Commentary > Op-eds
AARP: The Hype, The Lies, The Facts
 |
| President Barack Obama shakes hands with AARP Chief Executive Officer Barry Rand in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington on June 22. Columnist Herb Denenberg says while a new AARP Bulletin details hype, lies, and facts about the health care debate, it is actually AARP that is doing all of the lying and fear-mongering. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press) |
By HERB DENENBERG, For The Bulletin
The AARP Bulletin (September 2009) has a front-page headline on Obamacare: “The Hype, the Lies, the Facts: How to Tune Out the Fear-mongering and Misinformation and Make Sense of the Health Care Reform.” I’d add only one amendment to that AARP headline: “If you want to avoid the hype, the lies, and get the facts on Obamacare, don’t read the biased one-sided propaganda that AARP publishes in its Bulletin.”
The article is supposed to answer the question of AARP readers, “How do I know what to believe?” Anyone who reads the article critically or studies AARP history on this matter, knows they are in the tank for Obamacare, and in the guise of fair and balanced journalism they are presenting the Obamacare party line.
The article starts out by quoting Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of he Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, who runs FactCheck.org, a website that examines specious claims from all sides of the political spectrum. She says that health care reform has “serious consequences to people’s lives and it would be useful if as many people as possible actually understood what the proposals are about.” But, then she identifies the rise of the Internet and the decline of the mainstream press as a prime source of information which have put that prospect at risk.
Poor, pathetic Ms. Jamieson is saying, in effect, that the public was only getting the truth when they were relying on the biased, fraudulent, dishonest, and ultra-liberal mainstream media. That poor, pathetic “expert” who is “fact checking for the public” feels the truth is threatened now that multiple points of view, some of which are the opposing point of view, are presented by the Internet and now that the public is slowly beginning to realize that you can’t trust the mainstream media. (I would agree with Bernard Goldberg that the mainstream media is no longer mainstream. Until a good alternative description emerges, I’ll call it the biased, fraudulent, dishonest, and ultra liberal mainstream media.)
So, the AARP article is doing its readers a great public service by demonstrating that you can’t trust the AARP, FactCheck.org, Ms. Jamieson, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania if you want fair and balanced information about such matters as Obama and Obamacare.
The article goes on to perpetuate every fraud and deceit that people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic Party have put forth to stigmatize and demonize dissent. For example, the article asks, “Could rumor-mongering affect the outcome? Recent violent interruptions at lawmakers’ town hall meetings suggest it might.” So, the AARP, which is supposed to represent senior citizens, is joining the chorus that sees those who oppose Obamacare and who exercise their First Amendment Rights at Tea Parties as mobsters, prone to violence, Nazis, Brown Shirts and all the rest. They are proving that AARP, the Democratic leadership, and the mainstream media believe in the First Amendment only for those in agreement with its radical, far-left policies.
The AARP and its editors and officers clearly have no conscience and no sense, as they would not carry forward such blatant propagandizing for Obamacare and hurl insults at their own membership. If they are in the business of informing their diverse membership, they should provide both sides of an issue, not just give the appearance of doing so while residing in the pocket of the pro-Obamacare forces.
No wonder AARP been losing membership by the tens of thousands. Sometime ago, it was estimated at 60,000 members lost and that figure is probably much higher by now. Their stance on this did not surprise me. I have already reported in one column how they, along with AMA and others, have sold out to Obama and Company to support his vision of health care reform. I’ve also reported how the AARP is not in the business of representing the interests of senior citizens, but is, in fact, a phony membership organization in the business of selling its members insurance, credit cards, mutual funds, and other services. In fact, facing the first page of the propaganda piece in question is a full-page ad for life insurance sold by AARP. The same issue carries ads for AARP mobile home insurance, AARP Medicare insurance supplements, and AARP auto insurance.
I want to be fair to AARP and its article on health care reform. It did have four words of truth in it. The inside headline reads, “The Assault on Truth.” Of course, that was intended to characterize the critics of Obamacare. However, it perfectly characterizes the article in question and AARP. Let me give you a few examples involving the questions asked and answered by the article:
Will The Government Take Over Health Care So We End Up With Socialized Medicine?
The answer is the standard party line: “No. Neither the president nor the congressional committees have suggested anything remotely resembling a government takeover of health care.”
