Anyone 50 or over who can, I ask you to consider signing up for AARP -- now.

[pnwmom]

I have had my disagreements with them in the past, but they supported Obamacare, which was important because the Rethugs were trying to pretend that Obamacare would hurt Medicare. The AARP educated their members about the fact that Obamacare would NOT hurt Medicare. In fact, Obamacare extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by 11 years.

Now the AARP is fighting for MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY -- which Paul Ryan and the GOP want to replace with coupons for private insurance -- and they need all the help they can get.

And for any current or future members: make sure to communicate your views to the AARP so they know who they are representing.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2016/social-security-medicare-caregiving-jj.html

Medicare

AARP will fight to strengthen and improve Medicare by defending against inflated drug prices, working to improve patient care, supporting efforts to weed out fraud and abuse, and opposing moves to end guaranteed coverage by forcing people into private plans.

Social Security

AARP opposes Social Security privatization. Americans pay into Social Security, and they deserve to get the guaranteed lifetime benefits they've earned.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2016/where-aarp-stands-on-medicare-social-security.html?intcmp=AE-HP-FLXSLDR-SLIDE1

Strengthening Medicare

Americans pay into Medicare so there is guaranteed health coverage as they age. AARP has a long history of fighting for affordable care and against attempts to cut Medicare benefits or ask seniors to pay more for their health care. AARP will continue this fight to ensure Medicare is a guaranteed benefit that provides affordable and quality health care to current seniors and future generations.

SNIP

Keeping Social Security Strong

Social Security is a contract with American workers that must be kept. AARP will continue to fight to ensure that current and future generations get the benefits they’ve earned. AARP has always opposed — and always will oppose — turning Social Security into risky private accounts.

JOIN:

https://appsec.aarp.org/membership/join/start#/jp?campaignid=UBBORG1&intcmp=DSO-HDR-JOIN-EWHERE

RENEW:

https://appsec.aarp.org/membership/renew/start#/rp?campaignId=UBBORG&intcmp=DSO-HDR-RENEW-EWHERE

[spanone]

1. K&R..

[hrmjustin]

2. I am in my 30's but I have some friends that signed up even though

they have reservations about AARP.

[pnwmom]

4. No org will be perfect but we need them in the fight to retain Social Security and Medicare --

instead of turning this over to the private sector, which is what Paul Ryan and the Rethugs want to do.

[Hoyt]

3. Agree. But, I don't remember AARP oppposing Medicare Advantage Plans that

are pretty much just a voucher away from what I understand as Ryan's plan. I do think the AARP would support an adequate voucher, if it comes to that.

[pnwmom]

5. Under Paul Ryan's plan, these vouchers (I prefer to call them coupons) are for a specific amount,

and as costs rise, the amount would be a smaller and smaller percent of actual costs. My reading of AARP's position is that that would not be an acceptable position for them.

[Hoyt]

8. Just remember the AARP profits from their endorsed Advantage Plans.

The good thing about that is they would want to keep the coupon rate high enough, if it comes to that. Essentially , the AARP has endorsed private Advantage plans that 30% of Medicare beneficiaries have voluntarily selected. The only real difference is the government has been paying the Plan directly, rather than issuing "coupons."

[pnwmom]

9. The fact that they benefit from Medicare advantage plans doesn't mean

that they have or will endorse mandatory private plans. Here is what they say:


http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2016/social-security-medicare-caregiving-jj.html

Medicare

AARP will fight to strengthen and improve Medicare by defending against inflated drug prices, working to improve patient care, supporting efforts to weed out fraud and abuse, and opposing moves to end guaranteed coverage by forcing people into private plans.

[Hoyt]

11. What I've read of Ryan's plan, the traditional Medicare program will still be an option.

I'm betting at a higher cost to beneficiaries, though.

[pnwmom]

14. No, it won't work the same. Ryan's plan would be a voucher providing a limited amount of coverage,

rather than our current Medicare program that pays a guaranteed percentage of costs. So even if you chose the Medicare-run option, the percent your voucher would cover would be smaller and smaller as costs increase. That is not true now.

[Hoyt]

17. This says differently, Ryan's plan "will keep traditional Medicare for those who want it."

Of course, he'd likely provide incentives for people to leave traditional Medicare. And who know what we'll be stuck with long-term or after Congress massages it.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/93969860/

[pnwmom]

18. This is what it says:

Ryan’s latest proposal promises to keep an option of “traditional Medicare” for beneficiaries who want it. But we can’t know how much it will cost seniors because the plan “lacks important details — like numbers,” Millhiser noted.


