Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Older Voters on Health Care (Resurgent 12/6-9)


Resurgent Republic*
12/6-9/09; 1,000 registered voters, 3.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Resurgent Republic release, RealClearPolitics post)

*Resurgent Republic is a non-profit organization founded by Republican pollster Whit Ayres and former Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie.

National

Resurgent Republic:

Voters age 55 and older oppose "the health care reforms being debated in Congress" by 48 to 39 percent. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed at 83 to 9 percent, as are a majority of Independents at 52 to 33 percent. Only Democratic voters in this survey support the reforms, 70 to 16 percent. Opposition among voters age 55 and older tracks the latest Pollster.com average where voters of all ages oppose the health care reform plan by 52 to 39 percent.

...

Voters age 55 and older overwhelmingly oppose the primary funding mechanisms for health care reform in the Senate plan: cutting Medicare spending, taxing Cadillac health plans, increasing Medicare payroll taxes, and cutting Medicare Advantage. Taxing elective cosmetic surgery is the only funding provision that receives majority support.

 

Comments
LordMike:

That's better numbers than I thought... and actually, correlates very closely to how older voters voted in the 2008 general election. I believe Obama won 43% of the elderly vote.

____________________

CUWriter:

Agreed LordMike, but I think the survey would have done better to look at voters 65+... the ones currently eligible for Medicare and most likely to vote. At the very least I'd like to see crosstabs broken out on people 55-64 and 65+ for this one. I think the opinions would vary greatly.

____________________

obamalover:

Death Panels are looking pretty good about now...

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Obama got 45% of the 65 and over vote.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I bet there is a big difference between the 55-65 voting group and the 65+ too. I agree with CU, they should have polled 65 and over.

____________________

Stephen_W:

I find it deeply disturbing that the generation most dependent on, and most likely to saddle us with chronic debt due to our healthcare obligations to them, are the ones most unwilling to try and fix the problem.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stephen_W

Cuz they are selfish. They don't want to do anything that could remotely jeopardize their rather generous tax payer funded benefits courtesy of the sweat of the younger workers. So they say let them eat cake...

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

So you admit medicare is broken and not the model for which we should be devoting our health care reform on?

We need to get government out of health care entirely.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Just because I think they are selfish, doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't have those benefits. I think everyone should have those benefits. But it is incredibly hypocritical for them to stand in the way of other people having the same benefits they have.

____________________

Xenobion:

Well most old people would never want to give up their medicare. Functionally its a government subsidy that then makes our private healthcare more expensive. Its very popular and old people know how well they have it with what it offers.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I agree X. Its like Ben & Jerry's offering free cones on Wednesday's. But then the store stops it because they can't afford it any longer and the people get upset.

The freebies can only last so long.

OL,

Those benefits are completely out of whack compared to what they paid into the system. There is no way it is sustainable. The age of attainment should be raised to 75 but instead congress took the opposite, and wrong route and is trying to lower it.

In the end, the middle class and younger generations suffer as usual.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

If you added young people to the system you wouldn't have that problem, because they would be paying more into the system, but at least the same healthcare benefits would be available to them.

____________________

Stephen_W:

OL, exactly. Our entire healthcare system, both medicare as well as our private insurance industry, is unsustainable. We need a way to lower costs as well as cover more of the population, and all of it must start by getting everyoned covered under one system or another.

Nutcakes like FieldMarshall will scream til their lungs are empty about keeping government out of THEIR healthcare, yet don't have the slightest clue how much of the entire system as it stands is on the verge of buckling our economy. We need to have more access for everyone, and more young people in the system, to offset old repubican whiners who yell about government meddling in their healthcare while at the same time enjoying all the benefits Medicare provides to them. And if that takes manditory health insurance and a public option to do it, that's what we've got to do.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

So you're advocating a substantial payroll tax increase? You do realize that the tax would have to be nearly 50% of all payroll in order to pay current obligations compared to the 2.9% it is now? And even then, it will not come close to paying off future present value obligations.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stevie,

SO i'm a nutcase am i for not wanting a single payer government control health care system? Yeah, that must make me a real lunatic? LOL.

You know, it people with minimal government education like yourself that has placed the country on the downward path that it is on. Simpletons like you allow warped ideology and propaganda from low brows to cloud your intelligence and ability to think rationally.

You do realize the portion of the health care system that is on the verge of "buckling the economy" is the government portion? Medicare is somewhere between $50 and $100 trillion in the hole depending on the discount rate used.

What we really need is more competition in the system along with more people paying out of pocket to offset liberal whiners who are too stupid and non-self sufficient to have the personal responsibility to take care of themselves. If people had to pay the first $1500 or $2000 of all the health care used each year, you would see people make rational decisions and shop around for the best prices.

You could setup the system so that the poor could have that first $1500 or $2000 subsidized. Obviously, for emergency care, people arent going to shop around, but that is less than 5% of all expenses.

So go ahead and continue to bash republicans for wanting to retain personal responsibility just because you want you mommy (i.e. nanny state) to do it for you. Some people just aren't strong enough to handle such decisions on their own. For that, i'm sorry. But don't punish the rest of the hardworking society for your shortcomings.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Yes there would be a pay roll tax increase, but keep in mind no one would be paying for health insurance anymore. The average American would actually be saving money, and since young people don't use the healthcare system that often medicare would become more fiscally sound.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Keep in mind that medicare pays below cost for the majority of the procedures it does. For the single payer to work, which is medicare for all, reimbursement rates would have to be increased substantially to make up for the low rates.

