The beltway consesnsus seems to be that the Democrats' prospects of passing meaningful health insurance reform this year have become much slimmer, if they haven't already entirely evaporated. Like Ezra Klein, however, I'm not really sure what everyone was expecting. There is a lot of money -- and political capital -- at stake here. Were opponents of health care reform going to roll over and play dead? Has anything proceeded that differently from how we might have expected it to proceed ahead of time?
Over at Intrade, the bettors currently assign a 43 percent chance that a health care bill with a public option will be passed by the end of the year. There is no market, unfortunately, on the prospects for passage of a bill without a public option (something which could still happen under any number of scenarios). What's interesting about this contract, though, is that it's not particularly higher or lower than it has ever been. Sure, health care has had a bit of a rough go of things of late, but perhaps not a particularly rougher go than we should have been "pricing in" to our expectations:
I had argued previously that Obama should have done more to frame the debate and put a particular health care bill in front of Congress, rather than letting Congress handle it themselves. Maybe health care would be in a little bit better shape right now if he had done that and maybe it wouldn't; we'll never really be able to test the counterfactual. But because he didn't do that, Obama still has most of his tactical flexibility intact. And there are at least four scenarios under which health care reform could still pass this year:
1. Whip Democrats Into Submission. This is probably the closest thing to the default approach. So long as there are a dozen or a half-dozen different iterations of health care floating around Capitol Hill, individual Democratic Congressmen can afford to bargain for their preferred version. "Progressive" Democrats from rich districts can object to the plan of raising taxes on the very wealthy to pay for expanded coverage. Labor-backed Democrats can try and play hardball on any proposal to remove the benefits tax exemption. The Blue Dogs can howl at the moon for whatever it is they want -- probably some kind of sweeteners for rural districts, like the ones given to farm-state Democrats on the climate bill. And advocates of the public option can continue to treat it as a sine qua non and threaten to oppose any bill that doesn't include one.
Once a particular bill is put up to a vote, however, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to have a difficult time voting against it. Health care reform remains quite popular in theory and at least marginally popular in practice. It will probably do the most good for those districts where conservative Democrats tend to reside.
And then there is the oldest motivator of all: survival. The failure of health care reform in 1994 may have damaged Bill Clinton -- but it really damaged the Congressional Democrats, who lost 54 seats in the House and another 8 in the Senate. Of the 36 incumbent Democrats who lost that year, only four (North Carolina's David Price, Ohio's Ted Strickland and Washington's Maria Cantwell and Jay Inslee) would ever return to the Congress (whereas Clinton, of course, was re-elected). Any Democrat who votes against health care, moreover, can expect to be permanently shut off from the Obama-run DNC and from most or all grassroots fundraising drives, and many of them can probably expect a primary challenger.
There are probably some Democrats who would be better off if health care went away. But once it comes up to vote, I'd imagine there will be very few who are actually better off voting against it.
2. Reconciliation. This is not necessarily mutually exclusive with the other scenarios, but Obama could try and use the reconciliation process to pass health care, which would mean Republicans would lose the ability to filibuster in the Senate and Democrats would need only need 50 votes for passage. This is risky: the extent to which the bill remained intact would depend upon the rulings of the obscure Senate Parliamentarian, and going through reconciliation would cause mayhem on the Hill with somewhat unpredictable political consequences. And it would certainly look overtly partisan -- especially now that Democrats have gained their 59th and 60th seats in the Senate. But if Obama decides that health care is too big to fail, reconciliation is an option.
3. Wyden-Bennett and Other "Bipartisan" Approaches.. I don't see any particular reason why the Administration couldn't press the reset button and push for a different sort of health care bill -- particularly Ron Wyden's, which already has a half-dozen Republican supporters. In fact, it might make Obama look somewhat good to "acknowledge the political realities" (yadda yadda) and adopt a more "bipartisan" approach. A lot of Republicans claim to support health care -- just not the particular approach being put forth by the Democratic Congress. Shifting gears, particularly to a bill like Wyden-Bennett that is strong on cost containment, would reveal many of them to be hypocrites, but probably also secure enough of their votes to make passage a likelihood.
4. Hope the Economy Gets Better (or Some Other Secular Change in Momentum). In general, I'm pessimistic about the state of the economy insofar as it will affect Obama's political capital. Even if the economy formally pulls out of a recession -- some economists think we're already out of the recession -- it will take some time before the employment picture turns around. The past week, however, has brought some relatively good economic news and the Dow is now hovering at about 8,800 points, around its 6-month highs. If the next monthly jobs report is better than expected, if the Dow somehow rallies past 10,000, or if the recession is declared over, that might give Obama a little bit of actual momentum which may be amplified by the Washington press corps, which by that point will have tired of the "Obama is melting!" storyline and may be looking to describe his "comeback" instead.
* * *
I'm not about to go out on a limb with some sort of prediction that health care is going to pass this year. It could very easily fail. But it's not going to fail without the White House fighting like mad for it, and with most or all of its options being exhausted. The fundamental weakness of the White House press corps is that they can rarely see beyond the current 24-hour news cycle -- there are still a lot of news cycles ahead before ObamaCare can be put to rest.
7.20.2009
Rumors of the Demise of ObamaCare Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
by Nate Silver @ 2:40 PM...see also health care, msm, obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

122 comments
Nate, I'd be interested to hear your take on how the issue is being presented to the American people. Just today, reading all the stories, we hear Obama has below 50% approval on the issue, but looking deeper, we see that the same poll shows this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Thinking about health care, one proposal to insure nearly everyone would require all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax, excluding those with lower incomes. It would require most employers to offer health coverage or pay a fee. There would be a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. And income taxes on people earning more than 280-thousand dollars a year would be raised to help fund the program. Taken together, would you support or oppose this plan? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
-------- Support -------- --------- Oppose -------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
7/18/09 54 32 23 43 10 33 3
So a bunch of the people in the negative are actually in favor of the option, but are actually thinking he's not taking on enough to get it done, but it is being framed as those people being against the plan, which is wrong.
What scares me is that this approach in Congress is similar to the approach taken in 1994: let a thousand flowers bloom. The problem, as you note under #1, is that allows erstwhile supporters to push to get everything they want, while those who oppose the whole effort can simply vote no on every proposal. Those who want SOMETHING are a majority (maybe even a supermajority), but they vote as if the reversion point isn't status quo but their preferred alternative. A lot of people in Congress prefer an issue to a bill.
It should be one bill with a modified rule to allow for a limited number of big alternative choices and a slightly larger number of minor tweaks. Rob the GOP of their ability to complain they were left out, and let beholden Dems please their particular bases with amendment votes.
2 polls Rasmussen and PPP both have Obama with just 50% approval today.
Of course we have the counterfactual -- 1994. That's exactly what the Clinton people did: brought a bill TO congress, which didn't like it one bit. Obama specifically campaigned on the fact that this was going to be an "open, inclusive" process.
We absolutely, positively must get health care passed this year. If we cannot do it with a popular president and 60 Democratic votes, it means it can't be done. And I believe it can and must be done.
If Obama's approval ratings dip below 50 during the Senate recess, how low do our chances go?
I trade on Intrade. Obama has too much riding on health care to let it slip. He will do absolutely anything he has to to get it through.
More in-depth here:
http://tinyurl.com/kk5vb2
John
Heres the rub. Even people that support that plan don't know how much it will actually cost or if the funding proposals will be enough to pay for the plan. Will premiums go up. They will for some peopel who, how many, and how much. What will be the effect on coverage and procedure levels. These are the nitty gritty details that people want answers to.
Obama may have answers to these but he hasn't communiated them very well. Also, after the vague stimulus and the results to this point. People are wary about taking someone just on their word. Even if they personally like the guy.
I fit in all the categoreis outlined above
The Washington Post has a good list of the challenges Obama is going to be facing based on slight but steady polling declines and a congress that is becoming more and more fractured
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/timeline.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I also want to issue an apology for some of my comments earlier. It was a reaction to some of the other comments and it was wrong and immature.
I want healtcare reform but I want it done right and no rushed. I don't want to read an article three months from now showing all the mistakes and loopholes that were missed.
mydd.com
One More Note on Obama's Approval Rating
The Pollster.com trend estimate puts Barack Obama's approval rating at 54.2 percent, with 40.1 percent disapproving -- a good deal below the 60 percent/33 percent spread found in the latest Gallup polling. Why the difference? Ask Rasmussen Reports. Taking out the automated pollster from the mix, Barack Obama's approval rating is a net 7 percentage points better. Interesting, no?
___
Gallup: Obama Approval Holding at 60 Percent
A little over a week ago when Gallup released a survey showing Barack Obama's approval rating falling to 56 percent, the Beltway media took note, as did conservatives. But now that the President's approval rating has hit a robust 60 percent in Gallup polling for a second straight day, and third day in the last six, where's the chatter?
D-Man -
You are going to remove the most accurate pollster so you can rely on what proved to be a somewhat inaccurate poll?
