Or give 92 billion in 2006 in the form of 'corporate welfare'. Should the market not regulate itself in terms of big business?
Edit: Cognitive, the $82000 number is not in the proposal. It was suggested by Spitzer due to the high cost of living in NYC. Believe it or not it takes a heck of a lot of money to raise a family of 4 these days.
2007-10-29 07:43:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
What politician with any brain would deny medical insurance to a child? Of course this bill is the beginning of socialized medicine, but I guess we have to start slowly and build from there. We can't expect everyone to like what is happening and that's the unfortunate part, but we can ask that they consider something for the 50,000,000 people who have no or too little coverage to help them out. Hospitals have "credit counselors" and their whole job is to help people "see" it from the hospital's point of view. Medicine is no longer available in America to everyone and it is time that changes or we will never see the end to it. If it happens to medicine, when will it happen to food, and housing? It is already happened to petroleum - ($3 for a gallon of gas) and who knows what else. We have to get a handle on this or we will be too late to make a difference and we can't allow that to happen - again!
2007-10-30 01:47:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mary W 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Medicare does not pay all prescriptions.it pays a portion of a list of certain medicines. medicare also pays only 80 percent on some procedures,and none on others and allot of Doctors do not except Medicare.. But it is not free like Welfare and Medicaid.
It seems people in here have not read up on Senior benefits. i have news for all. the seniors that receive benefits paid for them many times over when they worked and Medicaid is for the Senior whose income is lower than those who get all free things through Welfare and Medicaid.
This is not socialized medicine like SCHIP is for children up to 25 years old ,free health everything if the family makes under $83,000 a year. A bit of a difference here.
2007-10-29 07:57:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by ♥ Mel 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Because it is. When ever government pays for your medical care, it's socialized medicine.
But I get your point. How can he be 'for' rich old folks getting free medicine when he's not 'for' rich young folks getting free health care. It is not 'conservative' to pay for the health insurance needs of 25 year old kids of families in the middle class, going to private schools, who CHOSE not to buy health insurance.
Me? I'm for the children and the elderly who need help getting it. The problems with and mistakes of the prescription drug program however should not be seen as a precedent to make more problems and more mistakes.
2007-10-29 08:04:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by The emperor has no clothes 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hey can people between the ages of 18 and 25 vote?
I thought so.
The changes that the Dems made to the SCHIP Bill allow some people up to the age of 25 to be covered. They also allow families that make over $80,000 to be covered in some instances.
One of the issues with the bill now is that some states spend more on adults than children, which leaves some children without coverage.
I'd say that allowing able bodied adults and families that make over $80,000 a year to be covered by the government is a LARGE step towards socialized medicine.
Medicare is for the ELDERLY, as in old age, as in being possibly less able to work and possibly retired... Get it?
Do yourself of favor and research the issue before parroting talking points.
2007-10-29 07:52:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
You act as if Bush put the entire Medicare system into place . . . as you, I'm sure, know, Medicare is a promise we made to Seniors long ago. Bush tried to make good on that promise because since Medicare was enacted, Prescription drugs have taken much more of a central role in overall healthcare. The SCHIP program creates an entirely new entitlement . . . once you start it, it is very difficult to stop. The argument is over 10 million kids, most of which already have access to government funds for healthcare . . . their parents are just too lazy to sign them up. This entire SCHIP thing is simply a political tactic by the dems.
No comparison between Medicare D and SCHIP.
2007-10-29 07:49:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by KRR 4
·
3⤊
6⤋
I wish the people who are so vehemently against this bill would read the dam thing before they mouth off with bogus claims regarding it. At least half or more of the people responding to your question are just regurgitating what their favorite neocons are saying, like good widdle puppets. There's no fact to support their claim regarding the $83,000 income limit.
2007-10-29 08:18:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Being Bush and his family have excellent health care provide free of cost for life, paid for by our tax dollars, would he not want for all being he is so well cared for. When he gets health care that called fair, when the country wants health care that's called socialized medicine
2007-10-29 08:07:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by jean 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Spin -- The entire Medicare program is socialized medicine -- in a way -- the problem is these programs actual subsidize drug and insurance companies ....
2007-10-29 07:52:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
You are comparing apples and oranges. The SCHIP bill (which so many libs said was long dead despite Bush's statements that he will compromise on something reasonable) extends free health care coverage to children in families making as much as $62,000 per year. This is indeed a step toward socialism. People with that income should be paying for health care insurance themselves.
2007-10-29 07:50:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
6⤋