I’ve joked before about numerous City of Peoria projects being defended on the grounds that they’re “better than nothing.” After listening to the health care debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on C-SPAN this afternoon, I’m disheartened to hear that this has evidently become a national slogan. After several representatives expressed grave concerns about the defects of the bill, the majority party conceded that this wasn’t the best bill, but it was better than nothing.
I guess that’s what America has come to now: a nation where we aspire to the lowest common denominator, to the “good enough.” It really says something when a political party has the Presidency and both houses of Congress, that they still can’t craft a bill on which they all agree without resorting to bribes and kickbacks. Even when we have a single party in power, they still can’t do any better than “good enough” or “better than nothing.” How can this be explained other than a startling lack of character on the part of at least some legislators?
As I write this, the votes are being cast. We’ll all know within the next 10-15 minutes whether this wonderful “better than nothing” bill passed.
UPDATE: The health care bill passed in the House, 219-212. You will all be required by law to buy health insurance now.
The latest USAToday/Gallup poll shows support for the recently signed health care bill as 49% in favor, 40% opposed. Also, “a solid majority of seniors oppose the bill; a solid majority of those under 40 favor it.” – Aren’t you smack dab on the dividing line of that one, CJ? 🙂
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm
It has widely been argued that earlier polls showing majority disfavor of the bill was due in large part because many felt it didn’t go far enough.
Ultimately, to get something to pass, many settled for “better than nothing”. We all have our ideals and preferences – but we most often must compromise to accomplish something (else the continual Washington gridlock). Perhaps it is just the difference of being an idealist vs. a realist.
Congrats you run your life. I run mine and do what your employer does for you, cut a check for myself and my employees. So thats the obvious major difference.
Small artisans and mom and pops can and do form corporations and do share those same benifits. I am a skilled artisan and feel that I should get the same protection as Proctor Hospital. Why shouldnt I? You seem to be the one constantly focusing on mega corporations.
Can someone explain how this is going to work in practice?? My family currently has “good” medical insurance from one of those mega corp. that Charlie loves to hate. BUT . . . having good insurance still does not mean you don’t have to expend money for medical care. Last year all of our family, 4 persons in total, needed to see the doctor or seek medical care for one reason or another and when it was all said and done we still paid about $3500 in medical expense in addition to our premiums. How are others of limited means going to pay the premiums, deductibles, co-pays? I am sorry. Just don’t understand.
And now that everyone will be “entitled” to insurance, of which taxpayers will have to pay, where are the controls related to personal choice. Many people I am familiar with that have health issues also are overweight, don’t exercise, drink too much, smoke, you get the picture. Shouldn’t there be an extra price to pay for those that do not attempt to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
Stephen… you do what my employer does? Do you really want to go there?
You cut a check while I do all the work and earn your pay, your retirement, your benefits and your profits? And you cut a check… how … entrepreneurial. You want protection for that? Pansy.
Frustrated: “Shouldn’t there be an extra price to pay for those that do not attempt to adopt a healthy lifestyle.”
AND extra cost for those that are genetically prone to disease, and those that are physically more likely to be hurt in an accident or sporting event (the short and skinny). And those with chronic problems like allergies, and people who have strange habits like nail biters and booger eaters should get discounts as those behaviors help boost your immune system.
Don’t forget, white in the suburbs should get discounts and blacks in the city who are at greater risk should get charged more. (Isn’t this the real reason the white conservatives are against Health Care Reform?)
Kcdad I work in the field next to my employees, not every CEO gets the comfort of sitting behind a desk, so once again great job on the name calling. You asked how what I do is different then you running your life. You go to work where you have the comfort of knowing your employer at the end of the week will cut you a check so that you can pay for whatever quality of life you choose to have. I have to make sure that at the end of the week there is enough money in the account to cut that check. Yes that means some weeks I dont get paid and my employees do. Some weeks I work 40+ hours a week so my employees can have their pay and benifits and I can eat romin noodles. How often do you go to your job for no pay or take your check and split it amoung your co workers? Your right I am such a pansy.
