The pre-socialized health care bill to pay for kids up to age 24 (huh? Oh yes!) with parents making over $80,000/year was once again vetoed by George Bush.
What part of a child growing up and being able to drive at age 16... (Libs have in the past wanted to allow them the right to vote as in when they turn 16) But adults are deemed "an adult" when they reach the age of 18...
But with the vetoed bill... Stipulations identify people living with their parents and covered under the plan until they reach 24 years old...
Is really goofy.
So identifying that 24-yr-old children are not children which normally fall into the category as being under 16... Where 16-18 year olds are actually young adults (we call them teenagers) therefore not needing to milk off mommy and daddy's $80,000/year income status...
Why do people, generally liberals, find this hard to comprehend?
2007-12-12 13:17:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You'd be surprised how many libs agree with the presidents veto. I work with a few who do. It was only designed to open the door for further nationalized healthcare proposals. The coven of seedy career congressmen (Chappaquiddick Ted, Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, John "Flip-Flop" Kerry, etc.) thought they could push one through by claiming Bush's "hatred of children". Too bad their efforts were so transparent.
ALEX: Are you insane or just another lockstep liberal? At what point do young adults actually stand on their own then? You obviously don't understand how outrageously expensive (in new taxation terms) this program would be. Isn't it bad enough that your beloved democrats want to make U.S. citizens pay for healthcare, welfare and college education for illegal immigrants? GET A GRIP on reality and your wallet before congress does!
2007-12-12 13:38:23 · answer #1 · answered by Dan K 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, the Child Health Care Bill was a bipartisan bill that passed by over two-thirds majority in the Senate and just under two-thirds majority in the House. So singling out Liberals when talking about this bill is not accurate in the least.
Second, to answer your question about age in relation to health care. I see no problem in covering those up to 24 years old if they are living with their parents or going to school. As a full-time college student I can tell you that working enough to be able to afford health care is nearly impossible unless you get lucky and find a really good job. So what happens if a 21 year old is going to college, their parents don't have health insurance and he/she can't afford insurance of their own? With college being an absolute necessity just to stay above the poverty line, should we make it even more difficult for people to go to college because they don't qualify for government sponsored health care?
This bill needs to be passed and the Congress needs to pass it by a veto proof margin so Bush can't keep it from being started. If Republicans were still in control the bill would still pass and Bush would call it a Republican Victory. He is only vetoing the bill because he refused to work with Democrats.
2007-12-12 21:34:30 · answer #2 · answered by Alex 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because as you have seen even on here is that people buy into this tripe. If 25 is a child, then we need to raise the voting, drinking, driving age up to 25 as well.
2007-12-12 21:25:02 · answer #3 · answered by GoGo Girls 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because generally liberals will fight for anything that distributes and equalizes wealth regardless of the consequences.
2007-12-12 21:21:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
dont know maybe the cost of university has something to do with it
2007-12-12 21:24:01 · answer #5 · answered by imnickdell 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this bill is junk. i think they brought it to bush because they know he will veto it, just so they can say "GWB and republicans want to kill children!!! please think of the children!!! vote for democrats for the children!!!
2007-12-12 21:22:10 · answer #6 · answered by negaduck 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The FACT that bush killed so many kids in iraq has something to do with it.
2007-12-12 21:29:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
They already have their mind made up and thus have BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
2007-12-12 21:20:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
i find your question hard to comprehend. are you mad that democrats are mad that bush vetoed that bill?
2007-12-12 21:22:27 · answer #9 · answered by Mark Mayo Boatner 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Liberals know what they are doing. They are socialists and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.
2007-12-12 21:20:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 4⤋