Looks Like the Public Isn't Interested In Cutting Spending

[MarcATL]

Misleading. The country is interested in cutting spending, just not throwing the elderly under the bus.

Have you noticed how Republicans demonize groups of people? They are so good at sowing discord. Their problem is when they pick a loyal section of the Republican base. Now they are going to have to pay the piper.

Don't get me wrong, elderly white Republicans won't vote for Obama. They can't stand having a black president. They just won't vote at all.

Have you noticed how great the left is at demonizing groups of people (The Tea Party), how great they are at sowing discord (union protesters shipped all over the country). The assumption that most Republicans are Middle-Aged whites that hate gays and blacks is a prime example. The assumption that Republicans are mostly rich white folks when in fact most of the rich in the North East are elderly liberals. The assumption that the left actually helps the poor when their policies keep them where they are.

We don't give a shit what color the President as long as he's honest to us. We also wouldn't mind if the SOB didn't constantly prove to us that he hates us.

What a crock you post, Mud. Why don't you listen to the demonizing rhetoric of the right wingnuts on Faux for a while.

mud isn't interested in honesty...only partisan mudslinging

 

[Flopper]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

Just because americans want to keep medicare intact (which is something we all need, healthcare), does not mean they are opposed to spending cuts. We could competitive bid the drugs consumed under medicare part D instead of the sweetheart deal the repubs gave big pharma (pay list price for drugs under medicare part D). The public wants to cut spending by being more efficient, not by killing programs.

I use to think the same thing about the Medicare Drug program. However, Medicare does not directly offer the Drug program. It is offered by insurance companies. The insurance companies make deals with the pharmacy chains or drug manufactures to lower the price of the drugs. The big cost items are the brand name drugs. Since brand drugs are unique, I don't see how Medicare could bid them. Generic drugs, yes but not brand names.

I completely agree the public will support cost reductions in Medicare, but not major reductions in it's functionality.

 

[Flopper]

I think what the public is telling us, is they want a fair and balanced approach to deficit reduction. To require that the poor and our seniors make all of the sacrifices while those that have the most, sacrifice nothing is not going to wash with voters in either party.

Without in any way denying that "the Poor" need help, why is reducing the amount of aid that they recieve from the generosity of those around them regarded as a sacrifice?

If you cut food stamps so people have less to eat, you don't think they would consider that a sacrifice, particular when the wealthy sacrifice nothing? Balancing the budget on the backs of the poor has never set well with Americans and never will.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, people support Socialism until we lose our credit rating, run out of money and pay $8/gallon for gas, then it's "what the **** were we thinking???"

 

[Avatar4321]

Whether they are interested or not, we need to cut spending.

 

[auditor0007]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

Ryan's proposal is a terrible plan, plain and simple. It does nothing to reduce costs. In fact, it ultimately would increase costs to the elderly, and because of the way it would be set up, it would leave millions with not enough coverage or no coverage at all if they could not afford their share of the payments.

That is not to say that we can just ignore the cost of Medicare. Anyone who has seriously looked at Medicare's long term costs realizes that there is no way it can be left as is. So how do we reduce costs? Raise the retirement age. It really is that simple. People will not like it, but if they understand it is the only way for them to receive full benefits, then they will swallow the pill bitterly. One way or another people are going to have to pay more for their care, whether it is through increased taxes, paying larger deductibles, or letting employers help pay as they work longer.

One thing to keep in mind; when Medicare was first set up, people could enroll at the age of 65. At that time, average life expectancy was 67 years. Today it is over 78 years.

 

[Flopper]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

Ryan's proposal is a terrible plan, plain and simple. It does nothing to reduce costs. In fact, it ultimately would increase costs to the elderly, and because of the way it would be set up, it would leave millions with not enough coverage or no coverage at all if they could not afford their share of the payments.

That is not to say that we can just ignore the cost of Medicare. Anyone who has seriously looked at Medicare's long term costs realizes that there is no way it can be left as is. So how do we reduce costs? Raise the retirement age. It really is that simple. People will not like it, but if they understand it is the only way for them to receive full benefits, then they will swallow the pill bitterly. One way or another people are going to have to pay more for their care, whether it is through increased taxes, paying larger deductibles, or letting employers help pay as they work longer.

One thing to keep in mind; when Medicare was first set up, people could enroll at the age of 65. At that time, average life expectancy was 67 years. Today it is over 78 years.

When Social Security was set up in 1938, life expectancy was below retirement age. Today life expectancy is well above retirement age. I think most voters would find raising the retirement age a better method of saving Medicare and Social Security than most other plans.

 

[sinister59]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

no one wants for cutting spending on things they want .
the baggers wanted to cut 1 billion but replace it with 1 billion of their own pet projects .

 

[Claudette]

Everyone wants to cut spending as long as nothing they like is affected. Cut the other guy, not me.

