Why I tore up my AARP card: Does AARP represent the best interests of seniors?

About the year 2005, my AARP membership card was cut up and trashed because many of the self-serving advocacies of AARP no longer represented what I believed to be in the best interests of seniors and my personal beliefs. As time progressed, circumstances have justified my decision.

Joining AARP, as a newly arrived senior citizen, seemed like a good idea in the mid-90s. AARP appeared to provide many services and advice of interest to seniors and promised to support senior interests in regard to upcoming legislation. In those days, potential political advocacy questions were put to the membership and, after polling for a consensus, a position was determined that represented the majority of the membership point of view. As a staunch supporter of democratically determined policies, whenever possible or practical, I remained comfortable with the AARP positions.

So what happened? A little research revealed that around June 2001, AARP announced the following: “To better meet the needs of AARP and the interests of current members, the board had adopted new bylaws. Key changes include the following: There will no longer be a biennial convention (delegate assembly). The board now has authority to amend AARP’s bylaws. This will enable the board to take action promptly rather than waiting for ratification of amendments by delegates. Nominees for the board and president-elect will be elected by the current board members.” In other words, the board elects itself. It’s a self-perpetuating leadership group.

AARP Inc. is structurally a non-profit corporation, but operates as a for-profit company with the characteristic profit motive of any corporation of that type. It is, in fact, a giant merchandising company selling health, life and other types of insurance. In addition, taxpayers are subsidizing AARP to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Through its affiliated insurance companies such as UnitedHealth, AARP receives, through royalty payments and fees, close to a quarter billion dollars in income. AARP receives about 25 percent of its income from membership dues and about 40 percent from business partners.

AARP has currently about 4 million members and they claim to represent about 35 million senior citizens. The organization gets government subsidies through their association with the AARP Foundation that is set up to provide charitable contributions and similar services. The Foundation receives most of its income from federal grants, some income from AARP and the rest from donations and other sources. The AARP board of directors selects a small number of its directors to the Foundation’s governing entity and they have sole authority to determine AARP policies and advocacy positions. These positions are self-serving and aimed at maximizing federal subsidies and other sources of income.

Most of the AARP members join to take advantage of hotel discounts or insurance offers, not to join a lobbying campaign against an initiative such as President Bush’s domestic agenda of putting their children’s and grandchildren’s retirement on a sounder financial footing, or a campaign in support of President Obama’s health-care bill. So what’s wrong with the Affordable Care Act? The most obvious issue is the creation of an enormous additional bureaucracy to oversee medical care from the central government rather than local doctors and hospitals.

The decisions as to who gets care, how much care, if they get care and when is a “big brother” decision. If immediate care is needed, one doesn’t need a consultation, advice, or need to be asked if it is really necessary. One needs a doctor quickly to apply remedial action in real time. Witness the most common complaint from nations that have government-provided health care — waiting lists and care denial. When health-care funding gets pinched, which always happens in government-run operations, health care becomes prioritized! The elderly are the ones most victimized.

What about AARP’s support of some 2,900 pages of fine print that has been declared unconstitutional by two federal judges. The phrase “The devil is in the details” comes to mind. Common sense and consistent historical experience has demonstrated that a government bureaucracy is never as efficient and is more costly by far than private sector operations. So much for potential savings through Obamacare.

Do health care regulations need reform? You bet they do! Issues such as pre-existing conditions, tort reform, and affordable care for those with limited incomes and other issues can be addressed in incremental legislative actions that maintain competitive private sector control of the U.S. health-care industry. Why would AARP endorse such a controversial law that the majority of Americans don’t want? The answer is the obvious one in which we follow the money trail. Their continuing government subsidies need to be protected.

All things considered, my decision to trash my membership in AARP continues to be a good one. All of AARP services and products aimed at seniors are available through alternate sources and shopping for the best deal is the American way. Here in Montana, getting an alternate health-care insurance provider is getting easier and less costly due to competition. Seniors need to assert their independence and seek the best health care that their resources can afford and representation through legislators that truly support their best long-term interests.

Bob Friedman is a resident of Kalispell.