Please think about it. If the parents are poor, the children would never have the 'American Dream' if they get sick and can't get better. But with this plan, at least they will live to be 18 and support themselves. What do you think?
2007-01-12 04:05:03 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Dirty Phooey, the reason is because WE ARE HUMANS. we got here through sharing and helping one another. Thats what distinguishes from animals (even some animals do help each other for god's sake!)
I hate all selfish people, and I think people like yourself belong in that category.
2007-01-12 04:12:07 · update #1
Hey Bono's Bug-Goggle, FUUCK YOU.
2007-01-12 04:16:35 · update #2
"I am sure you pro lifers out there agree that every child deserves a chance. You are looking after the health and well being of the future of the nation. You are in many respects giving them and edge, better health will lead them to better circumstances and hopefully they will be able to break the cycle" - Beautifully put, smedrik
2007-01-12 04:19:07 · update #3
Yes 'John Q' was a great movie. I encourage everyone to watch it
2007-01-12 05:21:27 · update #4
Greed makes people say stupid things. It is not socialistic or Communism to have social programs. Only ignorant minds think that way. What is wrong the Government helping pay the medical bills since it is there stupid policies towards the environment and disease that cause illness in the first place. They can spend Billions on creating useless war and suffering but you ignorant people can't see what is the most important thing. Not money Your HEALTH. If you had a sick child what would you do if ou had some but not enough money?What would you do if you were poor? All you idiots that do not understand and you don't (because if you did you would realize health care for kids is important) what it's all about maybe yo should rent the movie John Q Public and maybe you should think what would yo do and then respond. I wish everyone Good Health!
2007-01-12 05:13:06 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That isn't a bad idea in theory, however you will have many people saying why should my tax dollars pay for this. Your tax dollars are paying for a lot of stuff that doesn't effect you. Your tax dollars are paying for things that you will never reap the benefits of.
You do not pay taxes so that you personally can get a return, you pay taxes so that the infrastructure administrative and social needs of the nation are met.
I see no problem covering a child's health care. I don't think we should punish the child for being born into poverty or to parents that cannot afford to take care of them, I am sure you pro lifers out there agree that every child deserves a chance. You are looking after the health and well being of the future of the nation. You are in many respects giving them and edge, better health will lead them to better circumstances and hopefully they will be able to break the cycle.
Many nations have socialized health care, they have not sent themselves into economic ruin, Britain for example can provide for it citizens while paying off Debts.
Canada has socialized health care and has had budget surpluses and has been reaping the benefits of tax cuts for a couple years now.
2007-01-12 04:17:26 · answer #2 · answered by smedrik 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What state do you live in?? In Alabama all school age kids are covered by "All Kids" which is a blue cross / blue shield of Alabama program. If household income falls under a certain amount , there is no charge. For others, there is a very slight fee.. Children in low income or anyone really can go to the state health labs at n/c.. So what you are asking already exists,may want to contact your governor..
2007-01-12 04:47:59 · answer #3 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my state we have a health program called ARKids First. It's a wonderful, realistic plan based on family size and income.
A Universal Health plan is not the answer. Each state here in America should implement a program like the one we have. In fact, I'm sure most states have.
2007-01-12 04:30:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"National Health Insurance" is socialism at its worst. It assures that government has control over your health, AND the health of YOUR KIDS, and that government bureaucrats decide who gets what type of treatment and when. It treats health care professionals who are the best and brightest, as nothing more than civil servants. It will put Doctors, Nurses, and Pharmacists under control of the federal government employees unions, which means it will be almost impossible to get rid of the bad apples. It will kill off any innovation. The private sector has been overwhelmingly more successful in coming up with new treatments, drugs, devices, and surgeries. Why would anyone want to remove the greatest motivator (sorry libs, but has and always will be profit) that drives people to invent new things.
If you want your kids to be under the control of the nanny state, you are beyond help. As soon as the government controls your kid's health care, they will control what you can feed them, what kind of toys you can buy them, what kinds of activities they will be allowed to do. No more baseball, soccer or especially midget football. No more playground equipment of ANY kind, even in your own yard. You will be REQUIRED to have them "inspected", and they will interrogate them without you present, so they can extract info on what kind of parent you are. They will be giving your 12 year old daughters required birth control. and lots more.
2007-01-12 04:29:52 · answer #5 · answered by boonietech 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You can't just have the Government take over health care. That is ridiculous. Who do you know in America that is under 18, sick, and not getting treatment? You idiots on the left complain about the Patriot Act, but yet you want the government in charge of your health. Makes no sense. Liberalism is mental disorder and you need help. It clouds your judgment and abandons reason and common sense. Do you want a Doctors visit to be like going to the DMV? You should think about it.
2007-01-12 06:03:04 · answer #6 · answered by Brian M 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
you do no longer probable understand plenty with regard to the Canadian well-being care device then. Nor Britain for that remember. i do no longer understand approximately Norway's, yet everytime somebody mentions Norway, they ignore that Norway has no immigration concern in any respect. Canada's and Britain's well-being care has some severe issues. it is not something to sort ourselves after, it relatively is for particular. oftentimes we've already got a prevalent well-being care device. The hospitals ought to handle severe activities even with coverage. yet on your purposes, i'm positive with prevalent well-being shelter all infants paid with tips from taxes. i'm no longer so prepared on paying the well-being care of somebody who choses to no longer artwork. i think of the welfare device must be a artwork software and easily provide advantages to those that are working. Separate advantages for disable which could no longer artwork. it is this entitlement that bothers me. all and sundry has to artwork and make contributions to society, no longer leech on society so i will pull their weight. Entropy, it is the reason I hate the thumbs down device. persons are too partisan to correctly known a competent answer. Yours is the main eminent answer I surely have heard on well-being care EVER. You no longer purely defined the topics, yet you furnish a answer. properly finished. Sorry i will purely provide you a million thumbs up.
2016-10-07 01:29:07 · answer #7 · answered by esannason 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell, im British, i cant understand how you dont have Universal Health care for anyone, let alone Children.
God bless the NHS, thats all i say
NB
Ah Bonos_Bugeyes, you clearly never read Darwin. Yes, life is 'Survival of the Fittest'..he also called the Dog eat Dog world a Hell mankind must escape to survive. If your a fan of Darwins Hell, great. Just dont come whinging to us when your old and no one wants to look after you.
After all, survival of the strongest and all that, hey?
2007-01-12 04:07:55 · answer #8 · answered by thomas p 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The main difference between R's and D's is the idea of self reliance and the role that the government should take in our everyday lives. As a Republican, I believe that this isn't the role of the government. Children are not wards of the state they belong to the parents who have the obligation to support them. Besides we already do have programs which supply medical treatment to children. SCHIP is one of those programs- it is run by state governments just as Medicaid is. What is your definition of Universal Health Care?
2007-01-12 04:11:14 · answer #9 · answered by katiekat 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Moderate- I am against it but the states should and do have programs for children under 18. PeachCare in GA is great
2007-01-12 04:15:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