The idiots who thought Medicare up should be shot. This is a program that never, ever should have been instituted in this country. It has turned into a monster.

Unintended Consequences big time.

 

[sinister59]

Everyone wants to cut spending as long as nothing they like is affected. Cut the other guy, not me.

The idiots who thought Medicare up should be shot. This is a program that never, ever should have been instituted in this country. It has turned into a monster.

Unintended Consequences big time.

personally claud I think the government should pass one bill making you as responsible for your parents as they were fore you , no help no tax break just support family values .
financially , emotionally and legally .
you wouldn't mind taking care of your mom and dad , right ?
then why would we need medicare ?
close down retirement homes unless you can pay .

 

[Big Fitz]

That poll just proves that most people don't understand that even if we took all the wealth generated by the evil rich it still wouldn't cover the US Government to the end of the year. Even if it did, what would we do the next year?

The real problem is the Federal Reserve and International Bankers.

Actually, it gets worse. If you took ALL the wealth from EVERY citizen in this nation, we still fall half a trillion short of paying our bills for this year alone.

This is a winning scenario how?

 

[Claudette]

Everyone wants to cut spending as long as nothing they like is affected. Cut the other guy, not me.

The idiots who thought Medicare up should be shot. This is a program that never, ever should have been instituted in this country. It has turned into a monster.

Unintended Consequences big time.

personally claud I think the government should pass one bill making you as responsible for your parents as they were fore you , no help no tax break just support family values .
financially , emotionally and legally .
you wouldn't mind taking care of your mom and dad , right ?
then why would we need medicare ?
close down retirement homes unless you can pay .

I and my siblings were responsible for my Mom and Dad till the day they died.

Do you honestly think HC would be as costly as it is now if the Govt hadn't stuck its big fat nose in with Medicare?? It was only after Medicare came on the scene that prices starting going up , up and away. Unintended consequences.

The Govt has never run anything cheaply or well and it probably never will

Unintended consequences.

 

[sinister59]

Everyone wants to cut spending as long as nothing they like is affected. Cut the other guy, not me.

The idiots who thought Medicare up should be shot. This is a program that never, ever should have been instituted in this country. It has turned into a monster.

Unintended Consequences big time.

personally claud I think the government should pass one bill making you as responsible for your parents as they were fore you , no help no tax break just support family values .
financially , emotionally and legally .
you wouldn't mind taking care of your mom and dad , right ?
then why would we need medicare ?
close down retirement homes unless you can pay .

I and my siblings were responsible for my Mom and Dad till the day they died.

Do you honestly think HC would be as costly as it is now if the Govt hadn't stuck its big fat nose in with Medicare?? It was only after Medicare came on the scene that prices starting going up , up and away. Unintended consequences.

The Govt has never run anything cheaply or well and it probably never will

Unintended consequences.

good for you , we did too . but how many people that think like you or I don't .

oh and medicare was started as a "government program " they didn't stick their nose in it they created it .

but really why keep it at all .
you can get better insurance in the privet sector .
oh ya we don't like being told to get insurance .

we had during the bush years doctors without borders come here , the states , to help poor .

they do that to 3rd world countries .
but we do to much for the poor . and note this not everyone that is considered poor is on welfare , a lot of people with shitty paying jobs have to go to food banks ,

ya we need to do less .

 

[AVG-JOE]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

I think that's called a "push poll" in the vernacular. Like this question:

19. 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.

Now, if you added, do you think Medicare should be allowed to grow to consume 50% of the U.S. budget, I suspect the results would vary greatly.

The items listed in this question are the items being debated in Congress. Adding projections based on assumed tax rates and projections of healthcare cost increase would certainly skew the results and invalidate the question.

True. The devil may be in the details but Mrs. Satan has her bitchy little claws all over the assumptions.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

Just because americans want to keep medicare intact (which is something we all need, healthcare), does not mean they are opposed to spending cuts. We could competitive bid the drugs consumed under medicare part D instead of the sweetheart deal the repubs gave big pharma (pay list price for drugs under medicare part D). The public wants to cut spending by being more efficient, not by killing programs.

I use to think the same thing about the Medicare Drug program. However, Medicare does not directly offer the Drug program. It is offered by insurance companies. The insurance companies make deals with the pharmacy chains or drug manufactures to lower the price of the drugs. The big cost items are the brand name drugs. Since brand drugs are unique, I don't see how Medicare could bid them. Generic drugs, yes but not brand names.

I completely agree the public will support cost reductions in Medicare, but not major reductions in it's functionality.

Don't make it sound so noble, hanging on the mantle of the 'free market' like that. The truth is that the insurance lobby wrote a sweet deal for congress to rubber stamp along for GW's John Hancock when Medicare 'D' was born where in the taxpayers bear all risk and the insurers bank the profits.

Meanwhile, the consumer gets confusion, frustration and paperwork - also good for the insurance bottom line. It's a win-win!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Whether they are interested or not, we need to cut spending.

