Why are people for this bill about children's health care?
Okay, I see post after post asking why Bush hates children. So I'm wondering why people are for taxing the poor since they are usually the ones who smoke to pay for health care for children whose parents make up to 83 thousand and for "children" who are 25. Isn't that like robbing the poor to give to middle class? There is already a program that handles child's healthcare. Bush agreed to give more funds to this program, just not the amount Dem's are asking You are basing your question on lies and twists. Since facts are easy to find these days, do people not realize how that makes them look when they fib and then can't back up what they say? EDIT: Nice twist ideogene, attack the person, not the question. Like you know the first thing about me. Now can you answer the question? It is a fact that most smokers are POOR, and this tax would help people making 83 thousand. Is that poor in your opinion EDIT: Nice twist ideogene, attack the person, not the question. Like you know the first thing about me. Now can you answer the question? It is a fact that most smokers are POOR, and this tax would help people making 83 thousand. Is that poor in your opinion JIM1970 "darling" I said majority..not all. Why has misquoting become so popular these days? Please show me where it s Since you can't do your own research, I'll help you. But all you have to do is look at the bill to know it's trash. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/children_s_health_glance;_ylt=AoPg9ycMe9NLeeIE6CVJfKSyFz4D Poor kids first," Bush said later in explaining his decision, reflecting a concern that some of the bill's benefits would go to families at higher incomes. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system," he added in remarks to an audience in Lancaster, Pa. The president said he is willing to compromise with Congress "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health;_ylt=AqrLw5ba6yPm5Fmqy4LzHQiyFz4D I don't know why I bother, you're not going to read All the people comparing it to the war. It is governments job to provide defense. Please show me where it says it is government's job to furnish health care to anyone who doesn't want to pay for it. I'm all for helping poor children, but this bill is B/S. WWD: I agree with you on the child with illness. There should and must be a program to help the family. I don't believe Bush said they shouldn't. Your arguement about smoking. I am an ex smoker and I know personally how hard it is to quit. I really don't believe that many will stop smoking because of this program. I used to say I'd quit when they were more than a dollar a pack, at 3 dollars I was still smoking. The program that exists does need more funding but not at the cost and age bracket that the dem's are suggesting and not at the cost of ONE group of people.
Politics - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
a community that does not care about the health of its children is doomed to extinction
2 :
People don't have to smoke..it's a choice...The amount that Bush agreed to give to the program would not even cover the people currently in the program.
3 :
I'm a smoker. i can quit if it gets too expensive. i wouldn't mind paying an additional 61 cents for my pack if i knew the money was going to poor kids that need health care. why are you and Bush against raising taxes on a LUXURY item to pay for a basic need?
4 :
What do you have against children anyway?
5 :
Your right, there are a lot of problems with the bill. I think people claiming that Bush hates children are trolling, and really shouldn't be taken too seriously. Generally, if someone responds to, or posts, a message thats only one sentence long and inflamatory, they should probably be ignored :P
6 :
You are absolutely right on all counts. But the most sinister aspect of all this is that it's a step toward socialized health care. This was never about taking care of kids. It's about the feds taking control of your health care.
7 :
Darling, you can't back up what you say...... I come from a high income bracket and I know several people who smoke. The program that handles children's health care sucks..... You are basing your statements on conservative crap and Fox news. Bush wants another $189 billion dollars for his war.....and he won't insure our nations children. NOT EVERYCHILD IS INSURED....I don't know where people get that crap.
8 :
The dems are hopping that another lie will stick. They live in a fantasy world where they just take what their leaders tell them for granted. They are either too naïve, to hateful, or too lazy to want to know the truth. You’re absolutely right that today nothing has to be a secrete. They just don’t care!
9 :
I agree with you. The tobacco tax is one of the most regressive taxes that we have. There are two issues here. The first is: Is the program worthwhile? I think it is not. I agree that we should cover health insurance for poor children. This is an expansion of a benefit designed for poor children to include middle class and upper middle class individuals. Thus, the net effect is, as you accurately state, to tax the poor to pay for middle class health benefits. If the program is worthwhile, why would we pay for it with tobacco taxes? The only answer that I can find to that is that it is politically expedient. Smokers are a targeted class with little political voice. If the program is socially responsible then it should be funded with income taxes that do not single out a small segment of society to pay for it. PS I disagree with the war spending also but one does not justify the other. We cannot afford either one right now. Lets balance the budget first.
10 :
It does not take a village to raise a child. It takes two dedicated parents, optimally, and 4 grandparents, hopefully. Now with that said. I want to know where I should have to pay taxes for someone elses children? (Socialized Health care stinks!) We are already paying for poor children. As a nurse, I can tell you no child is ever turned away from a hospital. And that is the truth. Did you know that we will even help poor people apply for help? And if your income is too high, you can send as little as $5.00 a month to pay your bill? (Don't tell them I told you though ;)) The SCHIP was a farce and we should not have to pay for something written in those terms. How many people were for it and never read it? And over 18 you are an adult!
11 :
Liberals won't be happy with health care until they have completely turned this country into a communist Hell hole where sure, health care is free and all, you just have to wait a year before a doctor treats you (when you might be dead by then). It's so easy to sway peoples' opinion by telling everyone, "Hey, the President doesn't want to pay for your child's health care!" Nobody realizes its not money out of HIS pocket, its money out of mine and yours. I'm having a hard enough time paying for health care for my own family because I pay into a system that not ONLY takes care of the poor, but also the fat, lazy, and incompetent too. That's not because of George Bush, that's because of the libs, who feel they can spend our money better than we can, hence, we shouldn't have any, THEY should have it all. Party for the poor? I think not. Their ideals are as communist as they come. Here's an example, take New Orleans. Every liberal thinks if we just let THEM run America, it'd be a paradise with no hatred and no pains and struggles. Well no place in America should have been more of a eutopia then New Orleans, since it's been such a liberal strong hold, and what was it like before Katrina? A smelling, crime-ridden hole in the ground, that's what. The Democrats were in power there, so why were so many people homeless and in poverty? Then a hurricane hits and no one on the left can blame Bush fast enough. Whining and crying, "Where's Bush? Where's ferderal relief?" when at any other time, they complain that, "Oh my God! He's consolidating his power!" The point is, we as individual Americans have a responsibility to provide for ourselves. If we want to provide for the poor, let's define poor, because I'm tired of lazy oafs being lumped into the mix because they won't work.
12 :
It's normal for there to be more heat that light generated by these things, and I'd hope they can come up with a compromise. SCHIP is, after all, a Republican program. But before you get too smug about your position, I'd like you to consider the family in which both parents make $40k, and they're trying to put through school a child with a chronic illness whose health care costs are thousands of dollars every month. Private insurance is not an option, and other programs like Medicaid are out because of eligibility rules. Surely something should be available. Also consider that cigaret taxes don't only provide income, they also change behavior, and some of those poor smokers will quit smoking, and have better health themselves, if the tax rate is increased. Polarization is entertaining, but in this as in so many other areas, wouldn't it be better to get past the slogans and have a civil discussion of problems and potential solutions?
Read more discussions :
