Bush Vetoes Child Health Insurance Plan »
Posted By GrainOfSand 1 year ago in NewsPresident Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 724
-
0%
GrainOfSand1 year ago
"It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.
"The White House sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage."
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
This action just infuriates me.
People like George Bush, and aniockly, or LCDAY12, or whatever sock puppet (s)he is going by today enjoy the benefits of government subsidized medical care, want to deny it to CHILDREN, on the basis that they'd rather see money going into the coffers of financial services companies, on a slim promise that medical claims MIGHT be honored, rather than directly into something that would benefit children overall.
Further, the amount of money Mr. Bush advocates adding to the program as an alternative to the bill he just vetoed. would deny 800,000 children who are currently covered health care.
No wonder he did it without any press present.
Let's see, the GOP shuns Hispanics, African Americans, and now children, and many working "missing class" families. I can't see much in the way of a future for the GOP if they ever want to be reelected.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Recent SCHIP developments - Massachusetts followed suit but passed legislation that mandates all residents obtain health insurance by this summer, or risk losing their personal income tax exemption.
Uninsured Children - Is age 25 an appropriate age to classify as a Child?
The administration proposed continuing this program but the politicians decided to add in BILLIONS of new spending and expanding the age of a uninsured child to age 25. I am invoking a willing suspension of Disbelief of the outrage that many are expressing. Nothing more than another political football.
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
You know, 25 is too old.
How many of the kids who are going to be denied coverage because of this veto could be construed as adults, or is this just another political red herring to feign fiscal conservatism on the part of the Bush Administration, which rubber stamped every single exhorbitant program they could out of Congress before 2006?
The fact is that millions of children will now be left without healthcare by the Bush Administration, those paragons of compassionate conservatism. Explain that to the voters.
What the hell, why should chldren in America get health care? We can always wait for them to get sick, and then they can go to the emergency room. I know, let's revoke the child labor laws, so they can go to work, and then require childrn to buy their own health care, as opposed to going to school. A conservative's Gilded Age wet dream.
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
Even if you wanted to address the basic economics, it's still significantly cheaper to have preventative health care and good nutrition than wait until extreme intrusive measures have to be taken at an emergency room, particularly in a trauma center.
Emergency room care is unbelievably expensive.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Of course, the issue is not nearly so simple. President Bush actually proposed expanded funding for SCHIP, but he didn't go nearly as far as Democrats seek to do by proposing to more than double funding for the plan.
But Democrats clearly don't have the votes for the massive expansion of the program they sought. The program cost the federal government $5 billion in 2007. If this baseline level were preserved over the next five years, to 2012, SCHIP would receive $25 billion. In his fiscal year 2008 budget request released in February, Bush sought an increase of $5 billion over this period, for a total of $30 billion in funding.
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
Interestingly enough, many Republicans disagree with you. This bill arrived at the President's desk with broad bipartisan support.
This is just a grandstanding stunt by the President to deny any legislative victories to the Democrats, even though there are many Republicans, in Congress, and a large number of Republican governors, who are on board with the bill, as written.
It's completely disingenuous for the President to veto this bill when he wants a 42 Billion dollar add on to the supplemental he requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the 150 billion in the original supplemental request.
As far as the economics are concerned, Iraq is a money pit wth billions of dollars of waste, fraud and corruption because of the privatization schemes of this Administration, and, ironically, had "fiscally conservative" Mr. Bush applied his MBA to good management of the war, there'd be more than enough money to fund the SCHIP program.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
SO this is about the recently passed military spending bill for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles (a large portion of the funding), Pay raises, economic assistance, etc... and not really about the veto of a bill that extends the term Child to a 25 year old? I again invoke my willing suspension of disbelief of your concern for the "Children". This is nothing more than more anti-bush anti-war speak wrapped in Bush hates "Children" vetoes Democrat(ic) Bill. Headline "Bush proposed $5B increase in Child Healthcare Bill" Headline "Democrat(ic)s propose 25 year old be classified as Children" and add "Democrat(ic)s $25 Billion more to Bush $30 Billion Child health care proposal." As for the republiocnas that disagree with me. Well I disagree with them. This is the exact kind of stuff that caused the results of the last election. Out of control SOCIAL SPENDING! Unfunded Mandates coming due.
Reply-
0%
deathray1 year ago
192 billion dollars to pay for MRAPS?