Removing Rasmussen is ridiculous. It should be triple-weighted in my opinion.
The fact that it is automated makes it more accurate. It is a lot easier to he honest with a tone-activated computer than with a human being who you might not want to offend.
Plus, Rasmussen uses an LV model which explains the other half of the gap.
Rasmussen nailed the election dead on. To toss out anything he does is fanciful self-delusion.
Why does Nate not do a modeled approval index? My guess is that he knows he would have to overweight Rasmussen and therefore come in lower than other poll averages. Not good for his audience.
Nova, well reasoned response. I guess my point is in questions form: If the current proposal is supported by 54% of people, yet all we hear in the media is that the support for Obamacare(for lack of a better word since he doesn't even have a plan, he let Congress fight that out having learned from 1994 IMHO) is less than 50% now...Is the media creating a self prophecy or do they have an agenda? I guess I see where you're coming from, but 2 things. 1). rushed, come on, we've been talking about this really since 1994 and if it is not done this year, there is no way it'll get done until after midterms, it's just how DC works. 2). This whole mistake angle kind of grinds my gears, of course any massive plan will have some, the question is, is there a chance that this plan could possibly be worse than what we have now? I just don't think so. The poll declines don't concern me much, I never thought Obama would hold onto conservative support, which is where he seems to be losing most of the ground according to the underlying data. The longer Congress takes on this, the more loopholes will be purposely left in as well, it's the way of Congress (I give you this loophole to get your vote). Disgusting that we all suffer, regardless.
D-Man -
PPP released a 2012 matchup survey today that had Obama at a 50% approval rating.
Not good. It matches Rasmussen.
It's not just Rasmussen.
Hotline as Obama at 56. Ipsos/McClatchy has Obama at 57 and CBS News also has Obama at 57. Public Policy Polling has Obama at 50, and even though Washington Post still has Obama at 59, that number is six point below the last incarnation of the poll.
The polls are all slightly different but the one thing that is consistent is that Obama's numbers have been bleeding slowly for the past six months. As long as the unemployment remains high and climbs, the trend is likely to continue.
The same PPP survey also had Obama beating four prospective Republicans in the South while being more vulnerable in the west and midwest.
Nate -
"Any Democrat who votes against health care, moreover, can expect to be permanently shut off from the Obama-run DNC and from most or all grassroots fundraising drives, and many of them can probably expect a primary challenger."
Do you really, honestly, truly think that they will run serious challengers against Democrats who had to vote NAY to avoid certain electoral defeat?
This strikes me as a tremendously naive statement. Who is going to win in these conservative district? A more "PROGRESSIVE" candidate? Seriously?
If Obama cuts them off, which may be to their benefit the way things are going, then he will be tossing away a fleeting Democrat House majority.
It will end the magical narrative of the New Progressive Majority and all talk of a moribund GOP will look like serious self-delusion.
After losing Congress, Obama will be forced to morph into Bill Clinton or be tossed from office.
Lucky thing for Clinton is that the economy had already recovered by election day, but the jobs had not come back. By 1996 the jobs did come back and not for anything that Clinton did per se.
Obama will not have it so lucky. Even if unemployment is trending down in mid 2012, it will not be 5%. He will be lucky if it is lower than the 6% that it stood at on election day. He will have trillion dollar deficits or close to it.
If Obama loses the House on ideological lines (forget party lines) it is over for him. His base is not Clinton's base. He does not have the flexibility to go Centrist and hold his base coalition. But if he fails to go Centrist he probably lose anyway.
Cutting off Blue Dogs and Moderates will look Machiavellian vengeful and Bush-esque. It will look Rovish, but dumb. Rove was cunningly smart, that would would be vengefully stupid.
He will need moderates more than ever...
Josh -
I agree. PPP was odd. It had very low approvals, but Obama fared better in the matchups.
My sense is that it comes down to interview methodology.
Look at it this way. 49% said they would vote for Palin or Romney over 43% or so for Obama. Scary.
With all the negative press Palin has gotten, the fact that she is competitive with him in Rasmussen has to frighten even the most die hard supporters.
Any Democrat who votes against health care, moreover, can expect to be permanently shut off from the Obama-run DNC and from most or all grassroots fundraising drives, and many of them can probably expect a primary challenger.
And that is stupid stupid stupid. Trust me. Republicans spent the last couple of years cannibalizing their own - and it got them nowhere. From a GOP standpoint, having Linc Chafee from RI was like a gift from the gods. There was no way the GOP was ever going to get someone that better suits their interests from such a navy blue state. And what happened? The idiots over the Club For Growth decided to bang the drum and run a primary challenger against Chafee (I believe his name was Laffey, the Cranston Mayor). Club for Growth and Laffey bloodied Chafee enough so that he barely limped across the finish line in the primary and then he went on to lose by 6 points in the general election.
Do you honsetly think that it is a good idea "to primary" Democrats that currently represent districts that, let's be honest here, Democrats have no business representing (R+6 or greater)? And to do this just for the sake of purity? It's stupid. It was stupid for the Republicans to do it in the last two cycles. It's just as stupid for Democrats to do it now, especially with a president whose numbers are slowly sagging through the 50's.
I think you guys missed the point.
Rasmussen is a pretty big outlier, and we should be suspicious about big outliers.
Although I make the following concessions: 1) the PPP poll lends a bit of weight to the Rasmussen polls, and 2) there's a downward trend with or without Rasmussen (but the magnitude is still different)
on a side note, i think everybody needs to keep in mind that Rasmussen receives a lot of money from the GOP:
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/consultants/list.aspx?act=conDetail&id=122002
I think Nate is right -- at some point there will be a single bill, or at worst a House bill and a Senate bill which are not too far apart, at which point the Democrats will have to choose between a re-run of 1994 and moving forward. Obama's numbers are down from before, of course, but what does that change for most Democrats? Are they going to switch to the Republican Party because Obama's numbers are down? For better or worse, he's the face of the party -- the thing that makes it "progressive" -- and if he goes down, so do they.
I don't think there will be much of a problem in the House. Pelosi seems to be a master (mistress?) at letting Blue Dogs vote no in numbers NOT QUITE sufficient to defeat major bills. It passes the House by something like ten votes.
In the Senate, though, they're going to have to use the reconciliation process. Nelson, Baucus, and Conrad are unlikely votes, because they've staked so much political capital on trying to satisfy the nay-sayers that it may be too late for them to vote for a bill -- at least a bill that is close to what the House is going to pass. Lieberman, too, is unreliable, and doesn't have anything to lose by breaking ranks since he's nominally not a Democrat anyhow. The idea that the Democrats can get 60 votes on this is an illusion. No, it will pass by something like 52-48.
But hey, in 1993, Clinton got his tax increase passed without any Republican votes and by extremely narrow margins, and once the deal was done, he won re-election handily. It was the failure of health care that created the 1994 debacle, not the tax increase of 1993, which most Americans never noticed because it only affected the upper classes.
Health care is going to be very similar unless it taxes current benefits. That's why Obama is so adamant against that. It's not that it doesn't make some sense -- it's that it makes it politically about ten times harder to do. But absent that caveat, there won't be any backlash, and what I personally expect to happen is that the insurance companies are going to begin to phase out of the market entirely, raising premiums to the point where employers find it cheaper to dump them and put employees into the public option. And since that will be CHEAPER than at present, most people are going to LOVE the new program.
Deficits? Deficits? Reagan's Law is that deficits don't matter, and Cheney's corollary is that they only matter when you're not in power. Most people understand this and ignore them. As for the long-term effects of deficits on the economy, those are coming no matter what we do about health care.
Like the high quality comments to this point.
The polticial and economic climate are constantly changing. I am not completely sure if Obama would be reelected if there was an election today.
That just the facts on the ground
The one criticisim would be creating an overly optimistic view on the economy. Even on that issue most leading economists thought things would be better by now. Remember all the green shoots frenzy from just a little over six weeks ago.
The mainstream media is your best friend and enemy. The 24/7 news cycle seizes on the latest data and in my humble opinion amplifies things to make them worse of better than they actually are.
Ok back to the thread
John,
Here are my thoughts
While I agree that healthcare has the best change of passing the sooner it comes up for a vote. The reality is it does appear rushed at this point. When you combine that with the stimulus plan the talking point sticks with people. I doubt many congressman even understand everything that is being propossed. The top tax rate funding plan was just unveiled less than 10 days ago.
I think the Budget review on Thursday was/is a huge blow. That analysis is hard to ignore and fight back against. You could literally feel the momentum shift. Obama has been scrambling to counteract that since then. It will be interesting to here his comments later this week in primetime.
As far as the polling is concerned what I always watch for is the independents. On healthcare that number is a net negative know. It is true that there are some Republicans claiming to be independents which distorts the numbers a bit but still thats a key benchmark the politicians watch. Also overall the healthcare plan is barely registering approval.
Its going to continue to be an interesting couple of days coming up.
