Thank you that was Awesome! That is all I can say!!
2007-08-09 11:03:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
6⤋
They have to raise taxes. I hear a lot of liberals say that we could take Iraq monies and use it for health-care. First of all, if Iraq wasn't a problem we'd never have used that money in the first place. We also wouldn't be in as much debt as we are now. The Iraq problem is temporary whereas health-care is always. Health-care is way more expensive too. You must look long term at health-care costs. Thinking that shifting the burden from businesses to government to spread the costs is ridiculous. Same with covering those who are not covered. Many of those do not contribute taxes anyway. Is it any wonder why businesses are getting out as fast as they can? GM is a great example. Dems are selling you down the river. Better wake up. This is strictly a ploy to get elected.
2007-08-09 18:26:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by JohnFromNC 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
The cost of this war is in the trillions and that is hardly a drop in the bucket. We'd have the money but Bush has decided that killing Iraqi children is more worthwhile than making sure American children and their families have healthcare and a good education.
2007-08-09 18:16:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
With all this money being spent (only) in Iraq, one has to question why the democrats want to raise taxes for bridges that collapse instead of holding states responsible for spending the money they get on roads and infrastructure as it's intended to be spent.
Likewise why Congress gave themselves a raise, increased their per diem rates, etc., and haven't slimmed down at all with one ounce of effort to conserve energy as they're thrusting upon everyone else.
2007-08-09 20:21:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no the war is trillions of dollars. universal health care is not that expensive. when people don't have medical bills to pay the taxes they will pay will seem like nothing.
an extra $2 dollars on purchases like books, DVDs, and CDs would cover the vast majority of healthcare.
2007-08-09 20:38:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually Universal Health Care would end up being less expensive than what we are paying for insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses. We could lower the cost of health care by eliminating the administrative costs of people who study ways to deny claims to increase insurance company profits, stock options and golden parachutes for executives, advertising drugs and HMOs. Voters in capitalist countries like Canada, Great Britain, and France overwhelmingly support national health systems which spend far less money per capita and provide better care than ours.
Bush stated that parents can just take their kids to the emergency room. Those of us that do pay premiums and out of pocket expenses end up paying for these uncovered ER visits. ER visits are way more expensive than scheduled office visits. Preventative medicine is even less expensive. Bush and, I suspect, many other Republicans are opposed to expanding Health Care on "philosophical grounds". They do not want to see a shift in coverage from the private sector to the public sector. They are not interested in saving taxpayer dollars as medicare subsidies to private insurance companies are 12% higher per capita than direct care. No it's not about saving tax dollars, it's not about better coverage, it's about protecting profits.
2007-08-09 18:05:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
So you know all about the supoosed health care system proposal. That is more than anyone else as it hasn't even been made yet. They might come up with a really great way to pay for it.
Your scare tactics may work on some poor weak minded sould but not on me.
2007-08-09 18:03:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
Funny...we'd have the money if Bush didn't spend it all in Iraq. Hummm...he's Republican, isn't he? Strange how is okay for Bush to screw everything up and even before Hillary takes office, his supporters are asking how we're gonna fix his mess. Ya know, come to think of it, this is a good question.
2007-08-09 18:07:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by WildOne 6
·
6⤊
2⤋
I'm going to climb on their bandwagon and not worry about it. I've never taken a government freebie before in my life, but if I am expected to work to provide even more freebies for others, ............ Atlas Shrugged and so will I.
Check this out, John and go to the link that's provided:
2007-08-09 18:07:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
Reagan and the Bush family have racked up $8 trillion in debt. Who's going to pay for that?
2007-08-09 18:03:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
take the money employers already contribute to employee HC plans
and the money employees already pay out of their pay checks for the same plans
2007-08-09 18:05:00
·
answer #11
·
answered by Nick F 6
·
2⤊
0⤋