He's not saying that if you choose Medicare, it will work as it does now, paying a guaranteed percentage of costs. Right now, if costs rise, the government budget bears the burden. Ryan's plan would put all the burden of rising costs on the retiree (who already has to cover 30% of costs, no matter how much they rise.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2016/11/16/how-trump-may-remake-medicare/#3738cb4d4a82

Premium Support: Currently, the federal government pays roughly 70 percent of the cost of Medicare and consumers pay about 30 percent (the exact amount varies depending on the part of Medicare being subsidized). No matter how fast health care costs increase, that 70-30 split is fixed. For years, conservatives have pushed for a different model where the federal contribution is capped through either vouchers, or a design called premium support.

In effect, the government would give seniors a fixed amount of money to buy insurance. They could buy either traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage managed care, though government payments for those in traditional Medicare would be capped. The government’s initial contribution would be tied to premiums of private Medicare plans in an enrollee’s community.

It would increase each year based on an index, say the country’s overall growth rate plus 1 percent. But it would not track medical inflation. As a result, if health costs grow faster than the index, the government contribution would gradually cover a smaller share of the costs, and seniors would pay a larger share. In an earlier version proposed by Ryan, the division of costs would flip from what it is today–seniors would eventually pay 70 percent of the cost and the government would pay about 30 percent. The current Ryan plan would exempt current retirees.

[Hoyt]

21. Never said it did. You can pay for the traditional program if you want free choice of

any doctor, as many visits as you want to make and can pay for, etc. Or you can choose the managed care program. Clearly he wants to provide incentives for choosing Medicare Advantage like plans.

None of it is good. But then, current Medicare has lots of gaps too.

[pnwmom]

23. You're still not acknowledging why this would NOT be comparable to the Medicare we have now.

Medicare as it stands now guarantees to pay 70% of costs (with Medigap policies covering the 30%). Under Ryan's plan, you might join Medicare, but your voucher is for a specific dollar amount, and there is no guarantee it would cover 70% of costs. With time it is likely it would cover less and less.

[Hoyt]

37. You can buy into traditional Medicare if you want 70%, but as I said long ago up thread, it

will likely cost you more. See Post #9.

Besides I doubt Ryan's plan will allow an insurer to offer plans that don't meet minimum federal requirements, just like Advantage Plans do now. Whether people will be smart enough to purchase the plan they need, the minimums will be like now, or the government will keep it's level of support are other questions.

[pnwmom]

47. No, that's what you're not getting right. You wouldn't get the 70%. You'd just get

whatever amount they decided to make the voucher be worth, and then you could apply that amount to the govt. Medicare program or some private insurer. But you would not be guaranteed the 70% of costs that Medicare recipients currently get.

[crosinski]

38. And straight from the medicare.gov website

... it says over and over again that what is or is not covered depends upon:

"Federal and state laws."

Scares the shit out of my husband and me. I'm drawing SSDI. He's going to retire next year. We're on our own, with no families left on either side to help, if this thing goes all to hell in a hand basket.

[Hoyt]

56. I honestly believe GOPers main problem with Medicare & Obamacare is they were enacted by Democrats,

and are associated with Democrats

I think -- and it is an "opinion," just like anyone else's at this point -- when it is all over, there won't be a lot of difference for most people except the GOPers will try to take credit for "better" plans. GOPers may manage to throw more "responsibility" on younger folks, but they aren't going to change much for people already on SS, Medicare, etc.

[moonscape]

46. Fine point, but Medicare covers 80%. As a cancer patient on Medicare,

who sees many different doctors, this issue terrifies me. Adavantage has a terrible reputation, at least 'mongst those I know who tried it before coming back to original Medicare.

[Hoyt]

54. Techinically, 80%, but they don't cover prescription drugs and some other things, so 70% is kind of

good estimate even if you buy a drug plan.

I hear you on the "different doctors," especially someone literally fighting for their livers with cancer. But, that's the trade off. You can save some money by agreeing to a small network that is somewhat managed. I had Kaiser for awhile and was very happy with it. Of course, I didn't have a life-threatening disease. But, truthfully for me, I'd rather someone make all those decisions when I get sick. The thought of calling around for appointments, finding doctors willing to take Medicare patients, checking up on doctors, reviewing drug plans to make sure my stuff is covered, etc., scares the heck out of me. Hence Kaiser was fine. I'm working for a company now that provides pretty good insurance, so I'm taking their coverage and taking Part B. When, I quit, I'll probably go back to an Advantage Plan.

I paid less for Kaiser Medicare Advantage -- with an out-of-pocket max of like $5,000 that I wouldn't have with traditional Medicare -- than I would have paid with traditional Medicare, a good supplemental policy and drug coverage. For that, I gave up choice of doctor, had to take a lot of generics, etc. But, I thought I good good care.

Again, I didn't have cancer or anything other than some chronic issues that do need managing.

But, for younger folks, the writing is on the wall.