This answer is based on the fact that Mr. Obama says he doesn’t want the single-payer, government-takeover system that is used in Canada. The article fails to state that Obama has long been on record as favoring the discredited single-payer system and has even said we will have to get there gradually. But the article doesn’t explain that you can have a government takeover without a single-payer system.
When you look at what some of these proposals do, you will see they involve the federal government deciding what kind of policies will be written, what kind of rates will be charged, what kind of government insurance companies will be established, what kind of end-of-life counseling will be provided for senior citizens. What’s more, when you start setting up dozens of new agencies and commissions to control the health care system and to decide on what is the “best” medical practice, you don’t need single-payer to bring about a government takeover. When you grant insurance to 47 million “uninsured,” you assure a shortage of health care providers that sets the stage for rationing. As Dick Morris pointed out, contrary to the view of Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, “You don’t have to be a medical school graduate to figure that out. That’s an elementary school problem.”
If that’s not quite enough to convince you, when you populate the White House with radicals, communists, socialists and advocates of such things as compulsory abortion, compulsory sterilization, and providing medical care based on quality of life years remaining, meaning seniors will be locked out, you are setting the stage for something worse than single-payer.
The article also tries to refute the fact of government takeover by saying “socialized” medicine is also off the table. The article says socialized medicine involves government ownership of hospitals and employment of doctors, as in the United Kingdom. It says that’s not contemplated. But, again, when government and federal bureaucrats control virtually every aspect of the health care system, you don’t need formal ownership. Comprehensive control is the equivalent of government ownership, of socialized medicine, and of the discredited systems of Canada and the United Kingdom.
To put the reader at ease the article says that government run health care can’t be so bad since, after all, Medicare is government run health care and everybody loves it. The article omits the fact that Medicare is $38 trillion in the red. Yes, trillion with a “tr”) and by Obama’s own admission is overrun by $500 billion of waste, fraud and abuse. Obama says Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for our deficits. So what does he do? He proposes the vast expansion of the Medicare and Medicaid programs to further balloon our deficits and our health care inflation.
Will Private Insurance Be Outlawed Or Wither On The Vine?
Needless to say, the AARP article answers, “No. Obama and the congressional committees say their objective is to build on the current system – keeping employer-sponsored group insurance and giving more consumer protections to people who are employed by small businesses or buy insurance as individuals.”
The AARP article argues that those with employer-sponsored insurance are ineligible for the public plan. But the article forgets that many employers would stop giving coverage, as the penalty for not providing it is smaller than the cost of providing it. Even the New York Times, a lap dog for Obama, in an editorial dedicated to selling Obamacare, admitted that the public option would likely be less costly than many alternatives.
The article also ignores the fact that the public option, a government insurer, would be subject to rules made by the government, so the umpire of the marketplace would be on the side of the government insurer. That is not likely to produce a level playing field for private insurers.
Finally, the article ignores the ways proposed in Republican-sponsored bills that would encourage competition. For example, opening up a nationwide market for health insurance would be an obvious and easy way to increase competition. Now, the consumer is limited to companies admitted to do business in his state. The insurance exchanges, proposed in many bills, would also make sense, as they would ratchet up competition.
Incidentally, it is important to remember that with or without a public option or some variation of it in the form of co-ops, Obamacare still involves a government takeover. So, don’t think it is a big deal to delete the public option. The bill spells catastrophe with or without that provision.
All the other questions asked in the article also provide the wrong answers. For example, “Will Medicare be eliminated or gutted to pay for reforms?” The article answers, “No. It’s inconceivable that any lawmaker would commit political suicide by proposing to get rid of Medicare.” But the AARP article forgets that Obama has said that he would cut $500 billion in waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency out of Medicare. We’ve heard that line since the days of President Nixon, and we’re still waiting for that waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency to be eliminated. If Obama knows how to do it, what is he waiting for? Why hasn’t he proceeded to cut that waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency out of the system to prove he knows what he’s doing and can give more than campaign speeches? He’s been in office about seven months, and yet he’s done nothing to solve this problem which he says is bankrupting the country and is responsible for the deficits. When you cut $500 billion out of Medicare and grant coverage to 47 million previously uninsured, you’re going to have to ration medical care, and that means rationing medical care for senior citizens.
The biggest barrels of red ink have been generated by Medicare and Medicaid to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. So what does Obama do? He proposes, in effect, to vastly expand Medicare and Medicaid and to compound our problems.
