September 24, 2009
Reichert Launching Investigation into AARP's support of HR3200
Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA-8), has launched an investigation into why AARP has so much love for the Health Care bill HR3200.
"I just can't understand how the leading voice for America's seniors would support a bill that cuts $156 billion from millions of their members' health benefits," said Reichert. "Are they being honest with their members? Is there a hidden motive behind their support for these reforms that would cut member benefits? These are questions I posed to AARP directly earlier this year and now in writing. I expect a timely answer on behalf of our mutual constituents."
I suspect, as does Reichert, that their love for HR3200 and its half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare probably has something to do with all those ads they run for Medigap supplemental insurance. They appear to be doing well, raking in more than $652 million last year from the sale of medical insurance related products.
My question is, if they think the private insurance is so great that they hawk it during reruns of Matlock, why do they think we need government run insurance at all? Oh wait. Never mind. I think the phrase is "follow the money?"
Posted by MarkGriswold at September 24, 2009
11:31 AM | Email This
1. Hope it doesn't take as long as the G.R. investigation. :)
2. I personally think Dave Reichert is a typical corrupt politician. After all, he voted for the Crap and Tax didn't he? Maybe, he is just, trying to buy back some support from his constituency by this so-call investigation. I do hope it leads somewhere rather than just, being a Farce.
3. My guess is that Democrats will cry foul on this as an infringement on free speech by AARP while keeping their mouth shut on Humana investigation by HHS instigated by Senator Baucus. Mark my word on this.
4. I think ACORN is sorta like a pinata right now. We've cracked it open, and now, all kinds of stuff is going to be falling out.
It'll be fun picking up the candy.
5. OOps, the above comment was suppose to be in another blog, and I accidentally posted it here.
Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see what comes out. I doubt he'll get anything legally significant. Politically significant? Maybe.
Oh, and Doofus Daniel, not agreeing with you on every issue doesn't make one "corrupt." Reichert is a man with a lot of integrity that should be respected. If you want to accuse him of wrongdoing, have some evidence or shut the f&%k up.
6. I used to donate to Reichert but after his Cap and Trade vote, he can go pound sand. If we citizens in the 8th District wanted a Democrat in his seat, we'd have elected one. Instead of a Republican, we got Democrat Lite. A RINO by any other name is still a RINO.
7. That's an interesting comment, Cliff, because where is the evidence that the AARP is doing something wrong here? Reichert seems to be running with a supposition that requires an awful lot of imagination, and he's using taxpayer dollars to do it.
8. I'm glad he's looking into this, but that cap-and-trade betrayal was unforgivable, to me at least. This global warming hoax is bad enough when foisted on us by Dems, but when eight Republicans also try to stick us with it... forget it.
9. Ryan, I totally understand your point. AARP is probably interested in Medicare Advantage getting worse so that they can sell more of their own insurance. Not illegal, no. Just wish more seniors would know this.
10. MarkGriswold...if you are going to remove my comment, how about removing Cliff's comment as well? Wouldn't that be fair?
11. Folks, I deleted Daniel's comment because it went way farther than simply calling Cliff a Doofus. I also warned Cliff about his choice of words. Now, please, this is supposed to be a blog for intelligent discourse. If anyone devolves into second-grade behavior your comments will be deleted and if you continue you will be banned from this blog. And no, that doesn't mean that you can't come on here and disagree with me. In fact, your argument doesn't even have to make sense. It just needs to refrain from using references to human excrement to describe someone's physiology.
12. We are done with Dave too after the Cap and Tax vote. Not that I would vote for Darcy or someone like her, but we probably just won't vote for that office next time. Best of luck Dave getting those Democrat crossover votes.
13. Palouse, exactly. I think the cap and trade vote will lose him more GOP support then any Dem support he imagined he would get.
The House looked very foolish now that the Senate is not even going to vote on it.
I wonder if they'll get fooled again with HR3200.
14. This is probably a response to Baucus' investigation as DLover mentions at #3. I've read that too on off Hot Air.
I hope that we can get some information on the meeting AARP had with the One. I wonder if it was as sleezy as the NEA phone call or probably even more so.
15. For all you saying you are done with Reichert, oh shut up. Like you are going to vote for the likes o fa Darcy Burner instead? Oh shut up!
16. #15. Thanks for the thoughtful advice, but I think I'll refuse. I don't know that anybody said they were going to vote for Darcy Burner.
17. Daniel: One thing certain about Reichert is his honesty. I believe his support of cap and trade and oil drilling bans in ANWR and elsewhere is wrongheaded and explained by his environmentalist ideology. I also believe his ideology can be overcome with solid information and sound science.
Gary: I am an AARP member covered by its Medicare Advantage program Complete administered by Secure Horizons. So your speculation about AARP's motives doesn't make sense. However, there appears to be solid evidence that AARP is being run as an insurance company for the personal benefit of its managers and in direct conflict with interests of its members.
MOREOVER, I believe that AARP has betrayed its members to advance its insurance interests and taken sides to gain more political influence contrary to its members interests. Rather than protecting their members' Medicare benefits, AARP is supporting Obama Care that is structured to ration coverage and care to the elderly as a cost cutting mechanism. If Obama has his way, medical care that improves and prolongs the lives of seniors will be limited or denied upon the basis of age just as it has in Canada and Euro-socialist nations.
In my opinion, AARP has breached the fiduciary duties of loyalty and trust owed to its members. I hope that a movement designed to remove the current management of AARP and claw back whatever they have profited from while furthering their personal interests.
18. For all telling Reichert to go "pound sand", say welcome to Rep. Darcy Burner! You "true believers" need to realize that the 8th is not a reich-wing district!
19. How about an investigation into Reichert caving in and voting to strangle businesses with "Cap and Trade"?
20. @ 17 Paddy...ever thought of moving from AARP
to 60 plus, the alternative that isn't beholden to special interests but rather the members interests? AARP has clearly lost the goal since its inception, mainly its membership. Another victim of D.C. special interests and lobbying groups.
21. I hope this is not costing any tax payer money. Private organization should be free to support any bill they want without congressional investigations. Even this crappy one!
22. Reichart believes in central planning to encourage companies to do what he thinks is right. Given that, I am uncertain why he is not supporting the health care bill.
23. Mark,
Can I post "Obama has an Edifice of Bovine Feculence that keeps getting larger and larger each day with each of his campaign speeches!"
That does not reference human excrement.
24. Private organization should be free to support any bill they want without congressional investigations.
If they want to remain a major lobbying group in D.C. and thereby receiving tax payer funds in exchange, I have no problem with a congressional investigation into the organization that will, in the end, actually save the taxpayers money.See ACORN.
As this post suggests, follow the money!!
25. What is the point ? Why doesn't he call for an investigation of ACORN instead ?
26. What investigation?
Reichert wrote a posturing letter. They can tell him to pound sand if they like -- although they'll probably do it nicely. AARP doesn't answer to Sheriff Dave.
27. Never joined AARP because of its leftist leanings. Several of my friends have quit them because of AARP's support for socialist healthcare legislation. If more would do the same, they would teach AARP who is ultimately in control, that being its members.
28. I personally second the thought Dave Reichert is a typical corrupt politician.
He's kinda skeevy too, always has impressed me as such anyway.
29. What Scott said. Reichert has a First Amendment right to "demand" anything of anyone, just as I have the right to demand to see your birth certificate and SAT scores. Running a headline saying that this is "launching an investigation" shows that you are gullible -- or think your readers are.
30. Challk me up as gullible. I trusted the headline when it said an investigation was being launched that there was in fact an investigation being launched.
I agree he has the right to 'demand' anything he wants and the AARP has the right to ignore everything he says.
Given that... I still do not like Reichart as he has proven to me he beleives the government is better than private industry at allocating resources. And a hypocrite for not following that logic and supporting the healthcare bill.
31. Challk me up as gullible. I trusted the headline when it said an investigation was being launched that there was in fact an investigation being launched.
I agree he has the right to 'demand' anything he wants and the AARP has the right to ignore everything he says.
Given that... I still do not like Reichart as he has proven to me he beleives the government is better than private industry at allocating resources. And a hypocrite for not following that logic and supporting the healthcare bill.
32. Challk me up as gullible. I trusted the headline when it said an investigation was being launched that there was in fact an investigation being launched.
I agree he has the right to 'demand' anything he wants and the AARP has the right to ignore everything he says.
Given that... I still do not like Reichart as he has proven to me he beleives the government is better than private industry at allocating resources. And a hypocrite for not following that logic and supporting the healthcare bill.
33. Reichert is definitely, at best, a RINO. Anybody who would support and vote for Crap and Tax and ban drilling for our own Oil, leaving us hostage to foreign Oil Cartels is not an American but a Socialist/Liberal. Plus, he is an Environmentalist. As well known, Environmentalist are anti-Capitalist. Once again, Reichert's position and beliefs are un-American. Yes, he is your typically corrupt politician, a pretender of serving the people when, in fact, he is there to only serve himself, his misaligned beliefs and his supporting political friends.
34. Daniel,
By voting in favor of Cap and Trade and to ban drilling demonstrates that Reichert is more concerned about getting re-elected in an increasingly leftist district than he is with representing his constituents.
35. Salthering -point taken. But I'll add that I'm glad Reichert is looking to get reelected. I seriously doubt that there's another R in the 8th district who could have held on to the seat during the Dem sweeps of 06 and 08. With 100% far right votes as some here expect of him, Reichert wouldn't still be my representative - Darcy Burner would. (short pause here while I hurl.)
I don't agree with Reichert's cap and tax vote nor his ANWR vote. But strategically, those votes probably firm up his environmental creds enough to hang on to support from the 8th district greenie voters.
Reichert votes the conservative line when it really counts. And that's good enough for me.
36. Hey, in 20 years or so this Investigation might result in something.
But right now it's just political games.
Reichert - Washington State's own Arlen Specter!
37. Saltherring...It is a logical point that you have made as to Reichert's voting for Crap and Tax in order to ensure his reelection in a leftist district. However, I don't think its True. I think he is truly for Crap and Tax and not, Drilling for our own Oil...Plain and Simple. Even, if what you say is True means, he is willing to put in jeopardy the collapse of the Economy and further destruction of this Great Nation for the purpose of being reelected? After all, he's an Environmentalist and that by itself should prove that he is not a Conservative but, a RINO...PERIOD!
38. I was wondering why the sudden vitrolic attacks on Reichert by Moveon.org. Now I see. He is starting to mess with one of the leftist babies and they want the attention drawn off AARP and back onto something else.
AARP....socialist party of the elderly (in sheep's clothing of course)
39. Wow..more bullcrap from the lying, ignorant "teabaggers".
There is not ONE dolloar of cuts in Medicare benefits to individuals in any of the HR3200 varients. Not ONE. The $150B cut Reichert refers to is from subsidies to insurance companies for the Medicare Advantage program, and has ZERO affect on retiree benefits..so its a lie.
The "half a trillion" figure probably came from Glenn Beck's ass..like the rest of his words. There is no..none...ZERO reference to this mythical figure, or in fact any Medicare end user cuts in HR3200.
40. Don't care. Reichert's political dead because of his moronic cap and trade vote.... so, his "investigation" will end with this term anyhow.
And what's that, protein shake? I can quite make out what your saying because of that thing in your mouth.
You know... like your fellow real life teabaggers?
41. political=politically.
42. #39 - Cuts to Skilled Nursing Facilities (pages 223 and 228)
Cuts to Impatient Rehabilitation Facilities (pages 224)
Cuts to Hospitals, Inpatient Rehab Facilities, Skilled Nursing Facilities, Long Term Care Hospitals (page 224)
Cuts to Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospitals (page 234)
Cuts to Outpatient Hospitals, Ambulance Service, ambulatory Surgical Centers, Lab Services, and Durable Medical Equipment (page 265)
Cuts in payments for Imaging Services (page 273)
Cuts for Home Health Care (pages 307-308)
Cuts to Medicare Advantage (pages 331 and 341)
These combined add up to around $500B.