D-Man -
Rasmussen does not get money from the GOP more than any other pollster, he is non-partisan.
Look at Nate's poll rankings. Even if they did, he is still the most accurate of pollsters.
It is an outlier because of methodology. Their methodology seems to be generally superior for prediction.
You cannot ignore it and stay objective. It is too accurate and proven to just ignore because you do not like it.
It is not an outlier. PPP confirms it. Both PPP and Rasmussen are far more accurate than Gallup, ABC, or CBS.
God I love this site. It's just like election season when Nate single-handedly killed two thousand McCain comeback stories.
I am sure most of you read the Fix already but just in case you don't very insightful post on what is going on here
"While Americans usually pay homage to the desire for change, they often retreat inside the comfortable confines of the status quo when pushed.
In a June Washington Post-ABC News poll, 85 percent of those surveyed said they were either very (59 percent) or somewhat (25 percent) concerned about the future cost of health care for their family.
That same poll showed nearly eight in ten Americans expressing concerning about a variety of potential impacts as a result of the reform of health care from "reducing the quality of health care you receive" (81 percent) to "sharply increase the national debt" (84 percent).
Republicans know full well that an anxiety toward the economy generally -- and health care specifically -- exists in the country.
Steele's speech is designed to play into those worries and fears and to push Americans to wonder whether everything is moving too far, too fast.
The slower the process goes, the better chance Republicans have to poke holes in the plan and make their case in opposition to it to the American people.
It worked for Democrats on Social Security. But, can Republicans follow the same blueprint on health care?"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/steele-borrow-a-page-from-the.html
It was the failure of health care that created the 1994 debacle, not the tax increase of 1993, which most Americans never noticed because it only affected the upper classes.
That's a big assumption. How do we know that? More probably it was the failure of health care that pissed off one group AND the tax increase AND the Brady Bill.
The point is that these things add up. As Obama moves to the left of the electorate and enacts policies that alienate the center, he is going to continue to bleed support. Where people are mildly disillusioned with Obama's policies, the more he takes on, and the more he alienates people, the more robust the opposition.
The premise of this post is that not getting anything done re: healthcare is going to cause Obama electoral headaches. It's true - failure on Obama's signature issue will make Obama SEEM like a failure. And the electorate doesn't like failures.
But it's more than that. Obama, simply by PUSHING THE ISSUE OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, coupled with the climate bill, couple with Sotomayor, coupled with every little drip and drop leftwing policy is eventually going to embolden the right and shift the center to the right. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, once the center leaves you, your days of a governing majority or soon to be over.
So my congressman, Jared Polis(D) Colorado, voted against this bill in committee because of the increased taxes on smaller businesses specifically s-corps. Ways and Means said this would only affect 4.1% of small businesses with a 4.6% tax increase for those making over 1million and a larger surcharge on those making over a million. According to Congressman Polis small businesses make up 60-80% of new jobs and that small 4.1% of small businesses this will impact really employ roughly half of all people employed by small businesses. He thinks it is also possible that many of the s-corps will switch to c-corps to lower their taxes (even with 'double taxation') from ~45% down to 35% thus decreasing revenue for UHC.
So does anyone have any insight into this? Would this payment model really crush small businesses / slow economic growth or are people just being greedy?
Obama needs to be a war-time president when it comes to healthcare. He needs to take on healthcare reform's Axis Of Evil:
http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=63680
*
Mid point man,
rasmuessen is accurate the day before elections, when his numbers magically converge with the numbers of other pollsters.
i've seen no evidence that he's accurate years away from elections, when his numbers are much different than everybody else.
also, you claim that Rasmussen doesn't get money from the GOP. I already linked to proof that he gets money as a "consultant". in fact, he gets A LOT of money from them.
USA Today Poll just released shows Obama with a 55 percent approval - the lowest of his presidency.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-20-obama-poll-economy_N.htm
I just looked at the crosstabs on the PPP poll which shows Obama with a 50% approval rating. This is the geographic breakdown:
Northeast - 24%
South - 34%
Midwest - 26%
West - 16%
Unless the entire South turns out in future elections, while the rest of the country sits quietly knitting at home, then this is clearly an outlier. This is especially considering that the South, even in the most generous definition (which includes Texas, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oklahoma), constitutes only 184 electoral votes out of 538 or 29%.
Sorry, but Obama's approval rating is not 50%, my friends. This is great news for John McCain!
It is difficult to measure support for a non-existent bill. There is no agreement on what to do or how to pay for it. Asking people whether they want to pay less is a pretty worthless question without also considering what they are willing to give up.
No major overhaul is going to pass for two independent reasons: (1) not enough people will benefit and (2) agreement on how to pay for it is all-but impossible.
With respect to the first problem, most people are happy with their current coverage (the majority) and are not willing to downgrade in exchange for a decreased number of uninsured (the minority). Very basic self-interest at work... the public option cannot benefit a majority of voters.
Second, in this climate there is no way Congress can come up with $500 billion+ out of thin air. The existing proposals already involve all kinds of trickery on this front (e.g., the "10 year" plan includes 7 years of health care but 9 years of taxes).
The GOP really is not at issue here. Unless Democrats come up with a plan that can withstand scrutiny in 2010, it will not pass. The main plans being discussed now risk a major backlash from older voters, affluent voters, and middle-class voters happy with their existing coverage.
Obama is probably not at 50 percent. But he probably is not at SIXTY percent either.
The difference, of course, is that a month or two ago he WAS at 60 percent.
The relevant question is: What is likely to change in the next month, or two, or three that will change the TRENDLINE? That's what the Obama supporters have to be concerned about. Not some estimation of current popularity that is impossible to pinpoint anymore than plus or minus three percent.
To be honest, I think Obama may be worse off politically IF health care passes in its current form.
Why? Because then there is no doubt that he owns what happens next. He cannot blame what happens tomorrow on Bush or the intransigent GOP minority.
Why else? Because it WILL hurt the economy over the short run. Only the naive would deny this.
This bill will create huge incentives for employers to dump workers, especially the lower-skilled type that they do not have to cover right now. They will be gone.
I bet they would rather keep their job than have health care and no job, but that is me guessing.
Employers tend to make it clear why they have to let people go when it is not for performance reasons.
"We cannot affort to pay your health care" will be a commonly heard phrase. These workers will know what caused them to be laid off.
Full-time work will be converted to part-time work all over the place. You do not have to pay benefits on part-time workers. Overtime Pay as a concept will fade away for all but the lucky few.
Regardless of what Progressives say, pushing the top marginal tax rates to well over 50% (including state and local) will have real negative investment disincentives in a down economy.
You can raise taxes on the rich in a strong economy. They hardly feel it, and they are getting rich. If you do it in a down economy, when they are losing wealth, they stop investing in job creation and invest in unhelpful things like Treasuries or Asia Growth Mutual Funds.
It is risky enough to invest in a new store or sales office in a down economy. The ROI is uncertain enough to begin with. Then, assuming the expansion succeeds, you only get to keep ~45% of the net gains? Why take the risk? If it goes bust you are out a ton of cash. It erodes a weakened business case even further.
This is how millionaire small business owners think.
When you get to keep less than half of the next dollar you earn, the psychological effect is real. Why risk it? I can make a steady return investing in Asia.
Tell me how that helps us?
This is not quite like the 1970s when the 70% top rates kicked in at $10 million a year or so plus you had all kinds of crazy loopholes to get around it if you you really wanted to.
Those millionaires will still be millionaires if they do not expand their business at all. They will be ok. It is the people they do not hire that lose.
In a roaring economy it may not hurt us to raise taxes on millionaires. In this economy it may prevent it from recovering.
The combination of increasing the cost of hiring new workers PLUS the higher taxes on the profits you might generate on the back-end means that small businesses get hammered twice. They pay for it twice.
Their best bet is to hire as few people as possible and only part-timers and contractors.
That is what I would do and you would do as a business owner trying to survive.
Obama has to realize this, or at least Summers might.
Romer's models predict this legislation will kill 5 million jobs.
Obama will be better off if he tries and fails vs. succeeding and being responsible for the consequences.
This will increase health care demand 15% overnight. We have a shortage of doctors and skilled practitioners already.
The first whiff people get of longer waiting times such as for their kids to see pediatricians (and it will be near immediate) they will be enraged.
You can mess with me, but not my kids the soccer moms will say. It will not be good.
This is real. This will happen. We do not have enough doctors. To expand coverage so dramatically in so short a time. It could be quite chaotic, and this will be a HUGE liability if it is.
Obama is better off losing this one. He can always say he tried, Bill Clinton made it work.
D-Man
I saw no evidence of your claim that Rasmussen numbers gyrate at the end more than any other pollster.
Gallup numbers are all over the place relative to Rasmussen.
Let's see the evidence.
D-Man -
Rasmussen runs polls for a living. Political polls. I have no doubt that he gets money to run said polls from the GOP.
I also have no doubt that he gets money from Democrats as well.
So what?
What counts is whether his published polls are accurate and predictive.
