None of the GOP Presidential candidates have any plan for health care. It is a well known fact that a child without health insurance entering a hospital has a much higher probability of dying than an insured child. Does life begin at conception and end at birth?
2007-06-10 07:11:05 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Great point. The fact is that they make their stance on abortion under the name of PRO LIFE. But really, its the most hypocritical label they could attach to themselves. Those who are truly positive about supporting life would not abandon as many as have been in the US...and they CERTAINLY wouldn't support the death penalty.
Pro Life is not an ambiguous term...it means the support of human life. What do the republicans do to prove their support of that stance and value? Nothing....not anything of any import, certainly. They turn their backs on citizens in need, and crusade for the death of those who do not play by their rules. They endorse torture for those who are believed to threaten their precious way of life. Pro Life, indeed! HA!
2007-06-10 07:20:43 · answer #1 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 8⤊ 8⤋
So sad. You frustrate me with how you have said it, but to a degree I agree with what you have said. I am for the most part pro-life. But I don't stop caring about the baby once it is born. True, no birth control is 100% effective. But there would still be a lot less unwanted babies in the world if people would TRY using it. There are so many forms out there! I can't do prescription birth control because they mess with my emotions too much. I can't do condoms because of allergies. But I can handle spermicide films. - There's something for almost everyone! One of the things that bugs me most is to hear someone say that they don't use contraceptives because they can't afford them. - Do they think raising a baby, getting an abortion, or curing an STD would be any cheaper? For now, I would rather spend a dollar every time I want to have sex than bring a baby into the world that I'm not ready for. About your adoption and fostering comment ... I can't agree with your saying "if I can do it so can just about everyone else." I know so many people that would NOT make fit foster or adoptive parents - even if they are good parents to their own kids. I would rather see kids in a group home than with some of the losers I know. Personally, I love the idea of adopting or fostering a child. And I did look into it several months ago. But most of the available kids had problems that I am not ready to take on. I have helped enough families who were down on their luck to have an idea what I would be getting myself into. - I want to do it some day. And I hope that anyone who wants more than 2 kids will seriously consider taking in a child who already needs a home instead of creating a new one. But for now, I know it's not for me so I will not do it.
2016-05-21 09:07:27 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Asking for a life to have a chance at living does not mean that the parents who chose to KEEP the child no longer have an obligation to take responsibility...if they do not want the responsibility of the child then adoption is an option...then THOSE people will be responsible for caring for the child in question...Life only CONTINUES at birth...
2007-06-10 07:21:24 · answer #3 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Somehow the Christian Right and the Republicans married. As most couples are they fight. The wife who is against abortion believes what her husband, who only thinks about the bottom buck tells her. But she is having an affair with the Devil and that just might force her to have an abortion and not care about other people.
2007-06-10 09:29:32 · answer #4 · answered by oldhag 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually Rudy Giuliani does have a plan.
My question to you is why don't the parents of those children care enough to secure their children's health care plans? People can get health care at work and still have no degree and just on-the-job training. They just have to get a job with the federal government. Even the janitors employed with the federal gov't have all the same health care options.
I think parents should care more about their children's well being. It's not right to steal from those who work hard to have more money stolen out of their pay checks to pay for those who don't work hard enough to secure it for themselves. Why have children if you can't take care of them? Also, why is health insurance the only option? Some choose not to get it because they know that they can afford the health care even without the insurance.
2007-06-10 07:21:25 · answer #5 · answered by Dan 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋
First off, I'd like you to show that fact. Show your proof on what you call "fact". Second, my mother is a case worker nurse. She helps the poor get on government assistance and if they're indeed destitute then they get help. My cousin is an ER nurse. No one is turned away and I won't even get started on the burden that illegal Mexicans put on our health care system.
2007-06-10 07:25:27 · answer #6 · answered by ks 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
What a fantastic question! You really nailed the conservative hypocrisy which is full of judgment after judgment. I am so tired of conservative Republicans not caring at ALL about things like health insurance and people that are in poverty. Don't claim to be the "morals" party when you gladly let millions of Americans slip through the cracks. If a person has never lived in a ghetto or has never had many disadvantages, he or she does not understand how difficult it is to raise oneself out of the vicious cycle. As a teacher, the low-income kids often have disastrous home lives where reading and education is not an important part of their culture. According to conservatives, they should all miraculously overcome their situations. In some cases this happens, but it is not as simple as telling people to "just do it..."
2007-06-10 07:26:54 · answer #7 · answered by It is what it is 4 · 2⤊ 7⤋
puh-lease. How very hard is it for you to understand that the government is not responsible for taking care of it's citizen's health care needs? It would only screw it up like it does most things it gets involved in that should be outside its authority. Look at government run schools.
2007-06-10 07:20:09 · answer #8 · answered by fruitypebbles 4 · 7⤊ 4⤋
The GOP should never be called "pro-life". They are pro-fetus, and anti-life after those 9 months are up.
Capitol punishment is not pro-life.
Warmongering is not pro-life.
Letting people die because they cannot receive proper health care is not pro-life.
2007-06-10 13:01:51 · answer #9 · answered by Josh 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Universal Health Care doesn't work.
Socialized medicine doesn't work.
Liberals point to the Canada model and they come down here to get treatement.
I got deal if the GOP does come up with a health care program for those 9 million will you give your Pro-choice stance.
2007-06-10 07:16:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 6⤋
I am highly dubious as to a statement that states numbers. I can show you a model that will spews out any type of number you wish.
Most likely the uninsured children have parents that work for a living instead of being like the other millions who take handouts from the goverment.
I'll work 40 years of my life while mulittude of others sit back and receive goverment money, food and complete healthcare.
We need a system that helps those who want to make a better life for themselves, not for those who just sit back and expect you and me to support them.
My daughter did her dissertation on the welfare system and 99% of those receiving aid have chosen this as their 'lifestyle.'
2007-06-10 07:22:43 · answer #11 · answered by rmelnik@sbcglobal.net 2 · 6⤊ 5⤋