Pro & Con: Will health care reform hurt American senior citizens?

YES: Proposals will lead to rationed care, limiting options for seniors.

By Stuart Barton

Retired U.S. Army Sgt. Cameron Jones is to be applauded for tearing up his American Association of Retired Persons membership card on a national cable television show to protest that group’s support of what he termed President Barack Obama’s costly and socialist health care program.

Seniors “are the people going to be hit the hardest and the AARP is supposed to be looking out for them — and they’re not doing it,” Jones underscored on a Fox News TV program.

My organization has three major concerns with the proposals advanced by the Obama administration: 1) A government-run plan would limit patient-doctor choice; 2) there would be an employer mandate that would kill jobs and lower wages; and 3) the current House legislation attacks baby boomers and seniors — in fact, every American — by paying for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health care with new taxes and by cutting $500 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years.

Particularly outrageous is a section of the House bill mandating that a senior citizen must go to counseling every five years with a government bureaucrat in order to basically learn how to prepare to die.

Already, Oregon is denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives and instead is offering them physician-assisted suicide, according to a former New York lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey. McCaughey lays out this assault on seniors by noting that it began with the stimulus bill passed in February. She writes:

“Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on a patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of treatment is divided by the number of years (called QUALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit.”

When comparative effectiveness research appeared in that legislation, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a heart surgeon, joined other medical experts in warning that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled life-saving care.”

It is a myth that living longer burdens society. Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of the New York-Presbyterian Medical Center, cites Medicare data that a patient who dies at age 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90.

So is the idea behind this current legislation to let baby boomers and seniors die more quickly so the government doesn’t have to care for them in old age? Is that is a plan you can believe in?

Medicare, even though it has imperfections and waste that must be addressed, still provides good value for those living into old age. The Obama health care proposals would end that good value.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel should be singled out for his hostility toward doctors and their Hippocratic Oath that stipulates “do no harm” to patients.

In order to force support for the administration’s plan, he openly laid out his bullying strategy in a November 2008 Health Care Watch column: “Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the healthcare reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health reform effort.”

No wonder there are growing numbers of disgusted former AARP members like Jones. They see that the AARP has betrayed its membership in order to support “reform” for White House “favors” in return.

Stuart Barton is president of the American Seniors Association, a conservative, Alpharetta-based seniors group.

NO: Seniors will get better drug benefit, seamless coverage, cost breaks.

By Cas Robinson

No, it won’t, because AARP is committed to making sure that strengthening Medicare for the tens of millions of older Americans who currently depend on it, as well as for their kids and grandchildren, is a critical part of any reform.

That is why AARP has been working for months with leaders from both sides of the aisle in our pursuit of legislation that will protect Medicare, hold down health care costs and ensure choices for our 40 million members.

In particular, several provisions in the legislation will directly benefit older Americans.

They include a proposal to eliminate the gap in seniors’ prescription drug coverage known as the doughnut hole, which forces seniors to buy drugs at full cost even while they’re paying premiums for coverage; a transitional health benefit that would help hospital patients avoid costly, unnecessary readmissions; and increases for home- and community-based services through Medicaid, so older Americans can remain in their homes — avoiding expensive nursing homes.

AARP is solidly behind these goals and has been working diligently with both parties in both houses and the administration to ensure that they become law.

Make no mistake: AARP is closely monitoring every proposal in Congress, and we will vigorously fight any proposal that attempts to reduce Medicare benefits, increase out-of-pocket costs or get between a beneficiary and his or her doctor. None of the proposals being considered in Congress cuts traditional Medicare benefits, increases out-of-pocket costs or leads to rationed care.

For 50 years, AARP has been driven by the same mission: making a difference, not a profit. The protection and trust of our members is at the very forefront of all that we do, and our advocacy positions drive all the work in our products and services.

For instance, we have consistently called for legislation that would lower the 14 percent overpayments that Medicare Advantage plans receive over the traditional Medicare program — despite the fact that we endorse some Medicare Advantage plans offered by United Healthcare.

AARP is also working with Congress to ensure any final health reform package provides people age 50 to 64 with a choice of quality health care plans they can afford. We believe any proposal must bar insurers from denying coverage and charging unaffordable rates based on age or health status, as well as providing subsidies to people who need them and ensure access to plans that are affordable.

How can we afford health care reform? We can’t afford not to fix health care. The costs of doing nothing are overwhelming. Health care expenditures in this country total $2.4 trillion each year. Families’ health premiums are expected to nearly double in the next seven years; employers will continue to spend more on health care and less on wages; countless bankruptcies are related to medical expenses; the number of uninsured is approaching 50 million; government spending on health care programs — such as Medicare — is rising so rapidly that it is jeopardizing other priorities; and employers — both large and small — are struggling to pay for the costs of health care.

It’s important to note this is just the first round in the legislative debate. AARP will continue working to ensure a final bill is balanced, reduces costs and offers our members affordable, quality health care. At the end of the day, the standard AARP will use to judge the legislation is simple: Will this legislation improve our health care system and provide peace of mind to our members and their families?

Cas Robinson of Griffin is the volunteer state president of AARP Georgia.