How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Gaspar]

They can't be waived from the specific provisions the wingers (and Gaspar) are talking about unless they are in fact an insurance provider. You'd think that Gaspar could come up with some evidence that they are in fact in that business by now.

With all due respect.  They don't need to be the insurer, they are in essence the seller.  They are steering policy based on their revenue source just like any big corporation with a lobby.  The dishonest part is that they are using the guise of a lobby group representing retired people who pay dues to AARP to represent them.  While a little underhanded, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that except that they are protecting the revenue source OVER the interest of the people they are supposed to be representing.

I am convinced that you understand this, but simply continue to feel the need to spoon your dear leader.

You can relax now. I don't feel the need to continue to explain this ad-nausium.

[nathanm]

I hear the sound of splitting hairs here.

But AARP could lobby on behalf of UHC, Delta, Aetna, and whomever else's insurance they market to their members so they can get a waiver.

They could, but that was not the claim that was made. The claim was that AARP received a waiver as an insurance company, which is a lie.

[Gaspar]

I hear the sound of splitting hairs here.

But AARP could lobby on behalf of UHC, Delta, Aetna, and whomever else's insurance they market to their members so they can get a waiver.

He actually provided information they are non-profit in the citation he used.  Non-profit is misleading anyhow.  Lots of big salaries being doled out at that non-profit, as well as millions spent on lobbying.

+1  That would be the honest way, but no, they are lobbying on "behalf" of Aunt Millie.

[Conan71]

They could, but that was not the claim that was made. The claim was that AARP received a waiver as an insurance company, which is a lie.

Okay so we are back at what is the definition of is.  Got it.

Do you get the underlying point that AARP's activities on this seem pretty nefarious, regardless if they are the insurer or they are doing this on behalf of for-profit insurers whose products they market to AARP membership?

[Red Arrow]

I believe I remember hearing that McDonalds asked for an exemption.  Are they the actual underwriter or are they just the agent for their employees?

[nathanm]

Okay so we are back at what is the definition of is.  Got it.

Do you get the underlying point that AARP's activities on this seem pretty nefarious, regardless if they are the insurer or they are doing this on behalf of for-profit insurers whose products they market to AARP membership?

I'm still foggy on what AARP actually did, if they are not in fact an insurer and therefore did not receive a waiver from price regulation.

I'm not sure if Gaspar made this assertion, but the articles I could find related to his claim stated that royalties from Medigap plans made up some 60% of AARP's revenue. That is another lie. All royalties from all of the co-branded products and services made up only 53% of AARP's revenue. It's simply not credible to claim that it's all from Medigap.

RA, that's a completely different thing. The ACA specifies that the Secretary of HHS may grant waivers of the coverage limit regulation until 2014 if without the waiver a company would either eliminate coverage or increase the employee's cost of coverage without said waiver. It's part of the "nobody will have to change their present insurance if they don't want to" promise.

[nathanm]

Another interesting fact available for all to see if you read their 2010 financials: Only 8.3% of their revenue was spent on lobbying.

[Red Arrow]

I'm still foggy on what AARP actually did, if they are not in fact an insurer and therefore did not receive a waiver from price regulation.

Back to Gasper's subject.

I believe the claim is that Underwriter A sold insurance through AARP.  The Underwriter received (for example) $100 from AARP.  AARP charged the final customer $110.  New regulations would reduce that to $105.  AARP asked for an exemption to be able to continue to charge $110.

Whether or not that is a legitimate issue with the new regulations, I don't know.  This is what I believe Gasper is saying.

[nathanm]

Back to Gasper's subject.

I believe the claim is that Underwriter A sold insurance through AARP.  The Underwriter received (for example) $100 from AARP.  AARP charged the final customer $110.  New regulations would reduce that to $105.  AARP asked for an exemption to be able to continue to charge $110.

Whether or not that is a legitimate issue with the new regulations, I don't know.  This is what I believe Gasper is saying.

That's not how it works with the Medigap plans, which are what are the bone of contention here. With the group health insurance plans, AARP acts in the same way an employer would. There has been no exemption issued for that (as far as I'm aware)

The exemption being discussed is that Medigap plans have been determined to be exempt from federal rate regulation in general. AARP merely receives a commission/royalty based on the amount of Medigap business United Health sells using the AARP name. Supposedly, AARP gets around 7% of AARP-branded Medigap policy revenues from United Health, who actually issues the plans. I haven't found a specific number in the financials, so I'm not quite sure where that number comes from.

