• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A new poll shows there is strong opposition to the GOP budget proposal to cut Medicare. 80% opposition among registered voters, and much more surprising, 70% opposition from Tea Party supporters.

"The Tea Party movement is supposed to be the engine driving Republicans' push for sharp cuts to spending and reform entitlements. Representative Paul Ryan's 2012 budget, which passed the House last week, phases out Medicare for people under 55 and turns Medicaid into block grants. But it turns out that Tea Partiers, like most Americans, strongly oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid. A new McClatchy-Marist poll shows 70 percent of "Tea Party supporters" oppose cutting those programs--and 80 percent of registered voters agree.

So though The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has argued that "the Ryan budget represents the victory of the Tea Party mentality over mainstream conservatism within the Republican Party," it looks like Ryan's plan doesn't represent the activists, either. Slate's Dave Weigel calls the Marist poll a "nice present" for Democrats, and "pretty ugly numbers" for Republicans. He adds: "If Democrats can keep portraying the cuts as worse than they are--this was done successfully in the 2005 Social Security fight--there's a win here." For another articulation of this view, recall that even when House Republicans passed Ryan's budget Friday, NBC News' Mark Murray marveled at their political gambit: "Either the normal rules of American politics have changed, or Republicans have walked into an electoral buzz saw--on a Medicare plan that won't pass the 112th Congress and that many of them didn't campaign on in 2010."
70% of Tea Partiers Don't Want to Cut Medicare Either - Yahoo! News

Do you think the GOP will throw Ryan's budget proposal under the bus in the face of this overwhelming opposition?
 
Last edited:

actually this isn't new polling - it's old. If you will look at the poll data from the latest USA Today / Gallop poll that I posted here, you will note that the field appears to be shifting rapidly. two-thirds of Americans agree that the entitlements face a crises in the next ten years, and a plurality of people above the age of 30 (even seniors) prefer the Ryan plan to the Presidents.

Do you think the GOP will throw Ryan's budget proposal under the bus in the face of this overwhelming opposition?
Click to expand...

Democrats are even less likely to support reducing medicare expenditures - do you see them throwing the President under the bus over his intentions to cut Medicare?
 

You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies? Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?
 
Catawba said:
It doesn't even look to me like Ryan's own constituents are in favor of cutting medicare
Click to expand...

then Ryan has a distinct advantage over the President - Ryan doesn't start to effect Medicare until 2022, and then only for those currently under the age of 55. the President's plan starts to effect (cut) Medicare expenditures in 2014, and will effect current retirees.

which, i suppose, is one (of the many) reason why the Ryan plan is polling better than the Presidents' plan .

You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies?
Click to expand...

no, I"m talking about the IPAB and the "well we'll just ration care" solution. Although throwing seniors off of a popular Medicare plan that came in at 40% under estimates is a good way to tick people off while demonstrating a tin ear to considerations of efficiency.

Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?
Click to expand...

well you tell me, that is precisely what the 2012 House Budget achieves with taxes (same revenues, but cuts waste); why do you oppose it?
 
Last edited:
Ryans plan is absurd as long as its a ploy to cut taxs for the rich and corporations and thats what it is a disguise to cut taxs for the rich.
Corporations pay little to no taxs now..and ge proves that. People that make 10million plus a year wont die in the street if they dont get another 10% tax cut...Ryan wants to take and take a BUNCH from the middle class while giving it to the rich.
No one can sell me ryans plan, until the tax cuts are out of it and he includes ending some tax deductions that allow the wealthy an corporations to pay almost nothing anyway.
 
Catawba said:
You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies? Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?
Click to expand...

Why are you perpetuating this?
The ObamaCare plan cut payments to Medicare advantage plans, it didn't eliminate the plans.
We already went over this in another thread, you really sound like a broken record.
 
from cpwill

actually this isn't new polling - it's old.
Click to expand...

April 18, 2011...... ten days is old?!?!?!?!?!?!!? that is really an amazing statement in a weak attempt to pretend that this poll is not as damaging to the right wing agenda as it is.
 
haymarket said:
April 18, 2011...... ten days is old?
Click to expand...

yes. as in: having been superceded by new data that has been collected and come out in the meantime.

that is really an amazing statement in a weak attempt to pretend that this poll is not as damaging to the right wing agenda as it is.
Click to expand...

if this is so damaging to Republicans that the Ryan plan is still outpolling the Obama plan among seniors (albiet not by much) and has a plurality of the population over 30....

well then I suppose I'll just have to take that.
 

