AARP Losing Tens Of Thousands(60,000) Of Members Over Support For Health Care Overhaul

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.

The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn't unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens' lobby to shed members in droves when it's advocating on a controversial issue.

AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Barack Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won't support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.

"We take stands on issues that are contentious, it's part of what we do," Nannis said. "And because we have so many members we'll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership."

The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP's stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.


Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-health-overhaul-aarp,0,5841208.story

in reimbursements and actually raises reimbursements.

I could not care less if they dropped off the face of the universe.

the ones leaving are not

and if you saw the entire article it also said:

" AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership."

is only interested in profits. IT FULLY supported Medicare Part D AND is a part of United Health Group, who paid its CEO 1.2 BILLION dollars.

AARP® MedicareRx Plans:
These Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs) are insured by United HealthCare Insurance Company or United HealthCare Insurance Company of New York for New York residents (together called “UnitedHealthcare”) UnitedHealthcare receives rebates from drug manufacturers that it passes on to its enrollees through reductions in premiums and to Medicare to reduce Medicare program costs. UnitedHealthcare contracts with the Federal government as a PDP sponsor. All decisions about prescription drugs are between you and your physician or other health care provider.

AARP® Medicare Supplement Insurance Plans:
These plans are insured by United HealthCare Insurance Company, Fort Washington, PA (United HealthCare Insurance Company of New York, Islandia, NY for New York residents.) Not connected with or endorsed by the U.S. Government or the Federal Medicare Program. Policy Form No. GRP79171 GPS-1 (G-36000-4). In some states, plans may be available to persons eligible for Medicare by reason of disability. All plans may not be available in all states/areas. This is a solicitation of insurance. See the information on this web site for details about benefits, costs, eligibility requirements, exclusions, and limitations.

AARP® Essential Plus Indemnity Health Insurance Plans/AARP® Medical Advantage Indemnity Insurance Plans/AARP® Essential Indemnity Health Insurance Plans/AARP® Hospital Indemnity Insurance Plans:
These plans are insured by United HealthCare Insurance Company, Fort Washington, PA. (For plans offered in New York, by United HealthCare Insurance Company of New York, Islandia, NY.) Policy Form No. GRP79171 GPS-1 (G-36000-2, 4, 5). These plans are supplemental and are not Medicare Supplement or Major Medical plans. All plans may not be available in all states/areas. This is a solicitation of insurance. See the information on this web site for details about benefits, costs, eligibility requirements, exclusions, and limitations.

Care to rebutt?

because it wants to offer certain insurance benefits to its employees, but does not want to be an insurance company. That company used to be John Hancock. That never meant the State of Massachusetts thereby became part of the John Hancock insurance company.

What you posted sounds similar. AARP probably wanted to offer its members a particular set of benefits and got UHIC to inusre that set of benefits so that AARP, like Massachusetts, would not have to handle it itself.

If you find something that says AARP is a subsidiary or an affliliate of UGH, you will prove your claim.

since, even with black and white evidence before you, you still insist on not seeing it.

told you what you would have to find in order to prove your claim. As I aaid, all your post proves is a contractual arrangement.

Having a contract with a company does not make you part of that company. I don't know how to make it clearer. Maybe you need to look up the legal definitions of "corporate subsidiary" and "corporate affiliate."

See also Reply 89.

That is like saying because the company I work for offers United Healthcare, my company is part of United Healthcare

I never said it was part of UHG. I said that AARP is.

And they support some type of reform and will probably support whatever is passed.

Unfortunately 60,000 of their members are believing the scare tactics of the RW.

and has been at least since Medicare Part D came into being. They'll sell their name to whoever will pay the most for their endorsement.

Having a contractual arrangement with an insurance company does not make you part of that company, any more than hiring a building contracor to build your house because you are not good at that kind of thing yourself makes you part of the contracor's company.

...AARP represents senior like mousetraps were built to protect mice.

