2007-09-22 09:42:17 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
bush doesnt want to waste tax money on us americans....his swiss bank accounts are more interest ing
2007-09-22 10:01:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
First, let me tell you I am a Democrat and have no use for Bush. That said, I have to agree with him on this one. Raising the tobacco tax is not a way to fund this project. If you do not have the health benefit in your State, you will not understand this. I am from Arkansas and we have ARKids insurance. It is a free-ride for many that do not qualify. I have seen the paperwork to obtain it and also know people who have it and do not deserve it. By having given more people this insurance, the State "looks good" but is not financially responsible.
2007-09-22 10:11:52 · answer #2 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In his fact he says they might desire to not objective to go little ones whose mothers and fathers would desire to locate the money for inner maximum insurance to a federal application. He fairly is delusional. Does he have any theory how plenty insurance expenses? through my artwork, insurance is $seven-hundred a month for a kin of three (it particularly is Kaiser Permanente). i'm nevertheless going to college and don't have my occupation for yet another 2 years, yet there is not any way i'd desire to "locate the money for" insurance. particular i'd desire to get the insurance... yet meaning i could not pay lease, meals, utilities etc. somebody working the minimum salary in CA (7.50/ hr) at finished time makes variety of $one million,2 hundred before taxes. This guy or woman would desire to artwork their *** off and in no way have sufficient to pay for insurance and function a place to stay on an identical time. i will't see how all and sundry justifies Bush's strikes. reducing investment for babies!? you would be able to desire to attempt to blame the mothers and fathers all you want, yet whilst it comes right down to it, they artwork finished time like the different discern, they do purely not gets a commission what they are well worth. There are low paying jobs that somebody has to do and the human beings that surely do those jobs get screwed.
2016-10-19 10:52:14 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out the provisions attached to the bill Think First
2007-09-22 09:54:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Congress is attempting to expand it far beyond it's intended focus and Bush said he would, and he should, veto it. He's actually isn't "cutting" anything, he's just not willing to watch it get out of hand. I wonder why Democrats would use health care for children to make political hay? Disgusting........
2007-09-22 09:51:08 · answer #5 · answered by Brian 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
25 year old children? 80,000.00 yearly income? That is a children's health care bill? Grow up!
2007-09-22 10:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
my guess would be without looking at the bill is the attachments that politicians add to those things for reason beyond what normal human being would consider sane
2007-09-22 09:51:44 · answer #7 · answered by pokerfaces55 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Some people forget they were children (and teenagers).
2007-09-22 11:06:55 · answer #8 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since these poor children are not unborn. If they were pre-natal he might care a little more.
2007-09-22 09:53:10 · answer #9 · answered by topink 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the bill has insidious attachments that are unacceptable.
2007-09-22 09:53:11 · answer #10 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i'm sure the conservatives will come up with some silly excuse, saying cutting health care for children is actually beneficial to the children.
2007-09-22 09:50:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