http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070920/hl_nm/bush_congress_kids_dc_4
2007-09-20 07:49:27 · 13 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. He should be reducing this program..........
2007-09-20 07:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 8⤋
Several reasons: 1. History has shown that earmarked taxes are continuously hijacked to fund anything and everything other that what they were supposed to fund. This fund is already being abused in some states by letting adults and children of parents that can afford health care for their children (but don't) have coverage under this plan. 2. If this is a program for expanding children's health care only, why should just smokers have to pay for it. 3. By just taxing smokers, it will force more people to quit which reduces funding. 4. Levying excessive taxes on a single item creates black markets eliminating all revenue on that single item for black market sales. Black markets encourage the theft of items to be put up for sale. 5. People will start getting their tobacco from the Indian reservations and other international sources that are exempt from federal tax. 6. This is just a first step to socialized health care.
2016-05-19 03:54:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not an expansion, its a continuance of a 1997 bipartisan bill. In the intervening years another million kids would qualify.
And they aren't just for poor kids, those kids are covered by a different policy. Its for the kids of the middle class whose parents don't have health coverage at work, but who cannot afford health care on their own. Its $12,000 for a family policy now, that's an awfully large chunk to pay out if you have a middle class income.
2007-09-20 07:57:36 · answer #3 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"the emerging legislation would benefit families earning as much as much as $83,000 a year."
"Poor" kids.
I'm so glad my cigarette tax is going to pay for people earning twice as much as me. "Liberal compassion" at its finest.
A few more of these laws giving away money, a few more regressive taxes, and it will be more cost effective for me to quit working and take the handouts.
2007-09-20 07:58:32 · answer #4 · answered by freedom first 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lol! Yes, if you're one of the 20 or 30 far right moonbats left that believe kids without healthcare is good for them.
2007-09-20 07:55:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I guess spending BILLIONS on a war with no end in sight instead of providing decent health care to underprivileged children is the conservative way. I guess he's got his priorities straight. Way to go, George!
2007-09-20 07:54:22 · answer #6 · answered by tangerine 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Bush hates poor kids.
3 thumbs down? Is that all you got?
2007-09-20 07:54:36 · answer #7 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
George Bush does not care about poor people.
2007-09-20 07:55:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Oh yes. Don't forget about him cutting VA benefits as well.
2007-09-20 07:57:19 · answer #9 · answered by Liberal City 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure. If he allowed that bill to pass how would he pay for all the free health care that he's giving all Iraqi citizens?
You don't honestly expect him to care about his own people do you?
2007-09-20 07:53:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
not really, he just intends to block any democratic legislation
2007-09-20 07:57:07 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