:hi:

they give them clout. Maybe they're not perfect, but what is?

me to support a public option.

The 60K are no loss. They would have left anyway because the Cons formed their own seniors group.

Very sad.

Conservatives are so ignorant.

do not support single payer or a public option, their magazine was very clear on that. AARP was among the 41 invited to max baucus' conclave. That's like being at a darth cheney 'energy' meeting.

They were invited because they represent a lot of Seniors. They went because they represent a lot of seniors. if you show they did something wrong at the meeting, then I'll be with you.

I don't know what their magazine said, but they supported the public option.

Maybe they supported a public option instead of single payer because Obama said he did not and would not support single payer and they wanted to support something that had a chance of getting passed and signed?

AARP is such a big money-making machine with so many members that sacrificing even as many 60K of them is a relatively small price
to pay for the potential gains of huge amounts of money they'll take in from mandatory medical insurance premiums ... coming soon.

was it on the privatizaation of social security or something. i can't even remember now. maybe it was medicare part d.

And repugs lied about how much it would cost and threatened the actuary with loss of his job if he told the true cost. bush signed it and we found out the true cost. Not one right-wing crazy complained. Not one repug was punished.

And I also made them refund the $12 and change from my membership.

The magazine will never stop coming.
Never.

We fired AARP 2 years ago. Membership then was 10.00.
Magazine keeps coming, chock full of ads for insurance, medical devices, all sorts of things
"covered by Medicare".
then is the jnk mail they have been sending for years, for insurance.

I despise AARP ever since their sell-out on Medicare Part-D. Whenever I receive anything from them, I stuff their self-addressed postage-paid envelope full of junk and mail it back to them with a note that I will NEVER join any organization that was in bed with GW and the Republicans and their tax-payer paid hand-outs to the pharmaceutical companies.

If they'd support single payer, I'd go back. But not for anything less.

his party theoretically in charge of both houses of Congress and his signature needed on the bill, maybe they went with the most they thought they could realisically get.

Not trying to get you to rejoin. I don't work for them or get anything from them. Just trying to be fair.

So yes, I did. Started with Kucinich, went with Clinton, ended up with Obama.

see the light of day. So, I cannot really fault AARP for supporting the best thing they thought might actually become law.

If single payer were looking hot and they argued for public option, then I'd be mad. Or, worse, if they argued for no bill.

candidate supported it, I should have stayed home on election night? I'm a bit confused here.

I don't take my political agenda from elected officials. I expect them to listen to those who elected them, and to change, if necessary, to reflect those views. 60% or so of the public supports single payer.

I thought Part D was woefully imperfect, but a step in the right direction.

NT!

:eyes:

"Most Americans agree that affordable drug coverage under Medicare has been needed for some time. But instead of a solution to a growing problem, Congress gave the country a prescription-drug plan that achieves few of its original goals. The current problems with Medicare Part D are largely the direct result of the undemocratic way in which the plan was authored and passed. The final legislation, heavily influenced by drug-company and health insurance lobbyists, focused mainly on the needs of those industries instead of those of the seniors it should serve."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/22/2314

did not give them the original goals and it also focused on drug companies. In other words, the original bill was better. AARP bupported it then. But even after Congress mangled the original bill, the bill that passed still gave seniors something more than they had before. AARP is not responsible for lawmakers caving in to PHARMA before passing a bill.

I supported single payer, then public option. Congress is turning the latter into crap. Does that make me a bad person? Tell me what "entitlements" bill passed since 1985 has not been turned into crap by Congress and K Street.

Even reading only your source, but using the opposite spin, senior still got more than they had before, even after Congress and K Street got through with it. So, should AARP cut off seniors' noses to spite their faces?

