No, it is a bad thing.
The real question is: was it necessary to avoid something even worse?
That's a question honest people can debate.
Or one can simply ignore the debate and carp, like Ron Paul.
I honestly don't think there is anything to debate.
Giving the government-dependent classes in our society a big freebie has -never- done anything to reduce their appetite.
I vote for conservatives because I expect them to change the direction of the socialist drift, not just drift more slowly.
Here's where we fundamentally disagree in philosophy and practical strategy. Those who are for Bush's massive expansion of socialized medicine, and yet claim to be for free markets or limited goverment, don't have a leg to stand on either morally or pragmatically.
Paul doesn't "ignore it" anything at all, at least compared to his critics. To the contrary, those who vote for more socialized mediine in the name of avoiding "something worse" are ignoring the obvious of realities of how government generally grows e.g. incrementally and insideously.
By choosing to throw half a towel in the ring rather than the whole towel, the defenders of the Bush plan are showing themselves to be strategic babes in the woods. If you want evidence, please note tht despite their "pragmatic" plan, the country is plunging headlong toward socialized medicine faster than ever before.