Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

KS: 61% Moran, 28% Johnston (Rasmussen 8/4)

Topics: poll , Rasmussen

Rasmussen
8/4/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Kansas

2010 Senate
61% Moran (R), 28% Johnston (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jerry Moran: 63 / 31
Lisa Johnston: 44 / 30

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 36 / 63
Gov. Parkinson: 58 / 34

 

Comments
Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

No surprise here. McCain carried KS with 56% of the vote to Obama's 41%.

Overall, Obama is down 5% from 2008. It's just not surprising.

Democrats should really flood the airwaves in Kansas with messages about Medicare and Social Security warning older citizens that Republicans want to dismantle both programs if returned to power.

____________________

Dave:

"Democrats should really flood the airwaves in Kansas with messages about Medicare and Social Security warning older citizens that Republicans want to dismantle both programs if returned to power."

Lying to the electorate and fearmongering. Always a good election year strategy. I agree, the Democrats should totally do this.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yup, nothing like the Democrats and their spin machine to distort any semblance of truth.

Which party is gutting medicare and medicaid to the tune of $600 million over the course of the next 10 years? Right....

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Rand Paul.

If he had the power he would gut Social Security and Medicare.

Republicans have been talking about how bad these programs have been for years.


Do either of you two support Medicare and Social Security?

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Democrats put forward Medicare 55. They ended up making concessions to the more conservative members of Congress so that the health care bill that extended benefits to 16 million uninsured Americans, increasing the number of insured Americans to 95% of the population, would not add to the deficit.

If Democrats had their way, everyone would be eligible for Medicare.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Those two programs are responsible for the stability this country has enjoyed for the last 70 years.

____________________

nick283:

I really hope democrats do that. Advertising is probably pretty cheap in kansas media markets, but man it would be a waste of money. Might make the dem lose by 20% instead of 30%

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Losing by 50% is the same as losing by 1 vote. That policy distinction needs to be made as the argument continues to play itself out over the long term.

Democrats shouldn't give up on older white Americans the way that Republicans are giving up the hispanic vote.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Do either of you two support Medicare and Social Security?

Support it? Of course I support it since i am forced to pay into it. If i had the choice to opt out, I would in a heart beat since they are grossly inefficient and wasteful.

If Democrats had their way, everyone would be eligible for Medicare.

Yup. And our health care system would be a complete disaster. Medicare only works because it has the private insurance market picking up its slack.

Might make the dem lose by 20% instead of 30%

You really think they would gain on that campaign? I would argue they would probably lose support.

____________________

Louis:

Field Marshall,
Fact 1-The administrative costs of Medicare is lower than that of private insurance.
Fact 2- mearly 20 % of those senior above the poverty line would be below it without Social Security.
So ending Social Security would put huge numbers of additional people into government social service programs that would be far more expensive.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Louis,

Myth 1: Administrative costs of Medicare are lower than that of private insurance.

Fact 1: Much of the administrative work of Medicare is outsourced to private insurance. And on an apples-to-apples basis, admin costs are about equal.

Fact 2: That's probably true about the poverty if you fail to factor in the fact that they are paying 12.4.% of income over their lifetimes. Even if you earn just 25% above the poverty line and invest that money into treasuries, you come out ahead of what you would receive from SS. So while you are correct, you fail to consider the alternative.

____________________

Stillow:

Lies, tigers and bears, oh my. The GOP does not want to get rid of SS for seniors. It wants to reform/repalce the SS system with a system that is actually able to be paid for. SS will be there for older workers, there's no way around that. But new alternatives must be found for younger workers. Its a plain jane fact SS will be unfundable in the not so distant future. So we know the system has to be reformed.....so before you Dems go to the old playbook, try and actaully think for once.

SS will be replaced with something, that part of the debate is over....because as is its not fundable, there is not enough money i nthe system to meet future obligations. the debate is what will replace the current SS system. That is a healthy debate and one that needs to be had. IMO it should be a combination of private options and g'ment options.

louis - Medicare, along with SS are both flawed entitlements. Both are impossible to fund for their ufture obligations. Medicare forces prices for all other health realted services higher because medicare pays a lower and lower percentage of its bills...foricng costs to go up for me, you and everyone else who is isnured by a normal carrier.

After HCR is tossed out by the SCOTUS, the next great debate will be entitlement reform. The money does not exist in the system, even with massive tax increases on everyone to meet the financial obligaitons of all the entitlement promises. Its simple numbers. On our current apth it won't be long until the entire federal budget goes to only pay intrest on the debt and SS and medicare funding. That is it.

What we have no is not even fundable which is why we are running 1.4 trillion dollar deficits that past couple years.

HCR will be tossed due to the mandate provision and entitleemnt reform will be the next great battle.

____________________

Field Marshal:
____________________

Dave:

Yes, Rand Paul would drastically alter Social Security and Medicare. However, every single plan that I've seen proposed promises not to touch one dime of the money going to seniors. Many plans would start applying to people under 50 (some plans may have that age a little higher), because it's unfair to have people over that age lose out money they were (rightly or wrongly) promised. So, the fact is, Social Security reforms WILL NOT affect one cent promised to seniors.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Great article on Huffington Post today:

"The new health care law has significantly improved the prognosis for Medicare, extending the life of its trust fund by 12 years until 2029, and thereby delaying any need for dramatic changes in benefits or revenues, according to a new report.

