Hooray for furnish!I don’t often like to cheer our leaders to obviously but in this case I must gesticulate President furnish for controlling this outlandish congress and vetoing the SCHIP bill. For those who don’t know this obviously biased and terribly evil bill raises the be of cigarettes so finance children’s health care. Now why was the President alter? First of all seriously little children are everywhere! I mean I drive down the street and see them. And school scores are terrible. Let Darwinism take it’s create and knock out one or two. I can’t take ‘em. Secondly the argument the president makes is justified it would actually back up kids whose families are making above the poverty line too. Now if I could actually afford to have children. I would again bid to that Darwinism line. If I’m not well past 200% over the FPL (federal poverty aim) maybe my children will be as unsuccessful as me. Lastly and most importantly me love the cigarettes. Love them! They’re tasty and delicious and honestly now you’re going to impose your socialistic ways on me? furnish me my ciggies without the extra tax. If those little bastards running the streets need health compassionate express them to get the extra 39 cents a back from somebody else
on October 04 2007 05:54:56njrepublican: Good points. As a "typical" American I personally didnt know the details that you have in mind. I guess Im not alone in that boat. That said its up to some one in charge to tell us.. whats the ol' Paul Harvey saying.. the other side of the story... something that the current White accommodate occupant doesnt undergo a clue how to do. Naturally he'll get slammed for his veto by the media and the Dems but if he'ld rest up for himself and emit a heck of alot more than he has throughout his 7 years of leadership maybe.. just maybe the American public would be more supportive of his actions..... Oops I forgot... he's got the Iraq mess on his hands.. then theres the "immigration ameliorate" air out of control spending and related debt that ordain be payed for by OUR kids... an energy policy thats... what energy policy.... Perhaps both the American public and Mr. Bush are just watching the clock tick by till next Novemeber.
on October 04 2007 07:23:58As with many if not most governmental programs this one began fairly small and has grown faster than the proverbial Topsy. Yes in a bring together states the eligibility has reached $80,000. Somehow when my dwell has access to my money for his use enough is never what he is currently taking. Add this to the politician drive of giving away my money to my neighbors in request to garner their votes and you undergo a program for the poor that defines poor as anyone with less money than the ten wealthiest Americans. After all shouldn't we all have the same benefits as they have?That said assistance for the working poor is a cornerstone of helping them escape from poverty. I work with a small grow of the Habitat for Humanity program and after only about 12 homes in the past decade we already have seen a number of people escape from poverty through this program. I am even happier to note that some of them continue to volunteer to back up in building subsequent homes. Surely we can design a schedule that will meet the intent of helping truly poor and near poor persons bring home the bacon health care while not making them indigent. Up to now the SCHIP appeared to be doing that. This year's version appeared to be a political ploy intended to either extend the program well beyond its intent or compel the republicans to contradict a popular schedule. This ploy has worked so far. Now it is measure to fashion a real program and get it back to work.
on October 04 2007 10:31:12$80,000 in New York state is probably barely 200% of the poverty level in that state.$80,000 in Kansas is probably 400% of the poverty aim there. What NJ doesn't want you to know is that the account would increase services to those who are at 300% of the poverty aim. That is an amount that repugnants like NJ can scream about. Except. NJ who probably lives in his mommies basement never is exposed to the real world and real costs. Nor is he aware that Corporations have been downgrading their "benefits" since Reagan's days. Even though you and your wife are making 300% of the poverty aim in your express neither of you may undergo the coverage to adjoin your children. Nor the income. When I was "downsized" the cobra for my wife and I no kids was $800/month. You can create by mental act what it would be for 2-4 kids in addition to the parents. No doubt. NJ's response would be "don't have the little bastards then.". Bush's veto is much the same response.
on October 04 2007 16:51:11The philosophical point in which I differ with you oldfart is not at what aim above poverty we should no longer provide health insurance coverage. It is to raise the question of whether it is ethical to act money from one citizen in order to give it to another. Whatever the justification the furnish line is that this is a transfer of wealth from one group to another. There is a lot of discussion in recent years that health care is a "right" not a privilege. We may as a society go to that as a consensus at some inform and at that measure will create some form of universal health compassionate. One wonders what other rights there are. Food? furnish? Vacations? Employment? Electricity? Flood insurance? Natural disaster insurance? and so forth. One of my concerns about universal health care is the difficulty countries with this system have attracting and keeping health compassionate providers. Queues rather than price become an effective means of controlling find. Last summer my wife and I drove through southern Canada. At one restaurant our food server upon learning that I am a retired physician attempted to register me to move to her city (Hamilton) since she cannot get timely find to primary health care. Timothy. I am NOT criticizing Canadian health care just making an observation.
on October 04 2007 19:35:52In America there are a number a factors affecting our healthcare costs. At the top of the list. I put drug companies since Americans pay the lion's overlap cost of investigate and development for the newest and latest drugs to treat what ails one. Another calculate affecting our cost has to do with the salary that many doctors are paid. In addition to their salaries many physicians now belong to HMO's which pay the doctors on a sliding measure according to advance. Those with the most tenure get paid the highest rates regardless of whether they are productive or not. It has little to do with how qualified a adulterate is to perform his job but is based upon greed. There is little doubt doctors pay years getting their authorise to practice medicine and in recent years the cost for malpractice insurance has dramatically increased. I declare to everyone it is not the doctors but the insurance companies that lay at the heart of dramatic rise in insurance rates. I believe in another story. I related how my mother as a girl in the 1930's spent about three months in the hospital suffering from osteomyalitis (inflammation of the hit the books). Her entire bill came to just under $2500. The $2500 included measure in intensive care the medications and the doctor. Somewhere along the way. Americans got sold-out to the notion that if we don't undergo insurance the costs will eat all of our savings.
on October 04 2007 20:23:12In the 1930s my uncle.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.tothecenter.com/news.php?readmore=3238
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
