Posted on 06/07/2011 1:44:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The public offers a mixed reaction to a proposal to change Medicare into a program that would give future participants a credit toward purchasing private health insurance coverage: 41% oppose such a change, 36% favor it, and nearly a quarter (23%) have no opinion either way. Despite this even division of opinion overall, there is broad, and strong, opposition to the proposal among older Americans, and those who are paying a lot of attention to the issue.
Those ages 50 and older oppose this proposal, which is part of Rep. Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan, by a 51% to 29% margin. And this opposition is intense: 42% strongly oppose this kind of change, while only 19% strongly favor it. The same is true among people who say they have heard a lot about this proposal – fully 56% are opposed while 33% are in favor, and strong opposition among this group outweighs strong support by two-to-one (50% vs. 25%).
The latest national poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 25-30 among 1,509 adults, finds only modest partisan differences in views of the Medicare proposal. Democrats are slightly more likely to oppose this kind of change than are Republicans (46% vs. 39%), while an identical 35% in both parties are in favor. The ambivalence toward this proposal among Republicans holds across ideological lines. Even among conservative Republicans as many oppose (38%) as favor (34%) this proposal. And among people who say they agree with the Tea Party just 44% support this change, while 36% are opposed.
When it comes to dealing with Medicare, the Democrats have a 44% to 34% edge over the Republicans as the party who can do the best job. Even though this proposed change receives mixed reactions within each party base, most remain loyal to their party on the issue generally. For example, while just 35% of Republicans favor this particular proposal, 70% believe the GOP can do the better job of dealing with Medicare overall. A comparable 75% of Democrats say their party is best suited to handle Medicare, far higher than the 46% who oppose this particular issue. Independents are divided in their assessment, with 40% preferring the Democratic Party, and 33% the Republican Party, on the issue of Medicare.
Attention to the debate over Medicare is limited so far. Just one-in-five Americans (20%) say they have heard a lot about a proposal to change Medicare into a program that would give future participants a credit toward purchasing private health insurance coverage; half (50%) have heard a little about it, and 28% have heard nothing at all. Awareness is particularly low among younger Americans – fully 41% of adults under 30, and 34% of those ages 30-49, have heard nothing at all about this proposal. And politically, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they have heard a lot about this proposal (26% vs. 16%).
The lack of awareness goes a long way toward explaining some of the contradictory views many Americans hold on this issue. In particular, people under age 30 are the only major demographic group in which significantly more say they favor (46%) than oppose (28%) this proposed change. Yet this same cohort is far more likely to say the Democratic Party (49%) not the Republican Party (34%) can do a better job on this issue.
While there is little partisan difference overall in reactions to this proposed Medicare change, there is a distinct partisan divide among the very attentive. Democrats who have heard a lot about the proposal are far more likely to oppose it (69% vs. 38% of Democrats who have heard little or nothing). Similarly, independents who have heard a lot about this proposal are significantly more likely to oppose it than those who have not (51% vs. 37%). However, Republicans who have heard a lot about the proposal, if anything, are more likely to support it.
The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted May 25-30, 2011 among a national sample of 1,509 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (1,004 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 505 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 255 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/
The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2010 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting.
Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.
In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
There is some logic behind why they passed that particular bill and so now feel they have to defend it. One commenter on this thread said he is 62 (protected by the Ryan plan)and doesnt want medicare when he turns 65 , but you can bet after 65 when that doctor diagnoses some form of cancer he WILL use medicare to pay for treatments rather than die.
Similar life or death arguments Republicans used on Democrats medicare cuts to get the advantage will apply to this debate and will be used to now beat on Republicans. Watch each side act like they only see the OTHER side as demi-goding and lying about the issue for political gain.
I would go along with your suggestion. I don’t think many who even go to the trouble of trying to figure out who is being honest on this issue and who is not, and what are the over all ramifications for the whole country’s solvency, have reached a point where they really understand the whole picture. Knee jerking comes to mind.
I haven’t read the Ryan plan. I want to see privatization as part of any fix. Self insuring with a very large deductible, would be the way to go on most issues, IMO.
If privatization were a part of the plan, then that plan would have to be eased in, and that would be why it wouldn’t have full impact on people close to retirement age. It would also only affect people younger than 55 on a sliding scale many years into the distance.
I know a plan that uses a sliding scale that begins at 55 wouldn’t impact the system right away, but just after ten years from now it would begin to impact it. By thirty years from now we would be saving 40 to 45% of what it’s costing us now. Even at twenty years, the cost of the plan we have now would be significantly impacted. It would certainly be a step in the right direction.
That particular plan doesnt ‘phase’ anything it. It picks winners and losers for attempted political reasons much like anything either side knows wont be popular. They got two contrary messages that are killing them:
Message 1) The proposed plan saves you from the death panels by moving your medical decisions from the government to the insurance companies (yes, I know they dont phrase it that way but that's the way it sounds, see #2)
Message 2) You people over 55 don't worry, we are going to leave you safely under the governments care so you should support this plan, don't look back at those other people under 55. If #1 doesn't sound that great now make believe you think we are doing them a favor anyway, we are saving the country.
Something much more reasonable would be to start the changes immediately and make them graduatual and for everyone and give retirees a choice of both options(privatization and death panels) , not another dictate.
What do you think would have happened if Pelosi passed though an Obama-care resolution in 2007 in the House when she became Speaker (with no power to get it into law) that made voters in certain electoral key states that they are exempt. You think voters in the other states would buy it?We wouldnt have Obama-care today if she tried that.
Yes, and no plan is a good plan if it is politically toxic and poisons the whole debate either, hear anyone talking about how GWB proposed saving SS ? This case was made even worse because Republicans kept this plan quiet leading up to election and instead running against medicare cuts as if they had some magic spending cuts that allowed them to spare Medicare from cuts. Yes Republicans ran commercials on it. That explains the strong opposition.
If they were required to propose their plan last year rather than right after an election it wouldnt have been this plan. They need to get this behind them.
BTW : I was not pinging you personally on the other comment but I appreciate your opinion.
Schulz's text poll just asked if the scandal makes it harder for Democrats to get their progressive agenda passed.
I hear a little Weiner is on the way LOL
I just pinged you again with a more amusing note :)
Exactly what plan do you mean by "that particular plan?" I don't think D1 named the plan in his post.
It was confusing to me. D1 did mention the Ryan plan, but the subject of D1’s post was that he would support some unspecified plan that included privatization, and gradual phasing. D1 said that he had not read the Ryan plan — he didn’t say he supported it.
I couldnt tell if he was telling me the Ryan plan meets his requirements, or if he was suggesting an alternative concept similar to what I have been proposing for many weeks now, so I played it safe by repeating my arguments.
Post 35. Good enough for me.
I agree. I’ll let D1 speak for himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.