In fairness, it may not be because they're complete greedy hypocrites..they may have just forgotten they hated it.

the AARP rarely meets a tax it does not like.

Update: AARP responds that the purpose of the program is not to create jobs, but to offer job training and find work for participants, an effort the group claims has been successful.

as usual, full on fail from the American Spectator.

$18 million?! Is that all?shiat...Harry Reid paid $100 million for one vote. They should have held out for more.

Dancin_In_Anson: Harry Reid paid $100 million for one vote

Huh?

Aarontology: Huh?

Yup.

It's a good thing reform opponents aren't motivated by money.

Yeah, I totally trust a source funded by ad money from "The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net," especially after the popup telling me that Michelle Malkin reads it and I should too.

To be fair, it's not like we're talking about real money anymore. BFD

When did AARP not support the health care bill?

shastacola: When did AARP not support the health care bill?

Well I believe they didn't support it back in the early 90s but to my knowledge they have supported the recent effort from the start.

I AIN'T FER IT, I'M AGIN' IT!

From what I remember, the AARP has simply claimed neutrality in this whole thing so far; when Obama tried to claim they supported the move they gave him a slap on the hand, but otherwise have basically said "so long as it doesn't screw with Medicare outside of Advantage, we will be ok with it."

The Republicans have tried a few times to get the AARP on their side (especially since seniors are the group most resistant to any potential changes to health care), but they got the same treatment Obama did, most notably Michael Steele's Senior's Bill of Rights (new window) which states that the Republicans are committed to protecting Medicare and preventing the formation of death panels to prevent you from getting care. The AARP said "that's nice, but none of that would actually happen in any of these reforms", pretty much shutting down his Bill of Rights angle.

Koetsu: Yeah, I totally trust a source funded by ad money from "The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net," especially after the popup telling me that Michelle Malkin reads it and I should too.

Proving without a doubt that AARP did not accept money from the government.

shastacola: When did AARP not support the health care bill?

They didn't support various eraly versions which called for cuts in Medicare spending

HotWingConspiracy: It's a good thing reform opponents aren't motivated by money.

yeah AHIP and the rest of the healthcare industry lobbyists are spending millions every day just for shiats and giggles :)

GoldSpider: Koetsu: Yeah, I totally trust a source funded by ad money from "The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net," especially after the popup telling me that Michelle Malkin reads it and I should too.

Proving without a doubt that AARP did not accept money from the government.

You're right, I almost forgot. The article is a joke too.

shastacola: They always have, AmSpec is getting all derpy because AARP "typically defends (Medicare) tooth and nail" when Republicans try to cut it's funding, but for some unfathomable reason aren't complaining about that now. Surely that has nothing to do with the aspect of the bill that provides other options.

Congressmen and lobbyists. The classic case of whores and johns.

I thought the smear campaign against AARP was scheduled for a few weeks ago?

mrexcess: shastacola: They always have, AmSpec is getting all derpy because AARP "typically defends (Medicare) tooth and nail" when Republicans try to cut it's funding, but for some unfathomable reason aren't complaining about that now. Surely that has nothing to do with the aspect of the bill that provides other options.

Possibly because Medicare Advantage is a steaming pile of shiat that does nothing but divert money from health care for seniors and give it to insurance companies.

I was under the impression that AARP supported the reform from the beginning, they just didn't offer official release until a while ago.

RsquaredW
Possibly because Medicare Advantage is a steaming pile of shiat that does nothing but divert money from health care for seniors and give it to insurance companies.

Touche.

I love the fact that I'm reading about this on a site that is, apparently, proud to advertise for a group that provides "the largest selection of liberal-baiting merchandise on the net!".... doesn't make me suspect of the site's integrity or motivations one bit... nosiree.

Still, I gotta be honest here, I don't know why the administration thought this recovery.gov thing was going to work. I appreciate that they attempted to provide the transparency, but the bureaucracy behind these sorts of bills has to be so mind-bogglingly convoluted as to make any attempt to filter the data into usable form for taxpayers an exercise in futility.

The whole thing was a good idea on paper, but I don't see how they thought they were going to make it effective in practice. It was inevitable that the whole thing would turn into a giant database of nitpicks for right-wing attack sites and pundits, and they really should have seen that coming.

What a horribly convoluted article. I don't even see what their complaint really is.

WHY DO GOPer CONZOMBIE fake American Spunditz HATE AMERICA?so much!

so just who is making money on Health Care

AARP... ?????? naw....... no interest there


no extra insurance to sell if this passes.... nawwwwwwwwww

so do they get more money than the evil insurance companies now????

Splinshints: The whole thing was a good idea on paper, but I don't see how they thought they were going to make it effective in practice. It was inevitable that the whole thing would turn into a giant database of nitpicks for right-wing attack sites and pundits, and they really should have seen that coming.

That's the trade off you make when you provide transparency. It's politically inconvenient to have the right constantly nitpicking your work but probably less of a pain than the howls of protest and unsubstantiated accusations of graft that are likely to have been the case were the records not made public.

Splinshints: "the largest selection of liberal-baiting merchandise on the net!"

Like what? A Green Party Fleshlight?

PanicMan: What a horribly convoluted article. I don't even see what their complaint really is.

Their complaint is that the AARP supports health care reform.

Usually the AARP is a powerful political well for conservatives to draw from but that they are now attempting to poison so that it may not be used by their opponents. Think Gen Sherman in Georgia circa 1864.

Masso: I was under the impression that AARP supported the reform from the beginning, they just didn't offer official release until a while ago.

More or less this.

