...that they don't want to see the poor not receiving any Healthcare help before their wealthier middle class citizens do...as the reason...why Bush vetoed the recent change Congress tried to make for healthcare to help the people of this country?...And that a republican representative said with a smile...that they jus don't want the poor neglected...and that if THEY wanted too...healthcare could be passed today...CAN you IMAGINE who these people are with a statement like that?Isn't it sad that they would deny anyone and then divide them into groups as they make U.S. an excuse not to focus on this countries needs?
ESPECIALLY SAD when they enjoy all the best healthcare for their families?
2007-10-05 06:08:56 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Why can't our government spend tax money here?...not some but all tax money here...there is enough to pay for it all and then some...Subsidise it...it doesn't hav to be socialised...man...unbelievable...
2007-10-05 06:31:55 · update #1
...more jobs...better economy...damn...those that oppose are or refuse to see the benefits are missing something...
2007-10-05 06:33:17 · update #2
That's right. When did we decide, as a a people, that our government would make all our decisions for us and without our approval? Hard to say exactly when it may have happened, but I'd guess it increased around the time of the TV...
Impeach B/C
.
2007-10-05 06:13:10 · answer #1 · answered by twowords 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Do you know what you are talking about? Obviously not. Bush increased the funding to SCHIPs, which is funding for poor children, by 30 billion dollars. That wasn't good enough for the democrats. They, being led by Hillary Clinton, wanted to increase the number of people being covered. Tell me, do you thing a 25 year old man or woman is a child? The democrats do. Imagine I was in the navy for 8 years and would still be a child and not a senior petty officer. They also wanted to redefine what is poor. A family of four making $82,000 a year would be considered poor. I make less than that and I'm responsible for my own health insurance. Do you think I should pay for health care for people who refuse to take care of themselves?
2007-10-05 13:18:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I can see the seeds of socialism sown within you.
"Isn't it sad that they would deny anyone and then divide them into groups as they make U.S. an excuse not to focus on this countries needs?
ESPECIALLY SAD when they enjoy all the best healthcare for their families?"
So, they should be required to provide equal quality care for America? Socialist alert! That's not the way things work here. You have to work for what you get. The government shouldn't just hand it out, then people won't work for anything.
Bush had pretty specific guidelines as to what type of bill he would sign, and Democrats blatantly ignored them hoping to use his veto to earn them political points by claiming Bush doesn't care about children. I don't know about you, but I don't consider making $80,000 a year poverty level, nor do I consider people aged 24 years old 'children'.
2007-10-05 13:13:44 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
OOOOMMMGGGG!!!!!!!!!
You listen to the Extremeists.
The administration is not against helping the lower class, but the Dem bill was just another form of welfare. in other words... Lets continue to help them who refuse to help themselves.
Have you ever been to Canada? Govt health care there is a joke. Have you ever had to go to the VA for healthcare? The only Govt run health care provider in the US is a bigger joke.
2007-10-05 13:16:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush did the right thing on this one. Its not the responsibility of the government to provide healthcare for the masses, this particular bill would have opened the door to more socialized programs.
There is already funding for those who truly need it, and many have actually opted not to take advantage of the program.
2007-10-05 13:14:52 · answer #5 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Two things are sad: your grammar and your misunderstanding of the issue.
The left wing liberal loonies were trying to expand socialized medicine by including people who do not need government insurance and who can afford to buy their own insurance.
I am opposed to government run social programs. I have to pay the taxes to support such programs. I would rather keep my money than let the government steal it from me to give to someone else, especially someone who does not need it.
2007-10-05 13:14:31 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
completely taken in by the left agenda, read the bill first next time.
2007-10-05 13:13:25 · answer #7 · answered by Greg 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