[rockyisle]

After helping my Mother navigate Medicare supplemental programs many years ago, I remember that the only organization that had her best interests at heart was AARP. Back then, they were the silver tigers - working to make sure that seniors were not forgotten. They built their organization state by state making sure seniors were informed on legislation and how it would impact them and then partnered with United Healthcare for supplemental insurance.

In the state of NH, you still cannot buy United Healthcare supplemental insurance UNLESS you are a member of AARP because NH doesn't offer it directly through insurance agents. Discriminatory and limiting - you bet. So my Mom belonged to AARP and had UH Plan F her entire life. Never saw one bill for services rendered.

When I turned 65 it was very easy for me to make the decision to have United Healthcare as my supplemental. NH still doesn't offer it through their programs - only way - Only way to buy it is to be a member of AARP.

What I "think" I know, is if it's good for AARP, it's going to be good for this senior. As for their compensation packages for their executives, I could care less - there are so many executives who make bundles each year... I say - Good for them... Heck, we live in TV where Gary Morse has more money than GOD... and we love living here... So what's the big deal?

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The AARP organization does not truly represent retired people. It has morphed into a political entity to serve itself. AARP sided with ObamaCare only because they were promised to be the one to replaced Medicare Advantage.

AARP insurance cost are expensive

I dumped them long ago and to this day they still have tried to recruit me again. Never and I mean never

Agree and same with me.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I have not had a decent meal on K Street, have you?

McCormick & Schmick was at 16th and K. Excellent seafood and their Happy Hour from 5 til 6:30 was a lot of fun at very reasonable prices ( for Washington).

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by rockyisle

.......

....What I "think" I know, is if it's good for AARP, it's going to be good for this senior. As for their compensation packages for their executives, I could care less - there are so many executives who make bundles each year... I say - Good for them... Heck, we live in TV where Gary Morse has more money than GOD... and we love living here... So what's the big deal?

I don't care what the executives (or Morses) make, either. But my liberal friends who want the government to manage all healthcare in a national, single-payer system are outraged all the time, saying:

"The insurance companies are raking all the money out of healthcare spending".......

"The insurance companies are the evil culprit in all this, making too damn much money".......

"NOBODY should be making a profit on people's sickness and misery".

"The reason we should go to government single-payer system is because the insurance companies spend 30% of revenues on marketing and advertising. That is money that the government could use to insure the uninsured."

Example:

4) Can we afford single payer, if that means covering 47 million uninsured people?

Compared to other countries, the United States already pays enough to provide comprehensive coverage for everyone. However, coverage for everyone isn't realized because 31 percent of our health care spending goes for administration through the patchwork of private for-profit and not-for-profit insurance companies and health plans. Potential savings from eliminating the administrative waste and marketing expenditures of insurance carriers have been estimated at $350 billion per year.

GMHCC | Single Payer

"If the damn insurance companies weren't raking in so much in profits, there would be enough money to cover the uninsured people without raising everyone else's premiums and deductibles!"

"The insurance companies are driving the doctors and hospitals crazy and driving up their costs and fees, having to spend more time fighting with them on the phone to get them to pay for appropriate care, which is often denied!"

----------
So what does the government do with the current overhaul? They give United Healthcare even more business than they ever had.

AND, what are the marketing and advertising costs of ACA (so far) to reach the uninsureds in the country and advertise and convince them to sign up for ACA? Take a look:

"As [the new ACA] health care law moves from theory to reality in the coming months, its success may hinge on whether the best minds in advertising can reach one of the hardest-to-find parts of the population: people without health coverage.
The campaign won’t come cheap: The total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press from federal and state sources.
About 16 percent of Americans are uninsured, but despite years of political debate and media attention, more than three-quarters of them still know little about the law known as “Obamacare,” according to recent surveys."

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...y-700-million/

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

I don't care what the executives (or Morses) make, either. But my liberal friends who want the government to manage all healthcare in a national, single-payer system are outraged all the time, saying:

"The insurance companies are raking all the money out of healthcare spending".......

"The insurance companies are the evil culprit in all this, making too damn much money".......

"NOBODY should be making a profit on people's sickness and misery".

"The reason we should go to government single-payer system is because the insurance companies spend 30% of revenues on marketing and advertising. That is money that the government could use to insure the uninsured."

Example:

4) Can we afford single payer, if that means covering 47 million uninsured people?

Compared to other countries, the United States already pays enough to provide comprehensive coverage for everyone. However, coverage for everyone isn't realized because 31 percent of our health care spending goes for administration through the patchwork of private for-profit and not-for-profit insurance companies and health plans. Potential savings from eliminating the administrative waste and marketing expenditures of insurance carriers have been estimated at $350 billion per year.

GMHCC | Single Payer

"If the damn insurance companies weren't raking in so much in profits, there would be enough money to cover the uninsured people without raising everyone else's premiums and deductibles!"

"The insurance companies are driving the doctors and hospitals crazy and driving up their costs and fees, having to spend more time fighting with them on the phone to get them to pay for appropriate care, which is often denied!"

----------
So what does the government do with the current overhaul? They give United Healthcare even more business than they ever had.

AND, what are the marketing and advertising costs of ACA (so far) to reach the uninsureds in the country and advertise and convince them to sign up for ACA? Take a look:

"As [the new ACA] health care law moves from theory to reality in the coming months, its success may hinge on whether the best minds in advertising can reach one of the hardest-to-find parts of the population: people without health coverage.
The campaign won’t come cheap: The total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press from federal and state sources.
About 16 percent of Americans are uninsured, but despite years of political debate and media attention, more than three-quarters of them still know little about the law known as “Obamacare,” according to recent surveys."

