[RVRoadie]

My wife still maintains her Washington state residency in order to keep he Blue Cross / Blue Shield policy.

A few week ago she spoke with a AARP representative about their health insurance program through Aetna. After going over he past medical history with the AARP representative, she was encouraged to apply with the Aetna program.

Well, it only took Aetna a few days to reject her application on the flimsiest of reasons. I have seen the AARP CEO on TV and I am pretty sure that even he wouldn't be accepted by Aetna.

Basically, they are cherry picking only the healthiest members of AARP for insurnace. Nobody overweight, nobody on blood pressure or cholesterol medication.

I wrote the CEO a letter about this practice and received a polite reply that implied they allow Aetna to do this in order to maximize their own profits on this arrangement. No use risking their profits signing up somebody that may actually need to see a doctor in the future.

AARP might as well be an insurance company, that is where they make their real money.

On the plus side, I do get a dues refund of about $20.

[MelZ]

IMHO AARP is a business that disguises itself as a Senior Advocate. In reality all they want to do is make money from Seniors.

Good for you in cancelling

[Tallulah]

Within the next few years, it will be illegal for these insurance companies to turn down anyone!!

Originally Posted by MelZ

IMHO AARP is a business that disguises itself as a Senior Advocate. In reality all they want to do is make money from Seniors.

Good for you in cancelling

[The Great Fumar]

Canceled mine three weeks ago when I read that they supported Medicare cuts and cuttings doctors pay 21%

fumar

[JUREK]

We cancelled also because of their support of OBAMACARE and Medicare cuts.
I guess they are making their stance official some time today.
Good riddance to them.

[RVRoadie]

Originally Posted by Tallulah

Within the next few years, it will be illegal for these insurance companies to turn down anyone!!

If you really believe this, just look at what has happened to homeowners insurance here in Florida. The choice was taking on high risk customers or leaving the State, and all the national firms left the state (or at least quit taking on new customers).

You can make it illegal for an insurance company to turn somebody down for preexisting condition. But you can't make an insurance company take new applications.

What will be left for those that don't already have insurance is the public insurance company.

[Quixote]

I was going to cancell my AARP membership a few years ago because of their support for Part D Medicare. Its not that I didnt like the idea of a plan to help pay for prescriptions, what I didnt like was that it was set up to favor insurance companies and drug companies and not to be consumer friendly. It still isnt but I hope that will change in future. But like so many things I never got around to cancelling my membership and its a good thing. I just had to apply for Medicare supplement and AARPs was the cheapest and its a standard plan no matter what company. Also they accepted me with no medical revue and only one question if Im in end stage kidney failure. And I use doctors a lot. I have to say that it was a very easy experence and they would not let me take the plan if I wasnt an AARP member.

[Number 6]

And yet AARP was opposed to allowing workers to put part of their Social Security into 401K plans. They thought it was "too risky", but they actively sell 401K plans. Go figure.

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Number 6

And yet AARP was opposed to allowing workers to put part of their Social Security into 401K plans. They thought it was "too risky", but they actively sell 401K plans. Go figure.

Yeah like that was a good idea! About 5% (if it's that) of us have the where-with-all to follow our investments and manage them well. You want the 95% to ruin their retirement plans. Yeah right, great idea. We could always ask Bernie to keep an eye on things for us!

This belongs in the Political Forum - and that's exactly why I don't go there. Too much whinning.

[saratogaman]

You are so right about the so-called 'political forum' -- all whining the same talking points from the same tired, old sources. There really is no dialogue there...no room for rational discussion and friendly disagreement. It's actually the antithesis of a forum. Participants seem to belong to the school of "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind."

[heavycorrosion]

well said Saratogaman, no critical thinking just brainwashed

[Number 6]

Yeah like that was a good idea! About 5% (if it's that) of us have the where-with-all to follow our investments and manage them well. You want the 95% to ruin their retirement plans. Yeah right, great idea. We could always ask Bernie to keep an eye on things for us!

This belongs in the Political Forum - and that's exactly why I don't go there. Too much whinning.

Whinning? If you go back and actually read my post, you will see that my point was that AARP was being hypocritical with regard to the proposal to allow some measure of choice with reguard to Social Security. They were against it but still sold 401Ks. Did I ever say if I was for it or against it?

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Number 6

Whining? If you go back and actually read my post, you will see that my point was that AARP was being hypocritical with regard to the proposal to allow some measure of choice with reguard to Social Security. They were against it but still sold 401Ks. Did I ever say if I was for it or against it?

Okay I'll back off a little bit and take my 40 lashes with a wet noodle. That is, except for the statement regarding the Political Talk Forum.

I'm NOT rich. I consider Social Security to be a safety net for future retirees. I consider the 401Ks or 403Bs to be an investment in one's self with money that you can afford to risk. In other words, you don't absolutely need this money to live day to day while you are still working. Because the vast majority of people are not trained or able to be actively involved in the administration or monitoring of these non-Social Security funds, they are assuming what could (and did) turn out to be an extraordinary amount of risk. We have friends that did not have a separate pension and depended on their investment funds to supplement their Social Security. They retired only to find that what they had accrued had just disappeared. Some folks who thought themselves to be well-off found that they had to go back to work in order to live in a manner that was acceptable to them. Thank goodness their Social Security portion of their retirement was still there to fall back on. What if they had invested part of their Social Security deductions? It's no fun trying to get a job when you're in your 60s. Sometimes we need to look out for one another. Have a Peaceful and Bountiful New Year.

[RVRoadie]

If you look at your most recent (2007) Social Security earnings statment, you will find the following disclamer printed in bold.

*your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 percent of scheduled benefits

I don't think it is safe to assume there is no risk in Social Security.

[golfnut]

1) when my cobra ran out at the end of 2009 we applied for aetna thru aarp, we were accepted (with plenty of pre existing conditions) and although we may have to pay more for some monthly benefits (only if needed) i am paying 40% less per month, if you are looking for health insurance don't be too quick to dismiss aarp, check it out for yourself, my aarp dues are paid thru 2012, 2) i'm not sure a lot of us in TV right now are worried about any reductions to SS in 2041,....gn