Kcdad if I oporated my business as a sole proprietor, instead of a corporation, I could take my profits as pay and only pay income tax on them meaning I wouldnt pay the much higher tax rate on any profit my corporation makes I could just pocket it all. I could still write off all my business expenses and employee salaries just like a corporation can. Nothing would change on the book end except the fact that if I was every sued for any reason, even if it was false, someone could attack me personally instead of my business.
Charlie’s “Don’t forget, white in the suburbs should get discounts and blacks in the city who are at greater risk should get charged more. (Isn’t this the real reason the white conservatives are against Health Care Reform?)” I believe Charlie is getting close to the real reason for the uproar against health care. Obviously, it is the poor (black or white) that are more at risk, some–but not all–related to poverty. Everyone keeps forgetting that it is this group with no insurance that go to the emergency rooms for very expensive care (to the taxpayer). Hopefully, that is a cost that will be eliminated and that people will get better preventive care. Frustrated, I believe Caterpillar insurance isn’t what it used to be and was going to get worse (at least, more expensive). Also, aren’t there some major illnesses that are not related to lifestyle? Do we know what causes cancer and how to prevent it? What is probably needed most (that the poor don’t get) is early detection.
Do you think the poor will go to get preventive care if there is a 5k deductible attached to the insurance? Do the poor have the money to go to a doctor regularly if they basically have to pay for it out of pocket, due to the deductible on their insurance. The taxpayer will be paying for the vouchers so that the poor can buy insurance so you will still be paying for their expensive care. Everyones insurance will get more expensive because the insurance companies are going to pass the cost of this law down to the consumer. All the fees, new taxes etc….are just going to be added to whatever premium your already paying for your policies.
Stephen,
The poor will choose the plan that is best for them. If they choose the one that has a $5000 deductible, well that is their choice but it isn’t a forgone conclusion that that will be the case.
The point is you think that someone who makes just enough to pay the bills will start regularly going to a doctor for preventive care if they have to pay for it?
Stephen,
There are a lot of factors consider. What is the cost of the preventative care in question? How important is it to the individual involved. The new law supposedly requires insurers to provide for free or at ‘discount’, preventative care. What that entails exactly, I don’t know. It would be in the insurers interests to go in that direction because its the major medical problems that bankrupt people and hurt insurance companies. Efforts to reduce that risk are good all around…. in theory.
I have read some articles in the last year or two questioning the effectiveness of preventative care programs, more specifically, those being offered by employers in their efforts to curb medical costs. The results have been quite mixed. It has led some employers to drop these programs because they just are not broadly effective at improving health or curbing costs. There are just too many factors involved leading up to a major medical incident.
“You go to work where you have the comfort of knowing your employer at the end of the week will cut you a check” I have no such guarantee, and there is nothing I can do if my employer goes bankrupt.
“I have to make sure that at the end of the week there is enough money in the account to cut that check. Yes that means some weeks I dont get paid and my employees do. ”
ha ha ha !!!
“Some weeks I work 40+ hours a week” Sometimes I work LESS than 40 a week, even though I only get paid for the equivalent of 32. I normally work 60 -80 a week. Don’t give me that waah waah crap.
“my corporation”
Your corporation exists outside of you… like a pet, eh?
You don’t pay corporate taxes, your corporation pay them. YOU pay your income taxes, and that is all.
THANK YOU Sharon.
You have never been the one cutting the checks you are the one collecting them on friday. I wouldnt expect you to have a real understanding of how a business operates. You are not the one making sure that you are being paid ICC is doing that for you. You can attempt to make it seem different but at the end of the day you do a job that you are paid for and expect pay from. You are not required to bring any income to your job to ensure that you receive your scheduled pay. To ensure my employees get a check I have secure a cash flow that outweighs the cost of operation. You go to work and then collect your check. I go to work, do my job the same job as the people I employee, and on top of that have to make sure that people like you also get their check at the end of the week (you being an employee not an employer). You can attempt to paint me as some sort of evil corporate CEO that sits and smokes cigars and drinks cocktails on my yacht all day but that is simply not the case and there are many other small business owners in the area who are hard working and have a genuine concern for their employees just as I do. OK way to split hairs your right I pay income tax and then the corporation is taxed at a substantially higher level on any profit left over. Oh I dont get the profit the company takes in either that is the companies profit that is used to do business. I get a pay check just like you do from your employer.
I wish you luck on your campaign against local small business owners! You should attack Haddad’s Market next its an evil corporate grocery store!
Stephen… just stop. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I cut checks every week, for people who work for me… the cable company, utilities, my banks, the grocer, fuel providers… don’t act like it’s a big deal to “be the boss”.
“You are not required to bring any income to your job to ensure that you receive your scheduled pay. ”
You really have no clue as to what is going on, do you? I pay for my clothes, food, travel expenses, paper costs, books and films… I AM A BUSINESS just as much as any landscaper, tractor manufacturer or restaurateur.
“I wish you luck on your campaign against local small business owners! You should attack Haddad’s Market next its an evil corporate grocery store!”
You are a … ahem… you have no idea what you are talking about.
Look Kcdad. Haddads Market Inc. Are they an evil corporation? How is Haddads Market Inc any different then Cub Food Inc. Yes kcdad using your form of logic everyone is a small business. I get it you pay for things. I dont agree with your logic any more then you do with mine.
Jon,
Why use the pro-ObamaCare poll? See others here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
Thanks, David, there are many other pro-Obama/health care plan polls on your link, in addition to the USA Today/Gallup poll I quoted 🙂
Gosh, Stephen, I know lots of people with guns who don’t shoot people. I know lots of people who drink alcohol and aren’t drunks… try and make a rational relevant argument, would you?
GOSH kcdad, your argument from the beginning has been that corporations are bad. My business is bad and I am a coward because my business is incorporated but apparently Haddad’s Market is ok somehow even though it is a corporation. Why do they get the pass? I wonder if they incorporated their business for the same reason I did mine. Thats the rational relevant argument.
Further I really dont care how you rationalize your opinions to yourself. If you want to call yourself a business and blame corporations for all your problems hey whatever floats you boat. Im also willing to bet you have never met someone who disagreed with you that you didnt think was a dumbass.
Jon,
Selective use of only polls that favor your side isn’t a good strategy. The point is, there are many credible polls that show a clear majority against the health care bill. And it will strengthen as more details come out.
Which of those polls you linked shows a “clear majority against the health care bill”? Sure, there are some saying they don’t approve how the bill was handled by the Democrats or Obama, or as I explained earlier, there were some who didn’t approve of the proposed plan BECAUSE IT DIDN’T GO FAR ENOUGH, but when it came down to voting for this bill, the majority of polls, including those you provided the link to, show that most people favored this plan (better than nothing).
David, it’s clear that this argument is pointless as Jon is clearly blind and cannot read. He must think that somewhere in the healthcare bill is a cure for blindness.
11bravo, I’ll ask you the same question: WHICH of those polls on David’s link shows a “clear majority against the health care bill”? Try your copy and paste functions, rather than a pithy reply. I’ll help you. Here’s one before the vote:
“As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor it or generally oppose it?”
Favor Oppose Unsure
39% 59% 2%
However, on further examination, the poll identifies those “opposed”:
if oppose: “Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?”
Combined responses
Too Liberal 43%
Not Liberal Enough 13%
Unsure 5%
Maybe this will help explain it to you:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/a-thin-line-between-hate-and-love/
I fail to see why you guys are getting hung up because of the polls. They are completely irrelevant. As so many bloggers have pointed out in the past…a VOTE is a VOTE. The people have spoken……. What the ‘people’ want, the people get, etc.