43. 35:
This is what I do not understand. You are glad he took views you oppose so because that means he will get re-elected. What is the point of getting a guy re-elected if he votes against your views? Is it any better to have a guy voting against you with an R next to his name than a D?
Why not treat him with the same skeptical standard you treat a D? All politicians feet should permanently be held to the fire. Do not vote for him and actively work against him. He is a central planner 100%. Work to get a Ron Paul Republican in. Or work to get some third party candidate in. You might not succeed but at least you fought for what you believe in. Believe me it feels much better to not be hypocritical than to watch a person you voted for throw your beliefs under the bus.
44. Regarding Reichert - I agree with Paddy and others in that he as honest a politician as you can get, and with Daniel in that he is an environmentalist. He honestly believes that the Cap and tax was the right bill. We think that is nonsense, but even if it passes (not a sure thing), it is not our biggest battle right now, and we need all the forces we can muster for the bigger ones, and Reichert is of use. I have staff who are flawed, but I don't dump them and hire illegal alliens. We need Reichert, and despite Cap and Tax, which I loathe, I have sent him money. He will ALWAYS vote for the trees, but he is mostly okay on other votes, and I do not want another democrat reporting to Pelosi from the 8th.
45. Engineering lady:
Reichert is not just voting for trees. His justification is that the country needs to be directed somewhere different and it is the governments role to direct business where to invest. That is central planning!!! It does not work and Reichert thinks it is essential.
46. Lysander @43 says "Why not treat him with the same skeptical standard you treat a D?"
Why not? Because Reichert, unlike most D's, is honest. He DID see value in cap and tax for 8th district constituents - and voted to represent all his constituents which, BTW, is what he was elected to do. I wish he hadn't, but I'm not cutting him loose based on one vote. (And for the record, if Cap and Tax passes, the northwest stands to benefit by selling credits for all our clean, hydroelectric power.) Reichert is pro-life, fiscally conservative, believes in individual responsibility and a strong national defense. I agree with Engineering lady that we need all the forces we can muster for the big votes against the REAL threat - BHO/Pelosi/Reid. I'm sending Reichert money too - he's our best chance to keep a Republican in this house seat.
47. Let me get this straight...Reichert is incredibly misguided and Dumb but, being so-called honest makes it all OK? Well, in the first place, I strongly suspect that he is not all that honest. If you want to compare him to somebody who is supposedly honest yet, Dumb...Let's compare him to Schwarzenegger. Another RINO that has gone a long way to completely destroying the State of California. Schwarzenegger has put California into extreme debt, has raised Taxes with the results of chasing Businesses and people from the State further, reducing its Tax base to support the expenditures and debt. Could any Democrat done any worse in such a short time? OOPS! I guess Obama could. The Bottom Line: Wouldn't it be better to find someone of Conservative credentials to run for Reichert's seat? Just, a thought.
48. Hello Daniel - Reichert hasn't voted as badly as Schwarznegger has run California (although the Governator has had terrible help with their mostly demo. leg.) Wouldn't it be better to find someone of Conservative cred. to run for Reichert's seat? I doubt it. One, the district is teetering, and there is no guarantee that your proposed candidate would win. Two, if he or she is that great, we probably ought to keep them to challenge one of our esteemed senators. I'm pretty tired of those ladies, and we need someone really impressive to take them out of Washington.
49. To engineer lady...Reichert has lost a great deal of traction among his supporters. Even, some Democrats, believe it or not, are not happy with his vote on Crap and Tax. That being said, opens the door to his Democrat opponent wider than, was before. Conclusion; His Democrat opponent will have a stronger hand going in than, the last race and it may be enough for him to lose. Why take a chance with a person who has so much egg on his face. No, you got a proved Crippled RINO who's performance is not much or no better than any Democrat. For the GOP to continue to run this disgraced Idiot without putting up a replacement/choice then, you are almost sure to Lose.