He would probably take money to run a poll for Louis Farrakhan or Jim Birch Society if they asked. It is what he does for a living.
Your claim effectively knocks out every major pollster out there.
Why does it matter for Rasmussen and not Gallup? Gallup does free polling for PR purposes only so they can hire private clients to do market research for.
Unlike most polling organizations who rely primarily on private clients, he has a subscription model that covers his costs. Consulting and market research make up a much smaller part of his business than others.
Accuracy is what matters. Ignore Rasmussen at your peril.
As for your link, I did not find it particularly persuasive or noteworthy.
Obama qualifications to reform health care:
No birth certificate
Cannot stop smoking
Difficulty telling the truth.
Therefore, I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at www.igormaro.org
Compare Obama Care vs Igor Care at Obama vs Igor Care
Midpoint, my only response to you on Rasmussen is fair or not, we happen to know where his personal idealogy is, and it happens to be reflected in his polls on a regular basis when compared to other (except when it gets closer to the election, that's based solely on numbers). If George Soros ran polls that stated Obama was @ 65%, the inlcination would be to believe he might be fudging them the other way, it's just the appearance that makes Rasmussen tough...He's been an outlier, that, there is no dispute to the past 3 months, right? Now personally, until I see a poll that accuratly reflects the 30 and under crowd, I'm skeptical of them all, since the vast majority of them are cell phone only, raised on caller ID (non answering non known numbers) and they tend to trend considerably more liberal.
First, there is absolutely no way the current legislation on health care reform gets passed by August recess. I'm sure we are going to see commercials, both for and against, flooding the airwaves anytime soon, but there are just too many "ifs" in the current piece of legislation to get passed in the Senate. Unlike the daily barrage of bad economic news that helped get the stimulus passed, there doesn't appear to be any urgency (except Obama saying there is) for this legislation to pass.
If that is a given (and I'm sure some of the liberal optomists here do not agree), then to get a bill passed by the Congress by the end of the year (Obama will be crazed to do this, since he staked so much on health care), it will have to be a bipartisan bill that will be some combo of Wyden/Bennett legislation and the best of the current bill, with some taxation of benefits (probably above a certain minimum level). The progressive liberals won't be thrilled, but it will be a big plus for Obama.
If the Dems were smart, they will see that they boxed the Repubs in on this, if they are willing to compromise (big if!). If the Dems try to get "everything" they want in the bill, especially passing it through reconcilliation, they will be stting themselves up for big defeats in the next Congressional elections.
@Midpoint
You said: We cannot affort to pay your health care will be a commonly heard phrase. These workers will know what caused them to be laid off.
Where have you been? You should talk to the many employers I've discussing that they are having to lay off workers NOW because of skyrocketing insurance costs levied by the private insurance industry. I love this false narrative you're trying to weave. Get educated about the current situation of insurance before you start making silly predictions that make you look foolish.
Edit: "I've heard discussing"
John -
Where does Rasmussen post his ideology? I have not seen it. He very well may be a Republican.
I agree that his polls tend to skew right of other polls, but this is methodological, not ideological.
He polls likely voters on most things. This is a fundamentally different sample that and ALL ADULT sample.
His numbers are different because his methodology is different.
He also does not use human interviewers, he uses an automated system. This is more accurate.
Subtle things affect results with human data collection from keypunch errors (intentional or subliminal) to intonation of questions.
A person may not be willing to tell a female phone interviewer that they think abortion is murder. A computer is another thing altogether.
I think you confuse the fact that he appears on Fox as an ideological statement.
He does not succeed by allowing ideology to color his accuracy.
Given the spread of 4-5 points between his LV poll and polling of All Adults, he is right where he should be.
Here is my take on all of this healthcare debate. I think the GOP is making an awful lot of noise at the mometn, precisely in order to affect public opinion. They have there eyes on 2010, and are doubluing down on a gamble. Either the noise the GOP is making will cause a number of moderate Dems to balk at a public healthcare option, and the pro healthcare net roots will campaign less hard for the moderates, or the public will vote against Dems who vote for a public option bill. Its a similar bet they are making over Sotomayor in someways. (except they know they will lose the Sotomayor vote, but they can at least smear her on the way through and make her less popular!) Overall I don't think the GOP is confident of being able to do anything about the Healthcare battle, but they can change the political costs to Obama and congressional democrats.
My own view is that this is one of those swallow the consequences moments for Democrats. Show some political courage, and say 'yes I believe its morally wrong that millions of Americans have no or inadequate healthcare, and that the health insurance companies have too much power over health provision in the US'. If it means some Dems in purple states lose, then at least they will have gone down doing the right thing! (Though I am not sure that actually voters won't reward that kind of courage!)
Jon -
If an employer cannot afford to pay for health care premiums they do not lay people off because of it, unless they are people they did not really need to start with.
They reduce the employer contribution. They switch to a cheaper plan. They tell people they cannot cover them any longer.
Companies hire workers because they need work done. They fire workers because there is not enough work to do. They do not fire workers because health care premiums went up 10%.
They cut the level of employer matching. This is obvious.
They might choose to use contractors rather than bring in full-time employees, that is true.
The bigger issue is that this does NOTHING to reduce the price of private health care.
Increasing DEMAND with a static SUPPLY will NEVER lower the price.
This is econ 101. You cannot increase demand by 15% overnight and expect prices to drop.
That is just fantasyland.
Mandating that employers cover more people will cause DEMAND and thus PRICE to go UP, not DOWN.
I cannot fathom that so many erstwhile smart people cannot see this quite simple fact.
Insurers will be unwilling to pay more for services, most likely, so all will simply ration demand with LONG, LONG waiting times to see a doctor.
This will, of course, make us a healthier, more productive non-working workforce.
Jon -
Did you know that 61% of all private health insurers with over 100,000 members are NON-PROFIT.
Get yourself educated on supply and demand before you start making stupid statements.
How does that feel? I just made an argument the way you do when you have little to respond with.
You make personal attacks. How petty and revealing.
So sad.
Good God. Does it really matter if Obama's approval rating is 53% or 57% or 61%? It's somewhere in the fifties. He's got majority approval, although some of the sheen is off his administration. End of analysis.
As for health care, something will get passed. The sudden flurry of activity, both positive and negative in the past few days, says to me that we're drawing close to a moment of truth. Obama has made it clear that he's willing to go all the way on this issue, and on occasion the president does have the power to pull a victory for his agenda out of thin air. I never in a million years thought that George W. Bush would be able to convince Congress that Saddam Hussein posed an existential threat to the United States and that we had to invade and occupy Iraq, but damned if he didn't, and damned if Congress didn't give him exactly what he wanted. Depending on your point of view about the Iraq war, that can be taken as a positive or negative comparison, but the point is, I'd be shocked if nothing happened, given the level of rhetoric coming out of both the White House and Capitol Hill.
@Midpoint
You said: They might choose to use contractors rather than bring in full-time employees, that is true.
Guess what happens when an employer fires full time workers to hire part-time workers or contractors? Employers are saying that they are having to lay off workers because of health insurance costs, but you think it's because they 'did not really need them'. What can I say, other than I'll go with the actual words of employers rather than your speculation.
As for demand, as you keep harping upon, you don't seem to be measuring the 'supply' in a way that is valid. You expect me to assume that your version of health care supply, whatever that is, is in fact accurate, despite the fact that private insurance increases costs in some ways that have nothing to do with supply.
You really don't have a grasp for the complexity of this issue if you think health care is just simple matter of supply and demand.
@Midpoint
I love the use of your misleading statistic. Great, you threw out an isolated statistic. Congratulations. What does it mean, in context?
What percentage of Americans are covered by nonprofit insurance? Better yet, how many Americans with pre-existing conditions are discriminated against by private insurance? Maybe you should give me the % of Americans eligible for health insurance that have not-for-profit health insurance.
You're going to have to support your arguments without an out-of-context statistic or the "Look, I'm talking about supply and demand so I sound smart" approach.
Do you realize how many things economists get wrong every day? They are not impartial mathematical wizards, and there is room for healthy debate between economists on the very topic of health care (and there already has been I might add).
As for personal attacks, try reading my actual words. I said your approach to the issue was "foolish". Did I call you an idiot? No. Clearly you aren't, though you seem determined to head in that direction.
Nate:
You hit the President's primary governing weakness squarely on the head - Mr. Obama simply has no plan for anything. Obama tells Congress to draft legislation based on sound bite principles and then the congressional Democrats draft whatever they want.
In the case of the stimulus bill, Mr. Obama claimed that the bill would be limited to shovel ready job creating projects and tax cuts. The product of the Democrat Congress was instead a pork fest. Even so, Obama then signed the bill and claimed it as his own.
It is easy to get a pork bill out of Congress. All you need to say is go forth and spend and Congress will be more than glad to oblige.
In contrast, moving enormously expensive and controversial legislation like the son of Medicaid public option takes a great deal of heavy lifting. The President needs to offer a plan built around specific programs and a means to pay for them that all enjoy broad public support.