[moonscape]

66. The problems some I know had with Advantage is for

example seeing a doctor/specialist who they didn't have confidence in, and there not being another choice in the network. They were stuck. Other issues have been pre-approval process (original doesn't have that), denials, fighting for payments. Original Medicare has been very smooth for me.

I was dx'ed with cancer the month of my 65th b'day and filled with gratitude the dx wasn't the year before. With my Medigap plan I was covered through the best docs, immediate surgery, skilled nursing, chemo, on and on. So many patients with my cancer who aren't on Medicare can't wait to get on it.

My cancer represents <1% of all cancer patients and seeing someone knowledgeable is literally life-saving. But it's expensive. Will lifetime caps come back? If so, many of us will bump up against that cap and the cost of medical care will determine our life expectancy. I'm not sure I would even argue I should be kept alive at such astronomical costs except that Big Pharma execs are probably buying private islands on the backs of us.

Determining what a life is worth, in dollars and cents, is something Paul Ryan probably has on his spreadsheet.

[crosinski]

62. Yes ... 80%

Thank you for posting that Moonscape. My husband just signed up for Medicare and I KNEW that, but I couldn't find it. It seems to me that a lot of people sign up for Advantage plans without doing the math. And, I've been using Medicare for three years now and have never come across a doctor who didn't accept it.

There are so many misconceptions about Medicare, it's no wonder Republicans can foist their harebrained ideas on us about it. It seems like we just all go running off in different directions not knowing what the hell's going on in the first place.

[pangaia]

91. Have you looked into medi-gap plans in your area, if there are any?

These are different than Medicare Advantage plans.

[moonscape]

95. Thanks. I currently am on Original Medicare and do have

a MediGap F plan so am in good shape. For now. I was speaking of how inferior Advantage is to Original for people I know who opted that way.

My fear is not that Medicare will go away right now, but that it will be diluted and quietly changed as they begin unraveling the ACA and move towards Medicare privatization. There is intertwine now. And my expressed disgust is thinking of Ryan with his spreadsheets, and how there used to be lifetime limits for what insurance would pay in a person's lifetime.

Cancer is expensive, and an easy cost savings would be to deprive patients of some novel chemo drugs which are coming onto the market all the time. These changes would not get big press and not generate massive push-back, but save money and shorten our lives. I will be on one chemo or another the rest of my life. My life could be a year, it could be many, who knows. But I can guess what Ryan would prefer. (Sorry, I just loathe him)

[Blue Idaho]

6. I have some reservations about AARP

And I've been a member for about a decade. At times it seems like a thinly veiled operation designed to sell all sorts of insurance - period. Their recent pledge to work with the new regime to improve Social Security and Medicare leaves me wondering exactly what that means to the AARP. My membership is due to renew in April. I think I'll wait to see exactly what they mean by "working with" republicans...

[pnwmom]

7. I urge any members to proactively communicate with AARP about the position you want them to take. nt

[spooky3]

78. Thank you for the suggestion. I emailed them.

[RKP5637]

10. K&R! n/t

[annabanana]

12. It is hard for me to think of them as anything other than

an insurance company any more. They caved on the public option and didn't say a peep about a single payer plan when the fights were being fought. It is hard to maintain the stance of lobbyist for seniors when they run ads on TV for advantage plans..

[pnwmom]

16. Their influence could be the biggest weapon we have in the fight against Paul Ryan's

plan to dismantle Medicare and Social Security.

The GOP is going to try to sneak this thing through before the Dems have time to organize opposition. Well, the AARP is already there. We might as well join them and add our voices to their membership. If there are other ways to join together to fight for Medicare and Social Security, great. The more fronts we can fight this battle on, the better.

[duffyduff]

20. They pull this shit, it is OVER for their party.

After all, it wasn't Republicans who created welfare "reform" or tried to destroy public education through RTTT. It was Democrats.

They will throw those trial balloons up there, but they will be shot down in short order.

[hfojvt]

13. I've been eligible to join for five years now

I intend to never do so.

From the time I was in my twenties I have seen them as the enemy, tilting policy away from young working people towards older retired people.

I have no intention of supporting that even as I become an old, and hopefully retired person (although if there is no Obamacare I may not be able to retire until I am 60, so it goes - I am not even sure if Obamacare provides a subsidy to a retired person, and feel that it probably should not).

If there was an AAWP, then I would join that even as a retired person.

It is kinda funny/strange that the AARP seems a lot less powerful now. There should be more retired people than ever.

[pnwmom]

15. The Obamacare subsidies end when a person is eligible for Medicare. But Trump wants to end it all.

[Hoyt]

19. I somewhat agree. One day, young folks are going to say screw the elderly.

I sometimes think the "vote your economic interest" meme has gone too far.

[paleotn]

29. I guess the young tend to forget...

....they WILL be elderly too eventually, unless they check out before hand. Blowing up that portion of the Great Society because it's not in their immediate interests is really just a delayed form of fucking themselves.

