You know, wherever the benefit line is drawn, that family that's just on the other side of it will certainly feel screwed and consider making $1000 less so they can reap $1,000's in medical care benefits, right?
Isn't the SCHIP grab for cash just another incremental step toward socialized medicine?
2007-10-17 05:11:54 · 7 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sure they could argue for it, but they'd lose. You are absolutely right with the last sentence and this bill was just another attempt by this congress to sneak socialized medicine through the back door without debate.
2007-10-17 05:27:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, the line is drawn based on where the poverty line is, and based on the needs of the family.
If you want to leave thousands of needy people without health care because someone better off might whine about it, that's your own opinion, but I'd argue that your sense of fair play and morality are shallow, at best.
I also realize that you use the term "socialized medicine" as a pejorative term, but look at all the nations ranked ahead of us in overall health outcomes, look at what they spend on their health care vs. us to get the better results.
Why is a more socialized system of health care such a bad thing? Pure market capitalism and health care coverage are the proverbial round peg and square hole. Find the best tool for the job, and don't worry about the political labels, and you'll find the solutions are much more practical and effective.
2007-10-17 12:29:21 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is true. However, the problem is that the people that the Bill President vetoed covered people who didn't ask for coverage. A family of 4 making $62,000 a year would be covered. Even though some have argued they are too rich for tax cuts.
The program is a good idea. But it is clearly being expanded to move people who don't need it into government health care.
2007-10-17 12:20:46 · answer #3 · answered by Nixon 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
So don't draw a line. All children should be insured regardless of their parents' incomes. Hoping that employers pay for health care coverage doesn't work.
2007-10-17 12:43:21 · answer #4 · answered by Jeff G 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You last question's answer is YES.
If the Libs have their way, soon we'll be pulling out our own decayed teeth like some people do in Britain.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/15/england.dentists/
2007-10-17 13:06:49 · answer #5 · answered by MJ MCK 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
right!
this is why we need to simply do away with private health insurance and nationalize all healthcare.
that way no one will feel screwed by the system.
we should do healthcare the same way we do the police and fire departments.
2007-10-17 12:57:02 · answer #6 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To answer that one must understand that those making that much $$ will have little left if Hillary gets elected.
2007-10-17 12:17:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