Instead, Obama has offered speeches demanding "health reform" based on nearly contentless sound bite principles joined with complete LOL lies about how paying for the health care of 40+ million Americans will only take yet another tax on the wealthiest 2% and largely imaginary health care delivery savings and that none of us will lose our present health insurance although the House bill outlaws all private health insurance that is not government approved within a year.
In short, Mr. Obama is not offering a plan to rally around and is destroying his credibility telling whoppers about what the plan involves and how much it will cost.
I really do not see how Obama recovers from two months of these missteps by simply twisting arms.
While they like the general concept of health care reform, the voters are hardly clamoring for a Trillion dollar Son of Medicaid.
All those Dems representing districts that John McCain won in the worst GOP year since 1964 are not eager to pick a fight with their GOP constituents before the 2010 election, especially since the Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index of likely voters indicates that the intensity of the President's opponents has now significantly eclipsed that of his supporters.
Interestingly, the Dems who now support a heavy majority of the House's wealthiest districts are also coming out against Mr. Obama's plan to soak their constituents to pay for government health insurance.
There is definitely no help coming from the GOP, who are seeing a rerun of 1994 in 2010.
As I just said in my post in the previous thread, polls/schmolls!
Underestimate Barack Hussein Obama at one's own peril!
btw, somebody named Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was a Muslim from Kenya was elected President of the United States of America ?!? beating a moderate yet flip/floppy ;) war hero opponent. No way !!! lol
Yea, read it and weep Reps, no "Bradley Effect" and as of today, no rational opposition on the horizon ...
carry on
take care, blessings
@Bart
You talk about a 'porkfest' so I'd put money down that you probably didn't read a single word of the actual stimulus bill.
You manage to have some insights despite a pretty slanted perspective. We agree that Obama needs to figure out how to pay for it and that he needs to be more proactive.
I always love predictions that 'we are seeing a rerun' of such and such. In your case apparently 2010 and 1994 are identical. Guess what - each time is different, and the fact that you *want* a replay of 1994 is all that you are really saying here.
Rasmussen nailed the election dead on.
Wrong, he got it right on one day. The polls for the 18 months previous to the election?
In the tank for republicans.
A couple of clarifying comments -- 1) Senate doesn't really need 60 votes to pass a health reform bill. They need 51.
2) Some Dems might not vote for the final bill BUT very few would join a Republican filibuster
3) The bill that comes out of conference cte has to be voted on in its entirety - no amendments. So it's up or down, yes or no on health reform.
4) reconciliation is a very bad idea because certain topics cannot be addressed -- insurance reform is one of them, and can you imagine a health reform bill that does not reform the insurance industry?
5) Everyone should stop hyperventilating about this. The reason Obama's poll numbers on health care are not terrific is because there is no health reform bill to comment on yet and very very few have read any of the bills that are being discussed. The polls reflect general anxiety, of which there is a lot....
It's funny to see all of these Democrats so eager to pooh pooh any and all news or polling data that is less than favorable to Obama. Just a reminder, on right-leaning blogs, there was plenty of the same sort of denial once Bush's numbers started to nosedive sometime in 2005.
Obama was in the mid 60's as his term started. Since then he has pushed a climate bill, a "wise latina" Supreme Court nominee, a stimulus bill that as of today looks to not be working out well considering unemployment rates and administration forecasts of those rates prior to bill passage, and a health care plan that even moderates in the party's own party are starting back away from - and his polling numbers have slipped by about ten points.
The guy is not a God. Gravity is starting to take hold. Maybe when it becomes more apparant, the smug arrogance of some will start to disappear.
I should say, moderates in the *president's* own party...
You're right, Beavis, Rasmussen hung to the right for almost the entire period running up to election day -- when he adjusted his numbers to fit the consensus. See one general accounting -- including the comments -- here on Pollster.com. There were several more articles and discussions there by Blumenthal, Moore, and others.
In the pre-election period Pollster did a pretty thorough analysis of the "bias" to their poll aggregation caused by this one polling organization: Rasmussen. I haven't tried to fish that citation out but it was very telling.
Adam,
Why is it that Obama's numbers are dropping? You seem to be unsure, and have instead decided on a scattershot approach, intimating that pretty much everything Obama has done is wrong.
As for me, I'm willing to admit that unemployment is probably the biggest factor that is lessening some of Obama's support.
That seems a lot more believable than the partisan fantasyland you have painted. Try griping about something other than Democrats. I know you're salivating for Obama's poll numbers to go down. Try to make at least the appearance of objectivity next time.
LOL at "likely voter" models three years before the next Presidential election.
Rasmussen- Now with psychic powers!!
Why is it that Obama's numbers are dropping? You seem to be unsure, and have instead decided on a scattershot approach, intimating that pretty much everything Obama has done is wrong.
I actually believe what I wrote. It's not one thing - but a combination of factors.
If the stimulus bill was put up for a vote via national referendum, would it pass? I have my doubts. I certainly doubt the climate bill would pass. And I don't know that Sotomayor would ever be on the High Court if the folks got to vote up or down on it in a national election.
I'm not arguing that it should be different. A representative republic served this nation well for over 200 years. But when you combine all of these individual issues, assuming they are not popular with 50 percent of the electorate, eventually t he guy's numbers WILL fall.
Let Obama's health care reform go through. When it turns out to be a colossal and miserable failure like the intelligent among us know it will be, then we'll have the ammo to vote that incompetent hack out of office in 2012. My only fear is the damage it will do in the meantime before something worthwhile is passed that adequately fixes the system sometime in the next decade. Hopefully, it won't be irreversable.
Let Obama succeed. When Obama succeeds, America fails, at least in the short run. But in the long run, we win as it means it will be that much sooner that he is out of office and organizing communities again, whatever that means, instead of being a horrendous leader of the free world.
That's "irreversible."
Mule Rider - you are commenting on the wrong blog. This is a blog for people of intelligence who respect facts.
I think it's time that folks that vote Democratic make Democrats act like Democrats or, actually, yes, vote Republican.
I just emailed BOTH of my U.S. Senators, both of whom I voted for in '06 and '08 to let them know that even though I'd almost rather vote for a criminal than a Republican (well they're kinda the same ain't they? :)), but if no health care passes with universal care and a public option that next time I and my family (and they agreed) are voting for the whoever the Republican is next time in Virginia. Doesn't matter who, if the Democrats can't get health care this time, then it can't be done. And they need damn well know that they really will be held accountable if it doesn't pass. Even if that means voting (gasp!) Republican.
And you know what, if I'm still alive in 2012 when Webb is up, I really am voting Republican if no health care gets done.
Sure would be nice if every Democrat out there did this just this once for this one issue, because IMO NO ISSUE is more important than the immorality of our current system. It's just wrong.
Can't believe no one has mentioned the language already passed by Congress in the February budget resolution that automatically puts health care into reconciliation on October 15 if no compromise is reached.
Also, I ALWAYS filter out Rasmussen when I play with pollster.com plots.
beavis:
Wrong, [Rasmussen] got it right on one day. The polls for the 18 months previous to the election? In the tank for republicans.
Rasmussen was by far the steadiest of all the polling firms. While everyone was bouncing all over the place, Ramussen's results moved glacially.
I have no idea how you Dems arrived at the urban legend that Rasmussen favors the GOP. Rasmussen spotted the shift in voter self identification to the Dems very early on and had Obama leading most of the time.
Mule Rider - you are commenting on the wrong blog. This is a blog for people of intelligence who respect facts.
That made me laugh out loud. This site is infected with imbeciles from the left. Fivethirtyeight.com is just another forum for them to spew venom and ignorance and have it plastered in one more place on the world wide web.
Nate's number-crunching on polls ahead of actual elections has some value, but the comments section, particularly on economic matters or other items tangential to politics, does little in the way of civil and intellectual discourse.
I'd say no more than 5% or 10% of the commenters on here qualify as "intelligent." It's mostly shouting and sarcasm back and forth all day along. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
MidPointMan said...
"I saw no evidence of your claim that Rasmussen numbers gyrate at the end more than any other pollster."
how about mccain's "comeback" in late October?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/good_news_for_mccain_from_late.html
more evidence (yes, they link to the actual data)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907070015
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905150005
oh, and i'm sure you don't find the records of Rasmussen receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the GOP and Bush campaign "persuasive", but that's not the fault of the records.
batsa,
See the argument between D-man and MidPointMan over where Rasmussen's allegiance lies as evidence of what I'm talking about.
More plainly, who gives a shit?
MidPointMan said...
"Where does Rasmussen post his ideology? I have not seen it. He very well may be a Republican."
__________________
"But in the early days of his polling firm, when it was named Rasmussen Research, Rasmussen balanced a cold analysis of politics and consumer opinion with advocacy for some conservative views. For a short time around the 2000 elections he wrote a column for WorldNetDaily, once arguing that President Bill Clinton had “ratified the Reagan Revolution” by declaring the end of big government in Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union speech. “From that moment forward,” wrote Rasmussen, “both Republicans and Democrats began to fight over their policy differences within the political framework created by America’s voters and articulated by President Reagan.”