I don't view it as the elderly taking advantage of working generations. It's more like giving back to the generations who created, strengthened and maintained the institutions and infrastructure that make a relatively comfortable life possible in this country for new generations. Sometimes it's like the young believe these things just simply sprung from the ground the moment they were born. Not so. They exist due to the hard work of the generations that came before them.

[Hoyt]

36. I view it like that too, but when the young are paying more in premiums to subsidize the elderly,

see the elderly as having more than they will likely have, etc., a problem is likely to occur. And I are an elderly who will be almost totally dependent on SS and Medicare if I quit working.

[crosinski]

44. 1,200

I wonder how many people know that's the average amount of a Social Security Check? The deduction for Medicare takes that down to just above $1000. That's not a lot to live on a month.

[hfojvt]

104. I happen to have lived on that amount

for most of the last decade.

Plus I am paying social security taxes on my income.

Full time income at the minimum wage is currently $1,256 a month, and that is gross pay.

[DURHAM D]

81. This has been the case since the day Medicare began.

[hfojvt]

103. no, it is taking advantage

when programs help people, like for example the food sales tax rebate in Kansas. It provided a rebate for sales taxes on food to those with lower income - sort of. To qualify you either needed to a) have kids, b) be disabled or c) be over 55.

It paid $80 per exemption for people with income under $15,000 or $39 per exemption for income under $30,300. This was in 2008. So here could be a retired person getting a rebate with income of $30,000. And meanwhile here's a working person, like, say, myself making $11,779.17 in 2008 who gets nothing.

Of course, that is only $80, but there is also the Homestead credit of up to $700, and social security income being tax free (in Kansas) for people with income up to $50,000, and rebates on their water bill from the city, and federal tax breaks and senior discounts and so on and so forth.

Yeah sure, you can try to create some kind of imaginary justification for unfair policies, especially if they happen to favor you, but those policies really come from political power.

You know who is living a relatively comfortable life? People with higher incomes. They live a comfortable life relative to the people with lower incomes.

[Boomer]

22. AARP will never get any of my money

AARP's association with ALEC revealed all I need to know about their priorities.

AARP is not an advocacy group for older people, it's a commercial venture to soak up our money. They can't be trusted.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aarp-alec-20160801-snap-story.html

[pnwmom]

24. They listened to their members and withdrew from ALEC.

Yes, they shouldn't have touched ALEC with a ten foot pole. But I credit them for responding to their membership on the issue.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aarp-alec-20160805-snap-story.html

AARP, the retirees organization, responded Thursday to a torrent of protests from members and advocacy groups by announcing that it would drop its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, the right-wing organization known as ALEC.

In a notice posted on AARP’s Facebook page, AARP told members, “After hearing from many of you, we’ve decided not to renew our membership to ALEC. We would never work against the interests of older Americans and our engagement with ALEC was NOT an endorsement of the organization’s policies, but an opportunity to engage with state legislators and advance our members’ priorities.”

SNIP

AARP in its statement defended its outreach to lawmakers across the political spectrum. “We meet with legislators from both sides of the aisle in order to do our job: fighting to improve the lives of people 50+,” it said. “We will continue to explore ways to serve our diverse membership and fulfill our responsibility to engage with all legislators on the issues important to older Americans and their families.” As AARP may now understand, some of this outreach is better done at arm’s length.

[Boomer]

26. Sorry, but I'm not buying this retraction

I'm well aware that pushback from the membership resulted in AARP withdrawing from ALEC, but their original decision is very telling. I don't trust the governance of this organization or their priorities. They got caught this time, but I'm sure all they took away from this is to be more covert in their alliances next time.

[pnwmom]

27. What organization does meet your standards that is fighting for Medicare and Social Security? n/t

[Skittles]

33. agreed

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Which Year Is Your Calendar Showing?

Your pique is based on old news. Changed a long time ago.

[wordpix]

115. from what I know, AARP is an insurance clearinghouse

I looked into AARP car insurance, which is not AARP but from The Hartford. It's more expensive than my current car insur. My mom had AARP Medicare supplemental, but it was really United Healthcare. It was nearly $200/mo. I did buy AARP dental insurance but it's Delta Dental, which my dentist accepts so that's why I bought it. Delta would not cover one of my recent procedures, which is common, b/c...well they just don't cover that. The list goes on.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. When Bush went on his tour to privatize Social Security he asked, "How powerful can one lobby be?"..

He soon found out.

Every Republican on the Hill was bombarded with angry old folks.

Some of them older than the Republicans.

[paleotn]

32. Use to be the 3rd rail of American politics.....

...touch SS and Medicare and you instantly die. Well, at least they "die" in the next election cycle. Times have changed and not for the better.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. Medicare used to cover EVERYTHING. It's become quietly partially privatized for years....

