FReep a Poll: What do you think of the historic Medicare changes recently approved by Congress?

NJ Online ^ | 11.29.03 | NJ

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Coming from a liberal anti-Bush/anti-GOP rag, the poll is on the lower right.

Choices:

It's about time Medicare offered drug benefits. I like it.

It doesn't do enough for those who need the most help. I'm against it.

The $400 billion price tag is a budget buster. I'm against it.

If Democrats and Republicans both hate it, it must be a good compromise.

I don't know enough to offer an opinion

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Click the source above or this link (opens in a new window)

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You've already voted on this poll
What do you think of the historic Medicare changes recently approved by Congress?
It's about time Medicare offered drug benefits. I like it.	55	(16.22%)
It doesn't do enough for those who need the most help. I'm against it.	121	(35.69%)
The $400 billion price tag is a budget buster. I'm against it.	61	(17.99%)
If Democrats and Republicans both hate it, it must be a good compromise.	38	(11.21%)
I don't know enough to offer an opinion	64	(18.88%)
Total Replies : 339

---

Results are not scientific and reflect only the opinions of those who vote.
Powered By Absolute Poll Manager XE
By XIGLA SOFTWARE

[tob2]

I think it will be great for people who have extraordinarily high expenses for medication. I'm not planning on signing up for it. The part of the plan to transfer Medicare recipients into HMO's stinks! I know from experience what HMO's are like and would not want to change doctors or medications, and have some my most important medical care restricted. There is a full two years before this plan goes into effect and there is plenty of time to work out the "kinks" in the plan.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Done! BUMP!

It's about time Medicare offered drug benefits. I like it. 59 (16.62%)

It doesn't do enough for those who need the most help. I'm against it. 121 (34.08%)

The $400 billion price tag is a budget buster. I'm against it. 67 (18.87%)

If Democrats and Republicans both hate it, it must be a good compromise. 40 (11.27%)

I don't know enough to offer an opinion. 68 (19.15%)

Total Replies : 355

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

No option for "It's the gateway to socialist hell."

[reformedliberal]

The HMO criticism is valid. However, the bill provides for PPOs and out here the doctors ALL sign up for ALL the PPOs.

The State Medicaid is already HMO/PPO centered. The people I know who are on it have no complaints at all and when they dislike an assigned doc, they make a fuss and get the one they want. Usually, this arises when the favored doc is on a different rural rotation or out of the clinic for some esxtended time period.

From what I have observed, these patients are getting state-of-the-art treatment.

All laws are really written after passage in the regulatory process, AFAIK. This one will be tweaked. It is going to save money in the long run by offering drug threapy beforehand instead of surgury or other expensive and risky treatments after the patient enters via the ER in advanced distress.

I am not going to get upset over something that is still, by virtue of the process, just a raw framework. We are not in need of the drug benefit, but I know a lot of people who are. Also, one never knows what the future holds, healthwise or financially.

At the same time, I read that we are busting chops in Australia (and probably in other allied countries) to get them to pay more for drugs and by extension, for the research our government paid for w/our taxes. There are ongoing trade talks that have been reported to have gotten fairly rough over this topic. One article I saw, probably on FR, said we are using ag imports from Australia as one lever on this. Needless to say, the Australians are not happy.

I have experienced Aussie socialized medicine as a traveler there. The smallest amount of the necessary drug, the medication that has been in use for the longest time and the entire course prescribed for the shortest time possible. Damned near killed me by not knocking the bug out completely. Also, I needed a script for meds to counteract the side effects of the prescribed antibiotic. Those meds are OTC here. I came home, spent $40 for a script and $56 for an appointment out-of-pocket and was better in 3 days and completely cured in a 3 week course of a relatively new antibiotic not even offered over there. The useless Aussie course plus appointment cost me $86, so the cost was near equal, for the results.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Yea, that's it. Bush is the anti christ, too.

[The_Victor]

My answer "By what moral authority do you take by force the legitimate earnings of one to give to someone who has not earned it?"

Oh well, given the alternative is Hillary care or worse in a few years, I'm grudgingly for it.

GRRRRR'ed and bumped

[alrea]

"By what moral authority do you take by force the legitimate earnings of one to give to someone who has not earned it?"

