While some of us drive cars that are 9 and 10 years old, have yet to buy a plasma TV, but work hard to pay for their own families needs?
2007-10-08
06:22:34
·
18 answers
·
asked by
Moody Red
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I don't think some people have read the whole question here.
2007-10-08
06:57:02 ·
update #1
Enigma: Does that mean my taxes will be on a sliding scale?
2007-10-08
07:47:19 ·
update #2
Lamplighter: I do not comprehend your logic? If I am paying for my families Healthcare, and live within my menas, and my neighbor cannot afford health care but can afford the luxuries.........I should pay for his families health care? Rob peter to pay paul!
2007-10-08
07:52:30 ·
update #3
We now have 5th and 6th generation "entitlement" recipients.With some,the wholesale rape of the entitlement program is a way of life.When the programs were established,auditors would visit a large proportion of the recipients to verify actual need and weed out the abusers.This was deemed to be too invasive and the audit system was abolished.Now look at what we have.
If you want to go on the public dole and receive money from other tax paying Americans,you should show true need and minimal asset ownership and be subjected to a comprehensive audit.
Don't like this requirement? Then keep you hands out of my wallet and get a job that will support your lifestyle.
2007-10-08 06:52:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Obama nor any President can unilaterally give us health care or any other campaign promise. Just like McCain, he makes promises and when elected he will try to get Congress to go along with his ideas. If they do then perhaps they know more then you do. To insult his or McCain's desires is just childish. These are wish lists and hopes. No President no matter how strong is a King. Nothing happens in this country without the OK from Congress. Even this Bonehead war we're in isn't just Bush's fault. ALL of Congress, except one congresswoman, agreed on going into Iraq. It's only now after years of fighting and dying that the whole thing is being blamed on one man. In the 1970's congress passed a law that guaranteed that after 90 days if fighting was to continues on any campaign, war must be declared. We are in Afghanistan and Iraq both illegally. That puts all of congress both democrat and republican in violation of the law. Who are you going to ***** about now?
2016-04-07 21:37:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
although I don't think so, it would be extremely difficult to monitor and administer. Plus, there are a variety of ways people acquire stuff. gifts, insurance money, illegally, temporarily, rent to own, and good old fashioned work.
I read a little of the info on why Bush vetoed the health care for kids. It seems like he wants to make sure the children in poor families get the health care before kids who have access to it via other means, as in, their parent(s) insurance through work.
2007-10-08 11:26:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by glendiva1968 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
These answers prove how little some people pay attention. We are talking about giving the responsibility of the health and welfare of 250 million people, to a group of people that cannot even manage the well being of a few thousand. Before I would agree to "universal health care", I would have to see these senators using our military VA system for theirs.
This will be mandatory, there will not be any private health care, the only people that will receive the best will be Congress, and Hitlery Clinton.
2007-10-08 06:49:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes, because a big plasma tv, and big ticket cars, aren't going to be bought on a group health insurance plan. Nor are those things going to prevent them from getting sick, passing it on to their kids, who pass it on to your kids at school, thus increasing your own medical expenses.
The majority of those in need should not have to suffer, because you want to cry about a very small and insigificant portion of the whole.
2007-10-08 06:41:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Boss H 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
No. You must make your own decisions and you have to pay for it. Life is not easy,
2007-10-08 07:29:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by David_the_Great 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Apparently you don't have a good understanding of the healthcare proposal. It would be on a sliding scale. Someone making 80,000 with one child would pay a very different price for the insurance than someone making say 25,000 with 3 children.
2007-10-08 06:32:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Enigma 6
·
6⤊
5⤋
I dare say the people who buy the good stuff would still purchase their own health care and use it rather than the basic "universal" care that most would get.
2007-10-08 06:28:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by pip 7
·
6⤊
3⤋
You cant stop all abuse of the system.
Is it right to refuse to help the rest of the people who actually are struggling and trying just to hurt the miniscule percentage that are as you describe?
2007-10-08 06:29:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Showtunes 6
·
5⤊
3⤋
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO let them pay for it them self.
We already paid for the big screen and every thing else.
2007-10-08 07:20:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