In other columns, and in a 2001 company-published book titled A Better Deal! Social Security Choice, Rasmussen made the case for privatizing the nation’s oldest entitlement program. “In fact, 46 percent of American adults say that relying on the government is riskier than letting workers invest for their own retirement,” wrote Rasmussen in a Jan. 10, 2001 column arguing that incoming President Bush should push for private accounts. “Just 36 percent say letting workers invest is more risky, while 18 percent are not sure.” In the book — not a huge seller, but promoted by Rasmussen at an August appearance at the libertarian Cato Institute — the pollster argued that “giving workers more control over their ‘contributions’ will put the ‘Security’ back in Social Security.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/30539/rasmussen-the-only-poll-that-matters
Well, Nate's own pollster ratings (link at top of page) gives Rasmussen pretty good results.
Nate's number-crunching on polls ahead of actual elections has some value, but the comments section, particularly on economic matters or other items tangential to politics, does little in the way of civil and intellectual discourse
And yet here you are, day after day, laboriously reading and responding to all these unworthy comments.
Would that be noble sacrifice? Masochism? Self-loathing nihilism? Or just simple douchebaggery?
Yes, Rasmussen has good results at elections.
THAT'S what Nate bases it on.
notice how Rasmussen had the election a dead heat 1 week before election day, and then magically moved towards where everybody else was by the time he published his final poll
This is all irrelevant to the 2010 elections. Obama is getting health care and cap-and-trade over with this year, so next year he can bring out the big guns like immigration. Republicans will get ugly, millions more Latinos will turn out to vote, Dems will have 62-65 senators, and that's the end of the GOP. After all, that's a lot of how Dems picked up so much in 2006.
Then the economy recovers, and Obama roars ahead to a 400+ EV victory in 2012. On his coat tails, Dems keep their Senate majority in spite of the huge numbers up for re-election.
Resistance is futile.
Nate is usually on his game, but the assertion that Obama should have presented a particular bill is way off given how policy gets created, and more importantly, legitimated in Congress. Read Boomerang by Theda Skocpol (an easy read). History shows that lasting reforms, like the establishment of the EPA, come from Congressional committees and committee members who dedicate their lives to the issues, like Ted Kennedy and health care, among others.
@D-man,
Rasmussen didn't move where everybody else was. Here are the final polling results:
Rasmussen: Obama 52%, McCain 46%
GWU: Obama 49%, McCain 44%
Research 2000: Obama 51% McCain 46%
Zogby: Obama 54%, McCain 43%
IBD/TIPP: Obama 48%, McCain 42%
ABC/WaPo: Obama 53%, McCain 44%
CBS: Obama 51%, McCain 42%
Fox News: Obama 50%, McCain 43%
Ipsos/McClatchy: Obama 50%, McCain 42%.
Hotline/Diageo: Obama 50%, McCain
45%
Gallup: Obama 53%, McCain 42%
How is this "moving towards where everybody else was"? I know it's hard to accept but Rasmussen was the best and Gallup was the worst.
I wonder why no mentions Gallup's left wing bias.
Polls go up... polls go down.
It is ridiculous to base your opinions solely on polls -- except the ones where ballots are involved.
There is an element of statistical analysis that works from taking the answers of a few thousand people and applying them to millions of people. Mr. Silver is quite good at reading the statistics, by the way.
Which poll is better? Let's take a poll and find out...
sheesh
I'll tell you one thing -- with quarterly statements being opened all over the land, if these folks answered their phones (to non identified Called ID calls...) -- I guess even Congress would have 75% or better approval right now.
I'm happy!
REALLY FOLKS ---
One more time for those in the back row that didn't hear -- or refuse to listen --
THE ONLY [POLITICAL]POLLS THAT COUNT HAVE BALLOTS... they are called ELECTIONS..
carry on...
@ Other Adam,
Immigration? Next year? In an election year?
The only way Obama gets his health care bill is if it's a) watered down considerably and/or b) it's rammed through congress exclusively on the backs of Democrats.
You really think the public is going to sit idly by silently on amnesty AFTER such a partisan overreach?
The dirty little secret is that despite what may happen a decade or two from now, the Hispanic vote is currently only enough to swing a tiny handful of states. The Democrats can go ahead with their amnesty but if they do - they'll be on the outside looking in.
MidPointMan said...
Did you know that 61% of all private health insurers with over 100,000 members are NON-PROFIT.
Get yourself educated
MPM,
They might be classified as a non-profit, but that means squat if they don't ACT as a non-profit:
http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2007/03/29/flux-up-yonder/
Maybe it's time for you to stop blindly reciting the Reich-wing talking points without knowing a few FACTS. In other words, get yourself educated.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
"Regardless of what Progressives say, pushing the top marginal tax rates to well over 50% (including state and local) will have real negative investment disincentives in a down economy."
There is NO relationship between top marginal tax rates and the willingness of business to expand. The longest boom in the country's history took place while top marginal tax rates were well over 80%, sometimes over 90%. That boom ran from roughly 1946 to the early 1970s.
There's a reason for that, my friends. Large-scale investors don't pay top marginal tax rates on their long-term investments -- they pay capital gains rates, which have rarely been much over 30% and usually less than that. They are presently at 15%, set to reset to 20% when the Bush tax cuts lapse after 2010.
Now why would an intelligent person preparing to invest a ton of money in a big project decide to forgo it because he's going to have to pay 20% when he cashes out?
As for the nonsense about "it's small business that creates all the jobs," tell me about how it was small business that sent jobs overseas while laying people off in the US by tens of thousands at a time. THEN small businesses began to close or lay people off. Small businessmen make their decision based upon what big business is doing.
I love small business people -- I've been one. The effect of their investment in growing large numbers of jobs is minimal. That happens primarily when LARGE businesses move into an area -- then small businesses spring up to service new hires.
The economy in my region (lower Hudson Valley, NY) was, for years, dominated by IBM. When they moved a plant, the place they left went into recession; the place they moved boomed. Yes, small business hired/fired most workers, but it was the leviathan that made them do it or not.
And when IBM downsized, the economy of the area became tied to the monster bonuses which banks and brokerages were paying to their key employees, who were buying country places. We began to see specialty food stores and Pilates salons in towns that had been primarily rural only a decade or two before. Those were small businesses, which hired because HUGE businesses were doing well.
Taxes had nothing to do with it. They never do.
batsa said...
A couple of clarifying comments -- 1) Senate doesn't really need 60 votes to pass a health reform bill. They need 51.
Wrong.
The Democrats need a tie (and Biden then breaks the tie), or a majority of the votes that are cast.
If 98 votes are cast, the Dems would need exactly 1/2 (49 votes) plus Biden to pass the bill, or an actual majority of votes cast (more than 49).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
John -
You asked what % of the insured have a non-profit health plan.
If you do not count the 83 million people on Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, or Tricare and the 46 Million uninsured in the denominator, it is well over 50%.
Blue-Cross/Blue Shield are predominantly non-profit and they alone cover 100 million people.
Kaiser is non-profit. Harvard Pilgrim is non-profit.
BCBS do joint purchasing as well, so the idea that a government plan will have more bargaining power than the BCBS companies already with 100 million members is silly.
60% of community hospitals are non-profit. Virtually all clinics are as well.
These companies already keep for-profit insurers "honest".
These non-profits are vastly more efficient than any government plan is and have far lower administrative costs per subscriber than Medicare or Medicaid.
This very basic fact, that half of our private health care system is already non profit is never mentioned by Liberals or Progressives. Why?
Is it simply being underinformed? Is it a result of not doing their research?
There is nothing misleading about any of this. Go to www.nonprofithealthcare.org.
We already have a public plan, and at least they break even.
As for supply, we have physician shortages everywhere. There are 18 month waiting lists for many nursing programs. Supply is VERY inflexible. It is like the oil market, it takes 10 years to train new doctors and to bring oil supplies to market.
When oil demand spiked 5% over 2 years prices tripled.
What do you think increasing health care demand by 10-15% over the same period of time will fo to a market with similarly inflexible supply?
It is astonishing that anyone with a rudimentary grasp of supply and demand could suggest price decreases. It is likely to spike up and lead to severe rationing.
Something has to give. Tight supply markets will ration demand somehow, either through price increases or access limitations. We may well have lots if insured people who cannot get doctors. We almost certainly will.
How are we better off? We have spent the money, jacked up prices and not improved care, we may worsen it.
This is why CBO is strongly against these plans.
All the talk about small business being hurt is interesting. The discussion of the small business proprietor being SO smart makes me laugh.
More than 1/2 (I've seen reports that it's as high as 80%) of small businesses are unincorporated, with the 'proprietor' documenting the business income, expenses, taxes, etc., on their personal income tax form.
How much does it cost to incorporate? A few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand dollars.
