Reaction to AARP Bulletin article September 2009

AARP, to remedy the bleeding of seniors leaving the organization by the thousands, recently announced they have yet to endorse any particular health care bill. However, this month's AARP Bulletin's article entitled, "The Assault on Truth" speaks loudly of their ideology which remains contrary to the beliefs of many of it's members.

The article written by Patricia Barry is condescending to many well-informed seniors who have a vested interest in the debate over health care reform. She outlines five questions and tries to discount the "myths" she feels are prevalent concerning the health care reform debate.

#1 Will the government take over health care so we end up with socialized medicine?
AARP: NO

CC(Constitutional Crusader): Although present bills may not use the language, it's obvious that an industry, such as the health care industry, heavily regulated by the government becomes the government's. Once their foot is in the door, it's soon the leg, then the hip, and so on. They now have their foot(or more) in the door in the banking industry and in the automobile industry. Where do we draw the line. We, the people, want to manage health care BY THE PEOPLE.

#2 Will private insurance be outlawed or wither on the vine?
AARP: NO

CC: Private insurance is a great expense to employers. Adding to that the purposed tax upon employers to cover "government health care" would place a burden on employers too great to bear. They would be "forced" to let they private insurance fall by the wayside in order to pay the increased taxes. There own employees then would be "forced" into the "government health care" plan. Logically, why would an employer with health care costs in the millions of dollars keep their employees under a private plan when a "government health plan" was available which they were already "helping" to fund. Fiscally speaking, it's a no-brainer.

#3 Will the government encourage euthanasia to save costs?
AARP: NO

CC: Although I don't believe a government-run plan would intentionally employ this practice (at this time) it's safe to say it would be an unintended by-product.
A friend of mine recently had emergency surgery in Scotland while on vacation. She lay in a ward with three elderly women in their eighties and nineties who had broken hips. They lay in their beds while they waited for their case to have high enough priority to get them into surgery. Knowing how fragile many seniors in their advanced years are, it is logical to surmise that many would lay in bed and die because of the lack of immediate medical care.
Some say, care wouldn't change, we'd have the same care that we do now. There are also intentional by-products. If we infuse millions of new people into the already over-burdened health care system with the same amount of doctors, nurses, and hospital beds, there will be waiting. We already wait days to get into a doctor or are forced into emergency rooms where we wait for many hours.And frankly we already have many doctors and nurses leaving the system due to litigation, overwork, long hours and other reasons. Believe me when I say you will have an increase in the exiting of persons from the health care profession with an increased workload and a cap on earnings (such as Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance already mandate).

#4 Will Medicare be eliminated or gutted to pay for reform?
AARP: NO

CC: Although it wouldn't be eliminated or gutted per se, it would suffer the natural consequences of the entire system aforementioned.

#5 Will the government ration care?
AARP" NO

CC: Covered under #3.

Although we need reform, we do not need a government-run option. Let's keep government out of business and out of our homes.