Some form of healthcare is probably inevitable . Whenever it does happen , let's just hope that it's done right.... . although I'm not holding my breath with the government in charge of it .
But funding must be withheld from Sanctuary Cities . So why not put that money aside for future healthcare costs ?
2007-09-20 04:50:03 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I do love the goose and gander game !!
2007-09-20 05:18:57 · update #1
How about the government just lets ME decide how I want to live my life.
I'm tired of all these whiny people standing in line with their hands out.
I invested in myself, I got a college degree AND a graduate degree.
I participate in a health plan that has NO monthly premium.
I have the capacity to make my own decisions, and I'd prefer that the government doesn't intervene for the small percentage who can't make wise decision on their own. the only thing that accomplishes is making EVERYONE ELSE SUFFER.
You make bad decisions in life, you SHOULD have to pay for them. I'd appreciate if people would stop taking my money and giving it to others. I'm very philanthropic, I give my time and my money VERY generous to worthy causes - I don't need the government telling me how to spend my money and I certainly don't want to be FORCED to supplement YOU and YOUR bad decisions. If that sounds harsh, I don't really care.
It's MY money, I EARNED it and I shouldn't have some @ss-clown politician taking it from me.
So in case it isn't clear, although your idea sounds very reasonable, I don't WANT a healthcare system - I like ours just the way it is. I prefer choices and I prefer short wait times, good doctors and the ability to live my life with out interference of any kind.
2007-09-20 05:22:40 · answer #1 · answered by Roland'sMommy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That’s a fantastic idea. Better yet, how about taking ALL social service money from all illegal. No schools, no medical, no money for sanctuary cities, no Soc. Sec. nothing. Cut all funding to these sanctuary cities. These things will free up billions that could be used for healthcare for citizens. I love this idea! Actually helping those that should get it by not giving to those that shouldn’t!
2007-09-20 05:07:31 · answer #2 · answered by rayb1214 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There should be no "funds" going to any city. Read your Constitution. The federal government is using taxpayers money to bribe cities and states to do the will of our politicians at the federal level. This is a direct violation of the Constitution, which is a CRIME. When public servants at the federal level use taxpayers money to bribe public servants at the state and local level, it is to circumvent the restrictions placed on the federal government's authority. For example, withholding "federal funds" from states not imposing a 55 mph speed limit is a violation of the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to regulate the speed limit of any state. There is no such thing as federal funds. Tax payer's money sent to Washington, is to pay for programs authorized by the Constitution to the federal government. Now you know why I call them criminal politicians.
2016-05-19 02:24:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. All Federal funds should be withheld from sanctuary cities. They are breaking the law and there is no reason why federal dollars should flow in to their cities to defray the expense. If they want to invite the illegals, let the citizens of those cities pay for them. No welfare, no food stamps, no school funding, nothing.
2007-09-20 05:15:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but wouldn't that just start an argument about discrimination and racism? It's a good idea, but I think more along the lines that Sanctuary Cities should be held financially responsible for providing accurate records of those that are receiving government health care. Meaning, the city should pay for thourough investigations as to whether or not the individual is a legal citizen, and if not, then the city should abide by the laws concerning illegal aliens and be held to a large fine if caught breaking the laws. There also needs to be a seperate organization overseeing each city, and that organization should also be heavily fined if caught breaking the laws.
2007-09-20 04:58:53 · answer #5 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Great idea, we need to stop the funding that roles into sanctuary cities who want to expose us to people who have no problem violating our laws and using our resources without contributing.
2007-09-20 08:24:51 · answer #6 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like an excellent idea to me, Earnest.
And any college who refuses to let the military on grounds should not be entitled to federal funds, either. If colleges are doing their jobs properly, the students should be perfectly capable of making their own decisions about enlisting.
2007-09-20 05:15:44 · answer #7 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's "no child left behind" thinking. That makes about as much sense as cutting funding to a school whose students get poor grades. If the school is underfunded as it is, how is taking more money from them going to solve the problem?
We could have given everybody in North America (including Canada and Mexico) above average health care for less than a quarter of what it has cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation. You wanna find some easy money that is being pi$$ed away? There it is.
2007-09-20 05:16:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Lets buy a one way vacation to Darfur for the left.
2007-09-20 09:22:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like that idea.
Could add to that any college or university that doesn't allow military recuriters on campus also loses all federal funding and it goes to paying for health care.
This is the start of something good.
2007-09-20 04:55:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