There never used to be this "Part D" crap until Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug "Improvement and Modernization" Act of 2003 which handed BILLIONS to Big Pharma and private insurance companies.

Because, you know,...government can't do ANYTHING right so....

[radical noodle]

82. Medicare never covered everything and never drugs at all

There are a certain type of "drug" that may be covered but most never were until Part D. There was always a supplemental through a regular insurance company in addition to the medicare... at least back into the 80s when my parents retired because they had a supplemental. They both died before Part D became an addition.

I have Medicare, a Plan F supplement and Part D for drugs and I pay approx. $405 a month which includes my cost of drugs that the Part D doesn't cover. Considering the cost of seeing a doctor these days, I likely break even on it. A couple of years ago I had a medical problem that required surgery and I know it saved me a lot of worry and stress to know all my bills would be paid except for a % of my drugs.

I had a baby in 1973 and stayed in the hospital for three days. The bill was $287.00 total. Compare that to what it would cost today to just stay overnight.

[Tess49]

28. Already a member. n/t

[edhopper]

30. I don't like them

and would rather support another org. But if they prove to be the best group and promise no compromise on changes the rethugs want, I will join.

[Gymbo]

34. I don't like them either

But I joined today and I did so knowing this is the strongest voice for Social Security/Medicare. We are in the beginning of a war and our best bet is to have a powerful machine advocating for us. If there is something better I would sure like to hear it.

[Omaha Steve]

31. We have been members for several years

Their Hartford car and House insurance is a deal too. Most ethical Ins Co on the plant. THREE clams later (i car two hail) we are super happy!



https://newsroom.thehartford.com/releases/the-hartford-named-one-of-the-worlds-most-ethical-companies-by-the-ethisphere-institute-for-eighth-time

The Hartford Named One Of The ‘World’s Most Ethical Companies’ By The Ethisphere Institute For Eighth Time

March 07, 2016 | Corporate
HARTFORD, Conn.--The Hartford has been recognized by the Ethisphere Institute as a 2016 World’s Most Ethical Company®. The Hartford is one of only two property and casualty insurance companies to receive the recognition this year.

“We are proud to be recognized as one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for upholding the highest standards of ethics and compliance,” said The Hartford's Chairman and CEO Christopher Swift. “At The Hartford, we believe that our success is inextricably linked to the strength of our character and the integrity by which our employees conduct business each and every day.”

The Hartford's culture is built on this foundation of integrity and respect, backed by a strong ethics and compliance program that emphasizes leadership accountability and preventing ethical lapses and compliance issues. These values are demonstrated in the way The Hartford's employees make decisions, promote an inclusive work environment, volunteer in local communities and become ambassadors for environmental stewardship.

“The Hartford’s commitment to earning and maintaining the trust of its insureds, employees and community is why it has earned the World’s Most Ethical Company designation eight times. This effort is amply supported through clear communication and an impressive program," explained Ethisphere’s Chief Executive Officer Timothy Erblich. “Congratulations to everyone at The Hartford for again being recognized as a 2016 Worlds Most Ethical Company.”

Ethisphere recognizes organizations that continue to raise the bar on ethical leadership and corporate behavior. Companies are scored in five key categories: ethics and compliance program; corporate citizenship and responsibility; culture of ethics; governance; and leadership, innovation and reputation.

Ethisphere named 131 companies to this year's World's Most Ethical Companies list. The full list of the 2016 World's Most Ethical Companies can be found at http://worldsmostethicalcompanies.ethisphere.com/honorees/.

For more on how The Hartford brings its character to life, review the company’s latest sustainability report.

About The Hartford

With more than 200 years of expertise, The Hartford (NYSE: HIG) is a leader in property and casualty insurance, group benefits and mutual funds. The company is widely recognized for its service excellence, sustainability practices, trust and integrity. More information on the company and its financial performance is available at www.thehartford.com. Join us on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/TheHartford. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TheHartford.

[IcyPeas]

35. AARP also endorsed California's Prop 61 to keep prescription costs down

Bernie also endorsed this Prop. It failed unfortunately. It was very close.

AARP California today announced that the 3.3 million-member organization has endorsed the Proposition 61, California Drug Price Relief Act of 2016, a first-in-the-nation ballot measure to reign in rampant price-gouging in the pharmaceutical industry.
The non-profit, non-partisan organization, with a national membership of nearly 38 million, has long fought for issues that matter most to families and older persons, including the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and profiteering by drug companies.
“AARP believes strongly that all people should have access to affordable prescription medications, and the California Drug Price Relief Act represents an important step in that direction for Californians,” said Nancy McPherson, AARP California State Director. “Californians – especially those over 50 – simply cannot wait any longer for their leaders to act, and since it clear that drug manufacturers will not act on their own, voters must take the initiative. AARP believes that the high costs associated with prescription drugs are unsustainable for patients, employers, and the California economy. That is why we support the California Drug Price Relief Act.”

http://yeson61.com/aarp/

[cwydro]

39. Lol! I remember when DU HATED the AARP.

I'm a member.

