Such children overwhelmingly grow up to become voting democrats. Is it possible that Repubs have calculated that denying them health are will reduce democratic votes via infant mortality?
2007-10-27 09:46:36 · 24 answers · asked by golfer7 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I don't think they really thought about it. conservatism = economic darwinism. Survival of the fiscally fittest, under the primal instinct to devour and squander. While Liberalism believes all people (including the disabled and meak) can contribute to society and should be supported by the community and not left to die in the street.
2007-10-27 09:53:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
No, these kind of policy decisions are not made on such silly assumptions. I think it was a strategic decision on behalf of the private healthcare lobby. If the democrats can get it pushed for children then the potential very seriously exists for the Hillary Plan of universal private healthcare. I think the healthcare lobbying industry very seriously realizes that people on the whole would prefer a socialized system of some kind. (probably something along the Canadian line) Lobbyists don't take these kind of chances. And also factor in if the bill passed tobacco taxes would raise the cost of cigs by 50+ cents a pack. Big tobbaco also has a significant lobby that convinced enough Republicans to vote no. So in answer to your question the Republicans are not that cynical in their decision making.
2007-10-27 16:55:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
many in here have already nailed the reasons Republicans (and people with common sense) are against socialized health care, but the reason Democrats DO want it is because they need people dependent on the government so they can continue getting elected in the future. smarter, financially independent Americans won't let Democrats tax & spend our hard-earned money forever, so the Libs need needy people who will give them the chance to keep doing it. not for the sake of improving their lives, but to keep them in a state of need and dependence for the Dems' own gain. the worse Americans' lives are, the more the Democrats can promise, tax, spend, and increase the size of the government to make sure that the cycle keeps going- making it that much harder for Republicans to fix everything in the time they have in office- so Democrats can claim that Republicans don't follow through on their promises, calling them liars.
2007-10-27 17:31:37 · answer #3 · answered by Jephatitis E 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, Republicans are against socialism. Also, democrats want this coverage to extend to people up to the age of 25. This means that a family of four (mom, dad, two kids) who earn $80,000 gets free health insurance paid by you and me, the taxpayers. Sorry, but they can buy their own because this is not a socialist country. If you want that, go to France.
2007-10-27 18:53:31 · answer #4 · answered by C C 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
NO. Don't be an idiot!
It's not the job of me or mine to help you with YOUR children. If you can't afford to take care of children--DONT have any.
Nationalized health care is what socialistic countries do--not The Republic of The United States of America.
If you want to see national health care service--just go to England--needles in paper cups--no staff-unclean conditions--nasty.
Why do you think people from all ov er the world come to the USA for surgery and diagnosis? Because private health care is THE BEST health care system in the world.
If you want national health care--go live somewhere else--OR-- stop producing children you can't take care of--or improve your education and get a better job--so you can take YOUR children--which are YOUR responsibility to a doctor.
THIS is not a republican or democrat issue--it's just republicans are smarter and realize the huge tax burden and the diminished care we would receive.
My parents were poor and they took care of all 5 of us. My Mom and Dad lived through the Great Depression--and THEIR parents took care of them.
WE DONT NEED NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!!!!
2007-10-27 17:09:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
What ever happened to PARENTS providing for their children?
If you can't provide for your kids, keep it in your pants and DON'T HAVE SEX or use a CONDOM.
If you have kids and need to get them health care, there are plenty of non-governmental agencies out there that will help you on a sliding-scale. Churches, charities, non-profit organizations, etc.
Last I checked, we weren't turning ANYONE away from receiving needed health care at our hospitals and ERs (even if they are in this country illegally).
We are not a socialist country (at least not yet). If we start to go down that path, it will cause the bancrupting of the US.
2007-10-27 17:24:22 · answer #6 · answered by an_eclectic_chick 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
WTF?
Its not the governments responsibility to insure the nation!
If it does your sucking my hard earned money to do it!!!!
Have you whining liberals actually opened an S Chip application form...OMG! Basically it says..The more money you make...we will insure you, but you MUST have more children!!!!
So now The Dems want to come up with a plan for higher income????
I agree with the person who said..If you give the poor everything, what will drive them to better themselves??
I took care of my wife (homemaker) and 5 boys, paid child support and still maintained insurance for my family!!!...On an Aircraft technicians salary!!!
Its called working 600-700hrs of overtime a year!
No help from the gov.
To say something like this shows your ignorance and lack of responsibility!
2007-10-27 17:12:41 · answer #7 · answered by Cajun_Hunter67 2 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Another LIBERAL.
You can take the Democrats out of the majority once and awhile, but you can't take the liberal out of the Democrat. Taxes are a moral issue, not just an economic one. The government isn't just taking our money, they're taking our freedom.
2007-10-27 17:18:36 · answer #8 · answered by Obama Happends 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't think so. I think the bill is not being passed because it puts too much of an emphasis on the Government to take care of the children. When it should be the PARENTS who should take care of their own children. Having to depend on the Government for things like that tends to be Socialistic.
Then again, it also make your statement true. Just change democrats to socialists.....oh wait they are almost one in the same. I guess you are right.
2007-10-27 16:54:27 · answer #9 · answered by seatony 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Nothing is being denied to anyone.
If you're sick, you get help, although you might have to stand in line now and then.
There are some serious problems in health care in need of fixing, but if you think the government can run it better, you're crazy.
2007-10-27 17:44:05 · answer #10 · answered by silverbullet 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
No, No, No...it's not about the children...it's about giving out federally funded healthcare to people that make 60k+ a year. I don't make that much but yet I can afford to insure my children with healthcare. It's all about priorities people...you don't have to live in the biggest house or drive the nicest car just b/c you can afford it, try using that money to take care of the kids YOU are responsible for.
2007-10-27 16:58:01 · answer #11 · answered by (R-TX) 3 · 7⤊ 3⤋