In that case, payroll taxes would have to be ridiculously high and no one will be saving money.

Plus, who will invent all the new drugs and medical technology since Americans fund 75% of all new drug discoveries and 80% of all new medical technology. That would be gone under single payer.

Single payer will result in less quality of health care as well. Remember, most of the time you get what you pay for.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Reimbursement rates would likely increase somewhat since people like me don't have to see the doctor every other week.

Really? Innovation would be gone? Singapore, France, and Israel have universal healthcare and lead the world in Biotech innovation. You make zero sense.

Thirdly, pay the most per capita in healthcare cost than any other country in the world precisely because of all the administrative and profit waste. Your contention is not in line with reality.

And eventhough we pay the most per capita for healthcare than any other nation in the world our quality is astronomically lower according to the WHO. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

And reality smacks FM in the face once again.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yeah, the WHO report has ben debunked several times. Do you honestly think Oman has better health care than the US? How about Greece or Colombia. LOL! PLEASE!! Talk about a lack of reality.... you're in your own global warming world i think where up is down and dark is light.

Secondly, France is not single payer, its a hybrid system. Singapore is too. In fact, Singapore mostly uses HSAs so your argument there is completely incorrect.

Administrative costs may drop by a very small amount in the beginning under single player but soon, the lack of competition and innovation in management and processing will quickly lead to inefficient and HIGHER administrative costs. Medicare is the proof of that. Medicare now outsources 65% of all its claims processing. Guess to whom??? Yup, those evil insurance companies you anti-capitalist do not like. Thats because every time the government competes with private business, they lose. EVERY TIME!

Also, the US leads in biotechnology. Just go to Massachusetts or California to see the vanguard of biotechnology. A way too look at it is to see the largest biotech companies in the world. Check yahoo industries and select biotech and sort by market cap. All are American. The French one's also sell drugs which are subsidized by American drug sales.

Who will subsidize all the worlds research if 80% of all drug sale dollars are US based and that dries up?

OWNED! And again OL gets burned. Its getting a little old, isn't it OL? I mean to be beaten time after time after time. Just terrible..

____________________

Field Marshal:

Oh, and what is on the yahoo homepage. Why its an article about Medicare being bankrupt and how seniors have to pay more and more out of pocket. Currently, medicare only pays $0.70 for every health dollar spent while private insurance pays nearly $0.90 according to Lange.

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Health-Policy-Clinical-Medicine/dp/0071496068/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260664831&sr=1-2


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_expanding_medicare

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Debunked by whom? The Heritage foundation? LOL. WHO is about as reputable as you can get.

Didn't I already tell you medicare has to reimburse at low rates because they only take care of the elderly, whom are really costly to take care of. If everyone was in the system you wouldn't have that problem.

Did I say those countries were single payer? Go back and read my post. But they have universal healthcare systems that is mostly funded by the government.

Government loses to the private sector every time? Cuz according to a recent Harris poll USPS beats Fedex in approval ratings.

What kind of healthcare system does Mass have again? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fact of the matter insurance coverage has zero to do with how research scientist get funded. Your argument is just silly. You also notice how the areas that lead in biotech research are liberal? Maybe it is because conservatives are anti-science bible thumpers.

And universal healthcare has nothing to do with Pharma raping U.S. consumers. In fact Obama made a deal with them in the new healthcare bill. So you point once again makes zero sense.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Do you honestly think Oman has better health care than the US? How about Greece or Colombia."

Sheer quality is not the only factor in the WHO listing. It's abundantly clear that the U.S. has the highest quality care. But this is like saying Germany makes the best cars in the world. Germany may make better cars, but Korea makes cars people can afford. Much of the report had to do with costs and access.

A friend I have who is from Portugal told me that "Our health care is not fancy like yours, but people can afford it." The U.S. healthcare system regularly bankrupts people.

I have to laugh when you use France or Singapore as examples for your position. France probably has the best system in the world, yet conservatives would fight to the death to stop something like that from taking hold in the U.S.

____________________

obamalover:

@ Aaron in Texas

It also has to do with their economy and quality of life. GDP per capita is lower in those countries like Portugal, so they are suppose to have poorer quality than us. We are one of the richest countries in the world, but if you look at countries with high standard of living like us they have a near equal quality of care but have universal healthcare. France's healthcare quality rivals us, yet their cost per capita is so much lower.

____________________

Field Marshal:

And i have to laugh when people think France has the best system in the world. Have you ever been to a hospital in France? It is pitiful. I went to one in Nice and another near Paris. They were both similar to what we would have had in the US back in the 60's.

The state of OH has more MRI machines than all of France. The avg doctor sees 1.5x the number of patients per day as the US. When you go to a doc here, how long is he with you? Now estimate him being with you 50% less.

The WHO rankings are a joke and have been discredited by almost every health organization in the world.

The US system is by far the best (which is why the best doctors from France and all over the world practice here). We just need to find out a way to get another 15% of the population into the system without breaking 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