Joining the AARP: Right or Wrong?

I voted "Meh". I compare auto insurance costs each year and my rates with AARP are still the best plus I get exceptional service. Car rental and travel discounts are much better than those through my college alumni membership. I'm continually comparing AARP benefits with those of AMAC (the conservative alternative) and will probably switch when AMAC catches up.

I'm not a fan of AARP's political agenda but that's a "meh" similar to my feeling about doing business in a grocery store that sells cigarettes, a TV provider that offers questionable optional programming, or a mechanic who's a Muslim.

I did not realize it was potentially a sin to join an organization because they supported Obamacare. I had no idea that true Christians could not support an attempt to provide health care to needy people. Glad to know...

The fact that one stated goal of Obamacare is to get health insurance for more people does not make its particular implementation a good thing.  While I don't think support of Obamacare is a sin, disagreeing with a program is hardly the same as wanting to deny health care to those who need it.

My take is that the AARP has a nasty habit of "rent-seeking", which is particularly appalling when you understand they represent the wealthiest age demographic in the country.  If you're rich, fine, but please don't use your position in society to get more.  It may not be outright sin to join AARP, but if you do, speak out against the abuses Mark mentioned, as well as the general habit of rent-seeking.

I grew up in churches where we were admonished to not shop in grocery stores that sold objectionable items (booze, cigarettes, Playboy magazines, etc.) because we would be indirectly supporting such things. 

dcbii wrote:

The fact that one stated goal of Obamacare is to get health insurance for more people does not make its particular implementation a good thing.  While I don't think support of Obamacare is a sin, disagreeing with a program is hardly the same as wanting to deny health care to those who need it.

And I never said it was the same thing. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of requiring all Christians to agree on political issues as if there is not room under the true Christian tent for people that actually might agree with Obamacare. All Christians do not have to be political conservatives. That was my point.

Now the overall effects of the "Health Insurance Deform Act" are not totally clear--I would suggest that it's going to end up with less healthcare for the poor, not more, because of the actuarial assumptions necessary and their impact on Medicaid--but I would hope that all Christians could agree that many of the provisions are sinful.  To wit:

1.  Forcing relatively poorer young people to subsidize health insurance for their relatively more wealthy older peers.  (3:1 ratio of insurance costs for older vs. younger--natural ratio is 5:1 or 8:1)

2.  Suing nuns to force them to buy contraception, including abortifacient contraception.

3.  Federally funded abortion coverage.

4.  end of life counseling/death panels

5.  Bribes & lies needed to pass HIDA.

....and yes, when you see the pattern, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how any Christian could support it.  Politics is messy, yes, but this is a large scale hog operation in comparison with an old barnyard.  And again, when the tale is all told, it's not clear that more people are getting, or will get, actual healthcare.  More have insurance, but more doctors won't take that (Medicaid) insurance because they'd lose money by taking it.

Bert Perry wrote:

Now the overall effects of the "Health Insurance Deform Act" are not totally clear--I would suggest that it's going to end up with less healthcare for the poor, not more, because of the actuarial assumptions necessary and their impact on Medicaid--but I would hope that all Christians could agree that many of the provisions are sinful.  To wit:

1.  Forcing relatively poorer young people to subsidize health insurance for their relatively more wealthy older peers.  (3:1 ratio of insurance costs for older vs. younger--natural ratio is 5:1 or 8:1)

2.  Suing nuns to force them to buy contraception, including abortifacient contraception.

3.  Federally funded abortion coverage.

4.  end of life counseling/death panels

5.  Bribes & lies needed to pass HIDA.

....and yes, when you see the pattern, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how any Christian could support it.  Politics is messy, yes, but this is a large scale hog operation in comparison with an old barnyard.  And again, when the tale is all told, it's not clear that more people are getting, or will get, actual healthcare.  More have insurance, but more doctors won't take that (Medicaid) insurance because they'd lose money by taking it.

Unbelievable... Again, it is a pathetic day for Christianity when issues like this are a bellwether. Is Obamacare perfect? No. Evil? No. Not hardly. It is just a different approach to a difficult problem than you would have and I highly doubt you are qualified to fix the problem of health care. I doubt you even fully understand the problem. Could it just be possible that Christians can agree to disagree on topics of secondary importance? Or do we all have to be Tea Partiers?

I decided not to join AARP years before I was old enough to qualify.  I made my decision long before Obamacare was a glimmer in his eye.  I don't like their lock step attitude towards Social security or their support of the leftist political agenda.

GregH wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Now the overall effects of the "Health Insurance Deform Act" are not totally clear--I would suggest that it's going to end up with less healthcare for the poor, not more, because of the actuarial assumptions necessary and their impact on Medicaid--but I would hope that all Christians could agree that many of the provisions are sinful.  To wit:

1.  Forcing relatively poorer young people to subsidize health insurance for their relatively more wealthy older peers.  (3:1 ratio of insurance costs for older vs. younger--natural ratio is 5:1 or 8:1)

2.  Suing nuns to force them to buy contraception, including abortifacient contraception.

3.  Federally funded abortion coverage.

4.  end of life counseling/death panels

5.  Bribes & lies needed to pass HIDA.

....and yes, when you see the pattern, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how any Christian could support it.  Politics is messy, yes, but this is a large scale hog operation in comparison with an old barnyard.  And again, when the tale is all told, it's not clear that more people are getting, or will get, actual healthcare.  More have insurance, but more doctors won't take that (Medicaid) insurance because they'd lose money by taking it.

 

 

Unbelievable... Again, it is a pathetic day for Christianity when issues like this are a bellwether. Is Obamacare perfect? No. Evil? No. Not hardly. It is just a different approach to a difficult problem than you would have and I highly doubt you are qualified to fix the problem of health care. I doubt you even fully understand the problem. Could it just be possible that Christians can agree to disagree on topics of secondary importance? Or do we all have to be Tea Partiers?

Greg, are you in disagreement that taxpayer funded prenatal infanticide is a sin?  Are you in disagreement that a campaign to get HIDA passed full of lies and bribes is not a sin?  Would you disagree that it is a sin to force the poor to subsidize health insurance for the rich?

I would hope not.  It seems that you did not read my comments carefully--that kind of thinking is, ahem, one of the biggest causes of lockstep thinking I can think of.

Bert Perry wrote:

Greg, are you in disagreement that taxpayer funded prenatal infanticide is a sin?  Are you in disagreement that a campaign to get HIDA passed full of lies and bribes is not a sin?  Would you disagree that it is a sin to force the poor to subsidize health insurance for the rich?

I would hope not.  It seems that you did not read my comments carefully--that kind of thinking is, ahem, one of the biggest causes of lockstep thinking I can think of.

What I disagree with is your assessment of what Obamacare is. I am not interested in debating your editorials. I am more interested in facts.

I didn't know Christians' problems with AARP were exclusively about Obamacare until GregH told me so. I also didn't know the sole consideration for Christians concerning whether Obamacare is a good thing or not is that it makes more people get insurance until GregH told me so.

Once again, Greg, you generalize and stereotype isssues and Christians in a way that is completely unfamiliar to me.

GregH wrote:

I did not realize it was potentially a sin to join an organization because they supported Obamacare. I had no idea that true Christians could not support an attempt to provide health care to needy people. Glad to know...

Greg Long, maybe try reading what I said instead of misrepresenting me. Again, making political issues like Obamacare bellwethers for whether Christians are on the right side or not is 100% absurd. Seriously, Christians need to grow up and learn to get along with people that just might disagree with them on some things.

So it bothers you when people misrepresent you? Do you think you represented Mark's comment accurately? Would Mark say that you did?

No I did not misrepresent him. What I said was that it is absurd that Obamacare is in his list as to why a Christian should not join the AARP. I made no comment about the rest of his list.

Jim wrote:

While it is clear to me that the AARP supported (and benefited) from the Affordable Care Act,

it's possible that:

• Some joined AARP well before the ACA was on anyone's radar
• Some may not be aware of the AARP's support for the ACA

And again, it is possible that there could be a devout Christian that actually supports the Affordable Care Act and thus does not factor that into their decision to join the AARP.

I think Peter at the pearly gates will ask everyone if they supported the ACA... a yes, gets you tossed out!

Eyeroll....

Hint: Sarcasm... and humor.

What about the other things AARP supports, abortion, right to die, etc?

Mark_Smith wrote:

I think Peter at the pearly gates will ask everyone if they supported the ACA... a yes, gets you tossed out!

 

Eyeroll....

Hint: Sarcasm... and humor.

 

What about the other things AARP supports, abortion, right to die, etc?

If the AARP supports abortion and right to die (and I don't know that it really does), those are good reasons why a Christian might not want to join. I was speaking only of the Obamacare thing. In case I have not made it clear, I reject attempts of conservative Christians to make political affiliation and/or economic beliefs a bellwether.  Obamacare falls into that category.

Jim wrote:

that the AARP is pro-abortion

At a minimum, Jim, AARP is strong advocates for embryonic stem cell research.

Of course, AARP is not stupid and doesn't overtly endorse abortion in some mission statement, since they "focus" on retired people, but they do frequently advocate along with Planned Parenthood for "women's health".

Besides that, Jim, AARP is run by Democrats and liberals. You and I both know that. And the modern Democratic party is 110% pro-abortion. 

This isn't that hard.

Fine. I sincerely apologize for wasting your time. BTW, my "case" against AARP was a sentence in a thread about Young Life camp accident. I never tried to make a case against them. I am way too busy

Does your health insurance provider cover abortions?

Is everyone in your doctor's office pro-life?

Does the waiter to whom you gave that tip support same-sex marriage?

Does your internet provider offer pornography?

And, of course,what is the government doing with your tax dollars?

by starting a separate thread about it!

No argument from me.

But is a waiter or your internet provider the same as a advocacy group lobbying politicians?

So now we all agree that Obamacare is a non-issue and now know that the AARP does not really fight for abortion rights, what is the problem again? Just that they are evil Democrats and liberals?

I initially meant it as humor... I asked about Young Life, you mentioned AARP, I said Whoa...AARP? Then you start a thread about it. I felt a little under attack!

Those things are not settled. Not by any means.

I am choosing to pull away because I don't have the time or inclination to fight "brothers in the Lord".

Mark_Smith wrote:

No argument from me.

But is a waiter or your internet provider the same as a advocacy group lobbying politicians?

Having known people who only patronize "Christian" businesses (they have their own Christian Yellow Pages), who don't have internet or cable for that reason, and who only patronize "dry" restaurants and grocery stores; sometimes it seems that it is.

I don't expect to be asked about my AARP membership at the Bema although I wouldn't be surprised to see it on an application for a pastorate along with questions about my political views.

Due to the alcohol laws in California, beer and wine licenses are readily available for restaurants.  The only dry eating places are fast food establishments, e.g. Mickey D's, Burger King, Jack in the Box.  Even Denny's serves beer and wine.  The ubiquity of alcohol sales is the reason I didn't go back to cooking professionally after college.

I haven't seen a dry grocery store locally in 62 years.

Ron Bean wrote:

SNIP

Having known people who only patronize "Christian" businesses (they have their own Christian Yellow Pages), who don't have internet or cable for that reason, and who only patronize "dry" restaurants and grocery stores; sometimes it seems that it is.

SNIP

Here is a Catholic source on what Mark was getting at.  They also apparently have backed Planned Parenthood Infanticide.  Central part of their mission?  I can't say that, but their support of anti-life measures is quite well known.  

And inasmuch as the Health insurance Deform Act funds abortions (see Obama's executive order mandating emergency contraception, other provisions) and requires the poor to subsidize the prosperous for their health insurance, no, Greg, HIDA/Obamacare is an issue for Christians.

 I would also add that given that government-run programs tend to do a very bad job of providing anything (see "bread lines in Warsaw Pact"), Christians ought to look at an increased role for government in any market with an extremely cautious eye.  For example, the Department of Energy has been promoting "renewable energy" for at least forty years, and the net result is zero alternative energy sources that can compete without subsidies. In the same way, the Department of Education has existed since the Carter administration, and the net result is zero improvement in education.

I dare suggest that Christians ought to rightly object to programs that can rightly be characterized as trillions for bupkus.  Or, in the case of many of our welfare programs (the late and unlamented AFDC being one of them), it's trillions spent to actively degrade the morals and life chances of the poor--it's called the "father out of the house rule", among other things.

Bert Perry wrote:

Here is a Catholic source on what Mark was getting at.  They also apparently have backed Planned Parenthood Infanticide.  Central part of their mission?  I can't say that, but their support of anti-life measures is quite well known.  

And inasmuch as the Health insurance Deform Act funds abortions (see Obama's executive order mandating emergency contraception, other provisions) and requires the poor to subsidize the prosperous for their health insurance, no, Greg, HIDA/Obamacare is an issue for Christians.

 I would also add that given that government-run programs tend to do a very bad job of providing anything (see "bread lines in Warsaw Pact"), Christians ought to look at an increased role for government in any market with an extremely cautious eye.  For example, the Department of Energy has been promoting "renewable energy" for at least forty years, and the net result is zero alternative energy sources that can compete without subsidies. In the same way, the Department of Education has existed since the Carter administration, and the net result is zero improvement in education.

I dare suggest that Christians ought to rightly object to programs that can rightly be characterized as trillions for bupkus.  Or, in the case of many of our welfare programs (the late and unlamented AFDC being one of them), it's trillions spent to actively degrade the morals and life chances of the poor--it's called the "father out of the house rule", among other things.

Bert, you just don't seem to get it. Your thoughts are opinions and I am not interested in debating you on your opinions. I am very familiar with your opinions because they are the same opinions of all my politically conservative friends, Christian or not. You can have any political views you wish; that is your right. But trying to tell all Christians what to believe about issues like health care, welfare and renewable energy is not appropriate. I will say it one more time. The Christian tent is bigger than political conservatism.

Greg, my links happen to be FACTS.  It is a FACT that AARP has supported Planned Parenthood.  It is a FACT that socialist governments do a lousy job of providing needed goods and services--that's why we have a million Cubans around Miami, after all.  It is a FACT that HIDA has taxpayer support of abortions. 

You are entitled to your own set of opinions, Greg, but (per Thomas Sowell) you are not entitled to your own set of facts.  Per that, NAME a Department of Energy program for alternative energy that works without subsidies or mandates.  Look up the history of SAT scores since the Carter administration.  Look at the history of the urban poor since the Great Society started.

The person who is not getting it is you, Greg.  I am simply presenting facts regarding AARP, HIDA, and the like to which Biblically, Christians ought to object.

I used to be like you Bert. But then I figured out:

1) I am not an expert in everything.

2) Things are invariably more complicated than an armchair quarterback thinks.

3) There are people more informed than me on both sides of the issues that I have strong opinions on. That does not mean they are both right but it does mean I should pause before I elevate my opinions to facts in my own mind.

You know, Greg, there is such a thing as "Google" and you can look up these facts.  They are independently verifiable, and from reputable sources no less.

Sorry, but humility about what one knows does not mean that one is an "armchair quarterback" if one cites reputable sources about a matter of fact.  In fact, humility means that one ought to do his best to learn the facts of the matter and stand firm with them.  

Besides, if we vote--and I'm proud to have voted against Mr. Soetoro twice, and against his policies many more times--how are we "armchair quarterbacks"?  We are in the game whether we like it or not.

Ah, I had forgotten about the Google. Now with the Google tool, all of us can be experts in such areas as foreign policy, health care, welfare, energy, and economics. It puts us on a level playing field with those with say 40 or 60 years of experience in those areas.

Oh wait, am I sounding postmodern???

Greg, if you're going to argue that there is some fallacious issue with finding something by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or other reputable source via Google and becoming basically informed, yes, you are arguing what is in effect a postmodern ethic.  You're saying that the known facts that can be easily verified with a quick search of reputable sources really qualify as opinions....and that is pure, unadulterated nonsense.  

You don't need half a century in expertise on a five year old law to understand that a maximum 3:1 ratio of insurance rates between the old and young will, given a natural 5:1 or 8:1 ratio of insurance rates, force the young to subsidize the old. You don't need half a century of experience to figure out that "AARP" is on lists of donors to Planned Parenthood.  You don't need decades to figure out that AARP did support HIDA.  

You just need to be able to read.  Honestly, you're using about the same argument that Catholics use against Sola Scriptura, just with a different target.  All the bishops with half a century of experience told us that the Pope was Christ's vicar and devoted himself to poverty and chastity--ignore that monstrous palace and all those papal "nephews" you see, folks!  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Let me give you a quick lesson in the difference between facts and opinions Bert.

Fact: No energy renewal source in US history has been self-sustaining without subsidies.
Opinion: Christians should not support renewal energy because it is a failure.

Fact: Many Cubans have attempted to migrate to the US.
Opinion: Socialist governments do a lousy job of providing needed goods and services.

Fact: ObamaCare forces the young and healthy to subsidize the older and/or sickly.
Opinion: That subsidy is morally wrong.

