge issue.

[fjc]

4. It's a compromise...

For which both parties can take either credit or blame. All Dean or any other Democrat has to do is to emphasise the party's role in passing it, something that would not have happened if it had been up to Republicans.

[lark]

5. They'll do anything to win

"Paranoia strikes deep...."

They know they can't win on the issues, so they will just rig the voting machines like they did in Fl. and MO. in 2000 and like Georgia in 2002. With Diebold's top executive guaranteeing a Republican sweep, is there any chance that any close election goes to a Dem?

This Medicare bill is totally awful, all it really does is ensure that Medicare will fail by 2005 by guaranteeing the drug industry it's obscene profits. Do they EVER do anything for the common person - NO! It's all big money for the big contributors so they can maintain their power and pillage some more.

Makes me sick.

lark

[drfemoe]

28. A drug "benefit"?????

Yup . just think 'clear skies' and WORLD PEACE .. remember .. *** says the world is a SAFER PLACE now that he's got started on it.
And now Drug Benefits!! LOL

Statement by Governor Dean on Prescription Drug Bill
BALTIMORE--Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued the following statement today:

"The Republican Medicare drug bill is a real-life HMO: Huge Missed Opportunity. Instead of taking this opportunity to come together and provide a meaningful drug benefit seniors can count on, Republicans and the White House have put the interests of the drug industry and HMOs ahead of the best interests of older Americans.

"This bill drives seniors out of traditional Medicare into heavily subsidized private drug HMOs. Under this plan, seniors could end up paying more out of pocket than they receive in benefits, and retirees could end up losing valuable drug benefits that they worked hard to earn. And the poorest seniors -- 6 million or more -- would have worse coverage than today, yet be forced to pay more for it.

"Just as with the war, politicians in Washington will be under enormous political pressure -- this time from the White House, drug lobbyists and HMOs who are mounting a full court press to pass this special interest boondoggle. But, just as with the war and NCLB, the damage this bill causes to our seniors will come back to haunt this administration and those who support it for years to come. I urge Democrats to stand up for our seniors and stand strong against the special interests and political pressure. We will have a Medicare prescription drug benefit in this country that works for our seniors only when we change Washington, change presidents, challenge corporate special interests and change the direction of this country."

[denverbill]

6. Cheap short-term political gain.

'We gave them a prescription drug plan' will be the Republican mantra for 2004. And they did. But in 2004, voters will still have no clue if the plan actually helps anyone, which it won't.

Unfortunately for Democrats, they have little choice but to vote FOR the plan at this point. If they don't, and the plan fails to pass, Republicans will blame them for the failure. If they vote for it, and it passes, the plan can always be fixed later.

Vote for it, but do so grumblingly, citing it's many shortcomings.

[La_Serpiente]

7. Here is the AARP statement

Statement on by AARP CEO Bill Novelli Medicare Legislation Proposal



November 16, 2003

AARP is hopeful that the recently announced agreement in principle will result in adding a much-needed prescription drug benefit in Medicare. While we have yet to review actual language, we are encouraged by the conference committee members' efforts. The willingness of the committee members to move toward common ground by further reducing the scope of the private market competition test is an important step.

We are pleased to see significantly increased protections for retiree health benefits.

We are also pleased to see movement on the Medicaid wrap issue which limits cost sharing for our most vulnerable seniors. It will be important that this bill not make their situation more difficult as the program is implemented over time.

Our members and millions of other Medicare beneficiaries and their families need help, which can only come through bipartisan legislation. However, we will only give our support to legislation that will protect Medicare for today's generation of beneficiaries and generations that follow.

http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-11-17-medicareprogress.html

[markus]

8. So, when will the AP be running their retraction

eom?
On edit, change AARP to AP in the headline.

[qanda]

9. Hardly sounds like a glowing endorsement to me.

eom

[Paschall]

11. Hardly sounds like an endorsement at all

It sounds like a nod to progress made (endorsement of 'drug benefit') and explicit concerns as regards the final wording of the legislation, particularly protecting Medicare for future generations.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. So if seniors are made to beg HMO's for their prescription...

drugs then, NO SALE BUSH!!!

