1
   

Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 09:21 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 258 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2007 09:43 am
this scumbag bastard....
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 10:35 am
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 10:42 am
It's how Bushie gets his rocks off.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 10:44 am
Hey! If they'd just shut the war down 10 months early we'd have that 60 billion dollars to insure all those kids without having to raise any kind of taxes. The tabacco compaines should really get behind this end the war effort!
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 11:50 am
"The proposal would dramatically expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending," Mr. Fratto said. "This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program."

Adding "NON-POOR" children? Why would I want to pay for something that their parents can afford (is this how I am to interpret NON-POOR)?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 02:43 pm
Bush Veto Foreseen On Child Health Bill
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 02:52 pm
woiyo wrote:
Adding "NON-POOR" children? Why would I want to pay for something that their parents can afford (is this how I am to interpret NON-POOR)?


Well, exactly that's the question to be asked with any insurance: why should I subsidise bad drivers with my car insurance, when I never make an accident and those with the big cars easily can pay for themselves? Why should I pay for fire insurance ...


Do insurences generally work differently in the USA, woiyo, than elsewhere?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 05:53 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Adding "NON-POOR" children? Why would I want to pay for something that their parents can afford (is this how I am to interpret NON-POOR)?


Well, exactly that's the question to be asked with any insurance: why should I subsidise bad drivers with my car insurance, when I never make an accident and those with the big cars easily can pay for themselves? Why should I pay for fire insurance ...


Do insurences generally work differently in the USA, woiyo, than elsewhere?


Wally is missing the point. This is a TAXPAYER FUNDED program.

"Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the committee's chairman, said the proposal would lead to more than 3 million uninsured children obtaining health coverage. But others said that estimate is high because they believe some families that would sign up for the program would have already been getting their coverage through the private sector. "




From the above post.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 04:19:19
▲ ▼