The annual check-up from government actuaries overseeing the nation's two central safety-net programs also found that Social Security continues to be much less of a problem than Medicare, and will remain in strong financial shape at least through 2037."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/medicare-gets-new-lease-o_n_671936.html

Thank God for Social Security and Medicare, and the health care legislation that extended these two great programs.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Shannon,

This is what happens when you read garbage news sources. You have been duped by crappy journalism again.

From the Hill:

Medicare is in much better financial shape as a result of the new healthcare reform law, which has extended the life of the nation's largest health benefits program by 12 years, the Obama administration reported Thursday.

The sunny outlook comes with some asterisks: Not only do the projections fall short of what many Democrats had envisioned from their reform law, but they also assume that Medicare physicians will take a steep pay cut this fall — something Congress will likely step in to prevent.

Still, Foster was also quick to warn that the calculations rely largely on budget gimmicks that create the appearance of savings where they likely don't exist.

"In practice, the improved [Medicare] financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays [such as the coverage expansions] and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions," Foster wrote in April.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/112839-report-finds-healthcare-reform-extends-medicares-life-by-12-years

____________________

John1:

@shannon

You were pnwed. Badly.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@FieldMarshal

From Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-05/medicare-will-be-viable-to-2029-backing-obama-claim.html

" That matches what health plans such as Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corp. of Philadelphia have said in recent earnings reports, Gleason said.

“You can see that there’s going to be support for ratcheting down provider rates,” said Gleason, who advises large employers and private-equity firms on the implications of government policy. “If Medicare goes down, then private insurers can feel free to push their rates down as well.”

The report was prepared by the Office of the Actuary, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year’s actuarial findings showed that the trust fund had eight years remaining and wouldn’t be able to pay full benefits in 2017. Social Security, the retirement income program for people 65 and older, will run out of funds to pay full benefits in 2037, the same as in last year’s trustees’ report.

“Nearly all” of the 12-year increase in Medicare’s longevity is attributed to the overhaul, according to a report summary by the administration."

I don't know if you've been keeping up with earnings reports from medical insurance providers, but they reviewed Foster's findings in April and forecast that rates to providers would go down.

If insurance companies are giving that kind of guidance to their investors, I have to believe that they've considered what Foster said.

Insurance stocks are way up this quarter after great earnings reports.

____________________

Louis:

Field Marshall,
The myth of myth 1. The Heritage foundation Greg Manikow and a number of right wing bloggers claim Medicare costs are higher not lower. The CBO, Paul Klugman, Jacob Hacker, the Commonwealth fund and a number of liberal bloggers disagree. Ezra klein says it is not the issue, insurance costs raising faster than the GDP is. Trying to digest it all I think it is clear that medicare administrative costs are lower than private insurance but proably not as much as the raw numbers suggest.
But this may not be the real question. As we like to talk polls here the evidence is that the vast majority of people in this country support medicare. But I guess those people are well informed about the healthcare law but totally ignorant about Medicare.You can't have it both ways.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Louis,

Its all how you calculate admin costs. If you do it on a per patient basis, then Medicare and Private insurance are about equal, with some private insurance lower. If you do it as a percentage of the total patient bill, medicare is much lower since their total bills are much higher given the cost of elderly care.

I agree with Ezra Klein. Health care costs are rising at nearly double the rate of inflation. A lot of it has to do with medicare. Medicare artificially suppresses its costs which are then made up for by doctors and providers by increasing private insurance reimbursements faster.

I would agree that people on medicare like it. Why wouldn't they? They prepaid for it all their lives and now when on it enjoy "free" health care. The problem is its unsustainable and going to bankrupt our nation. Just because its liked doesn't mean its good.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Medicare recently saved my dad's life, and did so with him not having to bankrupt himself (again) due to surgery & hospital costs.

He would be certifiably uninsurable on the private market since he has 2 other pre-existing conditions. Since they had to remove a tumor related to his lymphoma, it certainly wouldn't have been covered, since it was proven he had symptoms of the lymphoma during TX's ridiculously long look-back period. Doesn't matter anyway, since he was repeatedly denied individual coverage prior to turning 65 for a number of reasons.

My fiance is currently working at an eye clinic. Medicare is one of the few insurances that is not a freaking pain to deal with. The patients that have it pay 20%, medicare pays 80%.

Many private insurances fight like hell not to pay. On some of them, they don't cover a part of the basic exam, so with a ~$110 exam bill, they have a $50 copay, insurance does not pay for one of the tests, so what does insurance freaking pay for? - a whopping $13.00. I need to ask her what particular companies do that is but I would bet one is United or one of its affiliates.

Premiums of hundreds/thousands of dollars per year and they pay out freaking $13.00. And republicans defend these corporations.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I should clarify... he was not expressly *denied,* he was offered very expensive coverage with several *elimination riders* that would deny coverage for his most serious chronic conditions.

Great companies. Really looking out for people.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - The debate was on the sustainability of medicare...not picking and choosing individual stroeis. I've never had a issue with my Aetna plan...they pay everything I expect them to pay. after my $250 deducitble, they cover 90 percent and I pay 10 percent. And they would cover my tumor if I get one, since I have insurance prior to actually gettignt he tumor.

You Dems still have no defense for the pre-existing argument nonsense. Because based on your theory, I can take a life insurance policy out on my wife after she dies. Death is a pre existing condition right?

Medicare cannot be funded long term. We're all glad for your dad...but how many people has medicare forced ut of being insured? Because medicare is one of the leading causes of private carrier cost increases, how many pople have been priced out of the market? But do not qualify for g'ment run care? Hmmmm? probably quite a few.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

What are you doing up at 3.16am???

____________________

Stillow:

FM - Ugh, had a server crash at work, I'm just now getting home damn it!

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR