Why ask retirees about changes that won’t affect them?
A request for any pollsters asking the public about changes to Medicare or Social Security: Will you please stop asking people 65 and older what they think?
It’s not that I have anything against retirees, but including them in opinion polls such as the CBS/New York Times poll released this week is skewing the results — and the policy decisions those results may influence.
Here’s why: No one is proposing to change the deal for people who have already retired. Even Paul Ryan’s allegedly “Draconian” budget plan exempts Americans 55 and older from any changes.
One reason is simple politics: Older people vote more consistently than younger ones. But it’s also of course a matter of fairness. People who are no longer working don’t have the opportunity to earn income to make up for anything they lose. They based their retirement planning on particular promises from their employers and the government, and it would be unfair to change those promises now. I think we all get that.
So, the chances of a change in Medicare or Social Security for those who are already retired are nil. With that said, here’s what I mean about the effect of asking retirees: From the CBS/NYT poll:
Willing to See Medicare Spending Cut?
| All | 18-29 | 30-44 | 45-64 | 65+ | |
| Yes | 48% | 57% | 48% | 47% | 37% |
| No | 45% | 38% | 42% | 48% | 56% |
-
Change Medicare to Private-Insurance Program?
| All | 18-29 | 30-44 | 45-64 | 65+ | |
| Approve | 47% | 53% | 50% | 47% | 32% |
| Disapprove | 41% | 30% | 41% | 42% | 55% |
-
If you look at the “All” numbers for either question, it looks like a very close call — slim pluralities favor each approach. But the results for the younger age groups look a lot different from the ones for the 65+ one. I’d like to know what the “All” numbers would look like for just 18-to-64-year-olds, but the poll doesn’t have cross-tabs breaking down the number of respondents by age group.
Suffice it to say, however, that they would look very different.
So, here’s my proposal: If we all agree that the deal isn’t going to change for retirees, can we also agree that the debate going forward needs to be among those who will have to live with, and pay for, whatever changes are made?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
86 comments Add your comment
Bart Abel
April 22nd, 2011
3:51 pm
Kyle,
The part quoted is about the “traditional Medicare program”. The only people who would be using the traditional Medicare program after 2021 are the ones who are over 55 today.
Obama’s health care law also closed the prescription drug donut hole. The plan the Republicans voted for would put that donut hole back. This would also affect everybody currently over the age of 55.
You’re clearly mistaken. People over the age of 55 today would be affected.
I’m still wondering why it’s bad for Obama to sign a law to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals to save money for Medicare but it’s okay when Republicans pass a law that would do the same thing???
Kyle Wingfield
April 22nd, 2011
3:52 pm
MarkV: I’ve been waiting for someone to raise that point. It’s definitely a fair one; experience is highly valuable.
My only response would be that I’d like the question to be asked in a way that makes clear the retirees are being asked only about changes that would affect younger people, not themselves. After all, there very likely are retirees that would liked to have had a different option but, at this stage of their lives, wouldn’t want to see anything changed for themselves…for the reasons I outlined in the original post. That makes perfect sense to me.
John
April 22nd, 2011
3:53 pm
That’s not why Kyle…it doesn’t take effect until after 2020 because he doesn’t want to anger today’s senior citizens and loose their votes. It’s all politics.
Kyle Wingfield
April 22nd, 2011
3:56 pm
The difference, John, is that you’d be able to change to a different insurer if you weren’t being treated fairly. Under Obama’s plan, you’d have no other options because the decisions would be made for everyone in a single program, and the vast majority of people wouldn’t have the means to make their own arrangements.
Incidentally, this is one of the problems with the way employer-sponsored insurance works now. If I don’t like the service I get from my insurer, I’m stuck.
John
April 22nd, 2011
4:03 pm
“My only response would be that I’d like the question to be asked in a way that makes clear the retirees are being asked only about changes that would affect younger people, not themselves. ”
Now I get it…you want it to be asked only to certain people and in a certain way. When I suggested earlier that it should be asked differently by explaining exactly what the plan would do, have the voucher’s worth would decrease as insurance premiums increase, est., instead of some generic question, you disagreed with me. Just as you think it should be made clear it would affect those 55 and under, it think it should also be made clear exactly how those changes would affect those 55 and under.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
April 22nd, 2011
4:05 pm
A more fundamental question, why ask non-taxpaying leeches how to spend the government-booty?
Bart Abel
April 22nd, 2011
4:09 pm
Insurance company executives are unelected and unaccountable. They’re not even accountable to their stockholders since most of the stock is owned through IRA and 401(k) mutual funds. These guys can literally get away with murder. That isn’t hyperbole either.