It has not been SUPERCEDED by anything. This is a transparent attempt by you to dismiss poll numbers that you do not like in favor of poll numbers that you do like.
 
lpast said:
Corporations pay little to no taxs now..and ge proves that.
Click to expand...

It is a failing of logic and critical thinking to make a wide sweeping claim, and posit your position on a singular example that is not necessarily a representative sample.
 
cpwill said:
yes. as in: having been superceded by new data that has been collected and come out in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Care to produce this data?
 

Cutting waste as the administration plan does is preferable to the middle class than is privatized system by the GOP that throws our elederly to the wolves as the 4/18 poll I posted shows. 80 % of the registered voters are opposed, and 70% of the tea party supporters are opposed to cutting Medicare.

no, I"m talking about the IPAB and the "well we'll just ration care" solution.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality."
Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



well you tell me, that is precisely what the 2012 House Budget achieves with taxes (same revenues, but cuts waste); why do you oppose it?
Click to expand...

As I have shown previously, the GOP plan through their tax cuts to the rich proposed would reduce revenues by $4.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why are you perpetuating this?
Click to expand...

Because I'm a big believer in truth :sun

"Health insurance reform will improve the quality of care in Medicare, reduce costs for seniors,
and make sure Medicare is there for them in the future. Unfortunately, many seniors have heard
misinformation regarding health insurance reform. This report sets the record straight.

How will reducing subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans affect me?

Problem with the Status Quo:

The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the recent rise in Medicare
costs – and in premiums for seniors – stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via
private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
federal government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more for providing coverage
to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional
Medicare program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country.1

The overpayments do not QHFHVVDULO\?improve quality. There is no evidence that this extra
payment leads to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries.2 Insurers, not seniors or the Medicare
program, determine how these overpayments are used – and this includes marketing, profits, and
other administraive costs.3 This means that seniors do not always get the full overpayments back in the
form of extra benefits or improved quality care. In fact, because Medicare Advantage plans have
flexibility to determine their own cost-sharing arrangements, seniors can end up spending more
out-of-pocket under a Medicare Advantage plan, not less.4,5

Private plans contend that low-income and minority Medicare beneficiaries disproportionately rely
on Medicare Advantage for benefits and that eliminating the overpayments would hurt them. In
fact, most low-income, minority seniors obtain additional coverage through Medicaid, not Medicare
Advantage. These “dual eligible” beneficiaries receive cost-sharing protection and extra benefits
through the Medicaid program."
Powered by Google Docs
 
haymarket said:
It has not been SUPERCEDED by anything. This is a transparent attempt by you to dismiss poll numbers that you do not like in favor of poll numbers that you do like.
Click to expand...

:shrug: i'm not saying that they are immaterial - i'm saying they are superceded by something more relevant.
 
Catawba said:
Cutting waste as the administration plan does is preferable to the middle class than is privatized system by the GOP that throws our elederly to the wolves as the 4/18 poll I posted shows.
Click to expand...

actually the Presidents plan underpolls the Ryan plan. that's why I said that your poll had been superceded by more relevant data - because your poll tends towards inaccurate conclusions. in fact it seems the position of the American people is more complex than your OP demonstrated. Mind you, when I saw the poll you posted I came to the same conclusion you did - the Ryan plan was in deep trouble. that's why I started a thread on it.... over a week ago.

80 % of the registered voters are opposed, and 70% of the tea party supporters are opposed to cutting Medicare.
Click to expand...

and yet two-thirds recognize that Medicare faces a crises within ten years and a plurality are willing to support the Ryan plan for reducing expenditures. I guess Americans are better at making hard choices than their president.

Do you mean the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of reducing the rate of growth in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality."
Click to expand...

yup. the IPAB serves to ration care that it deems to be unworthy of the costs, and then impose that as a one-size-fits-all solution on American retirees. So, for example, there is a treatment that only 24% of people really respond to, but your doctor has a list of reasons why you are an extremely likely candidate to be in that 24%, the IPAB will tell you to go F yourself, and you will be free to pay out of pocket or forgo treatment. You may want to read up on the history of N.I.C.E. in Britain to see how such a system functions in action.

As I have shown previously, the GOP plan through their tax cuts to the rich proposed would reduce revenues by $4.7 trillion over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

awesome - guide me to that because the CBO will be very interested to hear that they so utterly failed in their scoring.
 
ou righties really need to take this Ryan plan and trumpet to the high heaves gettingall the attention and publicity you can possibly garner.

And cp - really now - trying to pretend that two polls in the same month and one supercedes the other becuase it may have been afew days later --- now that is really hard to take.
 
What we need is to cut through the BS and poll some very direct questions?

1- are you willing to cut tax rates on the most wealthy Americans while reducing government programs that benefit you?
2- are you willing to cut corporate taxes while reducing government programs that benefit you?

Run those numbers and see what you get.

I am willing to bet that less than 5% of the American public has anything more than a minimalist passing knowledge of what makes up Ryans plan. As such, and measuring of how Americans feel about it is meaningless.
 
Last edited:

If I were to post a poll saying that the majority of Americans disapprove of Obama's foriegn policy performance, but that a majority of them "absolutely" intended to vote for him in 2012; which one do you think would be more pertinent for the upcoming election cycle?
 

If you could provide links to those polls I will be glad to read them and get back to you on that.

from slate.com on Ryan


Please, give this plan all the publicity we can muster.
 
Last edited:

"Paul Ryan's budget leaves Defense off the Table and seeks to cut Social Security, Departmental spending and Medicaid with no attention to increasing revenues by cutting the tax breaks for the rich."

"12.79% of the Federal budget is for Medicare which provides seniors their healthcare. Cutting this essentially makes people over 65 and those who are sick and disabled expendable. Its Grandma's death panel in spades. Ryan wants to just get rid of Medicare and have the States take responsibility for it with vouchers. If your state decides to cut the vouchers tough luck."

"Ryan's roadmap to America's future removes rather than ensures universal access to Health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."

"On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This proposed alternative would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.[16] It would also have replaced the Medicare system.[17] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.[17] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.[18] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.[19] It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.[20]"

"In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his "Roadmap."[21] It would give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminating income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolishing the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,[22][23] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,[23] and end traditional Medicare and most of Medicaid.[22][23] The plan would replace these health programs with a system of vouchers whose value would decrease over time.[23]"

"In response to Krugman, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar Ted Gayer was more positive toward the Ryan plan. Gayer agreed that, as written, the plan would cause a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over 10 years. He noted, however, that Ryan had expressed a willingness to consider raising the rates in his tax plan. Gayer concluded that "Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax, ... makes a useful contribution to this debate."[25]

Ryan's idea of tax reform is a little bit like the proposal to defund the IRS. As

Daily Kos: Paul Ryan's if you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose Budget Cuts
 

And how does that equate to eliminating the medicare advantage plans?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And how does that equate to eliminating the medicare advantage plans?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, as was described, "The government is overpaying private insurance companies. Part of the recent rise in Medicare
costs – and in premiums for seniors – stems from extra subsidies to private insurance companies.
Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via
private plans. Policy changes, particularly in 2003, ratcheted up payment levels to private plans. The
federal government pays private insurance companies on average 14 percent more for providing coverage
to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than it would pay for the same beneficiary in the traditional
Medicare program. This overpayment is as high as 20 percent in certain parts of the country."

The savings to medicare would be realized in the reform by eliminating the overpayments to private insurers (indicated in bold above).
 

Then why did you say this?

Catawba said:
You mean his savings by putting the Avantage care back under the government administration where it can be run more cheaply than through the private companies? Why would anyone oppose cutting wasteful spending and keep the same benefits?
Click to expand...

Medicare Advantage is not being eliminated, yet you said that it was.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Then why did you say this?

Medicare Advantage is not being eliminated, yet you said that it was.
Click to expand...

What I meant was they were eliminating the overpayment to private companies. Are you opposed to cutting waste from government programs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…