More Republican Congressmen Face Town Hall Backlash Over Tax Breaks For Wealthy And Medicare Privatization

[LadySkinsFan]

Here's an explanation to the large healthcare dollars: included in those dollars is profit. I've seen quotes of 3% but I think that's very low. So why not take the profit out of healthcare? I'm not saying people shouldn't be paid competitive salaries, but we shouldn't have a profit system based upon human suffering.

And the problem with the healthcare industry is that both Democrats and Republicans are in bed with it. The law passed last year is targeted directly to for profit insurance companies.

Want to eliminate high prices? Make all healthcare non-profit or at least competitive with non-profits. That's why we need the public option. Insurance companies don't want a public option because then they will have to compete with it, customers will leave in droves for public option and soon almost everyone will be on public option. Workers won't be tied to a company they don't like just for healthcare benefits. They can move from job to job and their healthcare will be secure in the public option.

Now, that's a free market at work.

[twa]

we are speaking of medicare which is already socialist in nature

take your outrage somewhere else since I've always supported a taxpayer supported nationwide clinic system for all

take your Obamacare with ya as well:silly:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/nytcbs-poll-finds-plurality-supports-ryans-medicare-proposal

Despite a media narrative that House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal is being rejected by the American people, a new New York Times/CBS poll finds that by a plurality of 47 percent to 41 percent, Americans actually approve of it.

Interestingly, the Times buries the news deep into the story on its own poll:

And slightly more Americans approve than disapprove of a proposal by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin to change Medicare from a program that pays doctors and hospitals directly for treating older people to one in which the government helps such patients pay for private plans, though that support derived more from Republicans and independents. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 65 percent opposed Mr. Ryan’s plan, suggesting results can vary based on how the question is asked.

There's no doubt that the results vary by word choice, but looking at the questions used in both surveys demosntrates why the Washington Post phrasing generated more opposition.

The Times asked:

In order to reduce the budget deficit, it has been proposed that Medicare should be changed from a program in which the government pays doctors and hospitals for treating seniors to a program in which the government helps seniors purchase private health insurance. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Medicare in this way?

Yet the Post (PDF) asked:

I'm going to read you two statements about the future of the Medicare program. After I read both statements, please tell me which one comes closer to your own view: Medicare should remain as it is today, with a defined set of benefits for people over 65, OR Medicare should be changed so that people over 65 would receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy.

The big difference is that the wording of the Post poll makes it sound as if current retirees would have their Medicare benefits changed, even though Ryan's proposal only applies to those 54 and younger. That is a key distinction that is likely to have skewed the numbers.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/nytcbs-poll-finds-plurality-supports-ryans-medicare-proposal#ixzz1KXIhTfCg

[LadySkinsFan]

we are speaking of medicare which is already socialist in nature

take your outrage somewhere else since I've always supported a taxpayer supported nationwide clinic system for all

take your Obamacare with ya as well:silly:

So I guess you don't want any real solution except to repeal the present law, which while it has many flaws also did some things right.

So I guess you want to throw old people under the bus, don't treat their diseases and die sooner. Because we all know that that is the population that is going to die sooner, because we don't live forever.

Don't get sick. If you do get sick, die sooner. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[twa]

What I want is choice and people to quit blowing smoke

a MSA and voucher for the elderly is a better deal imo

[LadySkinsFan]

How about a non-profit public option as a choice? Oh, we already have that in Medicare. That system isn't broke.

I think the brouhaha right now is that the funds have already been raided instead of invested and kept separate like they are supposed to be kept. Also, by taking profit out of the system, then that automatically lowers the cost of healthcare. Again, why should profit be made off of human suffering?

[twa]

You remove profit and advances slow,remove competition service suffers

Non-profits have come to mean something much different than in the past

Medicare is definitely broken...even Obama acknowledges it and changes are coming no matter which party does it.

[JimboDaMan]

And slightly more Americans approve than disapprove of a proposal by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin to change Medicare from a program that pays doctors and hospitals directly for treating older people to one in which the government helps such patients pay for private plans, though that support derived more from Republicans and independents. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 65 percent opposed Mr. Ryan’s plan, suggesting results can vary based on how the question is asked.

There's no doubt that the results vary by word choice, but looking at the questions used in both surveys demosntrates why the Washington Post phrasing generated more opposition.

The Times asked:

In order to reduce the budget deficit, it has been proposed that Medicare should be changed from a program in which the government pays doctors and hospitals for treating seniors to a program in which the government helps seniors purchase private health insurance. Would you approve or disapprove of changing Medicare in this way?

Yet the Post (PDF) asked:

I'm going to read you two statements about the future of the Medicare program. After I read both statements, please tell me which one comes closer to your own view: Medicare should remain as it is today, with a defined set of benefits for people over 65, OR Medicare should be changed so that people over 65 would receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy.

The big difference is that the wording of the Post poll makes it sound as if current retirees would have their Medicare benefits changed, even though Ryan's proposal only applies to those 54 and younger. That is a key distinction that is likely to have skewed the numbers.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/nytcbs-poll-finds-plurality-supports-ryans-medicare-proposal#ixzz1KXIhTfCg

Huh?

The Times referred to "seniors", the Post called them "over 65". I don't see any way that difference in wording means what the Examiner claims or would result in such different results.

To me, if the poll results are attributable to wording (as opposed to the population polled), most of the difference would arise from the Times question introducing an external element, the effort to reduce spending. Thus the Times responses would tend to naturally be more favorable to the proposed changes because that question includes a reference to a positive result.

Because nothing happens in isolation, the Times question is more complete since it made explicit reference to deficit reduction. But both questions fall short in that neither makes explicit reference to the reduction in health care benefits these seniors would experience. In the end I'm not sure either one gives an accurate snapshot.