The government board would be made up of experts who are supposed to represent the interests of the insureds. The fact that they’re unelected means that they won’t need to take money from the
American Medical Association and be exposed to conflicts of interest. They are accountable to our elected officials, and our elected officials are accountable to us. Lots of other countries with higher rated health care systems than ours have similar methods of keeping health care costs low.
Class of '98
April 22nd, 2011
4:13 pm
Fantastic point Kyle!! Bravo!!
Polling those over 65 about this issue is like polling bald people on best hair dyes. Their opinion shouldn’t matter.
MarkV
April 22nd, 2011
4:15 pm
Kyle, I am all in favor of making clear to people whether and how they will or will not be affected by any proposed change, as long as the people who have experience are not shouted down. For instance, I would like the older people to tell the younger ones how they would like to search the various private programs to get the best deal; to tell them about the real expenses they see and in what position they would be if the premium assistance would not suffice, etc.
John
April 22nd, 2011
4:31 pm
“The difference, John, is that you’d be able to change to a different insurer if you weren’t being treated fairly. Under Obama’s plan, you’d have no other options because the decisions would be made for everyone in a single program, and the vast majority of people wouldn’t have the means to make their own arrangements.
Incidentally, this is one of the problems with the way employer-sponsored insurance works now. If I don’t like the service I get from my insurer, I’m stuck.”
Kyle, that’s how insurance works today and will continue to work even with Ryan’s proposal. I’m not aware of any insurance company that allows the insured to customize their own policy. Some can switch companies but would still have to choose from plans offered.
Those in Medicare just as yourself have choices. I highly doubt your company forces you to get your health insurance from what they offer. Just as an employee can choose not to participate in an employer-sponsored program and get their own insurance, those in Medicare aren’t forced into it. They can choose to try to get their insurance in the private market and pay whatever premiums the private market would charge. If private industry would be so much better than the Medicare system we have today, why are there so many in Medicare? If they don’t like it, wouldn’t they leave Medicare and be getting their insurance in the private market instead?
MarkV
April 22nd, 2011
4:36 pm
There is one thing that should be made clear to every one, but which the conservatives will always obscure. The medical treatments costs some money, and those expenses have to be paid by the people. There is waste and unnecessary treatments, affecting both private insurance and public program, and should be minimized in either of them. But the profits of the insurers are money that is skimmed from the top without giving anything valuable in return. The claims that private insurance companies lower the costs because of a competition are simply a fantasy.
Independent
April 22nd, 2011
5:05 pm
Asking those 18-20 year olds abount Social Security and medicare makes about as much sense as aking 65+ year olds how they feel about increasing the driving license age from 16 to 18 or increasing the drinking age to 25. Sounds just fine to me since it won’t affect me. Those young people aren’t worried about their retirement or medical care because that is a long way off and they are invulnerable anyway. Same reason they skip medical insurance until something catastrophic happens and you and I get to support them through our premiums. I am 53 and I don’t much care for the rug being pulled out from under me after I have contributed for 39 years into the current system. And definitely keep your grubby hands off my Social Security IOU’s. If you want to default on something, just default on the entire govenment debt and don’t worry about that “full faith and credit” nonsense.
Toby
April 22nd, 2011
5:21 pm
The reason their opinions matter is because they, themselves, matter: their wellbeing is important & know, intimately, what it is like to rely on worthwhile, ethical, socialistic programs like Social Security and Medicare. The move to privatise these programs is disaster capitalism… we should not go down that horrible, Darwinistic road of survival of the richest: we should contribute to wellbeing via public programs & seniors understand exactly why it is so important. The nations with the highest rates of wellbeing are countries with high spending on public wellbeing; Denmark, Finland, Sweden & Norway… theses nations have huge middle classes, excellent safety nets, they’re happy, they’re intelligent & well educated, thanks to a tradition of democratic-socialism, of the kind MLK Jr. rightfully promoted.
Real American
April 22nd, 2011
5:22 pm
Should people with no children be left out of any debates about public school education? Should men be left out of the debate about abortion? They can’t BE pregnant so after they release the swimmer, their opinion shouldn’t count…no?
Cherokee
April 22nd, 2011
5:36 pm
Why ask those of us who won’t be affected? Because we care about our kids, and have first hand knowledge of the problems with Ryan’s plan.
Dabir Dalton
April 22nd, 2011
5:37 pm
Kyle the truth is that the GOP marches to the tune of their corporate master’s and conservative propagandists like yourself are rapidly losing your credibility.