50. Dave Reichert and Darcy Burner ably represent the Peter Principle - Dave was a decent sheriff, but is over his head in congress. Darcy was a great student of economics, but was over her head as a Microsoft Executive. Darcy should run for sheriff. With a buzz cut and a sidearm, she could win some swing Law and Order votes. That would make it easier to compare her to Dave, for the big runoff. The vote would be close, but correctly counted, as our King county elections office has a record of accuracy any bank would be proud of. Talk about a Toxic Asset Relief Program. Where's old Ron Sims ? Should have listened to him, and sold WAMU. "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own county." Now there's a man who knows his sub-prime debentures !! That's why he was needed so badly in DC. Yet another problem has been solved. Count me in as "favorable" on all surveys.
51. There have been a couple of semi-supportive topics that have popped up suggesting that some of the Sound Politics team are behind Dave. If so I suggest that they stop mentioning him at all. Any post about him just reminds us how disgusted we are with his Cap and Trade vote and leads to resurgence of that anger. He picked his side. Now he's done. Stick a fork in him. Game over.
52. There have been a couple of semi-supportive topics that have popped up suggesting that some of the Sound Politics team are behind Dave. If so I suggest that they stop mentioning him at all. Any post about him just reminds us how disgusted we are with his Cap and Trade vote and leads to resurgence of that anger. He picked his side. Now he's done. Stick a fork in him. Game over.
53. There have been a couple of semi-supportive topics that have popped up suggesting that some of the Sound Politics team are behind Dave. If so I suggest that they stop mentioning him at all. Any post about him just reminds us how disgusted we are with his Cap and Trade vote and leads to resurgence of that anger. He picked his side. Now he's done. Stick a fork in him. Game over.
54. There have been a couple of semi-supportive topics that have popped up suggesting that some of the Sound Politics team are behind Dave. If so I suggest that they stop mentioning him at all. Any post about him just reminds us how disgusted we are with his Cap and Trade vote and leads to resurgence of that anger. He picked his side. Now he's done. Stick a fork in him. Game over.
55. I'm curious - if Reichert was to repudiate his Cap & Tax vote as "ill-advised" (or whatever) would you change your mind about (not) supporting him?
My guess is no - like microdav says, "he's toast" at this point and has lost the trust of the core group necessary for him to win a re-election - votes that he will never offset with votes from the left.
Maybe he should pull a specter...;'}
56. alphabet soup - I don't think repudiating Cap and Trade would do any good. The argument for Cap and Trade is environmental, which is an idea about the world, and the degree to which the world can be perfected by human agency through an idea. Conservatives believe in the accumulation of social benefits through an empirical process, and that an idea is a weak thing in the face of the history of human progress to date, because human progress is a massive accumulation of experience and learned wisdoms, against which any idea is but a small and unproven insight. Those who voted for Dave Reichert generally thought he understood these matters, but with his very consequential vote on Cap and Trade, he has somewhat disabused them of that view. I believe that Dave Reichert thought that voting aye would win votes from independents, who lean in favor of the environment. The size of this group is exaggerated by the slanting of news in favor of the presumption that environmentalism is a worthwhile idea. Let me say that I am unsure about the merits of these environmental concerns, but I am certain that the news is slanted in favor. It was a foolish judgment by Dave Reichert to vote as he did on Cap and Trade. He has offered no worthwhile explanation of the vote since, which suggests that he did not expect to need to explain that vote. That was a wrong judgment, and counts against him among many people who supported him. He could still re-establish himself as preferable to his next opponent. Right now he looks weak because he appears to have voted in pursuit of an illusory electoral advantage against an established principle. Life is an education, even for a congressman. Moreover, the Cap and Trade bill has been so thoroughly amended, that its impact, if it ever did become law, is unpredictable, except for the fact that exclusion from its more disadvantageous provisions can be purchased through contributions to incumbent politicians. The real question about Dave Reichert is does he believe the idealistic theories about Cap and Trade, or is he already so seasoned with cynicism, that he voted to line his own campaign coffers with cash ? In other words, is it corrupt reform or reformed corruption ? Either way, he's toast - Toast of the Eighth District !!
57. Reichart is lying.