‘Obamacare’ National Marketing Campaign To Cost Nearly $700 Million « CBS DC

I personally would have favored Medicare for those under 65 as a premium program that would convert to the current program at 65, but you've got to take what the obstructionists allow. Now, wouldn't it be nice if they could work together to make The Affordable Care Act better and more efficient. Don't hold your breath! Thank God for AARP and those who care about the little people instead of just those few who don't need the help.

Xavier

[Carl in Tampa]

When it comes to AARP I am a single issue voter. NO!

I used to be a member. Then, several years ago they came out in favor of gun control legislation that was a move toward abolishing personal ownership of guns.

I wrote to the President of AARP and pointed out that as I became older it became even more important to me to be able to carry a firearm for self defense since I couldn't expect to successfully fight a mugger. Accordingly, I felt that an organization that represented older people should support having older people authorized to carry firearms.

The President wrote back and insisted that AARP would devote time, energy and lobbying effort in Congress to try to end personal ownership of guns.

I didn't wait for my membership to expire; I resigned immediately.

Regarding AARP discounts, in my travels, making hotel reservations on line, I have never found an AARP rate that beat AAA. And, besides, AAA gives you travel guides, road service for breakdowns, great rates on insurance, travel agents for cruises, discount tickets for attractions and lots more.

No to AARP forever!

[l2ridehd]

I dropped AARP when they became a "political voice of their leadership" without regard to their members wishes. They never asked the membership how they felt about gun control, they just decided to lobby for it. They never asked the membership how they felt about ACA, they just decided to support it. I would have stayed if they polled the members and a majority supported some position and then they spent their lobby (read our) lobbying $$$$. But they used member money to support what the leadership wanted, not necessarily what the members wanted.

Maybe tomorrow they will decide that everyone should die by 75 or be terminated and use your money to support it. Pick any position you don't support and if they chose to support it, they will. They will never ask you what you think. They believe they know what is best for all of us. I don't think they do.

So never again will I join AARP.

[graciegirl]

I was going to say something flip, like, I'm not old enough and then I read the last couple of posts from people who I really respect.


I had no idea. I always wondered about the controversy swirling around AARP....and now I know.

[getdul981]

I was a member of AARP, but also dropped them when they became anti gun and they still send us the magazine. I don't even bother to read it. We get mail offering life insurance and I think, car insurance. We have United Healthcare as a supplement to our Medicare. Initially, it had no affiliation with AARP, but somewhere along the line, it has become affiliated. I would prefer that it was not affiliated with AARP, but I'm not going to change my supplemental because it seems to be what is best for us.

[graciegirl]

This thread may not have been meant to be political but it identifies the politics of the posters, I would say.

[eweissenbach]

[QUOTE=getdul981;841030]I was a member of AARP, but also dropped them when they became anti gun and they still send us the magazine. I don't even bother to read it. We get mail offering life insurance and I think, car insurance. We have United Healthcare as a supplement to our Medicare. Initially, it had no affiliation with AARP, but somewhere along the line, it has become affiliated. I would prefer that it was not affiliated with AARP, but I'm not going to change my supplemental because it seems to be what is best for us.[/QUOTE]

The reason it is best for you is because AARP negotiated the package on behalf of its membership. I was with New York Life when we negotiated with AARP to underwrite their life insurance plans and they got concessions and provisions we did not offer through any other outlet. AARP does a great job negotiating on behalf of its members.

[kellyjam]

I joined AARP when I turned 50. It was through their magazine that I learned about Hip Resurfacing. I was scheduled to have a bilateral Hip Replacement at age 55 but thankfully was introduced to the resurfacing by the article in the magazine and had said operation later that year. Do I agree with all of their political leanings? No. But I also don't agree with the leanings of all newspapers that I read but I subscribe to them anyway because I am a physical paper junkie lol. I trust myself to read both sides of an issue and come to a reasonable conclusion. I would equate joining AARP to buying a subscription to a newspaper or magazine. It's a personal choice with no right or wrong.

[ilovetv]

When it comes to insurance company profits thru government sponsored insurance like Medicare and Tricare, I think we all would agree about such profitability, and it should not become a partisan topic.

My point is this: To say that the political leanings of AARP d.b.a. United Healthcare "do not matter" is to say that.....

...their lobbying money and power and push for single payer "government" healthcare "does not matter"......

.....even though THEY, AARP-UHC would likely be the "single payer", making unfathomable profits from it.

They're almost the public-sector plans' "single-payer" already, profiting off their sales of Medicare, Medicaid, federal, state and local government employee healthcare plans, and even Tricare plans for veterans.

Elizabeth Edwards, rest in peace, understood and voiced extremely well the problem with UHC in this interview, where she speaks about healthcare at the 2 minute mark.

She also stated a clear distinction that needs to be made between government-run and UHC-run, but that concept apparently died with her, bless her soul......

See video at 2-minute mark:

Elizabeth Edwards: President of United Health Care Made Almost $3 Billion a Few Years Ago"

Elizabeth Edwards - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 05/20/09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[TNLAKEPANDA]

I hate AARP's political position... I joined years ago and never renewed however I still have auto insurance through AARP Hartford. Hartford is a great company and no one beats their price.

[rubicon]

The power of advertising gets the best of many of us. We think not but it does. AARP has has hammered so hard on the fact that they represent the interests of retired persons but their actions speak otherwise.

Its the same with BBB. They mean well but they are totally ineffective.

Both organizations hurt in another sense in that they offer false positives; meaning most people are better off going it alone

When I left AARP I enrolled with AMAC. The moment I saw they were also advertising for insurance products I stopped

I am tired of being treated as if I just fell out of a tree by organizations such as this, politicians, corporation and the public sector. They do not even make an attempt to cover up their insincerity any longer