Michael Moore's not too happy with President Obama -- he feels like Obama is betraying the left wing of the party, calls for Obama to be strong and get universal health care passed, i.e. a single payer, government run health care program just like Medicaid, Medicare, and other socialist programs in the United States.
Moore has a good point. Some commentators, like O'Reilly, say Obama ran on a centrist platform. He only seemed centrist because he was running against other left-wingers -- Clinton and Edwards. But Obama was the furthest left of the three. Beck has it right -- Obama said exactly what he was going to do in the campaign.
Well, almost. He backed off his pre-campaign push for a single-payer health care plan, and I suppose Moore and other lefties thought he did that only to get elected, and once in the White House, he'd go back to his single payer stance.
Why hasn't he? Because he knows it won't pass? Moore has a good point that if believe in something, stand up for it, and don't compromise. Moore thinks that Obama, as President, has the moral obligation to push what he believes, and what his big supporters thought he believed -- that's why they supported him.
I agree. A President should be true to himself. Obama revealed enough of himself during the campaign and in his pre-campaign speeches and writings that no one should be surprised that he is a marxist socialist. And I think the far left is right to be angry with Obama -- they truly thought he was going to fight for what "they" wanted, because as Moore so aptly put it, Obama is one of them.
Of course it's also very interesting that Moore is so successful in a capitalist system putting out an anti-capitalist movie. Oh, such irony!
I couldn't find a youtube on his recent criticisms of Obama, but I did find this one commenting on Obama's move to the center (which is still quite a ways to the left in my opinion).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
AARP - Insurance fraud?
You may have heard about the squabble in Congress over Humana, who offers Medicare Advantage policies to seniors, sending out letters to its enrollees warning of the negative impact of current health reform bills. Congress voted to gag Humana on a technicality that providers of Medicare Advantage cannot advise seniors on policies.
However, AARP, which is very vocal in support of current health care reform bills, and who has done a massive campaign to get seniors to support it, was not included in the gag.
I can understand the Congress not gagging AARP -- hypocritical to the extreme, but expected. But what is AARP's motivation in all of this. Does it really think any of these bills are going to help seniors, when they all call for various cuts in Medicare?
The American Spectator perhaps exposes AARP's motivation -- it can make more money selling traditional Medicare gap policies than it does on Medicare Advantage.
"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP."
Would making 35% profit compared to 15% profit be enough motivation for AARP to sell out seniors? And isn't it terribly hypocritical for Mr. Obama and the Congress to demonize insurance companies for caring more about profits than about their enrollees' health care?
Glenn Beck has called for 56 members of Congress to refound America by coming clean on the corruption in their own parties. So far, he has 5 on board.
Maybe he should also call for employees of large businesses to come clean on corruption within their own businesses. The refounders are guaranteed anonymity, and the same could be done with the employees. There are laws to protect whistle-blowers, but I think Beck's way might be more successful.
And labor unions as well.
However, AARP, which is very vocal in support of current health care reform bills, and who has done a massive campaign to get seniors to support it, was not included in the gag.
I can understand the Congress not gagging AARP -- hypocritical to the extreme, but expected. But what is AARP's motivation in all of this. Does it really think any of these bills are going to help seniors, when they all call for various cuts in Medicare?
The American Spectator perhaps exposes AARP's motivation -- it can make more money selling traditional Medicare gap policies than it does on Medicare Advantage.
"In 2008, AARP generated $652.7 million in revenue by selling products like Medigap supplemental Medicare insurance, accounting for over 60 percent of the group's revenue, according to an analysis of its financial statements cited in the report released by the House Republican Conference.
If the House Democrats health care bill becomes law, the report argues, it would be a boon to AARP, because while Medicare Advantage plans will be required to pay out 85 percent of the money collected in premiums to claims made by policy holders, the requirement would only be 65 percent for the kind of Medigap policies sold by AARP."
Would making 35% profit compared to 15% profit be enough motivation for AARP to sell out seniors? And isn't it terribly hypocritical for Mr. Obama and the Congress to demonize insurance companies for caring more about profits than about their enrollees' health care?
Glenn Beck has called for 56 members of Congress to refound America by coming clean on the corruption in their own parties. So far, he has 5 on board.
Maybe he should also call for employees of large businesses to come clean on corruption within their own businesses. The refounders are guaranteed anonymity, and the same could be done with the employees. There are laws to protect whistle-blowers, but I think Beck's way might be more successful.
And labor unions as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)