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

His party doesn't want abortion for any reason....even if a medical doctor says that the life of mom and baby are in danger...(which is the government in health care)

But.......he doesn't want to provide health care for the children after they are born?

And I don't want any foolish conservatives talking about people paying their own way, people having babies for welfare money....yada yada yada....

We are talking about CHILDREN who have no control who their parents are and how they live their lives.......

Explain this to me please!

2007-10-04 02:05:21 · 21 answers · asked by jm1970 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Pretzlenit...

You had me....I almost exploded until I paged down :)

I am expecting some conservative to say that.

2007-10-04 02:10:45 · update #1

Brian,

Most intelligent people would know that I meant if the baby isn't viable and going to die anyway....if mom dies baby dies too (usually) or baby comes into the world (a world that doesn't care about children) with no mommy and the knowledge that their live took moms.

2007-10-04 02:12:39 · update #2

Dinah W....you're right I don't care...I don't care anything about your party...I did once....until W.....I used to vote for the best person....now I will never vote for a republican...not even for the school board.

PEOPLE..I will explain this slowly for the conservatives out there....there was a provision....not a guideline....a provision, in the bill that would allow a CONSIDERATION not a promise to a family making up to $82,000....

Now, one thing $82,000 where I live is a lot of money...New York City....not so much......

Second...ok...I have my lovely life....I make $82,000 and life is good.....OOPS my third child has leukemia all the sudden! The out of pocket costs far exceed my income and I still have to feed my other healthy kids.......or something unplanned happens and I need help for AWHILE....not forever.......under the bill my children could be helped....me, $82,000...not forever, but for a time.

THINK PEOPLE....

2007-10-04 02:21:29 · update #3

ALL CHILDREN DO NOT GET HEALTHCARE...SHOW ME YOUR STATS....

HAVE YOU EVER DEALT WITH MEDICARE? I DO WITH MY CLIENTS...IT IS A MESS!!!!!

2007-10-04 02:24:14 · update #4

I love how sexists conservatives assume I'm a man...and less intelligent ones take my story literally....

My children are fine....I don't even have three kids.....

Goes to show a conservative can't think in abstract!

Even if you believe that the poor are bums and baby breeders....you are comfortable with a child suffering for that? And you think you're better than a dictator?

2007-10-04 03:05:14 · update #5

Freedom for all,

If your child....ANY child was sick you wouldn't have to FORCE me to do anything, I'd give whatever I had or could for any sick child...even one doomed to be raised by a selfish, small minded person.

2007-10-04 03:06:50 · update #6

21 answers

This is a bad bill! He would have signed a compromised bill but your democratic leadership would not budge and take out the 300% over the poverty line, and the states can ammend that to include 400% over the poverty line as New York has already done, which is why CHIP is out of money. Remove that section from the bill and it will pass. This bill has nothing to do with Abortion. Why are you democrats not totally pissed with your congress and remember 6 democrats did vote against the bill too.



SEC. 114. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-

`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.

`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.

(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be construed as--

(1) changing any income eligibility level for children under title XXI of the Social Security Act; or

(2) changing the flexibility provided States under such title to establish the income eligibility level for targeted low-income children under a State child health plan and the methodologies used by the State to determine income or assets under such plan.

2007-10-04 02:13:49 · answer #1 · answered by libsticker 7 · 8 1

1

2016-05-28 04:18:31 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Um, aborting a baby to save the life of the mother was never against the law, even before Roe vs Wade, that is a lie from PP. It is the doctors call, always has been.

Socialized health care in this country will make taxes go higher than they are already, and our wages will not keep up, as is happening now. Then where will that leave us?

Most, if not all states have health care plans for kids, my state does and it's a good one. I have relatives that have it for their kids. I was once a single mom with no insurance or funds to take my daughter to a doctor, that's when I used our local health department, the emergency room and medicaid. That is what those are for and I was never denied. Not even when my daughter needed surgery, which, what was not covered through medicaid, I paid off over a long period of time. It's called being responsible and not expecting the Federal Government to provide your needs and give free handouts.

My supervisor at work is from England, he has been in the states for many years now. But he has told us horror stories about their governments medical plans and there is no way in hell I want that here.

2007-10-04 04:03:10 · answer #3 · answered by Princess of the Realm 6 · 0 0

Well, let us start by correcting some of your statements here. The Republican Party platform does not prohibit abortion if the mother's LIFE is in danger. It does prohibit abortion if the mother's HEALTH is in danger. This 'health" caveat was created by liberals to insure an abortion could be performed no matter what if the woman simply claimed her 'mental or emotional health' would be adversely affected by going to term.

