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?
Elections - 24 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
They just don't want to take people off of private insurance and put them on government run insurance. http://truewordtoday.blogspot.com/
2 :
lol, i think we are in a struggle with the elite,,, the elite are bargained with to give the people some of the resources that technology has brought to humanity... the elite prefer to make profits off of it... rather than give it away... for free as a human right....
3 :
Democrats do look at the world as how can I buy the most votes so it is understandable how this question could arise. The answer is no. It is not even relevant or true.
4 :
i can't speak for all republicans.....but what i resent is paying for other people's children.... i had mine...insured mine...raised mine....and i think others should do the same...i didn't look for a handout from uncle sam....and i expect others to be responsible for their own... what a loaded question yours is....and shows how little you understand about responsibility and accountability....
5 :
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.
6 :
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.
7 :
That's an interesting theory, and that would be very nefarious intent on the Republicans' part if true. But it makes sense.
8 :
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.
9 :
If you mean thinning the gene pool herd, the democrats will take care of that running from the global warming myth. If you take away the pain of being poor what motivates them to do better?
10 :
HUH? Stop being insulting! Republicans are not out to get children. Bush vetoed that EXPENSIVE and wasteful bill because it was bad law. I think the dems put extra crap in it, knowing that Bush would veto it, so they could make it an issue. If Congress would get down to business and do what we hired them to do, things would be different. They shouldn't be wasting time with meaningless resolutions or condemning Rush for something he didn't say.
11 :
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.
12 :
$75,000 annual income is hardly "working poor" Besides, do you really want the Bush Administration responsible for health care?
13 :
If you consider $63k/yr to be working poor then I want to live your life. I make less than half that, have a son and his insurance is private not government. Stop taking people that CAN afford private coverage and pushing them into the government system
14 :
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!!!!
15 :
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!
16 :
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.
17 :
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.
18 :
Yes. Republicans take their lessons from Herod
19 :
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.
20 :
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.
21 :
oh my god what a lame question! just because its named the child health care bill , don't mean a thing. a bad bill is still a bad bill no matter what the name is.
22 :
No., YOU had the kids, YOU provide for them. If you can't do this, then keep your pants on.
23 :
yes
24 :
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.
Read more discussions :
- When it comes to the medical bills for a child, do...
- How can Republicans be against health care reform ...
- how long is a child covered under his/her parents ...
- I have caught my child eating Glue and Crayons sev...
- A question regarding dependent insurance coverage ...
- How can the classroom teacher promote children’s...
- Has the laws changed on how long you can cover you...
- At what point do you think the effort to stall sex...