Hint - that expense can be written off on the business's tax return.
What is the top federal rate for business taxes? And remember, this is NET income, not total income:
For 2009 it ranges from 15% of NET income in the lowest bracket, 25% for NET income of $50k to $75k, then bounces around from 34% to 39% for NET income amounts over $75,000.
Personal income taxes are based on income, not net income, but GROSS income. Earn $50,000, but your living expenses are $55,000, you pay the tax for $50,000 of income.
A business can carry losses from one year to another. If it has income of $50,000, but expenses of $55,000, it has a net income of NEGATIVE $5,000, and thus NO taxes are paid, AND that $5,000 loss can be carried over to cover net income in a future year. Try that on your personal income taxes.
So the small businessperson who doesn't incorporate (50% to 80% of all small businesspeople) is not as smart as they think they are, and not as smart as some make them out to be, at least IMO.
And since I have a less than optimal opinion of small business proprietors 'smarts', whenever they weigh in on an issue, I hear their opinion with a very large grain of salt in hand.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Politics done Left?
Mike, I usually enjoy your cogent comments. You got the small businessman tax issue all wrong though. Just because a small business doesn't incorporate doesn't mean that it can't deduct expenses and pay tax on net income.
A sole proprietor who does not incorporate still deducts business expenses, and pays on net income of his business activity. That's what Schedule C of Form 1040 is for.
GROG said...
@D-man,
Rasmussen didn't move where everybody else was. Here are the final polling results:
Rasmussen: Obama 52%, McCain 46%
Research 2000: Obama 51% McCain 46%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, Rasmussen and Research 2000 for Daily Kos almost the same, w/kos having a slight conservative bias lol re: Obama's #s.
Current dailykos generic polling ~ July 16, 2009
Congressional Dems = 42% favorable
Congressional Reps = 12% favorable
Democratic Party = 48% favorable
Republican Party = 21% favorable
So there's room for improvement re: the Party of No !!! eh lol
Addition by subtraction doesn't work for the Party of No! ie as Obama's #s decline the GOP #s remain stable as in subterranean!
take care, blessings
p.s. and as I mentioned, #s 3 1/2 years out are a quest in futility as in meaningless as President Hillary er Rudy will tell you.
btw, Rudy raised @ 50 million and got one delegate. Someone should have told him the Reps don't nominate RINO's lol I digress ...
Kaiser-Permanente is non profit?
You need to understand the relationship between the three distinct areas of K-P to understand that you miss a HUGE point.
A point that makes your entire theory lack credibility.
Not to mention that you proclaim ... "the CBO is against this".
(hint here: they aren't "for" or "against" anything, they merely crunch numbers -- which may or may not be accurate. Please look up the prediction to actual event percentages. This office has become a "news darling", or "place to find a quote from somewhere that seems reliable..." without actually being the best source of determining cost and value analysis in pending legislation.)
Mid Point:
You really, really need to do some better research. You seem bright and well spoken (written)... but your points get lost in what I guess to be your own opinion.
Bias is a death knell to intellectual curiosity -- whenever you can, choose the latter.
Slasher-
you did not read my post.
Those 80% tax rates applied only to people making ten million dollars or more, and those were 1960s dollars.
Plus, there were loopholes galore. Almost nobody paid those rates.
They were not aimed at the top 1%. It was more like the top 1000.
Incentive effects are well documented at 50% plus marginal rates. We do not have all of the same loopholes for individual filets that we used to. Those all ended around 1986.
If you think that taxes do not affect business case development, then you know zilch about business. Higher taxes change the risk equation.
Look, in an up economy you might get away with it, because there are lots of good risks that still pay off.
In a bad economy everything is already twice as risky, forget about taxes.
States have already passed some big tax increases. This surtax, on top of the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts will increase tax rates for lots of small businesses.
It is simply naive to think such a big increase will have no affect in risk-taking.
Clinton raise taxes about 4 points and it was fine. The economy had already recovered and confidence was back. This will raise taxes those same 4 points, plus another 5.4 on top of that. Plus any workers you hire you have to cover, whereas before you might not.
If you think these costs are insignificant, you do not respect a $300B they way you should. That is the annual cost to employers and businesses. That is about 10% of all business income.
You think raising costs by 10% won't matter?
Come on. Get real.
Argue with Christina Romer's models, not me.
MidPointMan said...
Blue-Cross/Blue Shield are predominantly non-profit and they alone cover 100 million people.
"[P]redominantly non-profit" if you don't count those who get BCBS from a BCBS plan chartered in:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Maine
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Virginia
Washington (state)
Wisconsin
The BCBS plans that cover all or most of each of the above states is owned by Anthem, a FOR PROFIT insurance company.
As I previously posted, the non-profit BCBS plan in North Carolina is notorious as acting as a for-profit, even if it is chartered as a non-profit.
And as I've stated before, MPM, maybe it's time for you to stop blindly reciting the Reich-wing talking points without knowing a few FACTS. In other words, get yourself educated.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Kaiser is a non-profit. Prove me wrong. It is all over the web.
I posted the link that has all the data.
www.nonprofithealthcare.org
Call them liars.
You seem so intelligent, why all the pejoratives? The data is right there.
A huge percentage of the health care system is non-profit. That is a fact.
Sorry if that shatters your worldview. It is what it is.
The CBO is clearly not advocating these plans as cost savers.
Argue over terminology if you like, they understand supply and demand. So do I. So should you.
There are 39 BCBS companies.
Some of them are for profit. I was clear on that.
That does not change the fact that over 50% of people have non-profit health plans, once you exclude all the gov't plans from the denominator.
If you add in gov't coverage fully 65%+ of health coverage is non-profit or gov't administered in the US. By spending is is even more...
Do math people!
MidPointMan said...
It is all over the web.
That's as poor of an excuse as "I read it on Wiki."
If your child (if a TROLL is capable of having one) told you "Everyone else is doing it", would you believe them?
Pitiful, pitiful.
As to your statement on the Congressional Budget Office, here is what it says on it's website (http://cbo.gov):
CBO's Role in the Budget Process
Under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 the annual Congressional budget process begins with adopting a concurrent resolution on the budget that sets forth total levels of spending and revenues, and broad spending priorities, for several fiscal years. As a concurrent resolution, it is approved by the House and Senate but does not become law. No funds are spent or revenues raised under the budget resolution. Instead, it serves as an enforceable blueprint for Congressional action on spending and revenue legislation.
CBO assists the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses. In accordance with the CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, CBO's reports contain no policy recommendations. [Emphasis added]
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Nicvera
You talk a lot about Kaiser and then fail to explain why they are not non-profit.
You lack credibility.
Re: Kaiser-Permanente
Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care organization, based in Oakland, California, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney R. Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is a consortium of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and its regional operating organizations, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and Washington, D.C., and is the largest managed care organization in the United States. Kaiser Permanente has 8.7 million health plan members, 156,000 employees, 13,729 physicians, 37 medical centers, 400 medical offices, and $34.4 billion in annual operating revenues and $1.3 billion in net income. The Health Plan and Hospitals operate under state and federal not-for-profit tax status, while the Medical Groups operate as for-profit partnerships or professional corporations in their respective regions.
er $1.3 billion in net income, sooo not-for-profit ?!? not so much, eh
carry on ...
take care, blessings
Sorry Mike.
Where is the proof that Kaiser is for profit?
It is on their website, it is on hundreds of websites.
They are non-profit. Kaiser is a non-profit.
CBO clearly thinks this will increase costs.
They are impartial, I agree. That is what makes the testimony so damaging.
Type TROLL 1000 times. Facts are still facts.
Your reliance on personal attacks says much about your intellect.
Sadly typical of an uncritical zealot. Are you one?
Mid Point ---
K-P is a non-profit? All of K-P? And this is all over the web?
(You seem to have found one site you really believe.)
I'd look at the "all of K-P" if I were you.
This may enlighten you to what I was saying.
No, I didn't disparage you -- I disagreed with you and sought to point you to some better research.
I stand by my final statement to you in my last post and I wish you all the best.
Shiloh-
It says in your quote that they are not-for-profit.
Not-for-profits can have net income. You did not know that? Seriously?
They hold it as operating reserves. They use that money to build new facilities and finance their operations.
They pay nothing out to shareholders. All income must be used for community benefit.
So, Harvard University has a $20+ Billion endowment and capital reserve.
You should see their net income some years off of that endowment.
Are they for-profit?
It is amateur hour over here.
Mid Point...
Pejoratives?
Your plate is full.
I lack credibility?
Sorry, pal... I'm not going to do the research for you.
Again... please choose the process of learning over the assumption that you know all you need to know.
Shiloh-
It says their Health Plan and Hospitals are non-profit.
It is the health plans we are discussing no?
Seriously. Did you read that quote?
How embarassing for you.
Take Care!
Blessings!
Kaiser-Permanente
"National structure
The two types of organizations which make up each regional entity are:
* Kaiser Foundation Health Plans work with employers, employees, and individual members to offer prepaid health plans. The health plans are not-for-profit and provide infrastructure for and invest in Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and for-profit medical groups.