The president and chief executive officer of AARP, in an editorial accompanying the article in question, endorse the lies, hype, and exaggeration in the article by writing that there has been too much fear-mongering and misinformation involved in the debate. They continue to give the false impression that they are above the fray, but then echo the party line coming from Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. AARP and its leadership have continued to demonstrate they are the ones getting in the way of a fair, balanced, and honest debate on heath care reform.
Herb Denenberg can be reached at advocate@thebulletin.us.
The article is supposed to answer the question of AARP readers, “How do I know what to believe?” Anyone who reads the article critically or studies AARP history on this matter, knows they are in the tank for Obamacare, and in the guise of fair and balanced journalism they are presenting the Obamacare party line.
The article starts out by quoting Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of he Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, who runs FactCheck.org, a website that examines specious claims from all sides of the political spectrum. She says that health care reform has “serious consequences to people’s lives and it would be useful if as many people as possible actually understood what the proposals are about.” But, then she identifies the rise of the Internet and the decline of the mainstream press as a prime source of information which have put that prospect at risk.
Poor, pathetic Ms. Jamieson is saying, in effect, that the public was only getting the truth when they were relying on the biased, fraudulent, dishonest, and ultra-liberal mainstream media. That poor, pathetic “expert” who is “fact checking for the public” feels the truth is threatened now that multiple points of view, some of which are the opposing point of view, are presented by the Internet and now that the public is slowly beginning to realize that you can’t trust the mainstream media. (I would agree with Bernard Goldberg that the mainstream media is no longer mainstream. Until a good alternative description emerges, I’ll call it the biased, fraudulent, dishonest, and ultra liberal mainstream media.)
So, the AARP article is doing its readers a great public service by demonstrating that you can’t trust the AARP, FactCheck.org, Ms. Jamieson, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania if you want fair and balanced information about such matters as Obama and Obamacare.
The article goes on to perpetuate every fraud and deceit that people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic Party have put forth to stigmatize and demonize dissent. For example, the article asks, “Could rumor-mongering affect the outcome? Recent violent interruptions at lawmakers’ town hall meetings suggest it might.” So, the AARP, which is supposed to represent senior citizens, is joining the chorus that sees those who oppose Obamacare and who exercise their First Amendment Rights at Tea Parties as mobsters, prone to violence, Nazis, Brown Shirts and all the rest. They are proving that AARP, the Democratic leadership, and the mainstream media believe in the First Amendment only for those in agreement with its radical, far-left policies.
The AARP and its editors and officers clearly have no conscience and no sense, as they would not carry forward such blatant propagandizing for Obamacare and hurl insults at their own membership. If they are in the business of informing their diverse membership, they should provide both sides of an issue, not just give the appearance of doing so while residing in the pocket of the pro-Obamacare forces.
No wonder AARP been losing membership by the tens of thousands. Sometime ago, it was estimated at 60,000 members lost and that figure is probably much higher by now. Their stance on this did not surprise me. I have already reported in one column how they, along with AMA and others, have sold out to Obama and Company to support his vision of health care reform. I’ve also reported how the AARP is not in the business of representing the interests of senior citizens, but is, in fact, a phony membership organization in the business of selling its members insurance, credit cards, mutual funds, and other services. In fact, facing the first page of the propaganda piece in question is a full-page ad for life insurance sold by AARP. The same issue carries ads for AARP mobile home insurance, AARP Medicare insurance supplements, and AARP auto insurance.
I want to be fair to AARP and its article on health care reform. It did have four words of truth in it. The inside headline reads, “The Assault on Truth.” Of course, that was intended to characterize the critics of Obamacare. However, it perfectly characterizes the article in question and AARP. Let me give you a few examples involving the questions asked and answered by the article:
Will The Government Take Over Health Care So We End Up With Socialized Medicine?
The answer is the standard party line: “No. Neither the president nor the congressional committees have suggested anything remotely resembling a government takeover of health care.”
This answer is based on the fact that Mr. Obama says he doesn’t want the single-payer, government-takeover system that is used in Canada. The article fails to state that Obama has long been on record as favoring the discredited single-payer system and has even said we will have to get there gradually. But the article doesn’t explain that you can have a government takeover without a single-payer system.