[markus]

12. My email to the editor of the local paper

Before y'all rip-and-run the current AP wire story, I hope somebody will look at the actual AARP statement, and try to reconcile the two.

AP story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20031117/ap_on_go_co/medicare_aarp


Novelli's actual statement:
http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-11-17-medicareprogress.html

As a former journalist, I am tired of the capitulation of large parts of the (mostly broadcast, and particularly cable) mainstream media into the camp of Republican water bearers. I am deeply dispirited that I have to read the non-tab British dailies to really know what's going on in the world beyond our borders.

I hope you don't mind if I occasionally speak up and send things of this sort.

[papau]

14. 11/16 AARP statement replaced by today's AARP Statement

24 hours and the world changes

sigh

[PROGRESSIVE1]

16. If the AARP is going to sell-out to Bush then...

my parents are going to leave them.

:puke:

[0007]

23. I dumped AARP a long time ago.....

AARP cater only to the people in a higher income bracket than me.

[Paschall]

18. Keep it up, markus!

The good thing is that Novelli's statement is not at all ambiguous--AARP is doing its job to lobby for seniors and doesn't consider the current draft fully acceptable.

Second good thing: AARP communicates directly with its membership, the bypassing The Filter (or the "black propaganda" as someone called it).

[Cleita]

13. I have already written AARP to let them know how

disgusted I am by this. All senior citizens, especially members need to do the same. This is giving away our health benefits at a time of our lives that we are most vulnerable and least able to fight back. If any of you have had to fight the bureaucracy at an HMO, imagine how hard it is for someone who is sick, frail and barely able to do it.

[joanski01]

15. The way I understand it is

if a senior chooses to stay in the Medicare plan, the premiums will increase drastically. If they choose to go to a private insurance company, the company will be able to drop any high-risk seniors that they choose. AARP was supposed to get the Repukes to strip out this high-risk provision before they would endorse it. So, we don't know if the Committee did it or not. By the way, that prescription drug card seems to me to be pretty much worthless. Just a 10 or 15% discount on your prescriptions. So if your pills cost $500, you pay about $450. Wow!

[Cleita]

17. Not only that but a prescription discount card of 10%

was always available through AARP. Also, the HMO's, like Secure Horizons, always included prescription drug benefits, so there is nothing new here. It's all doublespeak. There are no new benefits, only corporatization of an entitlement program to screw seniors of the little medical benefits they have left at a time of their lives they need them the most.

I am so disgusted with AARP, I am spitting nails.

[Malva Zebrina]

20. AARP has a vested interest in insurance

that currently functions as a co provider to Medicare. I pay into AARP for that purpose. I may just drop it now. Is it too cynical to think that they, AARP sees for themselves an active role in providing the "voluntary" privatization of some Medicare recepients--they have a captive, and ready made clientel it seems to me.

The truth is that few are going to look out for the health care of us older folks, especially those who have little or no money. It is quite a statement as to the mind set of Americans when the way it treats it's old folks is looked at in depth.

I am seeing increasing references to preventative care models--I do not know where that is going or why suddenly Bush is dropping small hints at preventative care. Will people be punished for getting a disease if they did not do enough preventative care?

[ramapo]

22. Convoluted mess

This plan is needlessly complicated and the worst of it is likely buried deep within the language of the bill.

It's all politics though and that's at least 50% of the motivation.
The various campaign ads will be:

Mission accomplished
Promises kept
Drugs for seniors

ad nauseum.

[tom_paine]

24. Bye-bye Medicare

One wonders what Uncle Karl did to twist AARPs arm. Given the absolute power of the Busheviks and their utter willingness to punish people who don't go along.

I have no doubt that the Upper Levels of AARP would utterly sell out the seniors they represent under threat of access-denial or whatever other things the Busheviks threatened them with.

You honestly don't think the Busheviks compromised, do you? The Imperial Family just doesn't do that...haven't you noticed?

[antigop]

26. I called AARP about an hour ago -- they said news NOT CORRECT

I called to express my disgust at their support of the Medicare prescription drug bill (per MSNBC). 800 number INSISTED news reports are wrong -- AARP has not yet endorsed it.

CALL AARP NOW!

[antigop]

27. AARP contact info

Call 1-800-424-3410
Monday - Friday
8 a.m. - 8 p.m. ET.

