People who oppose the Children's Healthcare Bill...?

Question

WHY would you oppose something like this that would help CHILDREN who are very sick? Medical bills are outrageous, especially when the child has a very serious illness and many families cannot afford health insurance. Many of these families are of average income and they could afford to pay for simple medical bills but not ones that cover a surgery or extended stay in the hospital. You could say that some of these families should not have had kids because they could not afford them but how were they to know their child would be sick and why should their children have to pay for their mistakes? Don't even play the well their parents are lazy and they do not work hard so that is why they cannot afford health care card...millions of Americans work hard but still cannot afford health care. Why should a hard working family who's child comes down with an illness have to be presented with medical bills that leap into the thousands? I do not understand why ANYONE would oppose this bill.

Answer 1

The American right tries to push an agenda of uncompromising Social Darwinism.If you can't afford it,you don't deserve to get it,that's the whole idea in a nutshell.

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a “law of the jungle.” But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others.

This is jungle capitalism,survival of the fittest.It also shows most of the American right isn't pro life but pro birth.Once you're out of the womb you better have parents with money or you're on your own.

That's the issue here.The American right ranting and raving socilaism is gonna take over America with no basis in reality while they are pushing social Darwinism,According to ThinkQuest:
Social Darwinist thinking stems from the fact that the theory falls into the “naturalistic fallacy,” which consists of trying to derive an ought statement from an is statement. For example, the fact that you stubbed your toe this morning does not logically imply that you ought to have stubbed your toe! The same argument applies to the Social Darwinists’ attempt to extend natural processes into human social structures. This is a common problem in philosophy, and it is commonly stated that it is absolutely impossible to derive ought from is (though this is still sometimes disputed); at the very least, it is impossible to do it so simply and directly as the Social Darwinists did.

Answer 2

The schips plan which grants healthcare to the children of low income families is not going away; it was up for renewal. In the new bill to renew Schips the dems decided to extend healthcare to middle class families, ones that can afford insurance. This is an entitlement not needed so Bush vetoed the bill. The bill will go back to debate and be reworked. Many people view this as an attempt to nationalize healthcare through the kids. Read my source below.

Answer 3

Not my fault and I should not have to pay tax money to people who cannot afford their children and keeping their family healthy. And besides, how many sick kids do you know that are being neglected anyways? Now I remind you of the word sick -- not terminally ill with cancer or anything like that. The ones with terminal cancer either live in the hospitals getting care or choose to live at home to be with their family. As for the sick kids if the parents do not have money or anything to get their kids help they should not be having kids at all. Or should be looked into for neglect and endangerment of a child for them not getting that child the proper medical attention.

Not to mention that being my tax money going towards this and you do know about the illegal aliens over here too? That will go towards them as well and that is also why they come over here too. The health care, especially free health care. Do you want your tax money being raised and going towards deadbeats, illegals, and neglecting parents?

I honestly do not see any problems than again people I know all have jobs and able to maintain for their families. One a 6,100 medical bill taken care of by insurance. So frankly, it is sad, but not my problem. People have problems of their owns trying to upkeep with bills, gas prices, taxes and everything else being thrown our way. Just because someone didn't take life seriously and bred a stable full of kids they can't maintain or afford does not mean I or anyone else has to come in and use our hard earned money we use for our families to pick up their pieces.

Answer 4

I dont mind helping children that are living in a poverty state. The bill that President Bush put a stop to was not about helping children who are less fortunant. It was about giving money and aid to every child in America. It is one more step closer to national healthcare. Most liberals in this country have some really great ideas about new social programs that help people get throught life. However, what every liberal seems to not think about is how will we pay for it? And dont even try to play the Iraq war is costing us 10 billion a month card. Most people who have children do not need help from the government to help raise their children. What most Americans need is more tax cuts. Those tax cuts put more money back into our pockets, thus giving us the ability to spend that money on what is important in our own lives. Why not just come up with a plan that gives everyone in America a free 3 bedroom home with a 2 car garage, along with 2 cars to fill it? Taxes are high enough. You are complaining about not having enough money to pay for healthcare as it is. You really want more of your money to be taken away? Lets put more money in the hands of the general public, and have less government control over our lives. That right there would help people pay for healthcare for their children.