Intend to stay one.

But this still cracks me up as I remember all the threads against the AARP.

This board is always good for amusement.

[MADem]

45. I still hate them, and I don't need them. I think they're using this to gain new members.

I'm lucky--I have good drug coverage as a military retiree.

But I encountered a lady sick and in tears at the CVS because she didn't have enough money for a frigging prescription of antibiotics--I gave her thirty bucks to cover the bill and told her to pay it forward when she could. And that wasn't the whole cost of her script, either. That was right when that donut hole took effect, that AARP BACKED.

Rather than go for a Canadian solution, they backed Big Pharma.

They'll "back Social Security" all right -- all the way to PRIVATIZING it.

I trust them about as much as a cobra about to strike.

Don't assume a hive mentality here --that's rather a lazy approach. People who can agree on many issues can disagree on others, and this is one where I'm not onboard.

[cwydro]

55. I totally agree with your last statement.

Last edited Sun Nov 20, 2016, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't care what anyone chooses to do.

We're all free (at least so far, the next four years may be a challenge).

[lonestarnot]

60. FUCK AARP!

[cwydro]

69. I'm sure that sentiment will hurt them.

Classy.

[riversedge]

106. I read someplace that eh 'donut hole' will also be REPEALED. We are in serious trouble as

a nation.

[TygrBright]

42. Sorry, no. Never. They lost me when they put Big Pharma ahead of seniors' wellbeing. n/t

[marybourg]

72. They lost me a long time ago when they

supported a law to give grandparents visitation right over parents' objection. And I'm a grandparent.

[MADem]

43. I don't believe they'll go the distance.

I think they're using this issue as a Sign-UP tool, to get new members.

I think they'll flip or at least pivot if they find it politically expedient. And they likely will, once President Orange Anus offers them some "deal."

I just can't support them.

[pnwmom]

49. They fought against Social Security privatization when Bush tried to do it.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/trump-paul-ryan/

The last time Republicans had control of Congress and the White House was when President George W. Bush won reelection in 2004. The country seemed primed for President Bush to continue to enact his policy vision, which at that time was centered around the idea of Social Security privatization.

Like Ryan now, Bush wanted to change the Social Security system to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their social security contributions to private accounts, under the theory that giving more control of these savings would help workers retire with a larger nest egg. To promote this idea, Bush included it in his 2005 state of the union address and embarked on a 60-day, 60-city barnstorming idea to rally support and put pressure on Congress to pass legislation to realize this idea, but the legislation never materialized.

Within months of Bush’s campaign, cracks began to form in the Republican coalition, amid a unified Democratic Party that was dead set against the idea (or proposing an alternative), and an organized array of advocacy groups, led by the AARP. A vote in March of that year showed 5 Republican Senators jumping ship, unwilling to put their names to a bill that could be painted as threatening the solvency of a beloved program like Social Security. A full vote on the idea never made it through the House or Senate, and the episode was President Bush’s first big political loss, foreshadowing the Democratic takeover of Congress during the 2006 elections.

[MADem]

96. The legislature is rolling over for Donald like submissive puppies.

Look, they may not succeed, but they'll sure as hell try.

No one thought Trump would steal the White House, either.

[duffyduff]

89. Oh, please. There is no mandate to destroy SS and Medicare.

The baby boomers and older will see to it this bullshit is knocked down.

[MADem]

94. No--they'll (cough) "IMPROVE" it with privitization.

Or do the "All of you people who would vote against it will be protected, but everyone born after such-and-such a date is screwed...just a little bit."

Erosion. They've done it with military pay. I'm in the "great" category (which is a step down from the superb category--when medical care was totally free) but people retiring now are in the "good" category--and it gets worse for future servicemembers, not better.

Chip, chip, chip. There's no destruction going on. Just a bit of "reshaping" --won't affect YOU, of course, just the people who come way later.....

[duffyduff]

99. They will never get away with it. You are really cynical, which is a shame.

They will never get away with it because there is NO mandate to get rid of those programs. Only Democrats like Obama or Bill Clinton could get away with pulling that shit. Remember that? Obama damaged public education with his reform bullshit with Arne Duncan, while Bill Clinton pulled that bullshit with welfare "reform." NOT Republicans, but Democrats.

How short your memory is. Mine is NOT.

You have a totally wrongheaded idea about AARP. I don't see you presenting any alternative that is as large or as effective.

[MADem]

101. Like I said, they did it with "inviolable" military retirement pay.

We have a crazy POTUS and a GOP Congress come Jan.

I'm not cynical--I'm practical.