When you look at what some of these proposals do, you will see they involve the federal government deciding what kind of policies will be written, what kind of rates will be charged, what kind of government insurance companies will be established, what kind of end-of-life counseling will be provided for senior citizens. What’s more, when you start setting up dozens of new agencies and commissions to control the health care system and to decide on what is the “best” medical practice, you don’t need single-payer to bring about a government takeover. When you grant insurance to 47 million “uninsured,” you assure a shortage of health care providers that sets the stage for rationing. As Dick Morris pointed out, contrary to the view of Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, “You don’t have to be a medical school graduate to figure that out. That’s an elementary school problem.”
If that’s not quite enough to convince you, when you populate the White House with radicals, communists, socialists and advocates of such things as compulsory abortion, compulsory sterilization, and providing medical care based on quality of life years remaining, meaning seniors will be locked out, you are setting the stage for something worse than single-payer.
The article also tries to refute the fact of government takeover by saying “socialized” medicine is also off the table. The article says socialized medicine involves government ownership of hospitals and employment of doctors, as in the United Kingdom. It says that’s not contemplated. But, again, when government and federal bureaucrats control virtually every aspect of the health care system, you don’t need formal ownership. Comprehensive control is the equivalent of government ownership, of socialized medicine, and of the discredited systems of Canada and the United Kingdom.
To put the reader at ease the article says that government run health care can’t be so bad since, after all, Medicare is government run health care and everybody loves it. The article omits the fact that Medicare is $38 trillion in the red. Yes, trillion with a “tr”) and by Obama’s own admission is overrun by $500 billion of waste, fraud and abuse. Obama says Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for our deficits. So what does he do? He proposes the vast expansion of the Medicare and Medicaid programs to further balloon our deficits and our health care inflation.
Will Private Insurance Be Outlawed Or Wither On The Vine?
Needless to say, the AARP article answers, “No. Obama and the congressional committees say their objective is to build on the current system – keeping employer-sponsored group insurance and giving more consumer protections to people who are employed by small businesses or buy insurance as individuals.”
The AARP article argues that those with employer-sponsored insurance are ineligible for the public plan. But the article forgets that many employers would stop giving coverage, as the penalty for not providing it is smaller than the cost of providing it. Even the New York Times, a lap dog for Obama, in an editorial dedicated to selling Obamacare, admitted that the public option would likely be less costly than many alternatives.
The article also ignores the fact that the public option, a government insurer, would be subject to rules made by the government, so the umpire of the marketplace would be on the side of the government insurer. That is not likely to produce a level playing field for private insurers.
Finally, the article ignores the ways proposed in Republican-sponsored bills that would encourage competition. For example, opening up a nationwide market for health insurance would be an obvious and easy way to increase competition. Now, the consumer is limited to companies admitted to do business in his state. The insurance exchanges, proposed in many bills, would also make sense, as they would ratchet up competition.
Incidentally, it is important to remember that with or without a public option or some variation of it in the form of co-ops, Obamacare still involves a government takeover. So, don’t think it is a big deal to delete the public option. The bill spells catastrophe with or without that provision.
All the other questions asked in the article also provide the wrong answers. For example, “Will Medicare be eliminated or gutted to pay for reforms?” The article answers, “No. It’s inconceivable that any lawmaker would commit political suicide by proposing to get rid of Medicare.” But the AARP article forgets that Obama has said that he would cut $500 billion in waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency out of Medicare. We’ve heard that line since the days of President Nixon, and we’re still waiting for that waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency to be eliminated. If Obama knows how to do it, what is he waiting for? Why hasn’t he proceeded to cut that waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency out of the system to prove he knows what he’s doing and can give more than campaign speeches? He’s been in office about seven months, and yet he’s done nothing to solve this problem which he says is bankrupting the country and is responsible for the deficits. When you cut $500 billion out of Medicare and grant coverage to 47 million previously uninsured, you’re going to have to ration medical care, and that means rationing medical care for senior citizens.
The biggest barrels of red ink have been generated by Medicare and Medicaid to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars. So what does Obama do? He proposes, in effect, to vastly expand Medicare and Medicaid and to compound our problems.
The president and chief executive officer of AARP, in an editorial accompanying the article in question, endorse the lies, hype, and exaggeration in the article by writing that there has been too much fear-mongering and misinformation involved in the debate. They continue to give the false impression that they are above the fray, but then echo the party line coming from Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. AARP and its leadership have continued to demonstrate they are the ones getting in the way of a fair, balanced, and honest debate on heath care reform.
Herb Denenberg can be reached at advocate@thebulletin.us.
Copyright © 2010 - The Bulletin