On throwing shoes and vague sources...

As I was getting home last night I received a text from a friend in Michigan. “Bush got a shoe thrown at him in Iraq!” it said. I have to admit, a smile crossed my face at that moment as I imagined the president getting smacked in the face by what I was hoping was a stiletto heel (wouldn’t that be poetic). But, as I listened and read the news about it, another emotion arose. I’m not entirely sure what it is at this point. I think Bush has angered us all so much that, at times, we would all like to throw a shoe at him. And hey, what was the damage, besides a bruised ego? However, something about the act still bothers me.

If you’ve been paying any attention to the news today, you’ve undoubtedly seen the reaction of Iraqi’s to the event. I’m sure it’s not representative of all Iraqi’s but enough to make the news. People are proud of this shoe-throwing fellow. Why, they’d throw shoes at Bush too. In fact, so would many Americans. And I really cannot blame any one of them. I guess that’s what makes me sad. How did we come to this? How do we have this president who has hurt, devastated, destroyed people and places, with little regret or even remorse of any kind? How did we get into this horrible war that really no one wanted, except our president? How does one person affect so many people?

My only hope is that this will be some kind of wake up call for Bush. It won’t though. Instead he’ll see it as a personal attack on him and not reflective of his presidency. And that is the problem with such an act of petty violence. No matter how warranted you feel it is, no matter how little your voice is heard otherwise, the other side will only dismiss it as childish and move on. But, BUT, for the moment, many people feel validated in their anger and disgust at somebody who has clearly not taken them into account. And for people who feel their voices are not heard, that is a lot. All you have to do is look at the news and see the reactions of some Iraqi’s to see this. In fact, you can probably look at the news for reactions in the U.S. and see the same thing. Why didn’t we think of this? Bush wasn’t seriously hurt, but the world got a very clear message!


On a totally unrelated note the NY Times reported of Caroline Kennedy's bid for Clinton's Senate seat in NY. The lead into the story was this: Ms. Kennedy has decided she will pursue the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a person told of her decision said.

"A person told of her decision"?!?!?! What kind of source is that?

Just what I've always wanted...

Here's a new idea for a holiday gift. How about a gift certificate to Planned Parenthood?

Wow! A pap smear? How'd you know?...

It is seriously messed up that people cannot afford basic health care these days, so way to go Planned Parenthood of Indiana. I mean, it's not the ideal gift, but if you cannot afford health services on your own, maybe you can get them as a gift. I think it's innovative and hope it spreads beyond Indiana.

Where the AARP went wrong

The AARP has long been known as an advocacy service for older people in this country. I remember when my mother first received her AARP membership card in the mail; she was so excited about getting discounts. The AARP was the voice for the older generation, advocating for social change. Working in the health care advocacy field has since taught me a greater lesson. AARP should not be trusted.

When I coordinated older volunteers who counseled Medicare beneficiaries, I once had to reprimand (in a loving way) a volunteer who told someone “AARP are a bunch of con artists”. Obviously, this was unprofessional and not the best way to handle the call as a representative of the organization. But, she wasn’t wrong.

I had the amazing opportunity of working for a Medicare rights organization while simultaneously studying health care policy and law. I got to see how policies affecting Medicare were developed and implemented, and then how they affected people on the personal level. It was a great way to see the larger picture of the Medicare program and of health care in general.

What stuck out most in my mind about AARP was that they were quick to support a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit administered solely through private insurance companies. I guess this should not have been a surprise. AARP had already partnered with United Health Insurance to provide supplemental insurance plans for Medicare beneficiaries. Of course when the drug benefit was then implemented, AARP/United Health offered a drug plan as well. Hmm, advocating for a controversial drug benefit not supported by many of your members while selling health care insurance all in the same breath. Can you say conflict of interest?

And as far as drug plans went, the AARP plan was fairly decent. AARP stood out above many other companies because they offered a physical list of drugs they covered and for how much. This was particularly hard to get from most plans so people jumped on it. But mostly, I heard from people that they didn’t want to look at all 60 drug plans available to them so they would just enroll in the AARP plan because it was a name they recognized. Apparently it didn’t matter if the plan actually covered their drugs or if they could get their drugs cheaper through another plan. Nope, they knew of and respected AARP and that was enough. Then of course, there were the individuals who kept up with Medicare policy and resented AARP for the role they played in the drug benefit, my volunteer for example.

Well, it turns out that AARP is now under some severe scrutiny for “royalties and fees” built into insurance premiums (not just with Medicare or even health insurance, but their insurance plans in general). Apparently these royalties and fees have added up to 43% of the organization’s revenue last year. AARP defends this by saying that higher premiums come with better coverage. However, as the article illustrates, this can be debated by looking at their Medicare supplemental plans. Medicare supplemental plans (Medigaps) are standardized and so all plans must offer the same coverage. There is no way that the AARP Medigap can offer better coverage, yet they are still not the cheapest plan. So that theory goes out the window.

AARP’s enormous clout comes from the threat they could defeat people in Congress who don’t do what they want. They are the most powerful interest group in Washington.
-James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington

The AARP can be a positive force for seniors in the U.S. For example, they fought and derailed Bush’s proposal for the privatization of social security. But when an organization uses its positive reputation to make money and take advantage of the individuals it’s claiming to help, that’s misuse of power. If AARP is to advocate for the health of older people, they need to be in a position where they do not benefit from charging people more money for benefits. Isn’t this what they’re trying to protect people from?

Prop 8 the Musical

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die