The Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, is threatening to sue the federal government. Spitzer's hair is on fire over new regulations on children's health insurance
( Read more... )
I don't agree or disagree with any of what I'm saying, because I'm going to show you how to read critically, and not put in fake numbers.
From the article you posted: "The change in income levels would mean that a family with income of up to $69,000 would be eligible for coverage, from $43,000." You said: "400 percent of the federal poverty level - that's $80,000." So, uh, you're wrong.
The article: "President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the federal plan" So, Congress is trying to push through a bill limiting the amount of aid states can give to families considered "over" the poverty line. Bush is talking about VETOING the bill. So, congress is doing what you want, Bush is vetoing it, and Spitzer agrees with Bush that the bill is bad. They have different reasons, but both say the bill is bad. You said: "What Spitzer really meant to say is that there is a socialist imperative that we move immediately to bring about national health care." You failed to mention that it probably won't get through anyway, you're just bashing
( ... )
And once again, I want to repeat my point, this is for CHILDREN, not "universal health care". If/when the waiver is approved it can essentially be called "Universal Child Health Care."
Comments 2
From the article you posted:
"The change in income levels would mean that a family with income of up to $69,000 would be eligible for coverage, from $43,000."
You said:
"400 percent of the federal poverty level - that's $80,000."
So, uh, you're wrong.
The article:
"President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the federal plan"
So, Congress is trying to push through a bill limiting the amount of aid states can give to families considered "over" the poverty line. Bush is talking about VETOING the bill. So, congress is doing what you want, Bush is vetoing it, and Spitzer agrees with Bush that the bill is bad. They have different reasons, but both say the bill is bad.
You said:
"What Spitzer really meant to say is that there is a socialist imperative that we move immediately to bring about national health care." You failed to mention that it probably won't get through anyway, you're just bashing ( ... )
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/nyregion/28child.html
And once again, I want to repeat my point, this is for CHILDREN, not "universal health care". If/when the waiver is approved it can essentially be called "Universal Child Health Care."
Reply
Leave a comment