Why do the Dems refuse to require that 95% of poor kids receive insurance via SCHIP and other programs before they give money to insure richer kids?
States have only enrolled 2/3 of poor kids in insurance programs that they are entitled to. Why won't the Dems make sure that the truly needy are covered before giving money away to richer parents?
2007-10-18 03:16:10 · 7 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Those poor kids are already entitled to insurance. But, the Dems won't force states to actually get the kids enrolled.
Sad. Sickening. Right?
2007-10-18 03:22:09 · update #1
Yes, I do not get this. Instead of pushing to get the really deserving kids on the program, they insist on getting kids that are not necessarily deserving. I think if they had 100% of the below poverty line kids signed up, they would have a much easier time convincing us to expand the program. They don't even try to answer this shortfall either, they continue to pundit the idea that a kid 300% over the poverty line is needy, when the kid below poverty isn't even getting the coverage.
2007-10-18 03:22:30 · answer #1 · answered by libsticker 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Are you crazy. The ones living below the poverty level are covered by Medicaid and Medicare. Those whose parents can afford health care premiums do so. Those in the middle who live in a household where they make too much to qualify for government assistance (Medicaid) and not enough to afford private health care are the ones Schip covers. If you have been paying attention you would know this. Closed ears or closed mind either way you look really silly and very uninformed by asking this question. All we can hope for is a veto override. It is, after all, Bush who is vetoing Schip. He is the one who doesn't care about the kids not the Democrats in Congress.
2007-10-18 10:26:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is a drastic simplification of the situation. We would rather cover some children that are above the income level while convering need children than to not insure any. If Bush has a better plan, then so be it. But by vetoing the bill, he will cause many children to be without insurance. Sure the bill provided for some children that arent as needy, but it also provided for many many children who really need the coverage. This delay Bush has caused by vetoing could cost childrens lives.
2007-10-18 10:22:35 · answer #3 · answered by writenimage 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It needs everyone not just one party. If the children of this nation are the issue then we need to take care of them find and enroll the ones who need the care NOW, each House member and Senator with their respective districts. I cannot understand increasing the cap on a program until the current ones are working.
2007-10-18 10:22:00 · answer #4 · answered by rance42 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Republicans care for no one, other than themselves.
They are selfish people.
Democrats are for the middle-class and poor people, while the Repukes are for the super-wealthy and hilljack farmers in the middle of the country.
2007-10-18 10:20:04 · answer #5 · answered by HERE WE GO BROWNIES, BEAT PIT!! 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Yeah I agree that's some incredible spin ya got going, there. OK, but we know the truth is that republicans hate kids that aren't theirs.
2007-10-18 10:20:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Wow that's spin at its finest!
You win the spin of the day award!
2007-10-18 10:19:26 · answer #7 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