Airc, as he started out on his first failure, no thanks to Congress, what was to be his 50 state tour to sell his plan to privatize SS (I think they wanted to get their hands on all that money to try to help hide the collapse of Wall St. by investing it in the market) AARP came out and vehemently opposed it. Rightwingers have never forgiven them for that. I remember the vilification of AARP on the rightwing boards I was on at the time. They got the support of their over 30 million membership and imo, deserve much of the credit for Bush's failure to steal yet more of the people's money for his Wall St. friends.

They are supporting Obama's healthcare reform but are not being as successful this time because of the rightwing's scare tactics directly aimed at older Americans. They have spent millions on the effort to support this reform:

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/aarp-faces-test-on-healthcare-reform-2009-08-18.html

The benefits of an AARP endorsement can hardly be overstated; nor can the perils of its opposition. In 2005, the AARP handed the GOP a loss when it helped kill President George W. Bush’s proposal to add private accounts to Social Security. Two years before, the group beat back Democrats and endorsed the GOP-crafted Part D drug benefit for Medicare.

Obama clearly understands that he stands to gain from an alliance with the AARP.

> snip

Though the AARP has not formally endorsed Obama’s healthcare platform nor any of the bills in Congress, the group has stood as a staunch proponent of many of the common elements in Democratic proposals, such as the creation of a health insurance exchange and the availability of subsidies for low-income people.

> snip

The AARP’s PR blitz dates back to last year’s presidential campaign and to Democratic efforts since 2007 to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Up to this point, older voters aren’t buying what Obama and the AARP are selling, according to several opinion polls.

A majority of people 50 or older opposed Obama on healthcare, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found. In a Gallup poll, substantially more older people thought healthcare reform would worsen, or at least not improve, their access to care and the quality of the services they receive.

To counter this skepticism, the AARP has begun defending healthcare reform against specific attacks, something Matheis says the group will do more of in the coming months.

They did support Medicare D, but overall they appear to be more supportive of Democratic policies on healthcare and seem to be mostly independent of either party. For example, they do not donate money to political candidates.

They've taken heat from both parties but we probably have them to thank for handing Bush his first real political defeat over the past eight years. Congress surely never succeeded in doing that.

They have millions to spend on this fight and have not given up. We should be supporting them as by not doing so we are helping the Republicans defeat THEIR efforts to support any reform in the system.

Iow, this time, once again, they are on our side ....

Hoist with their own petard, in fact.

you think that medicare is not run by the government...??? are you clear???

even if it is based upon lies and fear. I guess they go with what they know and what works for them. Why change a successful formula.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm:

But seriously, folks. So these people are FINE with all of us footing the bill for THEIR health care? And are good with their socialized medicine? But they don't want to help anyone else? Every day I wake up I think I hate the world a little bit more. :(

Many many seniors who are retired are forced onto Medicare by their former private health insurance..they have no damn choice..at 65 they automatically go onto medicare..

Do you honestly think if they could stay on their employer covered private insurance they would opt for medicare? I sure as hell wouldn't , but with my hubby and my health insurance through our corporate pensions ..we have no choice..we automatically get thrown onto medicare..and it does not compare to what we have now, before we turn 65 ..so you can damn sure count on me fighting for what less I will be getting when we turn 65 and get forced onto medicare! We will have worked for our entire lives for coverage that will drop significantly when we go onto mandatory medicare!

You got paid with your benefits every year you were working. The benefits were not "investments for the future".

When you quit working you lose your salary and your benefits.

You also lose your vacation days, your paid holidays, your tuition reimbursement plan, your employer provided cell phone/car/computer.

People who have both private insurance and Medicare....are told to notify the hospitals because private insurance is supposed to pay first...Medicare may cover the slack in the private insurance coverage. Google Medicare and private ins. who pays first..........I worked for a woman with priv. ins and Medicare.......that's how it works.

I have both private insurance and medicare and medicare is always primary.

you MUST purchase Medicare and medicare is primary.

