Why Would the AARP Support State-Sponsored Euthanasia?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually, it wouldn't, and it doesn't. But RedState's Erick Erickson is going after the AARP for its tacit support of Democratic health care reform proposals.

The corresponding [AARP] email campaign says one of the myths is that the healthcare plan promotes "euthanasia", which it objectively does -- as even members of Congress say in unguarded moments. [...]

Does the AARP's members know about the endorsement of a healthcare plan that requires seniors to get instruction every five years on assisted suicide -- a fact the AARP calls a "myth"?

Ever wonder why far-right opponents of health care reform seem so confused? Erickson's post is a helpful example. Notice that he insists that it's "objectively" true that reform promotes euthanasia and mandates suicide instructions -- a claim he calls a "fact."

Melinda Warner explained, "Multiple sources have debunked this ridiculous, desperate rumor that has been spread with the intent to frighten the American public. It is vile that Erickson and his ultra-right cronies are propagating this lie. No Democrat -- or any other politician/policy wonk/federal employee -- wants to encourage euthanasia. The only people you hear talking about it are the Republicans."

Right, and the only reason they're saying it is because they're so desperate to defeat reform, they're not above lying.

But I'm curious about something. The AARP has an extensive D.C. presence and knows full well how to read legislation. The group exists to represent the interests of seniors. If health care reform really did promote euthanasia and "require seniors to get instruction every five years on assisted suicide" -- in our reality it doesn't, but if it did -- the AARP's staff would know about it. And they'd raise holy hell.

What I can't quite figure out is, from Erickson's odd perspective, why the AARP go along with such a proposal. Obviously, the conservative attack is insane. But reality aside, from the far-right worldview, what would the AARP have to gain from promoting an idea that would kill off its membership? Maybe someone can translate crazy-right-wing-blog-post content to English for me.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Bobby+Umit 161]

consider this post reported to flag@..

wait, what?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Actually, they aren't. I'm a member of AARP and received this email from them the other day which they asked me to share:

Hi,

My inbox has been flooded with emails spreading crazy rumors about health reform so I wanted to share some facts from AARP about what's really going on. Please join me in forwarding these facts to everyone you know. Print them out and pass them around at your social gatherings and other places where people are discussing the issues of the day.

FACT #1: Medicare will not be ended, and no benefits or services will be cut.

Your services will not be ended, nor will your benefits be cut. AARP's position on this could not be clearer. And we have sent this message loud and clear to Congress. While the current proposals include savings in Medicare by cutting out fraud, abuse, waste, and inefficiency, we're standing up and making sure benefits for Medicare recipients are not only fully protected, but are improved.1

FACT #2: No legislation currently in Congress would mandate the rationing of care. Period.

Our staff has read all of the legislation circulating in Congress and there are no provisions in these bills that would ration care for our members. None. If any ever did, we would vigorously fight to stop that legislation.2

FACT #3: There is no provision of any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any kind.

The rumors out there are flat out lies. Right now Medicare does not cover counseling for end-of-life care. The portion of the bill in question would simply provide coverage for optional end-of-life consultations with doctors, so that the patient can be aware of all of the treatment options on the table. It is not mandatory and it has nothing to do with euthanasia.3

FACT #4: We have not endorsed President Obama's plan.

In fact, we haven't endorsed any plan. We are supporting reform of our health care system, something that AARP has pushed for many years. We're working closely with Republican and Democratic members of Congress to lower health care costs and to ensure quality affordable coverage for older Americans – and we want reform legislation passed and signed by the president this year.4

So what is AARP fighting for in health reform?

1. Stopping insurance companies from charging older Americans unaffordable premiums because of their age.

2. Ending the practice of excluding people from insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

3. Holding down health costs and making insurance coverage more affordable for all Americans.

4. Making prescription drugs more affordable by narrowing the Medicare doughnut hole, bringing generics to market faster, and allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices.

Find out more and take action at HealthActionNow.org.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Kathryn41

[HAL 9000 96]

The misinformation regarding this issue really makes one wonder if the perpetrators really do care about people's health.

[Otto 83]

The misinformation regarding this issue really makes one wonder if the perpetrators really do care about people's health.

They don't - it's simply about 'winning' or 'losing' ...

They should just lay them out on the table, measure them and be done with it...

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course they don't, those sending them out care about their pockets remaining stuffed with sponduliks, those spreading it around care about divisive ideology and talking heads.

[HAL 9000 96]

The misinformation regarding this issue really makes one wonder if the perpetrators really do care about people's health.

They don't - it's simply about 'winning' or 'losing' ...

They should just lay them out on the table, measure them and be done with it...

Well winning... in this case is very particular. It means people get better insurance choices while losing... well... its a political spin in favor of corporate sponsors.

[Peikko 1,575]

I really wouldn't mind paying for health care via insurance if the insurance did what it was meant to and I could understand what was covered, and get the things I want covered using an understandable, fair and predetermined set of rules and fees. That's not what is offered though and I don't like having to worry about not knowing if I could afford to pay if...that's the nightmare of this stupid system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really wouldn't mind paying for health care via insurance if the insurance did what it was meant to and I could understand what was covered, and get the things I want covered using an understandable, fair and predetermined set of rules and fees. That's not what is offered though and I don't like having to worry about not knowing if I could afford to pay if...that's the nightmare of this stupid system.

Yep - pretty much.

[alienlovechild 75]

It means people get better insurance choices while losing... well... its a political spin in favor of corporate sponsors.

Not a likely outcome. A greatly enlarged public health system will doom some the private insurers unless people choose to taxed to support more health care and then pay double for private insurance.

Net effect- less choice among plans. Of course you'll have no choice at all whether you'd like to support a bigger public health insurance bureaucracy. Your taxes or your descendents will fund the mushrooming programs.

[HAL 9000 96]

If you say so.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It means people get better insurance choices while losing... well... its a political spin in favor of corporate sponsors.

Not a likely outcome. A greatly enlarged public health system will doom some the private insurers unless people choose to taxed to support more health care and then pay double for private insurance.

Net effect- less choice among plans. Of course you'll have no choice at all whether you'd like to support a bigger public health insurance bureaucracy. Your taxes or your descendents will fund the mushrooming programs.

Well, if that's the way it is and government run health care is so bad, then why did not a single Republican support Congressman Weiner's (D, NY) proposal to abolish Medicare? There's a bad government run health care program and there was an opportunity tio finally rid this proud nation of this socialistic abomination. And not one GOP'er would lend support to this worthy effort. I tell you, the GOP ain't got no balls. Or they just don't know what they want. Either way, they're making themselves quite irrelevant in this debate.

Put-up or shut-up time as the good Congressman says.

Enjoy this clip - it's quite entertaining.

[mendeleev 68]

Those on the far right spreading these rumors have just taken a page from the Fuhrer's playbook:

The BIG LIE is easier to believe than the small one.

Worked for Hitler. Will the current right wing get it to work on this issue here in America?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Put-up or shut-up time as the good Congressman says.

Enjoy this clip - it's quite entertaining.

Awesome! Thanks for posting this!

[HAL 9000 96]

Ohhhhhh SNAP