[A Brand New World]

48. Joined just now!

My husband is retired & I will be in 4 years. Hopefully Medicare will still be around.

[Sunny05]

50. Good advice!

Another practical, pro-active step to take.

[Equinox Moon]

51. I understand they are part of United Health Care

The one that is so bad.

[pnwmom]

52. My mom has had that for 20 yrs as her Medigap plan. Why is it so bad? n/t

[Equinox Moon]

57. I know just a little...

They are the ones (and others) that railroad Obama Care so it won't work. They work hard to drive up premiums. They are the ones that have been eroding the UK national health care program. Yes, from the US they are targeting the UK national health care. Greedy predators.

A UK doctor made a documentary on it, I heard him talking about it on the Thom Hartmann show Friday. United Health Care is intentionally eroding successful national systems, so they can sell their insurance.

[turbinetree]

83. Heard the same item on Hartmann show

and I agree with what the UK doctor said.

[dflprincess]

76. Do they pay her claims.

It used to be real hit or miss - even for employees and for things (like preventive care) that was clearly covered. You were always told it was a "coding error" by your doctor. They knew that most people don't bother to even call once when a claim is denied.

When I worked there The Onion came out with an article with the headline "United HealthGroup to try new tactic - may start paying claims". It spread around the company like wildfire causing apoplexy at the Taj Mahal (headquarters building) and a demand that all those emails be deleted and not forwarded.

[radical noodle]

84. My mother-in-law had United until she died

They paid everything they were supposed to pay with no issues.

I've never had a problem with my Anthem either.

[dflprincess]

75. Not part of it, just in bed with it.

As a former employee of the evil empire (as some of the other, non profit insurers in Minnesota refer to UHG) that was enough to turn me off AARP.

[radical noodle]

85. That is the company that they promote

totally not necessary to buy it though.

[Equinox Moon]

107. Also, AARP is so invasive for a "non-profit"

They find everyone and send promo mail over and over and over again, even when you call and cancel.

I think the "non-profit" arm of UHC hunts people down to "sell" insurance to. I don't trust AARP.

[UCmeNdc]

53. I quit a while back because they were being fooled into privatizing medicare.

I am glad to see them change their position.

I will join again.

[lonestarnot]

58. Did they make an endorsement this time around. They endorsed bushitler. Discount at Denny's isn't

enough to make up for that shit storm.

[pnwmom]

64. AARP is a non-partisan non-profit that never endorses candidates.

http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-complaints-iowa-nevada-420806

The AARP, which represents retirees, does not endorse candidates,

[Va Lefty]

59. Thinking about joining

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2016, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm 54

[lonestarnot]

61. I don't trust AARP. I've seen what they've done in the past. Nope! NOT ME! Don't count me in on

that crap.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

73. AARPs Social Security Scare Tactics

AARP--the nation’s largest senior organization--has dug into the Republican playbook on Social Security. Their new TV ad is threatening that “Social Security recipients could lose up to $10,000 a year” and their support of House Speaker Paul Ryan--the poster boy for privatizing Social Security--shows that they are out of step with their own members.

Stand with Social Security Works and demand that AARP rescind their “Champion of the 50+” award, presented to Paul Ryan this past summer, and stop using Republican scare tactics that undermine our progress on Social Security.

To: AARP (petition--may be old, but can't hurt to sign it.)
We demand that you immediately stop the fear mongering around Social Security and rescind the “Champion of the 50+” award, presented to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan – the poster boy for privatizing Social Security. Instead of using right-wing scare tactics that undermine our progress on Social Security, the nation's largest senior organization should take the right stand by representing the views of your members: Expand, don’t cut Social Security!

Progressive Democrats of America's opinion on the matter.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

63. The AARP which gave an award to Paul Ryan?

This past summer, AARP handed out “Champion of the 50+” awards to several members of Congress including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. The same Paul Ryan who has spent a decade fighting to privatize Social Security and ending Medicare as we know it.

http://www.pdaillinois.org/site/content/tell-aarpm-take-back-your-award-social-security-enemy-paul-ryan

[pnwmom]

67. FWIW, here is what they said about that award:

(It wasn't a Lifetime Achievement award.)

http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/0727aarp.pdf

Speaker Ryan received his award for preserving financial security through passage of legislation that addressed the shortfall in the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust fund, ensuring that children, veterans, older workers, families and others who receive disability insurance benefits would not face a 20 percent cut in their benefits.

“Speaker Ryan deserves this award because he worked to improve financial security for millions of American families,” said AARP Wisconsin State Director Sam Wilson. “Passing legislation to protect benefits for disabled workers has demonstrated leadership qualities to help Americans achieve greater financial security.”

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

68. Where do they tell us to which legislation they refer so we can judge for ourselves

whether or not it was "award-worthy."

