Democratic candidates rap AARP

[Terri]

Democratic candidates rap AARP

MSNBC

BEDFORD, N.H., Nov. 18 — Turning on their host, several of the Democratic presidential candidates scolded the powerful AARP for endorsing a Republican-backed Medicare prescription drug bill that they argued would do long-term damage to the federal program for seniors.

SIX OF the nine candidates participated in the morning forum sponsored by the 35 million-member organization that represents Americans age 50 or older. The AARP’s sponsorship didn’t stop the Democrats from assailing the bill or the group, which in a boost to the GOP and President Bush on Monday announced its support for the legislation.

“I wish AARP had chosen to oppose this bill,” said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. “I wish AARP was spending its $7 million telling Americans what is wrong with this bill.”

More (http://www.msnbc.com/news/995196.asp?0dm=C28NN )

[pcyrdad]

"Hey, we realize you're one of our core constituency groups and all, but, even though this bill may be good for you- heck, it may even be what we were hoping for, too- you'd better knock it off with the support, because it's the Republicans who put it out there. We don't care whether it benefits you or not. It doesn't benefit us."

Just another case of the Democrats exploiting the less-fortunate they claim to be defending.

[Billary2004]

pcyrdad-
I agree with the hypocrisy by the left. But IMO AARP is just another uberpowerful lobbying group that will back anyone who says the right thing.

For instance, AARP has kept states from mandating drivers over a certain age be made to take more detailed drivers exams (road tests) to renew their drivers license. AARP used its lawyers to claim age discrimination and thus the tests were never required. That is just flat out dangerous.

Finally, I don't agree with entitlements in general and thus I don't agree with this medicare bill-Just builiding a bigger beaurocracy for a worse off tomorrow http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[bcdaley]

Billary2004,

I agree that any expansion of government, in particular one as massive as this particular example, is bad for this country and a victory for American socialism. *However, I find it odd that you say:

Quote[/b] ] IMO AARP is just another uberpowerful lobbying group that will back anyone who says the right thing.


You say that as if it's a bad thing. *Isn't it the whole point of representative democracy that you support the party or candidate that shares (or will at least vote in) your interests? *If the Republican plan benefits AARP's membership why shouldn't they endorse it? *The Democrats are telling AARP they shouldn't support a plan that gives them maybe 90% of what they want, because it doesn't give them 100% of what they want and oh, by the way, it's not a Democrat plan. *This is a transparently self-serving position on the part of the Democrats. *When a party's position no longer benefits you it's time to support another party.

[Billary2004]

bcdaley-
*I see your point, but you have to look beyond the obvious. *AARP and other groups do in fact back whomever is backing them up. *I don't have a problem with representative democracy (although I don't think this is an example of it) but I would like to see Americans call groups like AARP on their self serving (yes, I know the Dems are that way too) demands of entitlement. *For example, I am "mexican", but I would never think of using my supposed nationality/heritage as a crutch to expalin why I didn't get a job or why I don't have the things I want. *I am too proud as an American to stoop to such levels. *AARP simply serves the purpose of making itself rich (like other unions) while feeding the mouths of it's followers with the care and money they feel entitled to. *Completely unethical and immoral......That is why I despise AARP, liberals, Unions, the list goes on...they hide behind the guise of humanity while lining their pockets and puting people in danger, per my AARP example.....we are are country now hell bent on entitlements without self control and anyone that is self sufficient is forced to suffer....not exactly the American Dream

[Corgie Girl]

What you guys have missed is that the Democrats, so heck bent on stabbing Bush, the Administration and the Republicans in the back, may have just alienated a large segment of thier voting block - the same one that they have scared witless in the past with charges that the Republicans were going to cut Medicare and throw old people out on the street- and they are quaking in their boots. Halleluia! I hope that these ranting, vitriolic naysayers keep talking, because the more that they talk, the more their core walks.

[danwunderlin]

CG- I don't honestly believe that their core is walking. They may be backing a Republican based bill, but when it comes time to elect, I would put money on most of them voting in the hands that have fed them in the past, the same hands they expect will continue to feed them in the future.

As a side note to this, we in the GOP best be watching our own core, our footing seems to be wandering a little far to the left.

[bcdaley]

Billary2004,
Quote[/b] ]I would like to see Americans call groups like AARP on their self serving (yes, I know the Dems are that way too) demands of entitlement.
Agreed, but doing so is really too little, too late. We've allowed the concept of entitlement to become entrenched in the culture. The terminology changes over the years reflect (actually, drive) the change in attitude. When first introduced, it was called "relief" a descriptive term for what it was intended to be - temporary relief in extreme circumstances. Then it became "public assistance" - isn't that nice, we're giving people assistance. Next came "welfare" - not so descriptive anymore, nothing to point out that it has become a wealth redistribution mechanism. Now "entitlements." Liberals have morphed the terminology so that recipients are now being told they are entitled to live at someone else's expense. Do you think that public perception might be different if rather than "entitlement programs" these were referred to as "parasite programs?"

Quote[/b] ]For example, I am "mexican", but I would never think of using my supposed nationality/heritage as a crutch to expalin why I didn't get a job or why I don't have the things I want. I am too proud as an American to stoop to such levels.
I applaud that spirit. Sadly it is shared by too few. I can't blame those who take advantage of special treatment. Those in government who have institutionalized special treatment are at fault. In past generations every new immigrant group started at the bottom of the economic ladder. They learned english, worked hard, obeyed the law, and assimilated into the culture to become Americans. Today many immigrants don't want to become Americans, they just want to enjoy the benefits of being in America. They are assisted in this by a government which makes it easy for them *not* to learn english or adopt American values because it glorifies "multiculturalis m" while denigrating values such as self-sufficiency and that all that matters is merit which made this the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Quote[/b] ]we are are country now hell bent on entitlements without self control and anyone that is self sufficient is forced to suffer....not exactly the American Dream

When the United States was founded only landowners paid taxes, and (correct me if I'm wrong here) only landowners were allowed to vote. Those paying for government thus had a vested interest in how the money would be spent. Over the next 200 years the vote was granted to an ever-expanding group. I don't have an easy answer here, as the failure to do so would have kept power in the hands of a small group of white, male landowners which has it's own set of attendant issues. The problem was that we arrived back where we started - taxation without representation. Elected officials now represent voters, not taxpayers. This has become so extreme that one of the two major parties largely represents voters while the other represents taxpayers (I'll give you one guess which is which!) Voters who are not (net) taxpayers have no stake in what government costs because someone else gets the bill, therefore they support one program after another that grants them benefits at someone else's expense. It cracks me up when I hear how the new Medicare prescription entitlement (there's that sneaky little word again!) will save so much money for seniors. No one ever seems to point out that every penny seniors "save" will be a penny billed to the others who will be subsidizing their bills! As far as the argument that federal control will save billions through creating efficiencies - if it did, it would be the first program in the history of the federal government to improve the efficiency of anything.

[bcdaley]

CG,

While anything that improves the chances of Democrats being defeated is to be celebrated, the question is at what cost? The Republican party seems to have fully embraced socialism with this Medicare bill. If no Democrat ever wins an election for any office again, in the effort to deprive Democrats of this issue (if indeed that was their motivation) the Republicans have become every bit as bad. Once this is passed, we'll never get rid of it. No politician ever got elected by promising to take something away. The promise of a tax cut is always offset by the "they want to throw the elderly out in the street" strategy. There is one bright spot though. If we manage to get rid of the Democrats then we can start on the Republicans unless they start to behave like conservatives.

[Billary2004]

Quote[/b] (bcdaley @ Nov. 20, 2003 -- 2:05 pm)]*If we manage to get rid of the Democrats then we can start on the Republicans unless they start to behave like conservatives.
bc-
Great stuff....I love to hear from other free thinkers that want change. It gives me hope for this country!
http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Thundercat505]

personally I don't have any use for urrp neither, but at least they make a good show of trying to do something for seniors. this bill will probably go thru, but----it won't help seniors any more than a democratic bill would do. seniors are already paying such high med costs that nothing short of being able to buy out of country at a greatly reduced cost will help them. then you have some of those that are so heavily medicated by doctors that are probably getting kick backs off the company. as for the testing of seniors, well, they need their freedom as well as anyone else, however dangerous they may be. I do agree that they need to be tested, but unless it would be put to a vote it won't happen. dole messed himself up with the seniors when he mouthed off about cutting social security and that kept him out of office. there are a lot of seniors that can be counted in the vote since of all the registered voters, they are more active in voting than the younger people are. they will have their say and if they don't like what they are hearing from a particular party then they will change their vote.

[bcdaley]

Thundercat505,
Quote[/b] ]as for the testing of seniors, well, they need their freedom as well as anyone else, however dangerous they may be.

So by your reasoning does someone also have the freedom to get drunk and go for a drive? No one's freedom extends to the point where it infringes on the freedom (read safety) of others. It is just as much the responsibility of the government to keep unsafe drivers off the roads when the threat is due to incompetence rather than intoxication. It's shameful that politicians regularly fail to do what is indisputably the right thing for fear of losing their next election. With a few notable exceptions most politicians are in office to be something rather than to do something.

[jonessa2]

Quote[/b] (bcdaley @ Nov. 20, 2003 -- 1:30 pm)]......Elected officials now represent voters, not taxpayers. *This has become so extreme that one of the two major parties largely represents voters while the other represents taxpayers (I'll give you one guess which is which!) *<span style='color:008080' >Voters who are not (net) taxpayers have no stake in what government costs because someone else gets the bill, therefore they support one program after another that grants them benefits at someone else's expense.</span> *It cracks me up when I hear how the new <span style='color:red'>Medicare</span> prescription entitlement (there's that sneaky little word again!) will save so much money for seniors. *No one ever seems to point out that every penny seniors &quot;save&quot; will be a penny billed to the others who will be subsidizing their bills! *As far as the argument that federal control will save billions through creating efficiencies - if it did, it would be the first program in the history of the federal government to improve the efficiency of anything.
<span style='font-family:microsoft sans serif'>I've been mulling over this <span style='color:red'>medicare</span> issue wondering just what these entitlements are that are included in this bill.
* I do know one thing that was slipped into the bill, found in the email received from Roy Beck. (http://www.numbersusa.com)

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:08 -0500
Subject: Veterans stiffed; illegal aliens get $1 billion health care
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: RoyBeck@numbersusa.c om | Add to Address Book
* * *



==================== ==================== ===========
FROM: Roy Beck, http://www.NumbersUSA.com
DATE: 1 p.m. Friday 21nov03
==================== ==================== ===========

Those of you who are veterans or relatives of
veterans may want to act immediately on this
situation.

The giant medicare bill that was just brought out
of Conference Committee (joint House/Senate)
yesterday has some bad items slipped into it related
to immigration. *We don't think they will have
much effect on future numbers of illegal aliens,
but they will have some and will result in more
taxpayer support for foreign citizens.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, chairman of the Immigration
Reform Caucus. outlines the problems in the press
release below.

If you find it an outrage that the medicare bill
provides $1 billion for the health care of
illegal aliens while the budget is still $1 billion
short of providing full health care for veterans,
you should relay that concern to your
Representative and two Senators. Find their phone numbers at:
http://www.numbersusa.com/congressinfo/

These are the names of your three Members of
Congress:
http://www.numbersusa.com/myMembers

You should start calling immediately as the House
still might vote on the bill today. Because this
came from the Conference Committee, your Members
have only the option of voting for or against
this giant bill. If it is defeated, it will need to
be renegotiated -- most likely later in the
winter. *At the very least, you may want to extract a
pledge to consider killing these bad provisions
next year.

-- ROY

==================== ==================== ==============
http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sun1.gif Tancredo Balks At Billion Dollar Boon For Illegal
Aliens
==================== ==================== ==============

&quot;If you build an illegal alien entitlement
program, they will come&quot;

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Tom Tancredo
(CO-06) was shocked at the conference report to H.R.
1, or what he calls the Patients Bill of Rights
for Illegal Immigrants, an expanded version of an
ill-advised, little noticed provision included in
the Senate passed version of the bill.

&quot;Congress has been scraping to find an additional
$1 billion for veterans health care, but doesn't
blink when it comes to providing $1 billion in
entitlements to illegal immigrants,&quot; said Tancredo,
chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus. *
&quot;Writers of this Medicare bill have apparently never
seen the movie Field of Dreams - if you build an
illegal alien entitlement program, they will
come.&quot;

The provision - which now encompasses six pages
in the conference report - provides $1 billion to
reimburse hospitals for health care costs
associated with treating illegal aliens. *The provision
has also been expanded to include the health care
costs of aliens who have been temporarily paroled
into the U.S., and even Mexican citizens who
enter the country for 72 hours using a border
crossing card. *

&quot;The language in the conference report contains
no accountability measures to ensure that
reimbursements are tied directly to the actual medical
costs incurred by providers in treating these
individuals. *Instead, reimbursement amounts are
calculated using a complex formula based in part on
the percentage of illegal aliens living in states,
relative to the number of illegal aliens
estimated to be living in the entire country,&quot; said
Tancredo.

The three-term representative from Littleton,
Colorado continued with, &quot;While I do not dispute
assertions about the financial hardships that
mandatory care presents for hospitals and health care
providers, I remain concerned that these funds
will be flowing to providers in states that actively
aid and abet illegal immigration.&quot;

<span style='color:#FF00FF '>&quot;Many of the states that will benefit from this
provision have made themselves magnets for illegal
immigration by enacting ill-advised policies that
permit illegal aliens to obtain driver's
licenses, attend higher education for in-state rates, and
obtain public services through the use of
consular ID cards.</span><span style='color:navy'>These policies create incentives for
illegal immigration and drive the need for these
emergency health care reimbursements -
reimbursements that would be underwritten by the American
taxpayer if this bill becomes law.</span><span style='color:#ff00ff '>*This provision
makes a bad bill even worse.&quot;</span>
==================== ==================== ========
SO at this time, I think that slowing down and doing it right--no, better---should be the best way to go.</span>