Florida, New Jersey

[samtheman]

It's about time Medicare offered drug benefits. I like it. 70 (17.11%)

It doesn't do enough for those who need the most help. I'm against it. 131 (32.03%)

The $400 billion price tag is a budget buster. I'm against it. 90 (22.00%)

If Democrats and Republicans both hate it, it must be a good compromise. 44 (10.76%)

I don't know enough to offer an opinion 74 (18.09%)

Total Replies : 409

[Think free or die]

done

[Teacher317]

Hm... GRRRRR!!!! wasn't one of the choices.

[petercooper]

Thanks for taking this poll
What do you think of the historic Medicare changes recently approved by Congress?
It's about time Medicare offered drug benefits. I like it. 72 (17.06%)
It doesn't do enough for those who need the most help. I'm against it. 131 (31.04%)
The $400 billion price tag is a budget buster. I'm against it. 97 (22.99%)
If Democrats and Republicans both hate it, it must be a good compromise. 46 (10.90%)
I don't know enough to offer an opinion 76 (18.01%)

[Ciexyz]

I am a retired federal employee (retired Oct. 31st of this year), and I have the federal blue cross plan. I can choose my own doctors and I pay 25% copay on doctor visits and prescriptions. In retirement, I pay both the government portion and the employee portion, but it's still a good deal. Much cheaper than what the general public pays.

I've always said, if the general public knew what a good deal we federal employees and retirees have, they'd be screaming for the same level of care.

In any case, I'm FOR the increased benefits under the Medicare plan. As a federal worker, I paid 1.3 percent of my pay into Medicare, and I'll be drawing benefits someday. So it sounds like a great deal.

About the HMO's and managed care plans, I was in two different HMO's and I can verify that they give you the cheapest and weakest pills when you're sick and it doesn't knock out the problem. I'd go back to the doctor a week later and he'd say, guess I'll prescribe the stronger medication this time. I wanted to scream, I've suffered for a week and you didn't give me the good stuff the first time?

[reformedliberal]

Yep.

My father was a federal employee and his medical coverage was the best. He also took the Federal Pension over SS and it, too is superior.

I get incensed when Kerry, for example, or Gephardt, make ads touting how lucky they (under the Federal program) were when their kids were ill. They should be promising to make these benefits available to the rest of us.

I am self employed. I pay both sides of Medicare and SS, as well. Although healthy, I had some treatment 7 years ago for which I paid out of pocket and now, if I want the Blue Cross/Blue Shield I had then, the cost is over $1k/month. I therefore only carry catastrophic.

I know people my age (60s) who cannot afford diagnostic tests and will wait for their Medicare eligibility to kick in. This is quite stressful for a lot of people. The Dems and the Libertarians and the rest moaning about the bad policies of Medicare are simply becoming background noise. In the end, this is going to be good for everyone. It will save billions in catastrophic health care costs, for one example.

I have avoided the HMOs, but I have heard the stories. Exactly like socialized medicine, except one can sue or go into mediation over HMO cheapness. We have a friend in NZ who moans constantly about the quality of medical care available on the National Health or whatever it is called there.

It pays to research drugs and treatments prior to seeing your MD. Usually, if you are forceful enough and have the facts to back yourself up, you can get them to avoid the subsequent appointments needed for better treatment. Basically, you also have to point out to them that their success rate will go up if they can treat you in one appointment sucessfully. I usually point out that both of us consider our time to be valuable. OTOH, I have known both the MDs I utilize for 20-30 years. They know I know what I am talking about if I present them w/my research and they probably prefer to get me out of there ASAP and not see me as often. It also helps that I have relatives who are senior med staff and both MDs know this...in fact, one of them served an internship under my relative's residency. Doesn't bother me at all and I have no complaints about the care I get.

We all have to practice defensive health care. Knowledge is power. Just don't come on to the doc in an aggressive or threatening manner and remain logical and calm. It will usually pay off, IMO.

[gcruse]

I don't know that much about it either, so I had reserved judgement. However, I see where Newt has written an article in the AJC in favor of it. That's a powerful endorsement to me, so I'm for it on those grounds alone.