A lot of the legislation is aimed at closing the gaps in coverage for senoirs who live on fixed incomes.

They also don't mind the reworking of the advantage plan, because the AARP knows like quite a few others do, that its nothing more than a giant give away for the pharma corporations and does not a GOT damn thing for seniors.

Donald_McRonald: Like what? A Green Party Fleshlight?

I only use Pelosi Brand Personal Lubricant^TM.

equilibrium: Usually the AARP is a powerful political well for conservatives to draw from

They may be quite conservative socially but they are one of the biggest proponents for increased entitlement spending in all the land. They aren't truley a fit for the Republicans, they're more like Dixiecrats.

Shaggy_C: They may be quite conservative socially but they are one of the biggest proponents for increased entitlement spending in all the land. They aren't truley a fit for the Republicans, they're more like Dixiecrats.

You may want to revise your opinion of Republican entitlement spending policy vis-a-vis Medicare D.

Shaggy_C: equilibrium: Usually the AARP is a powerful political well for conservatives to draw from

They may be quite conservative socially but they are one of the biggest proponents for increased entitlement spending in all the land. They aren't truley a fit for the Republicans, they're more like Dixiecrats.

Or Huckabee style Republicans.

They helped the Idiot Emperor tank Medicare so that they could sell more gap insurance so why would THIS come as a shock?

What color is payola? Oh yeah.....green.

equilibrium: You may want to revise your opinion of Republican entitlement spending policy vis-a-vis Medicare D.



It was just vote buying. Thhough in the end, Part D is a handout to corporations, not old people.

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: Huh?

Yup.

"...the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year..."

That's awesome. Truly. Somebody needs to get a raise for writing that shiat. It's farking incredible.

/btw, this is why you don't get ignored.
//gracias.

On a national level, however, this is not nearly as important a story as the lone teabagger who threatened the rural Michigan newspaper. If this was as important as that, HuffPo would be all over it, right?

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: Huh?

Yup.

Interestingly, so far Landrieu has not said she would support any of the procedural motions, much less the bill itself, as far as I know.

equilibrium: PanicMan: What a horribly convoluted article. I don't even see what their complaint really is.

Their complaint is that the AARP supports health care reform.

Usually the AARP is a powerful political well for conservatives to draw from but that they are now attempting to poison so that it may not be used by their opponents. Think Gen Sherman in Georgia circa 1864.

Yeah, as far as I can tell this is getting into "anyone who takes government funds is bad". Which may get you small gains in the short term, but is a losing strategy in the long run.

Splinshints: I love the fact that I'm reading about this on a site that is, apparently, proud to advertise for a group that provides "the largest selection of liberal-baiting merchandise on the net!".... doesn't make me suspect of the site's integrity or motivations one bit... nosiree.

Still, I gotta be honest here, I don't know why the administration thought this recovery.gov thing was going to work. I appreciate that they attempted to provide the transparency, but the bureaucracy behind these sorts of bills has to be so mind-bogglingly convoluted as to make any attempt to filter the data into usable form for taxpayers an exercise in futility.

The whole thing was a good idea on paper, but I don't see how they thought they were going to make it effective in practice. It was inevitable that the whole thing would turn into a giant database of nitpicks for right-wing attack sites and pundits, and they really should have seen that coming.

Well there is one potential side effect. Its initial setup for a potential website that shows ALL government spending. If Obama can get it up and have it running for a few years before he leaves office, the next administration would have a hard time politically if they removed it. So it might not be good for the administration, but it would be good for the country.

Grungehamster: From what I remember, the AARP has simply claimed neutrality in this whole thing so far; when Obama tried to claim they supported the move they gave him a slap on the hand, but otherwise have basically said "so long as it doesn't screw with Medicare outside of Advantage, we will be ok with it."

The Republicans have tried a few times to get the AARP on their side (especially since seniors are the group most resistant to any potential changes to health care), but they got the same treatment Obama did, most notably Michael Steele's Senior's Bill of Rights (new window) which states that the Republicans are committed to protecting Medicare and preventing the formation of death panels to prevent you from getting care. The AARP said "that's nice, but none of that would actually happen in any of these reforms", pretty much shutting down his Bill of Rights angle.

It's true, they officially endorsed it not so long ago. They did to take out the competition for their medigap program though, not some measly 20 million in stimulus. It's amazing that they can put out those commercials claiming they are supporting the bill because it will keep seniors benefits from being cut, when the bills only major attempt at cost "cutting" is to cut medicare benefits by 500 billion.

Whether your for this bill or not, It's sad to see the final transformation of a once respected non profit advocacy group into a money grubbing whore.

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: Huh?

Yup.

Well, damn.

PanicMan: Yeah, as far as I can tell this is getting into "anyone who takes government funds is bad".

Those are some good partisan blinders you're wearing.

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: Huh?

Yup.

Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu are all going to demand some major payola in return for their votes. I wonder how much Lieberman will ask for?

equilibrium: Donald_McRonald: Like what? A Green Party Fleshlight?

I only use Pelosi Brand Personal LubricantTM.

I thought when she screws us there is no lube.

"for that special rough ride"

Edsel: Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu are all going to demand some major payola in return for their votes. I wonder how much Lieberman will ask for?

At this point his position is either vote for cloture or get kicked out of the caucus and have his chairmanship stripped. Im sure the threat is real and has been put to his ear in backdoor meetings.

What he has to weigh for him now is.. does he stick it out as a independent and face both a republican AND democrat in his reelection or caucus with the republicans and more than likely face the teabagger furor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't seniors already get free(ish) healthcare coverage?