http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Sorry poor kids! Bush doesn't want you to have health care.
2007-09-22 05:28:06 · 18 answers · asked by Holy Cow! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why do they care so much about the "unborn" yet after they are born could care less about them? If democrats don't care about the "unborn", republicans don't care about the born. They'd rather see children dead than pay a penny in taxes for them to get health care and that, simply put, is what this boils down too. It's dirty a shame.
2007-09-22 05:37:53 · answer #1 · answered by God 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
""Democratic congressional aides say their party wants to expand the program to cover an additional 4 million children and pay for it by raising the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents per pack. Bush opposes that, and has threatened to veto the bill....."
And your point is?? Why should those of us that choose to smoke, have no children to breathe it, be singled out to be taxed more....
Try telling the whole story....
"He threatened to veto the expansion because, he said, it would "raise taxes on working people and would raise spending between $35 million to $50 million."
House Republican leaders earlier this week argued that the bill represents a "huge expansion" of government-run health care.
"They say Democrats are adding middle-class families to a program that was designed by Republicans in 1997 to cover the poor."
2007-09-22 05:39:29 · answer #2 · answered by Cookies Anyone? 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
madpol - "the God and Greed Coalition" - i admire that, i'd desire to you need to use it myself. Bwana - clinical wellness insurance is a necessity, not a luxury. the priority with non-prosperous people who area with the conservatives is they have been brainwashed to have faith that they, too, would properly be billionaires if basically they artwork 24/7, obey their company masters, and vote Republican. it particularly is horsesh!t. the only thank you to get to be a billionaire is to already be a millionaire and make investments properly. It purely would not ensue to basic, middle type or working type individuals. Get your heads out of the sand and awaken! "loose" markets are basically loose for individuals who already have funds. Oh, and the only babies Bush cares approximately are fetuses, via fact they are able for use to capture women individuals and administration them.
2016-10-19 10:12:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have never known a child that didn't have healthcare----poor or not. Schools have nurses. Some schools have doctors. There are free clinics. Hospitals have clinics. Some churches work with healthcare providers to operate clinics. Hospitals can't turn away people because they can't pay.
Where does this idea come from that kids are not being provided with healthcare? Just because the government doesn't run it doesn't mean it's not there.
2007-09-22 05:35:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The Dems are trying to expand the program to families that already qualify for private health care. The program is a veiled attempt to create government health care. So, I don't think so.
2007-09-22 05:35:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
When you make 80 k a year you do not deserve to get government health care you can buy it. This is socialisim and it is not going to happen. Help the poor but not the lazy well to do.
2007-09-22 05:36:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, Bush doesn't want the government to force some people to pay for other people's health care - - not the same thing.
Please see my other posts.
2007-09-22 05:34:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
WRONG, the dems know what Bush will and will not veto - he said he woudl agree to an extension of the current program, he will not agree to a grossly over priced overhaul of the system.
2007-09-22 05:32:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
more liberal pap...same problem as before...SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR IT!!!
bush already passed the pre tax investment health care plan to pay bills with pre tax dollars. we use it and are quite happy with it...
its truly a shame liberals never seem to understand theres no such thing as a free lunch..
your question has no answer as your premise isnt valid
liberals...gotta love em(sic)
2007-09-22 05:41:21 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Wow, I can't believe the people that are twisting this story and even providing the link that shows how bad they are taking it out of context
2007-09-22 05:34:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