Pew Research Center: Opposition to Ryan Medicare Plan from Older, Attentive Americans

Pew Research Center ^ | 06/07/2011

[sickoflibs]

RE :"That makes sense."

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.

[Marine_Uncle]

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.

[sickoflibs]

Dont miss : #18

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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.”

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.

[Marine_Uncle]

I did read your comment at #18. I can as we discussed in private mail both having gone through some tough times with elder parents, etc., know how brutal the whole scheme of things really is. And obviously, those close to retirement are being scared silly, as well as those that are working their butts off trying to feed families, put kids through school, purchase homes, the whole gauntlet of human activities so many of us are often in the position to participate in.
Perhaps how I should have responded was... no plan is a good plan if it cannot be shown from all angles to not worsen our debt and spending problem.
The horror story many of us have dreaded would come to past, has indeed came to past.
Ryan by every indication I have seen, along with a few other conservative congress persons are at least trying to reach out and address the whole spending/rising debt issue.
As where painfully aware, our national health system, needs fixing. How best to deal with it I am not fully appreciative of. So many single issues may sound good on the surface, but how do they fit into the whole.
Sometimes I have a difficult time trying to respond to folks when I feel their individual statements may be totally correct, but then, does it satisfy the whole.
Call it a deficiency on my part.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” I can as we discussed in private mail both having gone through some tough times with elder parents, etc., know how brutal the whole scheme of things really is. And obviously, those close to retirement are being scared silly, as well as those that are working their butts off trying to feed families, put kids through school, purchase homes, the whole gauntlet of human activities so many of us are often in the position to participate in.
Perhaps how I should have responded was... no plan is a good plan if it cannot be shown from all angles to not worsen our debt and spending problem.”

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.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Yes, and no plan is a good plan if it is politically toxic and poisons the whole debate either....."
Double Dittos! I'm certainly not arguing against anything you said.

[sickoflibs]

On a more amusing note liberal Ed Schultz just came on (10 pm EST) and he is saying he loves Weiner but says he needs to resign NOW because this is the third night that the Weiner scandal is dominating the news cycle, and so progressive issues cannot be argued for and sold to voters. They cant get heard on the Ryan plan, or Scott Walker abusing the working (union) man, or tax cuts for the wealthy, or another jobs stimulus bill or any of that important stuff, meanwhile Democrats are split on if he should resign.

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

[sickoflibs]

RE :"Double Dittos! I'm certainly not arguing against anything you said. "

I just pinged you again with a more amusing note :)

[Marine_Uncle]

...and so progressive Communistic issues cannot be argued for and sold to voters."
There. Fixed it.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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.

Exactly what plan do you mean by "that particular plan?" I don't think D1 named the plan in his post.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Exactly what plan do you mean by "that particular plan?" I don't think D1 named the plan in his post."
I believe SOL was referencing "If privatization were a part of the plan, then that plan would have to be eased in" within D1's post 24. Where SOL responded in post 25, "That particular plan doesnt ‘phase’ anything it...".

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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.

[sickoflibs]

RE :"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.

[Marine_Uncle]

Post 35. Good enough for me.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I agree. I’ll let D1 speak for himself.