You can go ahead and keep refusing to see the difference between facts and opinions if you want but I will continue to refuse to engage your opinions because I am just modern enough to think it takes more than the Google to make one qualified to be an expert on a level where their opinions mean very much.

Greg, I really think you need to get out there and learn some things.  Let's walk through:

1.  Since when is is Biblically acceptable to discriminate against the poor to benefit the rich?  That is exactly what HIDA's provision of a maximum 3:1 ratio between insurance rates for the old and for the young is doing, Greg.  Not opinion, fact.

2.  If you look up living conditions in Cuba--meat and vegetables strictly rationed, automobiles nonexistent, people freezing to death in tropical mental hospitals--you will find what conservatives were telling you about the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s, what conservatives told you about high (~10% ) unemployment rates in Western Europe in the same time (nations that abandoned this boomed, by the way), and what conservatives will tell you about places like Venezuela.  They're having a heck of a time getting basic goods and services to their people because they're removing markets and profit from the equation, just like all sound economists will tell you.  So it is a historic fact, backed by sound economic theory, that socialist governments can and do have problems providing needed goods and services.  

3.  Never argued that we shouldn't support renewable energy.  I argued we shouldn't subsidize it through the government, because it doesn't work.  And that is a fact--see point #2.  If you've got to subsidize it forever, you have either a true public good, or you've got socialism--which consistently fails to provide what we need.

Sorry, but you're not the teacher here.  You're the student, if you will but learn.

You are right. I am the student. I know what I don't know. I am just not interested in being your student. I would rather be the student of true experts rather than armchair quarterbacks who have spent some time on Google.

GregH wrote:

Let me give you a quick lesson in the difference between facts and opinions Bert.

Fact: No energy renewal source in US history has been self-sustaining without subsidies.
Opinion: Christians should not support renewal energy because it is a failure.

Fact: Many Cubans have attempted to migrate to the US.
Opinion: Socialist governments do a lousy job of providing needed goods and services.

Fact: ObamaCare forces the young and healthy to subsidize the older and/or sickly.
Opinion: That subsidy is morally wrong.

You can go ahead and keep refusing to see the difference between facts and opinions if you want but I will continue to refuse to engage your opinions because I am just modern enough to think it takes more than the Google to make one qualified to be an expert on a level where their opinions mean very much.

 

Would you be willing to admit that perhaps Obamacare is a bit more complex and nuanced than you have presented it on this thread? Also, do you have any reputable sources to refute the specific information Bert has presented? No one's arguing that there isn't a range of opinions on Obamacare, even among Christians. But to act like anybody who is against Obamacare is against it because they are against helping needy people is just absurd.

Greg Long wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

Let me give you a quick lesson in the difference between facts and opinions Bert.

Fact: No energy renewal source in US history has been self-sustaining without subsidies.
Opinion: Christians should not support renewal energy because it is a failure.

Fact: Many Cubans have attempted to migrate to the US.
Opinion: Socialist governments do a lousy job of providing needed goods and services.

Fact: ObamaCare forces the young and healthy to subsidize the older and/or sickly.
Opinion: That subsidy is morally wrong.

You can go ahead and keep refusing to see the difference between facts and opinions if you want but I will continue to refuse to engage your opinions because I am just modern enough to think it takes more than the Google to make one qualified to be an expert on a level where their opinions mean very much.

 

 

See this is what you do, Greg. You summarized the entire Obamacare issue as "ObamaCare forces the young and healthy to subsidize the older and/or sickly." Well, who couldn't be for that! You paint with such a broad brush and stereotype Christians on issues, putting them in your nice neat and tidy boxes, all the while complaining that Christians stereotype others.

 

Would you be willing to admit that perhaps Obamacare is a bit more complex and nuanced than you have presented it on this thread? Also, do you have any reputable sources to refute the specific information Bert has presented? No one's arguing that there isn't a range of opinions on Obamacare, even among Christians. But to act like anybody who is against Obamacare is against it because they are against helping needy people is just absurd.

Seriously Greg L, you need to read my post again rather than climbing on your soapbox so soon and getting out your strawman. I was not making any statements of my own. I was just quoting and summarizing Bert's thoughts. Not for one second have I suggested I am an expert on Obamacare. I have just said that none of us here are experts and thus, the dogmatism is overrated.