That's not really germane, though, because the discussion is about the exemption from rate regulation, not loss ratio or anything of that nature.

[Red Arrow]

That's not really germane, though, because the discussion is about the exemption from rate regulation, not loss ratio or anything of that nature.

Same coverage, less income.  Sounds financially undesirable to both United Health and AARP.

[Gaspar]

I'm still foggy on what AARP actually did, if they are not in fact an insurer and therefore did not receive a waiver from price regulation.

I'm not sure if Gaspar made this assertion, but the articles I could find related to his claim stated that royalties from Medigap plans made up some 60% of AARP's revenue. That is another lie. All royalties from all of the co-branded products and services made up only 53% of AARP's revenue. It's simply not credible to claim that it's all from Medigap.

RA, that's a completely different thing. The ACA specifies that the Secretary of HHS may grant waivers of the coverage limit regulation until 2014 if without the waiver a company would either eliminate coverage or increase the employee's cost of coverage without said waiver. It's part of the "nobody will have to change their present insurance if they don't want to" promise.

Actually 46% in 2009.  60.3% in 2010 and expected to exceed that this year.  

Start on about page 7
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/AARP_REPORT_FINAL_PDF_3_29_11.pdf

[Conan71]

I'm still foggy on what AARP actually did, if they are not in fact an insurer and therefore did not receive a waiver from price regulation.

I'm not sure if Gaspar made this assertion, but the articles I could find related to his claim stated that royalties from Medigap plans made up some 60% of AARP's revenue. That is another lie. All royalties from all of the co-branded products and services made up only 53% of AARP's revenue. It's simply not credible to claim that it's all from Medigap.

RA, that's a completely different thing. The ACA specifies that the Secretary of HHS may grant waivers of the coverage limit regulation until 2014 if without the waiver a company would either eliminate coverage or increase the employee's cost of coverage without said waiver. It's part of the "nobody will have to change their present insurance if they don't want to" promise.

Here's what's really interesting though is that "royalties" revenue is 2.75 times membership dues.  Are they an insurance marketer or advocate for those over 50?  I also take note of your claim of a little less than 9% spent on lobbying.  Was that the $79 million specifically noted as "legislation and research" or could there be more which falls under the $330 some odd million listed as "programs and field services"?

Link to the '10 audited financials:

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/about_aarp/annual_reports/2010_aarp_consolidated_financial_statements_12_31_10.pdf



I've belonged to the NFIB before when I owned my own business.  I believe they are a non-profit as well.  Sure they did some lobbying on behalf of small business and sending out a slick newsletter and emailing questionaires, but their main bag was offering health insurance to the self-employed.  They had reps who would sell you the "membership" and the insurance as well.  You had to be a member to participate in the insurance program.

I've not had time to read and digest, but if others would like to, Congress seems interested in this very issue.

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/info-03-2011/website_overview.html

[nathanm]

Funny, I'm reading their 2010 financials and as I said earlier, the entirety of the royalty income is 53% of their revenue for the year. Unsurprising that that the Republicans are making smile up, though. Also unsurprising that they completely mischaracterize the nature of the organization.

Edited to add: Royalties includes much more than health insurance. There's all sorts of AARP branded products. I would be interested to see a breakdown of that from a legitimate source. And I seriously doubt they are misrepresenting their activities in their financials. I guess they could if they wanted to lose their tax-exempt status, but it seems unlikely.

[Red Arrow]

Start on about page 7
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/AARP_REPORT_FINAL_PDF_3_29_11.pdf

You can't cite that.  It was prepared by Republicans.   

[Conan71]

Funny, I'm reading their 2010 financials and as I said earlier, the entirety of the royalty income is 53% of their revenue for the year. Unsurprising that that the Republicans are making smile up, though. Also unsurprising that they completely mischaracterize the nature of the organization.

I dunno, when you are raking in almost three times the amount of membership dues in royalties from selling insurance, that sort of skews what the mission is.  If not in reality, at least in perception. 

I also noticed their investments increased from around $1bln to $1.5 bln in a year's time.  Can't make a profit by tax code, can't spend the money fast enough, so what do you do? Invest it.  Basically what Saint Francis does every time they make another improvement at 61st & Yale.