Beyond 50.02: A Report to the Nation on Trends in Health Security
AARP May 21, 2002
"More people age 50 to 64 are uninsured today than in the past. Individuals who are accustomed to feeling secure about their health coverage are increasingly at risk of not having needed protection. Medicare beneficiaries are frequently without adequate coverage, especially for prescription drugs. Vulnerable subgroups of people age 50 and older continue to experience problems in accessing health care services."
Implications for Policy (Paraphrased and abridged)
1. Consider socioeconomic conditions in addition to clinical conditions.
2. Expand not just life but also health.
3. Use the public health system to alter the impact of individual behavior and personal choices on health and disability.
4. Address the lack of long-term coverage and the inadequacy and instability of health care coverage for those over 50.
5. Make better use of resources.
6. Improve the quality of health and long-term care systems.
7. Develop a national health information infrastructure.
<http://www.aarp.org/beyond50/>http://www.aarp.org/beyond50/
Comment: This new report from AARP describes many of the problems with our health care system, especially the impact on those over age 50. There are no surprises in this report. Particularly, AARP has once again failed to surprise us in that they are adhering to their policy position that "good health is better."
Although AARP does not wish to offend its large and politically diverse membership base, that does not mean that it cannot lay before us health care policy which would seriously address the problems described. A universal, publicly administered, national health insurance program, with appropriate support of the public health system, would correct the problems without significantly increasing global health care costs. The California Health Care Options Project demonstrated that Medicare beneficiaries (and indeed everyone), under the universal models, would receive greatly expanded benefi ts while virtually eliminating financial barriers to care, and global health care costs actually would be reduced.
Is AARP so intimidated by its conservative members that maintaining silence on reform that reflects progressive thought has priority over an open and frank discussion of real solutions to our problems? The AARP membership must become informed on the options. The spectrum from progressive to conservative positions can be presented, but decisions need to be made by an informed public. AARP can provide the leadership in this process. Or is it really better to continue the politically safe approach of remaining silent on the truth and continuing with the very sick status quo?