Why is childrens health bill expansion wrong?

Question

I know cons are in a frenzy complaining they raised the income limit too high for eligible children, but wouldn't any money being saved from a family obtaining this benefit just be injected right back into the economy with more spending? Example, family "A" currently spends $10k per year in health coverage, now they are covered by a federal program, now they have an extra $10k to spend on clothes, appliances, down payment on a car, whatever. That means more profits for those companies, they report more tax, which means more revenue to the government and we are back to square 1. It appears to me that in the end, this turns out to be an allocation of revenues from the greedy and corrupt insurance companies to a whole assortment of other businesses, and with the comfort that more children will be insured by health coverage. Doesn't sound so bad to me. Thoughts?

Answer 1

No one who can pay will be covered by this bill. It is a lie that families with an income of $80,000 are covered. The $80,000 is an upper limit of income beyond which you do not qualify. But you only qualify if you can not afford or get private insurance.

The entire program is paid for with taxes on tobacco, not your income taxes.

It does put money in the economy because for most who receive the benefit the money is used to buy or subsidize private insurance. The insurance industry has endorsed it because it creates insurance customers.

Answer 2

Your logic is not based in reality. Family "A" will be required to pay $10k more in taxes when they are using that government health care system. That money will not go back into the economy. It will go to the government. That is a fact.

And here is the proof.

There is not now nor ever has been a federally run agency or program that has worked at or under budget. Every single one has gone well over budget, usually by about 300-500%. Now, if this expanded program costs $30 billion, the actual cost will be somewhere around a 100 billion dollars. The plan expects to pay for that by raising taxes on smokers. Well, let me tell you and ask your friends who smoke, if they are paying some 8-10 dollars per pack, will they continue to smoke at the same rate they are smoking today? Most clearly could not and therefore, there would be less people smoking and less income from the recommended source to fund the program. So where to the libs turn next? You got it or better, you will get it, a much larger income tax bill from Uncle Sam. Now that is how you loose that $10k more available to spend.

Now let's look at the other aspect, the quality of service provided by the health care system run by the government. When was the last time you had to deal with a government agency? Nice and efficient wasn't it? So again, you will have to spend money out of your pocket to have certain medical problems resolved because that 6 month waiting period was just too painful. But the doctor you go see will have to charge you about 4 times as much as he would normally because the high cost of the insurance would be passed on to you and you would get no tax credit from the IRS.

These 2 brief examples are exactly why socialized medicine and socialism itself are not the solutions to the problems we have. I would suggest that if the Congress and liberal democrats in particular want to do something for the children, they would start with tort reform and then fix the judicial system where these swindling lawyers can't file frivolous lawsuits. That would be a major start at reducing the costs or at the very lease maintaining the cost of insurance.

Answer 3

I agree with Bush. The US Gov't should not be in charge of providing healthcare to children. He stated that he wants the gov't to help them in finding cheaper insurance. The insurance industry and medical industry have created the problem of high insurance premiums.

The state gov't sets limits on healthcare and provide to low income families, and look how many abuse that system. Get out and get a job, there are ALWAYS jobs available. If a person is too proud to work at McDonalds then why should my tax money go to pay for their kids health insurance b/c they are too lazy and proud to work?

The federal gov't should not be in charge of this. Why do people think that the gov't should do everything for them?

Answer 4

No. The 10k was in the economy to begin with it is now just going to a different source. Now where does that extra 10k come from to pay the medical bills. That is the big hole in you logic. It will come from taxes. Which means less money in the economy and more government a beast that needs to be fed.

Answer 5

all the moeny to fund this was to come from We the tax payers. and instead of my tax dollars paying for your childs health care how about I get to keep that money and spend it how i see fit to boost the economy. another flaw is that the family that now spends 10k on health care would still have that 10k to spend on other things. Government forced health care is not good for anyone. does health care to to be more affordable yes. availible to any one who needs it yes somehow but not at the expense of those who already are providing for themselves. The more welfare you hand out the worse the problem becomes.

Answer 6

You would be correct in your analysis, except for the fact that historically tax and spend Democrats overtax and allocate that money elsewhere for their pet projects. In reality, they'd essentially embezzle the money into some pork bill. Just look at all the toll roads in blue states: originally they were proposed to pay for the cost of the road. All of those roads are payed off, they are just collecting tolls now for the heck of it. Where that money goes? Who knows... The toll roads are here to stay, there's no turning back. These health care bills, and eventually socialized medecine, will be the same way.

Answer 7

Because it promotes socialism even more so than we have now. It will also create dependency on the government from those who have high enough incomes that the government isn't needed. That is NO way to teach people that self responsibility works!

People in income brackets that high, have no business getting government health care benefits!

Answer 8

a number of motives: a million. historic previous has shown that earmarked taxes are continually hijacked to fund something and each thing different that what they have been meant to fund. This fund is already being abused in some states by letting adults and young infants of mothers and dads which could have adequate money well-being shield their infants (yet do no longer) have coverage under this plan. 2. If this could nicely be a application for increasing youngster's well-being care in straightforward terms, why could desire to easily human beings who smoke ought to pay for it. 3. by purely taxing human beings who smoke, it is going to stress extra human beings to stop which reduces investment. 4. Levying intense taxes on a single merchandise creates black markets removing all gross sales on that single merchandise for black industry sales. Black markets motivate the theft of things to be placed up on the industry. 5. human beings will commence getting their tobacco from the Indian reservations and different worldwide factors that are exempt from federal tax. 6. it fairly is in straightforward terms a known step to socialized well-being care.

Answer 9

Distorting and lying does good for winning an argument. Bravo.

We pay for our kids' insurance and do NOT want another "handout".

Answer 10

Because I'm tired of struggling to pay for my kid's healthcare when people who are able to pay out of pocket would be covered under this bill. I don't mind helping someone who really needs help, but I'm tired of struggling to pay my bills, including my taxes, to pay for people who should be paying for themselves.