[Larry]

The big difference is that the wording of the Post poll makes it sound as if current retirees would have their Medicare benefits changed, even though Ryan's proposal only applies to those 54 and younger. That is a key distinction that is likely to have skewed the numbers.

Your source is making things up.

Neither wording said or even implied anything about when this change would occur. Both of them simply presented two choices.

One of the questions did really emphasize that Ryan's plan would hand seniors a check and tell them that they're on their own. The other question, the information is there, but it's phrased as "help seniors purchase insurance".

One of the questions leads off with "to reduce the deficit". The other simply asks "which one is better", without mentioning costs.

(Neither question pointed out that Ryan's plan assumes that the government will pay part of the cost of purchasing a plan which will pay part of the medical bills, of less things than Medicare covers right now.)

[twa]

Hard not to make up a opinion or impression drawn ,You for example are doing so with with your last line

[Larry]

Hard not to make up a opinion or impression drawn ,You for example are doing so with with your last line

Yeah, you're right. I'm assuming that health care costs for senior citizens will go up faster than inflation, for the next few decades.

I really think my assumption is the correct one. History says so.

[gbear]

I still want to know how Ryan's plan differs from medicare advantage which I thought was resulting in higher per capita healthcare spending for those enrolled.

[twa]

Yeah, you're right. I'm assuming that health care costs for senior citizens will go up faster than inflation, for the next few decades.

I really think my assumption is the correct one. History says so.

And you assume the vouchers will not be adjusted if needed,as well as this program having no effect on that rise in costs.

History certainly shows the present model has not reduced costs

the Ryan plan attempts to change individuals behavior/choices which drive the ever rising costs vs hoping reduced compensation to providers results in lower costs w/o cutting services provided.

add

medicare advantage was subsidized with extra payments directly to providers,this in theory removes that

[Larry]

And you assume the vouchers will not be adjusted if needed,as well as this program having no effect on that rise in costs.

History certainly shows the present model has not reduced costs

I never said that it did.

Ryan's plan, however, assumes that the government will spend less. There are two ways this can happen. Health care costs can suddenly stop growing faster than inflation, which has never happened in history. Or they can offer plans that don't cover as much. (Guess which option I think happens.)

the Ryan plan attempts to change individuals behavior/choices which drive the ever rising costs vs hoping reduced compensation to providers results in lower costs w/o cutting services provided.

Yes, I agree. Telling people that their procedure won't be covered will certainly change people's behavior, and will reduce spending.

[twa]

Yes, I agree. Telling people that their procedure won't be covered will certainly change people's behavior, and will reduce spending.

Which is what we need isn't it?

[JimboDaMan]

Which is what we need isn't it?

Of course! And best of all, if they die faster through lack of care we'll save millions!

[twa]

Of course! And best of all, if they die faster through lack of care we'll save millions!

You mean as a result of reduced payments as already approved in health reform?

Pick your poison.,for myself I would prefer at least choosing my own

[Mad Mike]

As I said in another thread... to cut medicaid, medicare... To ask the poorest people in the country to sacrifice their health to cut the national debt while asking nothing from the richest is beyond deplorable. It's ******** EVIL.

That is all.

[Thiebear]

Of course! And best of all, if they die faster through lack of care we'll save millions!

pretty much what i thought also.

Cut should = services to those that have no need.

Cut shoud not = those with need

It seems rather simple when you say it out loud. and is easy to implement as you open the documents and bills and click on the binoculars (click replace).

Medicaid/Medicare/Food Stamps/Chips/SS:

find: Eligibile personnel

replace: Eligible personnel under 80k dollars

Insert SS/Medicare

Eligible personnel born after 1967 become eligible at age 70.

They have new computers, it shouldn't take but a couple days for a summer hire.

[DRSmith]

You remove profit and advances slow,remove competition service suffers

Non-profits have come to mean something much different than in the past

Medicare is definitely broken...even Obama acknowledges it and changes are coming no matter which party does it.

No the people providing the actual service still get paid but the for profit of administrating the programs takes money that could be going to patient care much like the banks were getting 15 cents for school loans, money that could be saved by cutting out the middle man.

[Bang]

As I said in another thread... to cut medicaid, medicare... To ask the poorest people in the country to sacrifice their health to cut the national debt while asking nothing from the richest is beyond deplorable. It's ******** EVIL.

That is all.

Yup.

That is all.

~Bang

[twa]

asking nothing from the richest......we did away with progressive taxes while I slept?

[luckydevil]

MM is right ( that's why Ryan plan is just awful), but the truth is our tax system is remarkably progressive. More so than most European countries.

[twist]

MM is right ( that's why Ryan plan is just awful), but the truth is our tax system is remarkably progressive. More so than most European countries.

Yeah you just keep telling yourself that.

http://ctj.org/ctjinthenews/2009/04/

As the federal government cuts taxes most in the top brackets, removes the estate tax, lowers capitol gains taxes and cooperate taxes generally the burden falls to the states that rely on more regressive flat income and sales taxes to make up the difference and income taxes on the less wealthy (income being taxed at a higher rate than capitol gains).

Compared with the rates in Europe and historical levels the tax burden of Americas wealthy is historically low.

[luckydevil]

Twist, there is one important thing you miss out when comparing America to many European countries. The VAT. We don't have one in this country, a big reason why I consider our tax system more progressive. *

* Just to add, corporate tax rates are lower in many European countries.

[twist]

Twist, there is one important thing you miss out when comparing America to many European countries. The VAT. We don't have one in this country, a big reason why I consider our tax system more progressive. *

* Just to add, corporate tax rates are lower in many European countries.

Seems your right about consumption taxes being lower here, my point was that total tax burdens are by no means all that progressive.

I would not call it "remarkably progressive"

http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_6-7.gif

http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_6-5.gif