[otohara]

33. Call Many Times ... You know the GOP'ers are doing it!

I figure I'm speaking for all the really old folks who don't understand what they are doing to Medicare.

[bleedingheart]

29. this web link says that they did

http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-11-17-medicarestatement.html

[drfemoe]

31. It's on their website

http://www.aarp.org/Articles/a2003-11-17-medicarestatement.html

AARP Endorses Medicare Prescription Drug Bill



November 17, 2003

AARP today announced its strong endorsement of the prescription drug bill offered by the conference committee and will work vigorously for its passage.

AARP believes that millions of older Americans and their families will be helped by this legislation. Though far from perfect, the bill represents an historic breakthrough and important milestone in the nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens at a time when it is sorely needed.

The bill will provide prescription drug coverage at little cost to those who need it most: people with low incomes, including those who depend on Social Security for all or most of their income. It will provide substantial relief for those with very high drug costs, and will provide modest relief for millions more. It also provides a substantial increase in protections for retiree benefits and maintains fairness by upholding the health benefit protections of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act.
... contd

From what I've read no one is really sure what's in it .. but we DO know who wrote it. At the JJ dinner Sat Hillary slammed it.

[papau]

32. I posted provisions in Alliance for Ret Amer.Opposes Privatized - below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=224629

I posted a comment as to known – to me at least - provisions in the above – which is copied below: COMMENT- BACKGROUND ON PROVISIONS BY POSTER:

In 2004 and 2005: purchase a discount card that might yield savings up to 15 percent of the cost of drugs.

In 2006, Medicare beneficiaries could sign up for a stand-alone drug plan or join a private health plan that offers drug coverage, charged a premium of $35 per month, and after meeting a $275 deductible, the insurance would pay 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,200, but with No coverage for drug costs between $2,200 and $3,600 out of pocket, with Catastrophic 95 percent off or only modest co-payment coverage when out-of-pocket spending reaches $3,600.

Privatize Medicare: Beginning in 2010 those still in Medicare pay much more as Insurance companies cherry pick healthy aged for lower cost private Medicare program. Pilot program begins with six metropolitan areas in which at least two private plans enroll at least 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.

Drug importation from Canada: Pretend to lift ban while it would maintain the ban on importing prescription drugs from abroad – in theory drugs from Canada OK but only after Department of Health and Human Services certifies safety – which HHS refuses to do.

Means Test on Drug benefit: The premium, deductible and coverage gap would be waived for people earning up to $12,123 a year provide the person has no more than $6,000 in fluid assets.

Means Test on Part B Medicare: Individuals with incomes greater than $80,000 would pay a larger premium than that necessary to cover the 25% of cost all others pay.

Insurance Company tax free subsidies: Would provide $12 billion in subsidies to private insurers(PPO and HMO included) that choose to offer basic health insurance.

Employer Tax free subsidies (bribe) to maintain drug coverage for retirees once Medicare drug benefit begins in 2006 worth $70 billion.

Tax cut for the rich via Health-related tax savings accounts: those with high-deductible health insurance policies -- $1,000 a year for individuals, $2,000 for couples -- can shelter income from taxes via a tax-deduction and then no taxes on the investment and earnings obtained in fund upon withdrawal, provided the money is used for health expenses.

In 2010 Congress must cut benefits via a review triggered by projected general revenues being more than 45 percent of Medicare spending 7 years in the future at that time.

Screws home health agencies: cuts payments, but does not require co-payments from patients.

Deductible: Would rise from $100 to $110 in 2005 and thereafter be indexed to the growth in Part B spending.

Rural health:$25 billion to increase payments to rural hospitals and doctors, among others.

Generic drugs: speed generic drugs to the market by limiting ability of pharmaceutical companies to block cheaper equivalents.

Hospital payments: Would allow hospitals to avoid future cuts in payments by submitting quality data to the federal agency that runs the Medicare program. At the same time, would increase payments through Medicaid to hospitals that serve a large number of disadvantaged patients. Would impose 18-month pause in development of new specialty hospitals and limit expansion of existing ones.

Physician payments: Would block planned cuts in physician payments in 2004 and 2005 and instead provide a 1.5 percent increase.

