Without regulation, the insurance companies will stick the government with all of the "risky" people. David Certner: AARP is driven by its members best interests, as it is with every debate. We have both those who are on Medicare, and who are looking to strengthen the program, including looking to lower their costs, keep their doctors, and get better drug coverage. As you note, we have members who are not yet eligible for Medicare, who either want to keep the insurance they have, or who are desperately trying to find insurance in the individual market. About 1 of every 4 60-year-olds can't even get insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition -- and we agree with you that this must change. Dime Box Texas 77853: Why doesn't AARP poll members to find out how many of do not support Obama Health Care plan? You will lose a lot more than 60,000 members over this issue by saying that your members are in support if you don't show proof. [1]
David Certner: For those under 65, as you know, some disabled persons are eligible for Medicare. This will not change, and we support the current coverage. For those not eligible for Medicare, we strongly support doing away with insurance company practices that prevent those with a existing medical condition from getting insurance. For those with high drug costs, we strongly support closing the so-called doughnut hole (or coverage gap in part D) -- that is a provision now included in the House bills.[1]
David Certner: If your employer provides you retiree coverage, you may keep that coverage prior to Medicare, at Medicare age, that coverage is usually done as a supplement to Medicare. Please note that your employer is normally permitted to reduce or even cancel those benefits at any time. [1] David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP, was online Wednesday, Aug. 19, at Noon ET to discuss health-care, the lobbying group's support of President Obama's agenda and recent reports that approximately 60,000 senior citizens have canceled their membership because they fear Medicare benefits will be reduced in order to support health-care overhaul.[1] AARP opposes any cuts to Medicare benefits. We do support savings in the Medicare program that will help lower costs, such as those changes that will weed out waste and inefficiency in the program.[1]
No bill would provide for euthanasia -- an outrageous idea that we would reject. It is also important that we take smart steps to hold down health care costs across the board, including in Medicare. We would oppose any cuts to Medicare benefits, and pending bills would not cut any benefits -- indeed, some benefits, such as the Rx benefit, would improve. [1] David Certner: Medicare already provides a choice of traditional Medicare or private options -- although most choose traditional Medicare and as you note, are quite happy with it. Those under age 65 would like to also have access to affordable health care choices, and we believe that should be a key goal of any health care reform bill.[1] David Certner: I would like to thank everyone for a hopefully informative chat on the key issues for health care reform.[1]
David Certner: My name is David Certner, the Legislative Policy Director for AARP. We hope to have a lively and informative discussion about issues related to health care reform. Scottsdale, Ariz.: Mr. Certner: Do your loyalties lie with seniors' best interests or with AARP's insurance sales? I had a very bad experience with United Healthcare in 2000 when they kicked out individual policy holders. (7,500 of us in Arizona alone!) As a breast cancer survivor, I could not buy health insurance at any price.[1]
David Certner: We think lively debate over health care reform is important.[1]
DARTMOUTH, Mass. -- Rep. Barney Frank lashed out at protester who held a poster depicting President Barack Obama with a Hitler-style mustache during a heated town hall meeting on federal health care reform. "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Frank asked the woman, who had stepped up to the podium at a southeastern Massachusetts senior center to ask why Frank supports what she called a Nazi policy.[2] Most of the major health care players, including hospitals, health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, are likely to benefit - some handsomely - over the long term. While hospitals and drugmakers have made deals with President Barack Obama and the Senate Finance Committee to help finance the overhaul, in the end their profits could soar as more people have insurance coverage.[3] At issue is a proposed "exchange" or "marketplace" in which a new government plan would be one option for people who aren't covered at work or whose job coverage is too expensive. The exchange would offer some private plans as well as the public one, all of them required to offer certain basic benefits.[3]
The bill would prohibit coverage of counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has been a proponent of coverage for end-of-life counseling under Medicare, said such sessions are a voluntary benefit, strictly between doctor and patient, and it was "nuts" to think death panels are looming or euthanasia is part of the equation. As fellow conservatives stepped up criticism of the provision, he backed away from his defense of it.[3]
Medicare Q: My employer pays 85% of private insurance coverage for retirees who have worked here 15 years at retirement.[1] Some of the costs may be passed on to employees in the form of smaller pay raises, which could help ward off the possibility of job losses. Over the longer term, if more widespread coverage allows people to choose jobs based on their skills and not out of fear of losing health insurance from one specific employer, increased productivity will help pay for some of the costs of the mandate.[4]
Health care demonstrators gather at the president's event in Phoenix, Ariz. This Sunday, Team Obama attempted to allay Americans' fears, but also backed away from whether a final health care reform bill had to include a "public option", which has become a sticking point in bipartisan cooperation over health reform. President Obama has stressed the need for a public option, envisioned as a government-run health insurance system that would provide affordable health insurance to almost 50 million uninsured Americans, and cause private insurers to lower their costs in order to compete.[5]
3.2. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Interestingly, in a recent survey of the city's businesses, very few (less than 5 percent) of the employers who chose the public option are thinking about dropping existing (private market) insurance coverage.[4] THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.[3] WASHINGTON -- The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants.[3] Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants.[3]
WASHINGTON ??? Two independent organizations that are widely respected for objective fact-checking on topics of political controversy are FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and Politifact, a Pulitzer-prize winning project of the St. Petersburg Times. Their research into critiques of the health care legislation pending before Congress was cited Tuesday in a memo from staff to two Democrats who are helping to shape the legislation ??? Reps.[3] We will continue our work to fight for a better health care system on behalf of our members.[1] We do believe -- and our members who have had experience with the health care system generally agree -- that health care is delivered inefficiently today, with too many wasted tests and procedures that not only do not improve health, but often harm it.[1] We cannot continue to afford the current trend of ever increasing health care costs. Baltimore, Md.: How do you help educate your members, a segment of the population that seems to be easily susceptible to outlandish misinformation, both in this debate as well as in general (scams, etc), as evidenced by the 60K members who have left. This number just leaves me speechless.[1] AARP will continue to fight to strengthen Medicare, reduce health care costs, and ensure affordable care.[1] Bellevue, Wash: Good afternoon. Is the AARP in favor of doing away with Medicare Advantage plans? My congressman has told seniors in his district that the savings the President hopes to glean from Medicare, including getting rid of Medicare Advantage plans, would mean that Medicare would no longer have coverage for durable medical equipment.[1] David Certner: First, AARP has not endorsed any particular plan. We have done significant outreach to our members, both through polling, research, town halls, and the large amount of calls and e-mails we receive.[1]
David Certner: Last question. We believe we do need a better system to both benefit patients that have been harmed, and fix the system errors that led to malpractice in the first place.[1] Two years on, the UK arm of Whole Foods is reporting big losses. Earlier this month, it announced that its operating losses for 2008 totalled an indigestion-inducing ??36m. "They have experienced a series of set-backs in the UK," says Natalie Berg, grocery research manager at the consultancy Planet Retail.[6]
William H. Dow, who was a senior economist for President George W. Bush?s Council of Economic Advisers, is a professor of health economics at the University of California, Berkeley, where Arindrajit Dube is an economist at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment and Carrie Hoverman Colla is a doctoral student in health economics. Next Article in Opinion (4 of 26) » A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2009, on page A17 of the New York edition.[4]
THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.[3] The San Francisco experiment has demonstrated that requiring a shared-responsibility model - in which employers pay to help achieve universal coverage - has not led to the kind of job losses many fear.[4]
The House Democrats' memo, with summaries of fact-checking research and links to the fact-checkers' Web sites, follows.[3]
RANKED RECOMMENDED SOURCES
(6 source documents numbered in order of appearance in text)
