English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

all of a sudden, they decided to be fiscally conservative when it comes to the health of children?

2007-10-03 10:04:46 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

Because the major oil companies ONLY reported billions upon billions in net profit last year and poor children don't buy oil.

2007-10-03 10:10:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

Subsidies to oil companies? The only subsidy given to oil companies is by Democrats. Due to the fact that DEMOCRATS have banned drilling, and more importantly REFINING of petroleum in the United States, they have given the existing refiners a gigantic monopoly. Even though demand has steadily gone up, Democrats have not allowed anyone to open a new refinery in the US that will compete with the current refiners and lower prices for consumers. You only have yourself to blame for the current state of gasoline prices.

As for health care, the laws passed by Democrats are doing nothing to help the actual problem of rising insurance premiums, but are actually contributing to it. Do some research on why it is so expensive. Try the Cato Institute.

2007-10-03 20:42:44 · answer #2 · answered by Biggg 3 · 0 0

It's Sad and should be deemed as Treason to this Country to deny children HealthCare. Reguardless of being a Republican or Dem. Lots of people period don't have healthcare in this Great Country of ours and the People of our Country will have to consider voting for those who will Support Gov. HealthCare for All. The contract between the UAW and GM is a Stepping stone of a DEMAND for our Goverment to make a stand for the People of this Country to be covered or Die because a adult or child can not afford the cost of our Greedy HealthCare System. Demand the Truth and them working for you when you Vote (standing in Long lines to do so). Write or call those you vote for and be Heard!

2007-10-03 10:32:17 · answer #3 · answered by mr_cantgetright 1 · 1 0

The government started it a long time ago as an incentive to produce more oil. The OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s was proof that they need an incentive to produce more oil. They view health care in general as a persons reponsibilty and not a function for the government. I don't agree with it. The record oil company profits prove that they don't need subsidies.

2007-10-03 10:18:17 · answer #4 · answered by John 6 · 1 0

Diaclectic up there is just ignoring the fact that middle income families are increasingly unable to afford health care.He's also ignoring the fact that corporate welfare takes at least 80 billion in revenues out of the public coffers every year.That is more than enough to pay for any health care plan,even a universal plan.

2007-10-03 10:18:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Since when did the government become responsible for the care of our children? I gave birth to them, and I will support them. I don't want the government to support my children because then they have a right to dictate how they will be raised. It is bad enough that the government thinks they have the right to determine what my children are taught, and what shots they will have, and that they must have car seats. I, for one don't want them to decide anything else, like how many I can have, and whether or not those children ought to be allowed to reproduce, and whether their behavior conforms enough with the norm so that they do not have to be drugged in school.

2007-10-03 10:16:46 · answer #6 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 1 1

This question was already asked and answered in a better way. We're mistaking pure political strategy for the party's actual position on the issues. We might need to look a little closer.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsefI4_U_cOxbnRpaYM2nXbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070926190856AAV4QGp

"With a little research, it's easy. Republicans, especially President Bush have already agreed to raise funds to insure poor children (children in families making less than $42,000) by more than 60% in 2008. Democrats siezed a political opportunity and rewrote the clause to include families earning up to $82,000, multiplying 6 fold the cost. Knowing republicans will not pass another huge spending bill, they have another sound bite for elections next year." -Pancakes

Of course, that's just one way to look at it, but I found it interesting. I still think Bush and the Republicans are pretty terrible across the board, but that doesn't mean Democrats aren't twisting and bending our information to some degree.

2007-10-03 10:07:36 · answer #7 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 5 2

Exploration and discovery are worthy yet the liberals prohibit drilling to bring the oil price down, meanwhile the socialist pigs wade to the public trough to give illegals socialized medicine and others who can afford health care.

2007-10-03 10:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

DIALECTIC has hit the nail on the head.

President Bush wants to insure the children that do not have insurance and not expand it to those that already are covered.

2007-10-03 10:11:15 · answer #9 · answered by mary 6 · 2 2

because they think the real America are rich people, entrepreneurs, and corporations...the rest of us are just a support system for their lifestyle.

2007-10-03 10:17:18 · answer #10 · answered by amazed we've survived this l 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers