Should a family making 83k a year be given free healthcare paid for by the tax payers?

Question

Hillary thinks so.

Answer 1

No and despite protestations from some that is exactly what would have happened in New York State had the bill passed..........

Answer 2

If one of their children had some kind of catasrophic health issue that was denied by their for profit Health Insurance, there might be a case for it.
You seem to be talking about the vetoed SCHIP bill which is favored by 70% of Americans and passed by Congress with support of quite a few Republicans. Under SCHIP, children are enrolled in private health insurance. This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four. New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. So before you repeat lies I suggest you resarch the entire story.

Answer 3

If they live in Manhattan were 83k is like making 35k for the rest of the states why not. Heaven forbid this country does something the helps the middle class. Also, not only does Hilary think so, but also most of Congress including many Republicans.

Answer 4

Not sure why "yeah but" would say you are spreading lies the truth is Hillary and Barak both voted for legislation that would give federally handed out health insurance to families of four or more that earn up to $83k a year.

It would cost upwards of $50 billion and not solve our health care woe's one bit. If they want to "cure" health care they need to create more "health care" infastructure not hand out freebies to those who won't work for it.

Answer 5

i think this was the unspoken consequence or 'inconvenient truth' if the Democrat-sponsored SCHIP bill had passed/Bush veto was overturnned.

Yes, family/children in low-income households should have health coverage. however, to encourage the move from private coverage to gov't coverage is irresponsible on so many levels specifically financially.

Come on, social security is already presenting enough financial burden on taxpayers esp in light of the impending wave of retired 'baby-boomers' generation.

Answer 6

if it's paid for by the tax payers (us) then how is it free ?

answer : It's not free ! duh.


are you going to start using real news sources and links ?
my guess is No because that would make it harder for you to rant like a troll.

Answer 7

Health care is never free, we all pay for it one way or another. Currently we pay 4 Billion a week for a senseless war and that doesn't make any sense to me.

Answer 8

Actually the plan only covers up to about $64000, and it does not cover the family, only the children, the parents have to fend for themselves....why dont you actually read the bill (that was started by the republicans in the 90's by the way). That way you wolud be capable of forming your own opinion instaed of having some talking head tell you what your opinion is.

Answer 9

When my family makes that much money annually I will let you know. Until then we are doing fine with what little we do make with proper health care for our children.

Answer 10

Depends on where they live and how many kids they have. I make 90K a year and can barely afford the mortgage payment of a very very small starter home in D.C. Imagine if I had four kids, a car payment, a house payment, and I had to pay for healthcare. I'd be really screwed.

Answer 11

Why not? we have wasted $461,285,452,694+ so far in Iraq

276,218,880 + people insured for one year. (That's almost the entire population of the USA)