Medicare I had to basically get it as well, as it is primary, as no one works.

you don't sound reasonable ... are you or aren't you on medicare? and you are not 65 yet?

incorrect, disagree and post the correct info. No need to insult her. Besides, what does her age have to do with it? The information is either correct or incorrect, whether she is 7 or 70.

one day you will be old, too.

First, this is an unsigned report from AARP. For all we know, Palin wrote it.

Second, AARP is an organization. It does not get medical care.

Third, seniors were told all their lives that Social Security was like buying insurance from the government. The program is called OASDI, Old Age and Disablity Insurance. It's not their fault that the government spent the money it was supposed to keep invested in a trust fund.

Fourth, you MUST take Medicare, by law.

Fifth, we don't have socialized medicine in this country. Except as to troops and veterans, the government owns no hospitals or clinic, hires no doctors, manufactures no drugs, etc.

They dont do a dang thing for seniors except send you advertizements and take your money.
Why can't Americans have single payer? Most of the nations of Europe have it and they all love it and keep voting to continue it so it must be great.
My middle son lives in Israel and gets his drs visit and his meds for less than 12 bucks! Why can't we do that here?
I am sick of Congress and the government and their lies. To hell with them.

after Raygun goons took it over. Good riddance!

Note the RW spin regarding "60,000".... making it sound like a large number? That was out of 40,000,000, which is a miniscule 0.15%.

There are better groups out there. The Association of Retired Americans, for one.

and put a note to remove us from all future mailings!

AARP is putting out ads supporting Obama and you are mad at them????

"AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership."

entire article is up to you which it seems you accomplished.

Thanks for your added excerpt and comments.

can, if you wish, post a <snip> or just ..... to show that you've left something out, and skip elsewhere.

I'm not saying that's what you should have done, just letting you know in case you did not already know.

As you probably have noticed, lot of people who post don't read past the headline, let alone follow the link and read the whole article. Some are posting on the fly, while at work or feeding toddlers, etc. Some are lazy. So, when I start a thread, I try to give the most salient info in the OP. Then again, I don't start many threads.

We are eating our own. How stupid.

Those 60,000 prolly had limpbaugh mainlined into their ear drums.

Here's the Glass is half full part of the report...

"He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership."

looks like the sky isn't falling after all - huh?

http://www.aarp.org/community/TheFrankFactordotcom

Come on over and help me pick off morons.

What a bunch of selfish seniors! I think they should burn their medicare cards and be forced to get private insurance at their age. They don't realize that a lot of people can't afford the insurance they have and it is not getting any better. Last year my cousin dared to get cancer. He worked all his life and has insurance. His last day in his house is October 1st due and is bankrupt and that is with insurance!

Without the AARP supplemental, they are going to pay through the nose and the ass for stuff they had paid for by their supplement. My Mom quit AARP and then found that her Boniva meds were 164 dollars for three months.

Dumbfucks.

Just check out the thread.

I have never gone back. One insurance program is pretty much like any other insurance program.

Why is M$M making such a big taa-doo about this?

...that's laughably little.

In 2003 I was very upset because of their support of medicare D and told them to quit sending me stuff. Based on their current support of a public option, I was rethinking my position.

I think the big problem is that the marketing machine have lied to the seniors and scared them, just like my 84 year old mom thought the arabs were going to blow up the bus she rode in Ohio. She had stockpiled so many jars of peanut butter...

Don't forget, these people are frail. They know they are at the mercy of society. And it scares them. They know how close to the end of life they are.

So don't call them stupid or gullible -- try to come up with a way to make sure they get the correct information and can understand it. AARP tries, I think.

If they up initially they were sheeple, now they are just proving it.

I guess they don't want a bright future with their grand children.

that the old people are going to get sent out to die or something.

The world's overpopulated anyway -- no need for these fools to keep using precious resources.

The world is overpopulated with a lot of things that make it hazardous to the health of others.
Global warming is giving a large new advantage to the insect populations. So what the hell will the rest us do about that :shrug:

...these pinheads were all they had left.