As far as medicare is concerned Health Care Is Not a Right so I recommend that our health care system be shut down, dismantled and the medical profession barred from practicing medicine; so and that the rich {for whom your an apologist} are forced just like the less wealthy to abide by natural law without the aid of modern day medicine.
Not Blind
April 22nd, 2011
5:38 pm
What’s going to happen to the people that get ‘Enron’d’ or otherwise have their nest egg wiped out ? What about injuries that make a person just about uninsurable. Have you watched America’s Funniest Videos ? The younger generation is stoopid.
There is also a huge segment of the population for who have lived on the goobermint handouts for several generations and changing their way of living will be impossible imo. Impossible without bloodshed.
lynnie gal
April 22nd, 2011
5:44 pm
Current retirees are anxious about this so-called “reform” because they know it’s only a matter of time before Republicans change the game again to include them. Sure, the GOP thinks they can screw people under 55 out of Medicare, but we (Americans) don’t want that, either. A senior now will be the same as a senior in 10 years, and you’re promising to screw them out of medicare. The only reason the GOP is promising current retirees that they won’t get cut is they think current seniors are so selfish that they don’t care about future retirees. But, you know…they might be alive then, too, and will need medicare even more.
freda
April 22nd, 2011
5:57 pm
Why ask men about abortions that won’t affect them?
Laughing Sadly
April 22nd, 2011
5:59 pm
Congratulations on stimulating a lot of response that exposes the problems we have today.
First, can we use consistentcy as a basis to also suggest that if you do not own property you cannot vote on a tax increase, or for that matter if you do not pay income taxes you cannot vote on a tax increase?
Responsibility and reality, two words foreign to most these days suggest that instead of looking to the government to take care of you and yours for life (a real joke for realists) that you deal with facts.
Responsibility and reality are that capitalism built this country and all capitalists are not bad. In fact all the indirect benefits of corporations trying to serve investors has been at the base of benefits received by most.
The notion elected officials are “acountable” while implying private sector leaders are not is yet another indication of ignorance. In the private sector poor performers are gone quickly and pay a steep price. In the public sector you wait for an election (which may or may not bring change regardless) and little pain or loss is experienced.
For those who can read and digest I suggest contemplating the failure of socialism in Europe, the downfall of the Soviet Union and the abysmal health services situation there.
Margaret Thatcher was right—-the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money.
tar and feathers party
April 22nd, 2011
6:03 pm
Who destroyed America? The Neocons did, plain and simple.
Bart Abel
April 22nd, 2011
6:22 pm
I’ve been looking into this, and I found a third way that today’s seniors would be affected by the Republican health care plan.
Since seniors make up such a large portion of the population, we have purchasing power. Medicare is able to negotiate lower rates and most doctors accept the lower rates. But when more and more seniors have to purchase private insurance under the Republican plan, the older seniors who are still in the traditional Medicare plan will make up a smaller percentage of the insured population. The result will be that we’ll lose purchasing power. Medicare will still offer to pay lower rates, but more and more doctors will opt out since younger seniors would be covered by private plans.
Today’s seniors will have a choice between fewer choices for medical care or will have to buy private insurance.
If you love your kids, nieces, whatever, then it really shouldn’t matter. But people over the age of 55 are affected by this too.
http://thirdway.org/publications/383
Bart Abel
April 22nd, 2011
6:27 pm
By the way, the other two ways that people over 55 are affected are that the Republican plan lowers payments to doctors and hospitals, despite the fact that Republicans criticize the Democratic health care law for doing the same thing, and the Republican plan reinstates the donut hole for prescription drugs that the Democratic law closed.
Not Blind
April 22nd, 2011
6:43 pm
You know, as I think on this I have come to the conclusion that I would rather spend GDP on entitlements for the aged and needy instead of the way we do it now spending GDP on stupid wars, foreign aid to America haters, money spent on useless research, etc.
MarkV
April 22nd, 2011
6:53 pm
Another fallacy of the conservatives, which compares apples with oranges. “Poor performers” in the private sectors are those who do not make enough profit. Elected officials are accountable – through elections – for performance in serving the public.
Wayne J.
April 22nd, 2011
7:02 pm
As a 67 yo retired person, I suggest that what we retired people pay for Medicare should be increased by 25%-35%. Also, the benefits could be revised to make them more for catastrophic expenses and less for routine expenses. Also, every effort should be made to be sure that the money spent be for direct health costs and less on administrative BS.
All people should participate in making this a functioning system. The worst idea is to set a fixed amount of money and let the insurance companies make these decisions. I don’t blame the insurance companies for all of the mess that we’re in, but I don’t want them choosing between how much profit they make and how much they spend on me.