The Federal Government has programs that provide health care to poor children already. What the current issue is about is expanding a program to include not poor children, not low income children (these are covered already) but children who's parent can afford health insurance but would rather spend the money elsewhere. What is also at issue is that this same program is already providing health care to adults. Something it was not intended to do.

If people insist upon producing children they cannot properly care for and you insist that the taxpayers of America foot the bill, then those children should be taken away from those parents on grounds of neglect and placed in foster care or become wards of the State and let the taxpayers decide how the child will be raised.

.

2007-10-04 02:21:51 · answer #4 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1 1

Well here the thing If you have insurance through your employer or if you make enough money to afford your own insurance then you have no say so in the matter. Its the person who works hard every day provider for there family and cant afford health insurance that matter here. Its easy to say that you cant be denied health care in the united states but it goes further then that. Thats only in an emergency. Other wise your refered to a some specialist that you cant afford anyway. If you can afford a specialist then you can afford health insurance. Health care should be a right not a luxury.

2016-05-20 22:08:56 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

As a conservative, and a nurse, I don't believe in abortion unless there is absolute proof there is not a viable fetus or danger to the mother. In the case of the latter, that would be up to the mom or her legal advocate. Most conservatives have this belief.
The Health Care for Children legislation was not correctly written and there would have been too much government control as well as many illegals would have been taking advantage of the system. it was just bad legislation. Have you seen the bill?
I have been a nurse for too many years to count and we have taken care of ALL children, money or no money. So the argument you have really does not hold water.
We already care for children whose parents are poor. The limits of income on that bill were way too high, up to $83,000!

2007-10-04 02:23:42 · answer #6 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 2 1

The only job of the government is to pass and enforce laws to protect the citizens. Abortion is the murder of an innocent person, this clearly falls under the authority of the government. Health care or health insurance is not the job of the government in any way.

The government is supposed to treat all people equally. How is stealing some people's money and giving it to others treating them equally? How is stealing my money protecting my rights?

It has nothing at all to do with compassion or wanting to help people. It has everything to do with the job of government, and the principles of freedom. Government's job is to protect our freedom, not steal it. If you have compassion for people, prove it by giving your own money, not stealing somebody else's.


Using your example: it sucks if your kid has leukemia, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But the government doesn't just pull money out of thin air, the only way the get it is by forcibly taking it from ME. YOUR kid having leukemia does not give you the right to take MY money. You are the one that needs to start thinking. Everything has a cost, and the cost of the government getting involved is MY money and MY freedom. That cost is too high.

2007-10-04 02:22:27 · answer #7 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2 1

Because we need more troops, children are cheaper cause they are not an economic loss to the country, the relieve spending needs and are small enough to to reach small spaces for hiding when we strap them with bombs in Iraq. Bush wants to draft kids for war. Kids can't use that same excuse everytime that they don't have control over there parents ability to afford healthcare. Tell those little punks get a job or go to War and quit crying. Those little brats have done nothing to serve there country and all they do is blame there parents! "Hey little johnny get a job ya bum." doesn't matter he is 9

2007-10-04 02:13:26 · answer #8 · answered by Mobus 2 · 2 1

I asked a similar question and this is what I chose as the best answer.

"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

I'll honestly say I disagree with the veto of this bill, particularly in light of the right's stance on such issues as abortion, welfare, war spending, etc... BUT we should at least keep in mind that a lot of govermental functions nowadays are operating in ways that are completely different from what we see. We should be careful not to mistake pure politics from the parties' true views on the issues.

2007-10-04 02:10:45 · answer #9 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 3 4

There is not enough money in the world to support the lazy breeding class. They pop out kids faster than the rest of us can support them. We need to start spaying and neutering these people. You leftists can have all the free health you want. With your own money for a change. Leave mine alone. Have a bake sale or something.

2007-10-04 02:55:56 · answer #10 · answered by John himself 6 · 2 1

First of all. With the Republicans having control of the Supreme Court, if the Republicans really wanted to make abortion illegal they would have.

But you are not interested in facts. All front runners in the Republican party Presidential campaign are pro choice.

But you are not interested in that either.

Federal Health care is tantamount to a socialists government, which is not what the USA is about.

and the bill proposed health insurance to people making $82,000 annually and covering "children" up to 25.

Please know the facts

2007-10-04 02:12:12 · answer #11 · answered by Dina W 6 · 7 3

fedest.com, questions and answers