Congress' SCHIP plan would have been funded entirely by a tax on cigarettes. In other words, it would have both discouraged smoking while providing health care to American children whose families have difficulty affording it. So let's check the facts. Conservatives:
Support the current US health care system, which the WHO has ranked #37 in the world.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1198/
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Oppose providing government health care to children.
Oppose taxing cigarettes to provide that health care.
Many oppose all abortions, even when the mother's health and life are at risk.
Many support the Iraq War, which has led to over 650,000 deaths, including many American troops.
Could it be that conservatives are simply anti-health?
2007-10-05 08:29:42 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are not anti-health, but they have no heart.
“I mean, people have access to health care in America,” said Mr. Bush in July. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
2007-10-05 08:48:30 · answer #1 · answered by TxSup 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Lets say they did raise the tax on smokers , if half of them quit because of this new tax , where would they make up that loss , ( tax increase on everybody) ....the expanded SCHIP program went from helping poor Children to including kids who parents made up to 83 grand a year in some places , and moved the age up to cover those 18-25 ( College Kids ) I have been to the living quarters of a few colleges these kids have the money for new cars , new boats , and plasma TVs not counting the massive amount of everyday alcohol , why should we give them free health care , it would just ease the burden on many of those idiots who could not control their money and fell in the greed trap of the housing industry ....
Seems it would be much more simple to regulate the industry , after all the loss of profits from other Nations who regulate their costs is why our cost is higher , we are making up their loss , we can regulate the industry and not raise taxes ,
Every bill that congress has passed or tried to pass , has had a tax increase which is why they keep getting the veto on everything , this Country has the most income revenue ever recorded , which should show throwing money at the problem is no answer , cut out all the waste from both sides , and there would be plenty of money , and not have to raise taxes ,
.. I pay enough , and I do not get refunds .....
If democrats are all for abortions , why not save the money , and anyone who breeds , and can not afford proper care for their child without gov't help be made to get an abortion , and get fixed until they can financially support a family ..it would be cheaper in the long run , fix all kids at birth then when they have an income that can support a child undo the fix , and let them breed , instead of all the money put in for teen pregnancy , rubbers for schools, and the WIC program that money alone would pay the cost of fixing people .....
think about this , everyone has to take tests to pass grade to grade in schools , take a test to drive , a test to enter College , a test to finish college , and some even take tests for jobs ...why is there no kind of test to make a baby ?????
I for one am getting tired of paying the bills for irresponsible idiots who can not control their hormones, money , and even the kids they breed ...I am not responsible for their stupid actions , but I have to pay , WHY ?????
2007-10-05 09:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by Insensitively Honest 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Well for the health care who is going to pay for it?
That would be our tax dollars
People do have the right to smoke as digesting as it is people have the right.
Well for abortion the baby is a from of life. life starts at contraception. So really abortion is just a euphemism for the murder of a fetus.
As for the war we have a job to do and we can't leave until it is done. Iraq is incapable of taking care of it self. Diplomacy would not work because the insurgents would refuse to corporate.
2007-10-06 17:54:39 · answer #3 · answered by Rocketman 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I wouldn't say all-there are some who apparently can't figure out there's another side to the argument and will change their story when an exception is close to home.
2007-10-05 11:29:05 · answer #4 · answered by strpenta 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First time in 7 years I have agreed with Bush. If people want insurance for everyone, let everyone pay. Better yet, lets tax fast food by a certain amount per calorie over a set amount. Then we won't have these obese kids getting sick.
2007-10-05 08:46:28 · answer #5 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
We are anti socialist, health is not the issue, it is who controls your health care, the Government or the individual. Citizen versus phony citizen. Twenty five year old children covered?
They can go to work. The upper middle class getting health care, they can pay for it. Then there is this Old Bolshevik named Hillary who will follow up with Socialist Health Care Supreme where you will have to talk to the government to get a job. No Insurance card no job.No Thanks
2007-10-05 08:45:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Only rich people are allowed to be healthy. If all the poor people die, then republicans don't have to worry about appeasing them to get elected. But then who will shine their shoes and manufacture their suits? I guess they haven't thought that far yet...
2007-10-05 08:55:23 · answer #7 · answered by phinbuddy 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No,anti-stupidity.
Take all the junk amendments and discriminatory taxing out of it,bring it down to a reasonable income level and resubmitt it.
After all the smokers quit or die,who's going to pay for it?
2007-10-05 08:49:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Were anti-COMMUNIST.
We stopped the NEO-COMS from socializing health care.
2007-10-05 08:33:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 6⤋
Not anti health.
anti poor
2007-10-05 08:41:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