We COMPLAIN about ABORTION being leagle BUT don't want to SAVE the LIVES of the CHILDREN we ALREADY have. Why don't we IMPROVE the QUALITY of LIFE for the CHILDREN we ALREADY have then MAYBE mother's WILL NOT consider ABORTION because things will be BETTER for CHILDREN. There was a lady whose child died of cancer even though she had medical insurance because the insurance only covered full time students. But having cancer she couldn't be a full time student. So the insurance company just let her die. We can't make up the excuse that sick children dying is God's will because God is the giver of life and the Devil is the giver of Death and disease. So don't pull that one. Also, I think it's selfish to say that you don't want your tax dollars to pay for someone els. That is so unChristian. JESUS gave everybody all he had.
2007-07-26 18:24:01 · 10 answers · asked by imsocoolforever 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Great idea. This is only the tip of the iceberg for what she wants to do. If we passed a bill that would require ANY company involved in the healthcare process to become non-for-profit and put a cap on what their CEO's can make the money saved per year would be more than enough to insure the health of all Americans.
The Founding Fathers never thought Capitalism would get this out of hand: Greedy CEOs getting richer at the expense of dying children.
2007-07-26 18:36:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not meaning to be rude here, but you have a gross distortion of life and death, scripturally. You're giving Satan way more power than what the Bible states he has. He is not in control of life or death. He is a deceiver, that is his only "power".
People are born, and people die, because that is all according to God's perfect will. Just because you don't understand why, does not make it not so. You cannot re-write the attributes of God to suit how you want to see Him. He is, how He is. He calls the shots on life and death, not Satan.
So you're making Hillary Clinton into this savior of children now? Let me tell you something, there isn't a nation on this planet with socialized medicine that does any kind of justice to the citizens there. It's a govermental red-tape nightmare, and substandard care. Anyone who gets you to go along with socialized medicine could also sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
There are hospitals in this country like the St. Judes Childrens Hospital who would have taken a cancer stricken child, regardless of their ability to pay. And they have done wonders helping kids with cancer. I'd much rather my money go into an organization like this, than some Hillary Clinton led fiasco!
2007-07-26 18:34:43 · answer #2 · answered by C J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We already have free health care in Texas for children without Hillary. All she is going to cause is more taxes for the taxpayer.
Also the strange thing is I work and pay taxes and do not have health benefits. Do you think I can go to the state and get help when I am sick? No, I have to go into debt to go to the doctor and the hospital.
What an oxymoron. Hillary Clinton and Jesus in the same sentence.
2007-07-26 18:27:58 · answer #3 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you. There is enough for all kids and babies to get the needed care and prevention. Why does the federal government fund treatment for erectile dysfunction but a college girl can't get on birth control? All of those sign carrying anti abortion people should save their gas and money and adopt a couple of kids with special needs. That would be such a wonderful blessing to a person's life!
2007-07-26 18:50:20 · answer #4 · answered by whrldpz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The United States is the ONLY industrialized nation left not to have some form of universal health care coverage. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States is... (drum roll) medical expenses. Good luck relying on insurance corporations to pay for that experimental treatment your kids might need to stay alive in the future. Nice try - try again.
2016-05-20 01:58:28 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There seems a lot more to this story than you're telling. Yes, I am all about saving children. But if the cancer had already metastisized then there was nothing the doctors could do but make her more comfortable.
2007-07-26 18:28:39 · answer #6 · answered by K.K. 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton is going to personally pay for the medical care of needy children with all of those millions of campaign contributions she's collected?
That's awesome!
Oh wait, she's rich and she wants ME to pay for it. Nevermind.
2007-07-26 18:28:30 · answer #7 · answered by freedom first 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think the folks should put more Faith in Jesus, instead of themselves, and allow their children to be born!!
Jesus heals the sick and wounded, if they'll only have a little Faith and believe!!
2007-07-26 18:30:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If she wants to give something for "free" using her own money, I'd say that's noble.
If she wants to give something for "free" using anyone else's money, I'd say that's stealing.
2007-07-26 18:27:40 · answer #9 · answered by open4one 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
in this world nothing is free.
2007-07-26 18:33:48 · answer #10 · answered by Jeremy P 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