How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[nathanm]

You can't cite that.  It was prepared by Republicans.   

You can't cite that because the citations in the "paper" are bogus. It claims that the consolidated financial statement says things it does not in fact state.

[Gaspar]

Funny, I'm reading their 2010 financials and as I said earlier, the entirety of the royalty income is 53% of their revenue for the year. Unsurprising that that the Republicans are making smile up, though. Also unsurprising that they completely mischaracterize the nature of the organization.

Edited to add: Royalties includes much more than health insurance. There's all sorts of AARP branded products. I would be interested to see a breakdown of that from a legitimate source. And I seriously doubt they are misrepresenting their activities in their financials. I guess they could if they wanted to lose their tax-exempt status, but it seems unlikely.

You know what?  I think you are right.  Unless reports are rolling up one of these other investments under royalty income like reinvestment in the insurer or some bundled investment stratagy.  Indeed direct royalty income is 53%.

They make over half their income on royalties from the sale of their branded products.  We can agree on that.

[nathanm]

I dunno, when you are raking in almost three times the amount of membership dues in royalties from selling insurance, that sort of skews what the mission is.  If not in reality, at least in perception. 

Or the argument could be made that they're doing right by their members in keeping their dues low by finding ways to get other people to fund their operations. Depends on how you want to look at it, of course. Given that they're not aligned with Republican ideals, it's not surprising they're under attack. Of course, nobody gives a smile how the right-wing lobbying organizations make their money. It's quite the double standard.

[nathanm]

They make over half their income on royalties from the sale of their branded products.  We can agree on that.

That we can. If I were an AARP member, I'd be happy I wasn't footing the whole bill.

I'd still like to see how much royalty revenue their various products bring in. I wonder if one might be able to at least pin down the Medigap part in United Health's financial statement.

[Gaspar]

Or the argument could be made that they're doing right by their members in keeping their dues low by finding ways to get other people to fund their operations. Depends on how you want to look at it, of course. Given that they're not aligned with Republican ideals, it's not surprising they're under attack. Of course, nobody gives a smile how the right-wing lobbying organizations make their money. It's quite the double standard.

Not really a right wing/left wing issue.  Last time I checked AARP was not a Republican/Democrat organization.  You are insinuating that they are somehow a Democrat organization when in fact they fall behind both parties on many different issues.  They are supposed to be a non-profit representing the issues of their paid members.

[nathanm]

Not really a right wing/left wing issue.  Last time I checked AARP was not a Republican/Democrat organization.  You are insinuating that they are somehow a Democrat organization when in fact they fall behind both parties on many different issues.  They are supposed to be a non-profit representing the issues of their paid members.

No, I'm stating quite directly that because their nonpartisan opinion happens to be opposed to that of the present crop of Republicans on several major issues at present, they're being smeared by said Republicans.

I will criticize them in one area, however: One of their 2009 CEOs was paid over a million and a half dollars. Seems a bit high for a nonprofit.

[Gaspar]

That we can. If I were an AARP member, I'd be happy I wasn't footing the whole bill.

I'd still like to see how much royalty revenue their various products bring in. I wonder if one might be able to at least pin down the Medigap part in United Health's financial statement.

So. . .If you subscribe to Consumer Reports so that you can be informed when purchasing a car, and you see on their website that GM vehicles have the very best rating, you are more likely to buy that product.  Right?

You then find out that Consumer Reports gets 53% of their revenue from selling GM vehicles to their members.  That makes you happy that they do that instead of increasing your subscription fees?

That is illogical.

[Gaspar]

So. . .If you subscribe to Consumer Reports so that you can be informed when purchasing a car, and you see on their website that GM vehicles have the very best rating, you are more likely to buy that product.  Right?

You then find out that Consumer Reports gets 53% of their revenue from selling GM vehicles to their members.  That makes you happy that they do that instead of increasing your subscription fees?

That is illogical.

Now take that a step further. . .you then find out that the government is going to start regulating the profit margins on the sale of automobiles, and your advocate, Consumer Reports, is leading the charge. 

That legislation passes and then you find out that an exemption has been signed waving all regulation on GM vehicle sales.

[nathanm]

So. . .If you subscribe to Consumer Reports so that you can be informed when purchasing a car, and you see on their website that GM vehicles have the very best rating, you are more likely to buy that product.  Right?

You then find out that Consumer Reports gets 53% of their revenue from selling GM vehicles to their members.  That makes you happy that they do that instead of increasing your subscription fees?

It depends. Do GM vehicles have the best rating because they are in fact the most reliable vehicles? By the way, CR does have a car buying service. I presume they make a commission from the dealer or manufacturer. I'm not sure, though, as I've never looked into it very closely.

Your analogy does not hold, however. AARP does not claim to rate the companies that use the AARP co-brand, at least as far as I've seen.

[Conan71]

Or the argument could be made that they're doing right by their members in keeping their dues low by finding ways to get other people to fund their operations. Depends on how you want to look at it, of course. Given that they're not aligned with Republican ideals, it's not surprising they're under attack. Of course, nobody gives a smile how the right-wing lobbying organizations make their money. It's quite the double standard.

No, looking at how much their investments grew from '09 to '10 it looks like the non-profit is having one hell of a time trying to launder all that money so they can remain non-profit.  If I have time tonight, I'm going to read further into the links they provided on this investigation.  I do appreciate the integrity they are trying to show by at least acknowledging the investigation, their response, as well as any supporting evidence.

[nathanm]

No, looking at how much their investments grew from '09 to '10 it looks like the non-profit is having one hell of a time trying to launder all that money so they can remain non-profit.  If I have time tonight, I'm going to read further into the links they provided on this investigation.  I do appreciate the integrity they are trying to show by at least acknowledging the investigation, their response, as well as any supporting evidence.

You might note that their assets at the beginning of '09 were a mere $10 million according to their 990.

[Gaspar]

It depends. Do GM vehicles have the best rating because they are in fact the most reliable vehicles? By the way, CR does have a car buying service. I presume they make a commission from the dealer or manufacturer. I'm not sure, though, as I've never looked into it very closely.

Your analogy does not hold, however. AARP does not claim to rate the companies that use the AARP co-brand, at least as far as I've seen.

Consumer Reports accepts no outside fees, advertising, or product samples.

[Conan71]

You might note that their assets at the beginning of '09 were a mere $10 million according to their 990.

$414 mil at the end of the year.

Did you notice average payroll cost per employee is about $106K?

Technically AARP is non-partisan, however they are most definitely in opposition to the GOP on many issues at the moment, that much is correct.

[nathanm]

$414 mil at the end of the year.

Did you notice average payroll cost per employee is about $106K?

Does that include the ridiculous salary they pay their CEO, or is it exclusive of executive compensation?

In any event, yes, they clearly can make quite a bit of money, but my point in noting the 2009 beginning of year assets was that they clearly use the money for something, they don't have a long history of just letting assets sit there unused. (except as much as they have to for their pension plan)

[guido911]

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.


“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06