On Monday Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson wrote about the House bill provision that prevents insurance from charging seniors any more than twice what younger people pay (right now that difference is typically 6- to 7 times greater) -- an idea that he said would force the young to subsidize the rich.
Samuelson took a shot at AARP for backing the cost shifting and today AARP responded.
Now comes the House-passed health-care "reform" bill that, amazingly, would extract more subsidies from the young. It mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of that for younger Americans. That's much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those age 60 to 64 is four to five times greater than those 18 to 24. So, the young would overpay for insurance that -- under the House bill -- people must buy: Twenty- and thirtysomethings would subsidize premiums for fifty-and sixtysomethings. (Those 65 and over receive Medicare.)
Not surprisingly, the 40-million-member AARP, the major lobby for Americans over 50, was a big force behind this provision. AARP's cynicism is breathtaking. On one hand, it sponsors a high-minded campaign called "Divided We Fail" and runs sentimental TV ads featuring children pleading for a better tomorrow. "Join us in championing your future and the future of every generation," ended one ad.
ad_icon
Meanwhile, AARP lobbyists scramble to shift their members' costs onto younger generations. For example, the House health legislation improves Medicare's drug benefit. That would help the half of AARP members who are over 65. The other half, those between 50 and 64, could benefit from the skewed insurance premiums.
And AARP's John Rother responds today:
"As a 63-year-old man with job-based health insurance, Mr. Samuelson enjoys 'community-rated' coverage that does not set premiums for him or his colleagues based on their age. Like most Americans with employer-provided insurance, he gets coverage without worrying about this or other roadblocks that base a person's access to care on their gender and medical history.
"If Mr. Samuelson is willing to match his outrage with action, he could insist that his employer renegotiate its health plans to discriminate against his fellow fifty- and sixty-something coworkers. He could offer to reimburse his younger colleagues who have paid the same premiums and incurred, according to him, lower health care costs. Or, immediately, he could decline his employer-provided care and try his luck on the individual market.
"We're guessing that Mr. Samuelson will keep what he has, and we stand by him.
Full statement after the jump.
Check this out in real >>
Comments