* Permanente Medical Groups are physician-owned organizations, which provide and arrange for medical care for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan members in each respective region. The medical groups are for-profit partnerships or professional corporations and receive funding from Kaiser Foundation Health Plans. The first medical group, The Permanente Medical Group, formed in 1948 in Northern California.
In addition, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals operates medical centers in California, Oregon and Hawaii, and outpatient facilities throughout the Kaiser Permanente regions. The hospital foundations are not-for-profit and primarily rely on the Kaiser Foundation Health Plans for funding. They also provide infrastructure and facilities that benefit for-profit medical groups."
The health plans are not-for-profit and provide infrastructure for and invest in Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and for-profit medical groups.
as they say in politics, a distinction w/out a difference ...
take care, blessings
MidPointMan said...
Kaiser is a non-profit. Prove me wrong. It is all over the web.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you said Kaiser, period! not distinguishing er tap dancing re: health care plans or what not.
and as you say, how embarrassing for you!!!
and as I don't want to get in a battle of wits w/an unarmed man, you take care now ...
ciao
MidPointMan,
great commentary. Keep it up.
I am glad you raised the issue of tight supply, which few seem to acknowledge.
I wonder how will that play in relation to geographical distribution of health care?
I suspect that suburbia currently has the highest density of MD's/hospitals because burbs on average tend to have less Medicaid / Medicare and ergo have better reimbursement (I am a salaried doc and I certainly see different payor mixes at various clinics I work at).
If health care passes and private insurance dwindles, suburbanites in particular may see the biggest change in wait lines. I think Dems representing affluent suburbs should pay very close attention.
Correction to my post at 11:15 PM:
The BCBS plan that is chartered in New York state (Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, operating mostly in the Lower Hudson Valley) is also a FOR PROFIT company.
I also forgot to include CareFirst, which operates the BCBS plans in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Northern Virginia.
I also forget to include Health Care Service Corporation, which operates the BCBS plans in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
Did I include Wellmark above? It is a private, for-profit company that issues BCBS policies in Iowa and South Dakota.
I checked, and I find that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida is a tax-paying mutual insurance company.
I guess that adds several more states to the list I provided above, including most of the ten most populous states.
And of course, I included a link to an article about BCBS of North Carolina being a non-profit, but acting as one. In fact, I've posted that link in several of my comments here at 538.com.
As to your chastising me about 'wrong' information on Kaiser, I didn't make any such claims about Kaiser being a for-profit or not-for-profit company. Says quite a bit about your reading comprehension.
Of course, I've never seen or heard about the ability of TROLLs to learn, so I can't really blame your lack of reading comprehension on any schooling you might or might not have received.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Tony said...
I suspect that suburbia currently has the highest density of MD's/hospitals because burbs on average tend to have less Medicaid / Medicare and ergo have better reimbursement (I am a salaried doc and I certainly see different payor mixes at various clinics I work at).
and
If health care passes and private insurance dwindles, suburbanites in particular may see the biggest change in wait lines.
'Tony',
Your racial and class prejudices are glowing bright and clear through that posting.
And don't try to cover it up with a 'some of my best friends . . . .", or "doctors don't discriminate" type of male bovine droppings.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Ass Rider,
Did your racist, Internet tough guy self just claim you are intelligent?
Rasmussen was by far the steadiest of all the polling firms.
Yes, the most steady in terms of always being an outlier, expect for 2-3 days every two years.
Ya know, just like they are a consistent outlier in terms of polls this year.
Rassmussen is a hack pollster for the Republican party.
MidPointMan said...
Rasmussen . . . is non-partisan.
Your assertion without any proof.
Here's an alternate point of view:
http://therasmussenretort.blogspot.com
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
The big wildcard here is the impact of the swine flu pandemic, which as I understand it should take off towards the end of the year.
Mass vaccination provides many opportunities for some health care systems to break down while others cope well, and the means used to pay for distributing the vaccine could also help fuel the debate over health insurance.
2 polls Rasmussen and PPP both have Obama with just 50% approval today.
And Gallup, which I trust a shitload more than either PPP or Raspublican, has Obama at 61% and trending up.
Also, PPP and Raspublican had Obama around 55% when he was 68% in half a dozen other polls.
BTW, anyone who cites Raspublican is either a misinformed or a FReeptard. Which is it?
"Your racial and class prejudices are glowing bright and clear through that posting."
Right, simply because he referenced suburbria he's now a racist GOOPtard who cites Raspublican or else ignorant and needs to be saved.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings
Notice Rasmussen's position.
"Tony" posted:
"If health care passes and private insurance dwindles, suburbanites in particular may see the biggest change in wait lines. I think Dems representing affluent suburbs should pay very close attention."
****
This statement contains the crux of your false argument.
A)"...and private insurance dwindles..." is a supposition based on something that is not a given, by any means. Private insurance has enough impetus and financial incentive to remain a player, even if a "public option" is offered. They aren't going to just roll over and play dead, that's ludicrous. (Please don't quote the "page 16" talking point that's been going around... it has been taken out of context and skewed to fit a certain ideology).
B) "...change in wait lines"
There you go posting a VERY misleading point made by opponents of health care reform -- that somehow the reform to be enacted will be "government run" or "socialized" health care and thus, automatically become something foreign to the current procedures by which folks get in to see a doctor.
That just isn't true. It is a particularly venal attack on the truth, as a matter of fact... one more attempt to gather the fearful and ignorant into agreement with something that will actually be against their better interest by using the almost Pavlovian buzz words that stoke their fear and lack of comprehension.
You're a doctor?
Okay, repeat after me "First, do no harm".
Good words for political discussion as well as healing practices, if you ask me.
Ed?
Better check your eyesight, and/or your reading comprehension.
I was not the person who wrote the word "Raspublican", even if I agree with the sentiment (and I do).
If your eyesight and/or reading comprehension is so poor on a blog that you can't even respond to a post to which you disagree with a response that is appropriate to that specific post, no wonder you wingnutters can't grasp any concept beyond "Run Spot run. See Spot run!"
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
キャッシング
インプラント
ダンボール
水 通販
幼児教室
電話占い
A片下載|成人影片下載|免費A片下載|日本A片|情色A片|免費A片|成人影城|成人電影|線上A片|A片免費看
米蘭情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣|飛機杯|自慰套|充氣娃娃|AV女優.按摩棒|跳蛋|潤滑液|角色扮演|情趣內衣|自慰器|穿戴蝴蝶|變頻跳蛋|無線跳蛋|電動按摩棒|情趣按摩棒|
Midpoint Man - I'm a young professional with an advanced degree, as are most of my friends. What very few people seem to realize is that for years employers have been cutting off healthcare for categories of employees, usually the newer and younger groups, or choosing plans that are prohibitively expensive for anyone making an average wage.
Healthcare has become the 30% tax on pay, and uncovered health costs are still the reason for 70% of personal bankruptcies.
Most of my friends haven't had healthcare since they were forced to leave their parent's plan. All of my friends who have health insurance are part of a couple - one half of the couple takes an administrative job with benefits, like dental hygienist. Even that option is starting to fail.
Maybe people who have healthcare would be upset about a minor increase in costs or change in services (although it's hard to believe anything could be more difficult to deal with than an insurance company). But those people have been a minority for a long, long time. The world just isn't the way you describe.
@Midpoint Man
I'd like to point out that you know very little about health insurance. You act like not-for-profits = public option. This is not true. When you move to a new state, you have to cancel your health insurance policy and get a new policy. Many insurance companies have virtual monopolies in many states. A public option would be available to Americans everywhere, and would therefore have quite an impact on the insurance market. Also, there are many many many Americans who do not have the option to purchase non-profit health insurance now. Guess what? They deserve to have that freedom.
P.S. I'd like to second Liz's comment. I too am a young professional, and virtually none of the people I know who are my age have health insurance. Though they would very much like to have insurance, THEIR EMPLOYERS DO NOT OFFER IT. This is a trend, and it's not good.
Follow the Money... Link
Call Congress and demand,
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!
SEMPER FI!
I asked, I would be one that 'strongly disapproves; because they are not talking about single-payer.How could I answer differently? The rest of the proposals would not do enough to reduce rising HC costs. I wish there was a poll separating those who disapprove of ANY reform from those who want REAL reform. Is there one somewhere, does anyone know?
@ Nate:
"The fundamental weakness of the White House press corps is that they can rarely see beyond the current 24-hour news cycle"
I'm afraid the weaknesses of the press corps go way beyond that. Read the excellent articles by Glenn Greenwald at salon.com for a complete expose of how bad the US press has morphed into.
I've seen way too many people quoting how Obama is at 50% approval in Rasmussen poll and thus proof that his sky is falling.
Anyone quoting Rasmussen, a polster well known to favor the GOP, is immediately suspect.
Single payer is the only option to consider!
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment