AARP: Partisan reformist or impartial advocate?

“I can see that they’re going Democratic, very much so. They talk about bipartisanship, but you don’t see it.” Campbell’s main concern is “rationing of treatments. It sounds to me like, based on age, they’re going to determine whether you get treatment or not. I don’t think that’s the way to control healthcare costs.”

In a letter to AARP leaders, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele urged the group to reject “the Democrats’ government-run healthcare experiment and the consequences it would have on seniors.” But Rand and Hansen are urging members to reject the “misinformation and fear-mongering in the debate.”

Alliance for Retired Americans’ Edward Coyle says seniors groups in general have “not done as good a job as we might have talking to seniors about the real issues. We were taken aback earlier in the summer” when town-hall meetings erupted into shouting matches between those for and against reform.

AARP’s legislative director, David Certner, notes that seniors’ current concerns regarding care rationing and benefit cuts differ sharply from the concerns they have voiced over the past several years. It was those earlier concerns, including the high cost of health care, the difficulty getting insurance for those between 50 and 64 years old who don’t yet qualify for Medicare, and the high cost of prescription drugs, which led the group to support reform of the system. In reference to Republican claims that an overhaul of the system would include “death panels,” Certner said, “There’s clearly been an effort to scare people. We’ve been spending a lot of time trying to dispel the myths. I think it has derailed the debate.”

Jim Kessler of Washington think tank Third Way, which supports the proposed “public option,” says AARP must position itself as “pro-reform without being partisan.” Confused seniors “need to see [AARP] as an honest broker in this debate” and a place “where they will get the most accurate information.”