Talk about inept.

Is there anyone they are NOT gonna piss off?

Helluva way to run a "membership" organization.

Gee, the way they're running it, you'd think they don't really give a ratsass what their members think or want.

Which kinda raises the question "who's payin' the bills over there?"

curiously,
Bright

eom..

what you're saying is a bunch of retired people who most likely qualify for government health insurance
don't want to overhaul the present system. They must have a lot of faith in the present system. LMAO!

I guess it's more a matter of the devil you know.

We saved $500 dollars a year on auto insurance and personal property insurance (house).
We get discounts when we show our AARP membership card.

There is no other way in the USA to have insurance than to work with insurance companies. That's what AARP does. Otherwise they would not be able to provide insurance at all.

As for the BUSH prescription plan. It was better than none even though it was a drop in the bucket and had a doughnut hole. It did help some seniors, though it was typical Bush...it was the best that could be done with that President and that Congress. A step in the right direction. Kind of a shaky step, kind of off kilter, but at least going in the right direction. It was something that could be improved when the Democrats got control. OOPS, they are in control and it looks as though we won't have much better with them.

I'm a woman who fought for and am still fighting for women's rights. I was against the Viet Nam war. I guess by the tone of this forum I'm going to have to start fighting for the rights of old people. I like young people. My granddaughters are smart, funny, and aware, and Democrats. But the demeaning comments on this board show the ignorance of some of our young and untested. All of those loony people that are screeching against health care reform are not old. There are stupid people of every age and in every group. On occasion they even seem to be here on DU. :evilgrin:

hasn't one politician at a Town Hall Meeting told one of the paid senior citizens, "if you are opposed to socialism, then give me your name and SSN and I will see you are removed from Medicare and Social Security rolls?" Just a thought.

No AP story about that. :shrug:

that gives better coverage for lower dollars does not make it an insurance company. That is part of its mission and they still do everything they did before, including lobbying for everything that improves life for senior, and sometimes the disabled.

He left when the Insurance Lobby installed their tool at the helm of AARP to get Medicare D passed.

I honestly believe No Elephants works for AARP, looking at his posts.:eyes:

I do believe you honestly believe what you say, but you are wrong, legally and factually.

Everyone who disagrees with you about AARP is not biased. On the UHG issue, you obviously lack basic knowledge about business transactions and did not look up the definitions I suggested you look up. Otherwise, you could refute my posts, instead of claiming I am biased.

I tried my best to explain to you with examples, etc. but you don't seem to have an open mind, either. Nor have you produced anything that says AARP is affliliated with UHG in any way, other than a contractual relationship, of the kind my post upthread said Massachusetts had with John Hancock.

So, according to you, the State of Massachusetts must have become part of the John Hancock Insurance Company, too. I just can't wait for you to post the link on that one.

and have a basic knowledge of business relationships, please look at posts 84, 89, 92, 95 and 98. Even if you have none of those things, you should be able to get it from those posts.

As for Medicare Part D, please see Posts 31 and 97, bearing in mind that AARP gives a bill its support when the bill first starts out, not after K Street and Congress get through with it.

I am responding bc I am trying to hang on to my belief in your sincerity, despite "your father's" sudden shift.

1.4 MILLION renewals.

It sounds to me like the AARP will probably be around for a bit longer but you wouldn't know it from the way the article comes across. :eyes:

I quit when they supported that abomination, Medicare Part D.

insurance policies through them and the rates are cheaper than anywhere else.

What I mean is, how many quit because the AARP doesn't go far enough in it's support of health care reform? If we don't know the answer to that question then I don't think we can make a definitive analysis of what's going on here. If I were of that age, I wouldn't join them because they do not support single payer and I do.

when I found out they donated to gun control orgs.

but then again, I would not be surprised at the IGNORANT OLD REPUKE FUCKS!!!

It really burns my britches when people are lied to
by fat cat lobbiests