(Untitled)

Oct 03, 2007 22:52


Read more... )

50+ comments

Leave a comment

Comments 88

chanharrison October 4 2007, 07:02:40 UTC
thank you.. i stole that one for my journal!!!

Chan

Reply


rubyspirit October 4 2007, 09:19:00 UTC
I guess Bush saw 60 minutes this past week. It reported how kids are being prescribed so many medicines, it is killing them and messing up their growth.

Glad my tax dollars won't add to the abuse.

Reply

xforge October 4 2007, 14:35:22 UTC
'Cuz not helping anyone at all is better than helping a hell of a lot and screwing up one or two.

Reply

vorpal October 4 2007, 22:55:23 UTC
For a low income parent, it would at least be nice to have the *option* to say no to filling a prescription recommended by a doctor for your child.

Reply

kip_w October 4 2007, 23:45:26 UTC
Isn't it nice how some folks' principles always seem to add up to saving their money by not spending it on helping anyone? I mean, how convenient is that!?

Still, that kid shouldn't smoke in bed.

Reply


marksism October 4 2007, 11:37:52 UTC
better dead than red

Reply

glenniebun October 4 2007, 13:28:45 UTC
There you go.

Reply


anightwlkr October 4 2007, 12:34:18 UTC
Maybe dad should look through the job ads in the paper he is holding, instead of standing there looking at his sick child like a idiot.

Flame on.

Reply

sunpony October 4 2007, 13:07:50 UTC
Yeah, that's one awesome job market we have right now! :-)

Reply

anightwlkr October 4 2007, 13:13:32 UTC
Yep don't get that extra job at McDonalds so you can watch your kid sick in bed. I would do anything if my child was sick.

4,924 in Atlanta alone

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/job-search?partner=ajcjobs&kw=&locations=Atlanta%2C+GA&metro_search_proxy=1&metro_search=1&industry=

Reply

xforge October 4 2007, 14:36:23 UTC
The McJobs you're going to get these days don't carry healthcare. You'd basically be working a job and signing all of every paycheck over to the doctor. Whee.

Reply


bluetooth16 October 4 2007, 13:22:12 UTC
He vetoed it for a good reason. First of all, the money used to pay for this would be high marginal taxes from middle and working class people (people who can't afford more taxes). Secondly, smaller states stand to lose money to big states who spend more. This law also makes it harder for people to buy cheaper out of state insurance.

Reply

desidono October 4 2007, 13:46:48 UTC
I never knew that the cigarette tax was just for the middle class and working people.

If this is the case, why aren't the upper income peeps paying their fair share?

Reply

bluetooth16 October 4 2007, 17:40:27 UTC
It's very hard to force them to pay their share. Even if the loopholes are closed, they'll find others.

Reply

fleaplus October 5 2007, 02:36:41 UTC
If this is the case, why aren't the upper income peeps paying their fair share?

That's pretty much an inherent problem of taxes on consumer goods.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up