English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Millions of American children do not have medical insurance because there parents cannot afford it. They refuse medical treatment and an ambulance because they fear they cannot pay the medical costs.
This isn't fair.
But the reason is because President Bush wants more money to pay for this stupid war.

I pray the next president uses "her" head and help our own country instead of helping others.

2007-10-19 17:09:55 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Currenly its only the extremely poor children that can get medical coupons from the government.

Several of my sons' friends do not have medical insurance, because they come from lower-middleclass homes, and their parents cannot afford the added expense.

2007-10-19 21:39:13 · update #1

18 answers

It is sad to know that Bush has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy another country, but don't have that same passion to protect and save lives here in America.

2007-10-19 17:26:00 · answer #1 · answered by suanniiq 3 · 4 5

Silly, misguided souls....
If poor children don't have insurance, it's because their parents are too proud to go down to social services & apply for Medicaid! That's the insurance that takes care of poor children in this country. What the vetoed bill was doing was opening up eligibility to the middle class - people who make over $50,000 a year. Now if you are a part of a family of 4 & make THAT much $ but choose not to have insurance, perhaps it's time to take a long & careful look at other costs? Like the car payments & mortgage....Perhaps the cars didn't need to be top of the line SUV's with all the toys. Did you really need to have a house with 4 bedroom when you only have 2 kids? Did you really need to buy a house you couldn't afford just to keep pace with the friends?
I've got kids (3) & I'm a single parent & I pay for their health insurance myself. Why in the world should the gov't be expected to provide it for those that could afford it but choose other things instead?
I pray the next president pulls their head out of the campaigning butt before we end up with socialized medicine & in the same boat as Canada (whose women come here to deliver their babies), England (whose people pull out their own teeth because they can't find a dentist) or Australia (whose citizens are at the mercy of hospital waiting lists for treatment procedures & had better wait by the phone to get their call or else they won't get their procedure)

2007-10-19 17:47:28 · answer #2 · answered by anna s 4 · 3 2

Sorry, but you're incredibly misinformed on this one.

Bush did not support the new provision to the child health care coverage, yes. But this new coverage plan that was proposed, raised the minimum annual salary threshold from around $35 thousand a year to around $80 thousand a year.

Why the hell should tax dollars be going to families who are making $60-80 thousand dollars a year so that their children get free health care, when there are a large portion of children in families with much lower salaries who were supposed to be covered under the original plan, and still aren't? If your family is making over $50k a year, and you still cannot afford health insurance for your children, then you need to get your priorities straight and should not get bailed out by the government.

It's ludicrous, and although I try to stay moderate on political issues, this is a prime example of the democrats devising a plan that sounds good to the general public when the details are left out (free health care for children) and then when Bush disapproves of it (a rare decision he actually thought out) they go running around yelling "Bush disapproves of free health care for children!"

Unfortunately, you fell right for it.

2007-10-19 17:36:14 · answer #3 · answered by bada_bing2k4 4 · 4 2

before everything, mothers and dads do no longer "permit" their grown, grownup little ones do something. those persons made their own judgements. Why do no longer you forward your emotions to a soldier and notice what she or he has to assert approximately enormous oil, vendettas, and the lack of ability of freedom? the warriors i know and characteristic seen interviewed experience that the reason in Iraq is noble and that they are proud to serve their u . s . in this sort. They experience they have achieved a international of solid in Iraq. i'm no longer able to be ashamed to call myself an American, or to assert I help George W. Bush in his quest to maintain u.s. secure and to maintain the midsection East from becoming a terrorist haven. via how, your question is an insult to Democrats, as i'm particular they have little ones combating in the warfare besides that deserve acknowledgment and popularity.

2016-10-04 05:03:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It always starts with the poor children, then its universal health care at the wheel of a govt bureaucracy that has not sense of efficiency or oversight, or customer service.

Its just that this is what people are really scared of, sure they want health care answers but the dems are trying to John the Baptist this legislation in to make it easier to evolve into full on universal healthcare.

2007-10-19 17:19:35 · answer #5 · answered by Ancient Warrior DogueDe Bordeaux 5 · 4 1

Well, first of all - it's the law that anyone in a hospital emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay, will be treated. It is even POSTED in emergency rooms.

I don't know where you live, but here, we have a community health center that operates on a sliding scale AND accepts Medicaid, Medicare, and Denali Kid Care (our S-CHIP).

I believe your statement is incorrect. There may be millions of children without health insurance, but I have never heard of any children being tossed out in the streets to die by a hospital.

Then again, "millions of children without health insurance" doesn't sound nearly as scary as "Why is Bush letting our children suffer lack of medical attention?"

And you guys call US fear-mongers?!?

2007-10-19 17:32:13 · answer #6 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3 2

hello! I make less than 50G a year and have no problem with affording health care, you must be kidding me? 80G and your covered? When...tell me one time when the goverment was involved that something worked? hummmm public school? not! social security? not! if you pay people to be poor (which the dems do) people will stay poor! hence welfare. Get off your butt go out like the rest of us and make something of yourself! And if you look at the voting issue I believe Hillary C. voted for the war.

2007-10-19 17:27:14 · answer #7 · answered by JOHN W 2 · 5 1

Please do some research that explains what was in the medical insurance bill. The wonderful liberals had it chock full of pork spending bills, we'd be in debt for 100 generations... Cmon... Alaska wanting $2 billion to start testing temperatures of snow.... Uh hey we already have thermometers. Don't be mislead by your wonderful liberal media ma'am. Do some research first, that way you don't have to ask such frivolous dribble.

2007-10-19 20:23:29 · answer #8 · answered by s s 1 · 1 1

There are 5.5 million children that are covered under the SCHIP that are not signed up. Let's concentrate on them.
No children suffer for lack of medical attention. Name me ONE hospital that you know of that has turned a child away.

Your last sentence says all there is to know about you.
Question baiting makes the questioner look very silly.

2007-10-19 17:18:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

Millions of children had no insurance long before this Bush took office.

If the "next president" has not learned how to work with Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution, she will fail to deliver on her promise to bring health care to America's families.

Again.

2007-10-19 17:15:51 · answer #10 · answered by raichasays 7 · 4 5

fedest.com, questions and answers