We need an approach that includes spending and revenue. And revenue should actually be looked at first - How are we to know what we can afford to spend with the current bullshit tax code?

 

[AVG-JOE]

In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Americans were in no mood to cut entitlement programs. Americans strongly reject Medicare cuts and broadly support higher taxes on the wealthy, underscoring the political risks in Republican debt-reduction plans.

The poll, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 65 percent of Americans oppose changing Medicare to a system in which the government would give seniors vouchers with which to buy private insurance. Opposition was essentially the same in a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey when the idea came up 15 years ago.

The language may matter, in that even most Republicans, 56 percent, oppose Medicare vouchers, as do more than seven in 10 Democrats. And opposition soars to 84 percent of all Americans, including nearly three-quarters of Republicans, if government payments failed to meet the full cost of seniors' insurance coverage.

CUT? -- And what to cut is hardly a simple matter. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and military spending consume nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But 78 percent in this survey oppose cuts in Medicare in order to address the federal debt (indeed 65 percent "strongly" oppose it); 69 percent oppose cuts in Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor (52 percent strongly); and fewer, but still 56 percent, oppose cutting military spending.

Far more popular is taxing people perceived as being most able to pay: Seventy-two percent support achieving debt-reduction by raising taxes on people with household incomes more than $250,000 a year.

Medicare Cuts Proposed by Republicans Face Broad Opposition in ABC News Poll - ABC News

Ryan's proposal is a terrible plan, plain and simple. It does nothing to reduce costs. In fact, it ultimately would increase costs to the elderly, and because of the way it would be set up, it would leave millions with not enough coverage or no coverage at all if they could not afford their share of the payments.

That is not to say that we can just ignore the cost of Medicare. Anyone who has seriously looked at Medicare's long term costs realizes that there is no way it can be left as is. So how do we reduce costs? Raise the retirement age. It really is that simple. People will not like it, but if they understand it is the only way for them to receive full benefits, then they will swallow the pill bitterly. One way or another people are going to have to pay more for their care, whether it is through increased taxes, paying larger deductibles, or letting employers help pay as they work longer.

One thing to keep in mind; when Medicare was first set up, people could enroll at the age of 65. At that time, average life expectancy was 67 years. Today it is over 78 years.

Can you imagine what the state budgets would look like if teachers were paid per pupil, per test the way doctors are paid per patient, per procedure?

Madness!

The only way to make a plan work that ONLY takes care of folks over 65 is to build facilities and hire doctors to staff them on a salary.

The only way to make an insurance style, per procedure system work is to open the rolls of the insured to all ages for proper premiums and give them a personal incentive to shop for doctors and go only when necessary.

 

[Flopper]

Everyone wants to cut spending as long as nothing they like is affected. Cut the other guy, not me.

The idiots who thought Medicare up should be shot. This is a program that never, ever should have been instituted in this country. It has turned into a monster.

Unintended Consequences big time.

personally claud I think the government should pass one bill making you as responsible for your parents as they were fore you , no help no tax break just support family values .
financially , emotionally and legally .
you wouldn't mind taking care of your mom and dad , right ?
then why would we need medicare ?
close down retirement homes unless you can pay .

My brother's medical bills in a good year are over $40,000. In a bad year they run as high as $100,000 or more. How many young people with families could possibly afford pay those kid of bills.

 

[Flopper]

That poll just proves that most people don't understand that even if we took all the wealth generated by the evil rich it still wouldn't cover the US Government to the end of the year. Even if it did, what would we do the next year?

The real problem is the Federal Reserve and International Bankers.

If you look at that poll carefully as well as other polls and surveys, I think you will find that most people want a balanced approach to solving the deficit problem. They don't expect the wealthiest or poorest to bear all the burden.

 

[Flopper]

Everyone wants to cut spending as long as nothing they like is affected. Cut the other guy, not me.

The idiots who thought Medicare up should be shot. This is a program that never, ever should have been instituted in this country. It has turned into a monster.

Unintended Consequences big time.

personally claud I think the government should pass one bill making you as responsible for your parents as they were fore you , no help no tax break just support family values .
financially , emotionally and legally .
you wouldn't mind taking care of your mom and dad , right ?
then why would we need medicare ?
close down retirement homes unless you can pay .

I and my siblings were responsible for my Mom and Dad till the day they died.

Do you honestly think HC would be as costly as it is now if the Govt hadn't stuck its big fat nose in with Medicare?? It was only after Medicare came on the scene that prices starting going up , up and away. Unintended consequences.

The Govt has never run anything cheaply or well and it probably never will

Unintended consequences.

Medicare is not a healthcare provider. Medicare is basically an insurer whose premiums are paid by the beneficiary and supplemented by the government. I don't see how Medicare is responsible for high medical cost. The major reason healthcare costs are so high is patients are getting far more healthcare services now than they did 50 years ago, both seniors and younger patients.