Ed
April 22nd, 2011
8:00 pm
Independent above explained the situation perfectly. Let Medicare Part D negotiate for volume instead of paying full retail for drugs. This would save billions. Let’s get out of all of the wars we are in and cut defense spending. And although the corporate tax rate is 35%, no corporation pays anywhere near this amount because of tax loopholes. Let the Bush tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000. And if you are a small business making over $250.000 you need to form a corporation to take advantage of tax deductions. I am tired of hearing about how removing tax deductions for people over $250,000 will hurt small business.
Michael H. Smith
April 22nd, 2011
8:09 pm
So, here’s my proposal: If we all agree that the deal isn’t going to change for retirees, can we also agree that the debate going forward needs to be among those who will have to live with, and pay for, whatever changes are made?
NO! HELL NO!!
Before I get onto my soap box Kyle, how many of these comments are being made by the same people using different phony names? Not that I really think you’re going to answer that question, so I will: A lot of them.
Now, for this army of so few that has so many comments that they can’t use just one name to make them all, do any of you two or maybe three people know a “ponzi scheme” when you see it? Does the word unsustainable enter into the picture for you when you hear the term “ponzi scheme”?
What is the difference between the ponzi schemes of Bernie Madoff and those of the Federal Government?
If Bernie Maddoff could have legally printed money I suggest to you that he would not be serving prison time behind bars today. On the other hand our Federal Government can print money, so it will never run-out of SUCKERS!
For the sake of the die hard believing suckers that don’t want to accept reality, just hope no other nation in this world calls our federal government’s bluff by saying your U.S. dollars are no longer worth the cost of the paper and ink it takes to print them. In the event that should happen suckers, at that time there will no longer be any difference between Bernie Maddoff and the U.S. Federal Government – the gig will be up and the ponzi scheme revealed in a collapse.
As usual the last ones to get in on the ponzi scheme are the ones who get hurt the worst and suffer the greatest loss.
Do you have children Kyle?
Of course you do. Would you knowingly do anything just for your own personal benefit or ease in life that could possibly do them any harm, now or in the future or perhaps long after your death?
Now, young man, you know why the opinions of old goats like me that you rush to dismiss may prove invaluable to this national debate.
The ultimate answer, will be to transition these “nationalized social programs” from the federal government to the individual, as “individualized social programs” – and NOT CORPORATELY HELD PRIVATIZED PROGRAMS.
Michael H. Smtih
April 22nd, 2011
8:15 pm
the donut hole for prescription drugs that the Democratic law closed.
I don’t believe that hole was completely closed, more like barely closed a little bit.
Tclabby
April 22nd, 2011
8:16 pm
Paul Ryans plan gives real meaning to death panels.Why in the world shouldn’t they be polled?They are taxpayers and voters!What a ridiculous argument Kyle..if we take your thought processes further…Why is it men are polled on abortion?Why is it heterosexuals are polled on gay marriage?Is this really the best you could do to defend the defenders of the wealthy?
Dave
April 22nd, 2011
8:35 pm
So, someone’s over 65 and still pays taxes, or doesn’t, the rest of us get to decide what is done because they’ll get whatever social security benefits they have now? An age/interest sunset on free speech? We only get to vote (or poll) if we have an absolute direct interest in the outcome? A really dumb piece.
yuzeyurbrane
April 22nd, 2011
8:36 pm
Well, Kyle, we now know 2 things for sure about you:
1. you don’t believe that you have anything to learn from your elders; and,
2. democracy is not very important to you.
Keep your hands off of Medicare
April 22nd, 2011
9:19 pm
YOU ASK – Why ask retirees about changes that won’t affect them?
Why? Because we are the voices with experience, knowledge, reason and logic. Why ask those who have not retired and have no clue about retiring or even how and when to retire?
We have been through the process – why not ask us? DAH!!
JM
April 22nd, 2011
10:25 pm
It’s not skewing the results. They have as much right to voice an opinion as anyone.
Joel Edge
April 23rd, 2011
7:06 am
Good article, Kyle. The Dem habit of crying that conservatives want to starve the old and the young will continue. You can’t have any kind of agreement or understanding with people that only believe in “I win”.
catlady
April 24th, 2011
4:02 pm
I agree with you, Kyle. And why ask those on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Peachcare, AFDC, or food stamps what they think about “socialized” services? After all, they benefit from them: Why would what they think matter? They are the recipients of the welfare the rest of us pay for.
Anyone figured out how long it will take to get back what they have put in to Social Security? Or, given average health, into Medicare? I figure I will run through my contribution pretty quickly.