Even many fellow Repubs disagree with him..."This is not a government takeover of health care. This is not socialized or nationalized medicine or anything like that," Grassley said. "This is not bringing the Canadian health care system to America." I read that it would cost $60M over the next 5 years...how is that too much to spend when we spend twice that much a month on Iraq... For those of you who see everything in black and white and therefore will say socialized medicine is bad...give me a reason...not just that Jesus doesn't like it or something like that. for those of you that say it's as simple as having their parents provide it for them...sorry it isn't. Some hardworking people try thier best and still end up selling thier houses and everything they own to continue to pay the hospital. My daughter was born with a congenital heart defect. In her first year her bills have added up to over $1.5M. Luckily, we have great coverage and haven't had to pay a dime. But we met many people who had to move across country for a specialist and had hit thier cap for the insurance. This people are not bad people that spend their money on drugs and/or material posesions. I am right around the cut off for this bill, but I would have been in big trouble if the insurance company had quit covering us. All I am saying is that kids should be treated different than adult...if over 18 or 21, fine you are on your own...but a two month old baby born with half a heart should be covered. Government shouldn't run healtcare, but insurance companys should?!?! Ruth, never said hospitals turn people away...but good parents can't always afford to pay the bills... My only point is that we spend Billions of dollars on war and to bail out huge corporations, but we balk at helping our citizens when they need it because that would socialism. BTW, noone answered why socialized medicine is wrong...it just is seems to be is the only answer.
Politics - 30 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Maybe the President thinks that's why children have parents. ADDED: I have neither seen nor heard of children being turned away from medical treatment. Please provide some evidence of this.
2 :
That would mean less tax dollars for him to funnel to defense contractors.
3 :
Because that means that he has less and less money to blow off for the war...
4 :
You are mistaken - this president does NOT think. His track record is proof positive.
5 :
Not if 60 cents out of every dollar goes to Overhead.
6 :
I believe socialized medicine is bad because it goes against the fundamentals of basic capitalism. However, I believe that the government should supply health care to those that cannot afford it.
7 :
Because he's just going to send them to Iraq to be killed when they turn 18. It's a poor return on the investment
8 :
Because it'll be more money NOT coming to him. I really dont like him.
9 :
What no body likes about the bill is that it really isn't for kids, it is for couples with kids that earn $80,000 or less a year. Most of these people can afford to buy health insurance. They just choose to spend their money on vacations and at Walmart. It's a backdoor trick to start socialized medicine.
10 :
You know what. I'll bet it has something to do with all the stupid pork tacked on as an amendment to the bill. That's why. Since there's no line-item veto ... he has to accept it with the stupid amendments or veto the whole bill. Thus the power of checks and balances ...
11 :
Look at Canada. They have socialized medicine. They look to come here for treatment. It takes months to get a simple MRI or CAT scan. If they die before they get it so be it. And who is going to pay for this???
12 :
Government has no business in the health care industry. The United States does not need socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is worse than what we have the USA. There is nothing wrong with children having HEALTH CARE, its just wrong that so many people want the government getting involved.
13 :
Here is an unusual idea, how about their parents provide them with health care since they managed to bring them into this world. I don't feel it's my job to send my money to raise other peoples kids and provide them with the care their parents should provide for them.
14 :
The poor little rich people can't afford to pitch in.
15 :
He's a selfish SOB. If it's not for him or his millionaire buddies, he's not for it. Want to guess where the infant mortality is highest, the US or all other industrialized countries?
16 :
The government has no responsibility to provide healthcare for anyone. Check the Constitution...I swear it's not in there ;oP Not to say that this war is constitutional, clearly it is not. I love how all these programs start out for children (welfare, medicaid, etc) and then turn into programs for everyone...Yay I just love having money taken from my paycheck and given to people who don't pull their weight! Cris, Is the fact that it would be unconstitutional not a good reason? Others have provided many other good reasons. Maybe you should take another look.
17 :
Tell you what...let's cut out the middle man. You give me money so I can take my kid to the doctor. What's that you say.....You won't give me, a complete stranger, who is fully capable of providing for my own family, any of your hard earned money out of your pocket? Why is that? That's what you're proposing....I'm just cutting out the middle man.
18 :
It's called personal responsibility I pay for my daughters Why should I have to pay for the lazy libs kids Think First
19 :
Grassley is wrong. it is opening the door to socialized medicine and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Tell me we won't be paying for the illegals kids too?
20 :
It's wrong because Haliburton isn't in the business of health insurance. If they were, the children would be insured as soon as 'mom and dad' can prove conception. Cha ching, again Mr. Cheyney.....
21 :
Duh...do you think that a single mother making $80,000 a year should get a pass, cancel her private insurance and sign up for the new Dem health plan and then get it free, is good for the rest of us? Read the small print. The Pres is vetoing it because it includes people making over $80,000 a year, not the poor folk that it was designed for.
22 :
Because he wants to encourage these children to be responsible and ensure they are born into nice wealthy families so they do not have to be a burden on the state.
23 :
It chips at the foundation of our government, it expands the nanny state, it gives parents the excuse to by a big screen TV or a razor phone, instead of investing in their own children. It involves wealth distribution, takes from the rich and gives to the poor who are unwilling,or very willing to allow big brother to provide for them.
24 :
It's a brisk step toward socialism, and monopolization of the heath care industry by government. It gives free heath care to children of parents who can already afford it, and of course they will all take the bait instead of paying for it themselves. Others will begin to complain that they don't get free health care, etc etc etc. I'm not particularly against universal health care, its just that making it "free" (i.e. taxpayer provided) has too many problems. For example, there will be a inevitable jump in heath care usage once everyone can just go to the doctor for free, which will lead to overcrowding. There is also the inevitable government red tape, and the regulation of costs will that will lower the quality.
25 :
Bush is hoping those dang little pickaninnies will die before they can reproduce........
26 :
Well we can always do it the way the Democrats want, abort them all, no children no need for health care.
27 :
Reading all the idiotic comments above mine...I don't know if I should be laughing or shaking my head in disgust. You poor poor americans, so brainwashed with government propaganda that the mere mention of anything 'socialist' will cause massive revolt, when the majority of you can't even think of a good reason as to why social health care is wrong. In your puny little brains, affordable health care= democrats= communism= USSR= death to the good old 'free' US of A. sigh.when will anyone wake up and face the fact that people from countries with socialized health care aren't dying by the dozens, aren't waiting 'months for a cat scan' as someone above me stated (hmm i wonder where he overheard that lie), and sure as hell aren't complaining.
28 :
It gives the government more control over the people, that's why. It takes away peoples independence and work ethic and makes us depend on the government for our living.
29 :
Where is it written that it's the Governments job to take care of my children. You won't find it in the constitution because it's not there. If you don't think socialized medicine is wrong just ask the Canadians or Britons about it or better yet take a look at some of the stories of how they wait for months to get life saving treatments. or don't even get them at all. I've heard stories of people dieing while waiting months for treatments. Why should we even think of letting Government control health care, I mean they proved themselves unworthy on other such tasks haven't they. Stephen
30 :
Can ask for billions of dollars to fight his immoral war but could care less for the health care of this country and its children.
Read more discussions :
- Will the health dept let you selectively vaccinate...
- If the only reason people don't have health insura...
- Should health givers honor a woman's wish to bear ...
- Will substance abuse throughout someone's lifetime...
- How do I divorce my adult child so that she cannot...
- Which parent is responsible for the health care de...
- should underprivileged children learn more about h...
- I have an ex wife who takes care of our handicappe...