[cwydro]

70. Google is your friend.

AARP is a huge lobby for older Americans.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

71. Um yeah, I know about google. Already google it and was unable to find the specific

legislation for which AARP gave the award.

Also, if AARP were my friend, they would be more specific about exactly why they're giving an award to the guy who has made it perfectly clear that he wants to destroy Social Security.

[duffyduff]

92. See my post below.

It wasn't a blanket endorsement of Paul Ryan.

[duffyduff]

90. He was one of many to receive an award

http://states.aarp.org/aarp-gives-champion-50-plus-legislative-leadership-award-congressman-bobby-scott/


He was one of 33 members of Congress to receive an award this year in various categories deemed important by AARP. It doesn't sound to me like a blanket endorsement of Paul Ryan.

For their leadership in preserving financial security to disabled workers, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR); Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Xavier Becerra (D-CA).

[randr]

65. I had my doubts

Over the past decade or so AARP has become as progressive as most retirees. They do work for important issues and really are the only lobby seniors have.

[YOHABLO]

74. AARP is in the bag with "Medicare Advantage". Which is not Medicare.

[radical noodle]

88. No one is forced to buy it n/t

[duffyduff]

77. So those of you who are against AARP, what do you suggest as an alternative?

I don't think you have any.

There is no doubt in my mind they will shoot Ryan's bullshit down.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

93. An alternative to what? Organizations working to protect Social Security?

See my post from 2 hours before you posted this claiming the lack of alternatives. I think I'll go with one that doesn't give awards to Paul Ryan.

And to that I'll add http://www.ncpssm.org/

[duffyduff]

98. Read my post above about that "award."

It is number 90. You might learn something.

People around here have a habit of not telling the whole story.

Perhaps you willfully ignored it. The organization gave 33 people in Congress various awards this year for various issues. Ryan was one of six, three Democrats and three Republicans, two senators and four representatives, in one category having to do with those on SSDI. He and those horrible people like Nancy Pelosi and Ron Wyden received the identical award.

The other organizations aren't as big as AARP.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

116. Sorry your reading comprehension skills are so poor

or whatever your excuse is for missing my very clearly stated and not particularly complicated point: I wish to know exactly and specifically what AARP thinks Ryan did to earn the award. Until they do so, I will stick with Social Security Works in their denouncement of this move by AARP and better advocates for Social Security.

And, by the way, did you really think you were supporting your argument by pointing out that AARP lumps people like Nancy Pelosi and Ron Wyden in with Paul Ryan on this issue? Utter fail.

Prattle on, I'm through with you.

[radical noodle]

79. I'm already a member

and so is my husband. I rarely use the discounts but they lobby Congress for SS & Medicare and will not let it go down without a fight.

[duffyduff]

87. SS and Medicare will NOT be destroyed because it would destroy the GOP.

No way will they do it. Their party would be finished forever.

We need to put the heat on them. They have NO mandate to do anything to those programs.

[Scruffy1]

80. AARP is a useless outfit selling insurance.

Far better to spend the money on some grass roots a organizing.

[duffyduff]

86. Something that is totally ineffective. At least AARP has a record of shooting this shit down. n/t

[MADem]

105. They're LOBBYISTS--and they favor the Insurance Industry AND Big Pharma.

AAA has the same sort of membership benefits package, and at least they'll come and change your tire or bring you a fresh battery when you are stranded.

[duffyduff]

109. Oh FFS. All of these outfits have lobbyists. I haven't read one logical thing you have said.

Same with the misleading shit by others about Ryan's so-called award until I debunked it.

[Thinkingabout]

97. I have been a member since I was 50 and plan to stay a member.

Lots of RWers withdrew and that made more reasons for me to stay.

[tavalon]

100. I did

[DesertFlower]

102. my mom enrolled me when i was 50.

i'm 75 now.

[John_Doe80004]

108. not just for 50 or over

if you receive ssdi and medicare you are eligible for aarp as well and it is very cheap to join.

[barbtries]

110. i've resisted signing up since i turned 50 and started hearing from them.

this is actually difficult for me to decide. what about taxes? what about safety nets for the poor? what about immigration?

tell me i'm wrong in my belief that AARP is primarily right wing.

[pnwmom]

114. Ryan wants to slash benefits, privatize, or do away with Medicare and Social Security.

Under any scenario, millions of elderly poor will suffer. And Ryan is lying about the current state of Medicare.. The changes brought about by the Obamacare law added another 11 years to the trust fund to what was already there, and only small fixes are needed to get us over the rest of the baby boomer bump.

[longship]

112. Make sure that you buy lots and lots of life insurance.

Listen to Alex Trebek!!!!!

AARP is, and only ever has been, a life insurance scam.

The only thing that they market is insurance. (As all their TV ads state.)

AARP is an insurance scam.

[flying_wahini]

113. I just renewed my membership last week. Great organization.

and I like some of their article in their magazine.