New benefits: cover an initial doctor's appointment for new Medicare beneficiaries and screening for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

[teryang]

35. What a boondoogle!

The plan is ridiculous.

[young_at_heart]

34. I just cancelled my subscription

I told them I was disgusted and could no longer support them!

[shirlden]

36. We all need to do this

I e-mailed the National office and called my state office. I made certain that they understood I was not just unhappy, I was FURIOUS. Next step will be to cancel my membership and join the Alliance for Retired Americans who have come out against this.
http://www.retiredamericans.org/

I have been busy calling all friends and family to do the same. Keep this on the burner...

[young_at_heart]

40. Thanks for posting this link!!!

The Alliance for Retired Americans sounds like a much better place for me......very good info.

[Born Free]

37. contacted them via web page

I told them I had enough, want out , believe they do not represent me or others in my age group and said I would tell all my friends they should drop out too. They have me pissed, they sit back and do nothing then give us articles on how to live with less - maybe if they did their damn job we would not have to learn to live with less than we are promised.

[madfloridian]

38. I posted that they were not telling the truth to callers.

I called 4 times today. They lied. I am sorry, but they did. I think they must have been told to do so. I talked to several different offices. I was on the phone with them when the news came online. They still said it was not true.

[moondust]

39. Conflict of interest.

AARP is also an insurance provider. There is now no doubt whose side they are on.

This plan is a catastrophe about to happen.

[54anickel]

41. Holy crap!! Check out AARPs message board!

http://community.aarp.org/rp-legislative/start

[jpgray]

42. Some of those posts will bring tears to your eyes

They just stabbed MILLIONS of seniors in the back. How could anyone be capable of such a thing?!

[54anickel]

44. Yes, many are very emotional, but they are spreading the word

[young_at_heart]

45. Thanks.........I just weighed in on their board

I hope others will do what I did today........cancel! I refuse to be associated with sell-outs to the party of greed.

[54anickel]

47. It is very sad. AARP was at one time a great advocate voice for

the retired folks. Both of my parents thought the world of that organization. This type of thing would have hurt them deeply if they were still here. The sense of having been betrayed would have been very painful.
Perhaps you could check out the retiredamericans.org site posted earlier in this thread. I do not know much about them, my dealings in taking care of my folks was always with AARP.

[Malva Zebrina]

43. I was getting pretty fed up with their magazine too

and seldom read it. The last one had a picture of some model from years past, who looked as though she was perhaps thirty years old--not a wrinkly in sight. The blurb hinted that at the age of sixty, which this model really was, one can really look (and be) thirty. This is spurious and disingenuous-almost cruel, feeds into fantasies that I think are silly, and never will they depict an elderely man on the cover in this same capacity. There is something to be said about optimism and zest for life, but this is not optimism and zest for life--this is more advertising that is unrealistic and directing people toward unrealistic goals--those goals appeal to people who are not satisfied with themself--and, imo, by the time one reaches sixty and beyond, one should have a pretty good idea of self and be pretty much satisfied with themself-but, I realize that there are plenty of old women around who still think they are thirty, this AARP plays into those pathetic types-encouraging indulgence in these adolescent type fantasies is not beneficial to those in their golden years, imo. It is simply bizarre. Too much distasteful hype coming out of AARP for my taste, but I am not sure where else to go to get the co pay for the Medicare.

[bemildred]

46. What I find interesting about AARP,

is that even though I refused to send them
money after the first year,
when I realized they were not interested in my welfare,
but in selling me stuff,
is that they kept right on sending me their crappy magazine,
and useless insurance advertisements, etc.

[Triana]

49. My bro and Mom are leaving AARP over this

Both of them are utterly disgusted and are revoking their AARP memberships. What's the point of being a member of an organization that protects their interests no better than to support such a terrible RX bill?

Zzzzilch.

Both of them wrote nasty letters and revoked their membership. I don't blame them.

VERY DUMB move by AARP..

[The_Casual_Observer]

50. One can say with absolute certainty

That if Bush is behind this and pushing for it, than it MUST be bad for Mr & Mrs Public. NOTHING that bush advocates is of any positive value to the common man. The reason for this one is to put money in the pockets of health plan administrators and private insurers at the expense of old sick people.