Answer 5

This is my problem w/ the health care.
It's not about the kids more it's about the parents. Health coverage is expensive. So a parent pays out let's say 100 bucks a month for one kid. Well the parent get's nothing inreturn for their 100 bucks month after month if their kid does not get sick. Parents don't want to pay for 'just in case'. People expect to see an immediate return on their 'investment' (they want something tangible).
It's amazing to me how parents can provide GameBoy's X Boxes, cell phones, ipods, video games, stereos, color tvs, highspeed internet and all the other technological toys for their home & kids then say they cannot afford health care. That's BS!
If you have all the toys the arguement of 'heath care is too expensive' is unvalid. However if you have the least expensive toys...dial up/ prepaid cell phone, w/o all the video stuff and a tube tv...then you 'might' beable to get a little more of a sympathetic ear.

Answer 6

Well, how much should I pay and should it be at the expense of my children. Tell me exactly why someone else's kids should come before mine. It seem that you are the one who does not care for children because you want to remove the means I provide for my children. You want this money in politician's hands. Look at the great job that they have done with Social Security. How about welfare that purpetatuaded poverty. Now you want another entitlement program run by the government.
How dare you want to steal from my children.

Answer 7

It must be sunny in fantasy world but the reality of the so-called "children's health care bill" includes "children" up to 21 years of age, and in some cases up to 26 years of age. Estimates of the number of "children" without healthcare don't take into account the large number of 18-21 year olds who simply either choose not to have it either through the company they work for, or as a part of going to college. There is no child anywhere in the US that is denied health care and children of those who are below the poverty line are well cared for in our current system. Nobody wants to deny children healthcare, we just don't like throwing money at a problem when it doesn't solve any problems, but creates more. Try growing up and stop looking at the world with your liberal tainted glasses. Reality check time.

Answer 8

Currently under the existing children's health care benefit they are eligible when their families make 200% or less of the poverty level. This equates to a family of four making $42K a year.

The new bill that was rightfully vetoed would have expanded this benifit to 400% of the poverty level. That equates to that same family of four making $84K a year.

If the family is making $84K a year they can afford their own insurance.

This is not about how much it is going to cost tax payers, this is about welfare for people that do not need it.

This is the first fiscally responsible move that Bush has done since taking office.

Answer 9

via the Politico.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.
In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”


The document reported by Politico exposes the true basic intent behind liberal proposals to cover portions of the population with a new Big Government entitlement - to create a precedent for covering the entire population with that entitlement.
The first lesson here for conservatives is this - Transparency is Big Government's worst enemy, so making Big Government as transparent as possible in every aspect not essential to national security or law enforcement should be a major priority for conservatives.

The second lesson is this: Where you start determines the direction of a compromise, so make the opposition compromise toward your basic principles. The SCHIP program was created in 1997 by the Republican majority in Congress as a compromise with the Clinton administration, which after the collapse of Hillarycare in 93 fell back to seeking incremental implementation of universal coverage.


the memo would not have come to light without a lawsuit forcing the disclosure of the Hillary Clinton task force deliberations. It took years to get daylight on this memo, and now we know why her attorneys fought so hard to keep it out of sight. The memo confirms the direction taken by the task force, and the direction Hillary would take if elected. It also shows the duplicity of the approach taken by the task force, and how closely it matches the effort to expand S-CHIP far beyond its original mandate.

Answer 10

You asked:

'SMOKERS IN US TO PAY FOR MIDDLE-CLASS WELFARE'

That's the way Rep. Mike Pence as he describes Congress' decision to fund the expansion of the S-CHIP by increasing the federal cigarette tax by 156%.

Democrats suddenly do not care about the concept of "regressive taxes," seeing as the average smoker is proven to earn a lower income than the average non-smoker. One-third of adults living in poverty are smokers. This is really no surprise, since research also shows that smokers are, on the average, dumber than non-smokers. Goes with the territory.

Rep. Jack Kingston, a Republican from Georgia, points out the fiscal irresponsibility of trying to fund a program entirely on a taxation of a declining revenue source. Kingston says that adequate funds needed for this program would require 22 million new smokers.

The truth here is that the Democrats know full well that they aren't going to be able to finance their massive expansion of this health insurance program with money from smokers. They're conning us, and we should be bright enough to understand that. (But then there's that government school thing).

Here's what is going to happen. Revenues from cigarette taxes will go down as the spending on the expanded S-CHIP program goes up. Democrats will then step forward and say that we just must have another tax increase – but only, of course, on the rich – to pay for the program. After all, nobody wants these children to lose their health care.

The expanded program will cause perhaps millions of households to drop their private health care plans in favor of S-CHIP. Then, when they're on the hook for the government program, the Democrats bring on the tax increases.

Come on, folks. We need to wake up here.