Of course I am referring to the [much maligned] sales tax for the museum. I wonder; if a poll of Peoria City/County residents were taken today, would they approve of a museum sales tax?
Anyway, the point is…the politicians who are about to pass[?] the new healthcare bill, were elected by the ‘people.’ Obama & co. were empowered BY the ‘people!’
I do THANK YOU for not bantering on about the so-called SOCIALIST slant to this reform bill!
You can always rely on Krugman for a ideologically neutral opinion, seriously Jon… As for the poll you copied and pasted, maybe you should take a closer look because the numbers you quote don’t even add up. But for the sake of argument, even those numbers show a plurality of Americans who are opposed to the bill.
11bravo, here’s how they add up:
Poll 1: 39 + 59 + 2 = 100
Poll 2 : 43 + 13 + 5 = 61 = 59 + 2 (opposed and undecided from previous – sorry if I didn’t make that clear)
Again, though you miss the point entirely. Count me in as one who didn’t like the bill originally – but only because it didn’t go far enough (no real public option), but when push comes to shove, I favored the bill because it was better than nothing. The latest poll (albeit just one poll) confirms that. Idealists ultimately become realists to enact change.
Jimmy Breslin wrote in May of 2006, “Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool. Any editors of newspapers or television shows who use poll results as a story are beyond gullible. On behalf of the public they profess to serve, they are indolent salesmen of falsehoods.”
Mark Twain wrote, “There are liars, damned liars and statisticians.”
Frank Luntz… “I ask questions in way that will get the right answer.”
Jon,
I seem to recall an election in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts January 19 in which a Senate seat held by liberal Democrats (John F. Kennedy, and brother Edward M. Kennedy) for 57 years was won by a Moderate Republican named Scott Brown that boldly campaigned as the “41st vote against ObamaCare.” The Dem candidate should have won by 30%, but lost by 5%. Of course, we all know Massachusetts elected Brown because they were still angry at George W. Bush or ObamaCare didn’t go far enough 🙂
Charlie, you stopped the Breslin quote short. He went on to say that the problem was that the polls didn’t call cell phones (only land lines). Who is more apt to use cell phones? The younger generation, which is also one of the groups most in favor of the health care plan.
Mark Twain also said “Communism is idiocy.”
And Frank Luntz doesn’t write the questions for USA Today/Gallup. Apples and Oranges.
And David, you know well that the primary reason for Brown’s victory was the PATHETIC candidate the Dems put forth in Massachusetts (and their arrogance in doing so). But hey, didn’t those polls closest to the election predict a Brown victory? 🙂
Jon, the correct interpretation of Breslin is: who DOESN’T have cell phones? It is the older, retired generation…those who already have health insurance.
So you call them and what kind of data do you get? “We don’t need health insurance reform, we need prescription medicine assistance… EXACTLY what the polling data revealed.
Mark Twain also said school boards are worse than idiots.
Frank Luntz is the “word smith” creating the buzz words for the neo-cons talking points… and of course EVERY poll on Fox.
And David, you know well that the primary reason for Brown’s victory was the PATHETIC candidate the Dems put forth in Massachusetts (and their arrogance in doing so).
Yes, Martha Coakley was a poor candidate, but she would have won anyway, albeit by a narrower margin, had she faced the typical token GOP candidate. After all, she was elected to her current office of Massachusetts Attorney General with 73 percent of the vote! But she lost in a state where liberal Democrats are not supposed to lose because Scott Brown was serious about victory, and was not shy about opposing ObamaCare, among other issues.
But hey, didn’t those polls closest to the election predict a Brown victory?
Most Massachusetts voters will support the Dem’s candidate by default, but as Scott Brown’s campaign caught the attention of the national media, his poll numbers shot up. His debate performance, Coakley’s many gaffes and Pres. Obama’s unhelpful appearance (“Air Force One’s emergency flight to Logan,” as Brown brilliantly described it in his victory speech) sealed the deal.