Out of control social spending? What about out of control military spending? You know that as a result of the funding games the Administration is playing, all funding for the war is off budget, and paid for by bonds sales to CHINA.
Ridiculous.
You never answered the question.
What number, of the total number of children denied coverage are legally adults? What is their economic status?
The SCHIP program is being funded by a tax on smokers. and that's not an unfunded mandate. Once again, you misconstrue the argument. God knows I'd prefer people who smoke to find other better things to spend their money on, particularly if they are poor. Maybe it's better that CHINA finances our ch9ldren;s health care, and not our spendthrift military.
Even if there is a revenue shortfall, it's better to spend the money on children than it is to give the money to General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Fluor.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
>>Even if there is a revenue shortfall, it's better to spend the money on children than it is to give the money to General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Fluor.
And don't people realize that healthy children are PRODUCTIVE children & grow up to be healthy, PRODUCTIVE adults?
They want to cut spending now & ignore the higher future costs of not spending now. It's like in my industry (HVAC) people don't want to spend the extra $5000 today that will save them about $800-$1200/year in operating costs for the next 20 years.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
>>In 6 years, they may need to replace the unit, anyway, due to some whacked out environmental regulation
First, without an environment, there is no economy. If you can't breathe, you can't buy. And if you don't want clean drinking water, clean air to breathe, and safe non-carcinogenic materials in your home, office & toys, doesn't mean the majority doesn't want safe, clean environments.
Second, the equipment I'm discussing are environmentally friendly w/the new non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.
And third, even IF they do change the regs, there's usually an time allowance & grand-fathering just like the changes to the older, more caustic & destructive refrigerants. That's been in the works for the past 15-20 years & the R-22 systems are still not "required" to be replaced.
So, as I was saying, they don't want to pay now to save money overall.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Under the bill, SCHIP spending from 2008 to 2012 totals over $27 billion. However, for 2013, spending drops to $2.3 billion and falls to negative amounts in each year after until 2017, representing projected cuts to the SCHIP program. So, what we have here is a ten year tax for a five year program. Does anyone really think we'll kick millions of kids off this program in 2013 to accommodate this lowered spending? Of course we won't. However, we'll have to find a new way to pay for it. If a private company ran its books like this, the CEO would be fired, if not end up in jail.
Another stunning example of how this bill undermines the original purpose of SCHIP is that it makes it easier for illegal aliens to get health care intended for poor children. This bill guts existing protections put in place to stop illegal immigrants from getting taxpayer funded SCHIP and Medicaid benefits. -- Sen. Jim Bunning
Reply-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Many people predict that the new federal tobacco tax needed to pay for the expansion of SCHIP is likely to cause states to increase their own cigarette taxes, to avoid state revenue shortfalls. This will lead to artificially high cigarette prices that are an irresistible target for foreign cigarette counterfeiters and bootleggers here in the United States.
There is new evidence of the absolute folly of this plan to increase tobacco taxes by over 150%. We won't see the revenue projected, but you can be sure organized crime will profit from this situation.
The New York Police Department and federal authorities found 600 thousand cartons of counterfeit cigarettes made in China in a warehouse in Queens. In the same raid, the N.Y.P.D. found 125 thousand phony revenue stamps.
The counterfeiters planned to use these phony stamps to evade taxes in Virginia, New York, and Kentucky, passing them off as real stamps so that the cigarettes can be sold in ordinary convenience stores.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
Wrong. If it weren't for our military that fought inwars like WW-1 & WW-2, we wouldn't be "speaking English" as you put it. Spending TRILLIONS in Iraq just so a few CEO's of those companies, not to mention Haliburton & Blackwater, can get rich has absolutely nothing to do with our freedom or ability to continue speaking English.
And don't you believe that healthy people are more productive & cost overall?
Reply-
-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
star - this makes no sense. I NEVER said that we didn't need these companies to have won WW-1 or -2. But, then, these co's were willing to do whatever it took to supply our troops w/what they needed to win. And without our troops, even the best aircraft can't win a war - it can't fly itself.
What I DID say was that in THIS war in Iraq, W's spending OUR money to perpetuate a lie so a few CEO's & his buddies can get rich.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude1 year ago
Yep. Making the rest of the world hate us is bound to make us more secure...
Reply -
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
>>we turned tail an gave in to these idiots.
You're spouting complete & total crap. We WON in Iraq. We captured Saddam, destroyed his government, killed his sons, & helped initiate elections.
What is there now is a CIVIL WAR, basically caused by our (read Brehmer's) complete disenfranchisement of the Sunnis & Baathist giving them no other choice but to fight for their survival; and partially exacerbated by our presence as an occupying force.
If you can't see that the longer we stay, the more those already fighting us will hate us & the more that don't hate us now will start hating us, then it's useless to discuss this with you.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Typical liberal prattle. I remember when a discussion about funding the school lunch programs happened. A Republican said they should revisit requirements since a lot of school teachers children were getting free lunches. The Democrat response the next day - "Starve the Children."
Avoid the issue that people who don't need the program are getting it and keep the spending that Democrats love.
The program is there and Busch suggested an increase but the tax and spend Democrats want to spend more. When shot down they scream about the uncovered children.
Typical. No evidence just rhetoric.
Reply-
0%
mesodude1 year ago
LOL "Starve the children"? Every single sentence in your post is a complete lie. I dare you to suport one thing you wrote with facts. Btw, it's spelled BUSH. I guess the right wing is even outsourcing the shills it pays to spread its polluted agenda. How much are you getting paid to post this CRAP, by the way?
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Back under Clinton the renewal of the program was discussed. The Republicans were in charge in the House with Newt Gingrich as Speaker. A Republican talked about the fact that many of the children receiving free food were children of teachers. He thought that they needed to look at rules for who should be eligible. Keep in mind that the number of children receiving free food causes the amount of other subsidies to increase. The Democrats stalled that day. The next day the headlines were "The Republicans want to Starve the Children" and The Democrats lined up in front of microphones to give the one line "Starve the Children" sound bite. This appalling response is ingrained my memory of the time.
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
Near that same time Newt Gingrich gave a speech about reforming Social Security by adding several options and he thought the the current system would wither away.
Democrat response. "He said he is going to kill Social Security."
I was appalled at this so it stayed ingrained in my memory also.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
They have reverted to form. They want to increase taxes. They want to increase taxes 61 cents per pack of cigarettes to partially pay for this boondogle. The rest is supposed to be paid for by cutting waste. The cigarette tax hits the poorest people the hardest. They these days have been the king of earmarks.
Tax and Spend like I said.
Reply-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year ago
The Democrats promised to lower the number of earmarks. Instead they took off all limits. This spending bill is not an earmark. An earmark is usually an amendment put on some bill to have spending that is done in the authors district only.This definition of children is 25 and younger. Poor is $60,000 except $81,000 in the state of New York. Are you poor under this definition?
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
>>Poor is $60,000 except $81,000 in the state of New York. Are you poor under this definition?
Depends on a lot of factors. $81k means about $55k-$60k after taxes.
- Daycare in Northern VA - cheapest about $23.5k a year
- Rent / Mortgage - Somewhere around $24 to $36k (if you actually want more than 1 bedroom & a kitchen) a year - average about $28k
- Electric alone WITH Gas Heat - another $2k
- Gas - another $2.5k
What's that? About $56k and we haven't even gotten to groceries, children's clothes, diapers, birthday parties, school supplies, AND auto, health & homeowner's/renter's insurance. Health insurance alone is about $15k PLUS for a family of 4.
So, tell me. Is $81k a year "poor"?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
StarLord1 year ago
At least the Democrats balance their increased spending with extra government income.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
So you don't believe that the gov't should have a hand in our infrastructure including roads, waterways, schools, parks, etc. Remember that the next time you get in your car, take your kids to a public park or ride your bike just about anywhere.
And don't you believe that a HEALTHY and EDUCATED citizenry is BETTER for our national defense than a sickly, ignorant one?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
Naive in what way? Didn't W give the richest in this country the largest tax breaks? And those "refunds" we got were only advances on our actual refunds & would have to be paid back if we owed more than what was advanced. And those "refunds" didn't pay for enough to make 1 bit of difference to those that needed it most, anyway.
Talk about naive.
Reply-
-
0%
scott42611 year ago
Are you THAT dense?
At the time the marginal tax rate was 90% for the uber-wealthy. But with loopholes in the tax codes, of course they were paying much, much less. What Kennedy did was lower the rate to 70%, but closing the loopholes....thus it was actually a tax INCREASE on the very rich....including him!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf1 year ago
>>Every time a tax cut has been made the revenue increases. People modify their behavior based on the tax code. I know libs do not understand this.
What YOU don't realize is that with these latest Fed tax cuts came cuts to states & localities - why do you think so many states are in financial trouble, especially when these cuts go along w/unfunded mandates. And because of those cuts, state & local gov'ts had to INCREASE taxes & fees just to keep up w/minimal required expenditures.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Well based on your remarks I would say my willing suspension of disbelief in regards to your "Outrage" that Bush hates the children was on the mark. It's about the funding for the troops isn't it?
"The SCHIP program is being funded by a tax on smokers. and that's not an unfunded mandate. Once again, you misconstrue the argument. God knows I'd prefer people who smoke to find other better things to spend their money on, particularly if they are poor."
If the "poor people" quit smoking how will the SCHIP program be funded? If a person cannot get "Affordable" Health insurance because they smoke and then decide to quit so that they can afford health insurance then the SCHIP program goes unfunded?
"Even if there is a revenue shortfall, it's better to spend the money on children than it is to give the money to General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Fluor."
You are in favor of higher National debt now?
Reply-
0%
star531 year ago
this tax on smoker is a smoke screen- that all will have to pay for-ALL taxes go into the same fund- maybe all workers should quit and let hillary take care of all of us-thats where we are going
Reply -
0%
scabbio1 year ago
your chatter is so translucent
balh blah blah blah blah blah unwarranted accusation...
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah unwarranted accusation
face the facts that both the left and right provide us all with a very convincing re-enacment of politcal diagreement.
they, however, are well paid and continue the division of poor democrats and poor republicans who in turn don't ever seem to notice that NOTHING EVER CHANGES
i favor distrust in democratic and republican anything
Reply
-
-
0%
Macondo1 year ago
Deathray.
You are totally correct.
To promote war and disregard health specially for the young is both, unpatriotic and criminal.
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Ok let me see if I can follow your logic. You support the military but you do not want them to get equipment to save their lives? Smokers are funding the SCHIP program but you want the "poor people" to stop smoking hence no funding for SCHIP. You don't think a 25 year old should be classified as a Child yet the $25 BILLION that the Democrat(ic)s put on top of the $30 BILLION Bush proposed for the SCHIP program does just that. You are against budget deficits but feel they are OK if the Democrat(ic)s over spend?
"It is absurd to me that children above the 300% poverty level will be added to this program. New York still has the possibility of covering families who make over $82,000 a year. These are families who pay AMT taxes รข;; a tax which is supposed to only affect the wealthy. This expansion of the bill is a push for government funded national healthcare which is not the original intent of SCHIP." Sen. Jim Bunning
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Tcaros1 year ago
The war in Iraq is making money for the wrong people. We need a full investigation into the war and "black budgets." These people are robbing the American taxpayers.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
Interesting observation. Ted Kennedy a Democrat(ic) Icon and staunch Liberal wrote the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Kennedy was a major player in the bipartisan team that wrote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which, according to both Kennedy and President Bush, was a compromise. He then worked to get it passed in a Republican controlled Congress, despite the opposition of members from both parties. Wasn't it a young Ted Kennedy back in the 70's that decided we had a health care crisis and wrote the original HMO legislation? He's only had 30 years of failure, why not let Democrat(ic)s expand on it? The authors of the book Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care (1992) summarized it well when they wrote, "Government's entry into the health care market dramatically expanded the volume, intensity and price of health care." The Medicare law is 110,000 pages. Socialized medicine would be a jumbo form of Medicare. Are you sure that is what you want?
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa1 year ago
Kennedy was not the sole author of NCLB. More to the point, that bill was kicked around repeatedly in Congress until a minute shred of his original proposal remained. Bush insisted that education reform be put in place. With the Republicans in charge of Congress, he got his wish. I agree though that NCLB is a total and dismal failure. It should be completely overhauled such that the measures are not punitive. Nor should the effectiveness of schools be measured based on successive classes, but rather on the progress and growth of a child over numerous years. If we can claim a child has made advances toward proficiency, then we should be happy with that. Schools should not be made to suffer because one student in one criteria fails on one exam.
Reply-
0%
protoham1 year ago
The Fed should not being doing anything in the Education realm. They just mess things up. This all started with Clinton's Goals 2000, which was a piece of trash. Get the Fed and the Fed money out of our state's schools.
Reply -
0%
capecoralM1 year ago
"Nor should effectiveness of schools be measured based on successive classes"
What? So if seniors are coming out of High School and can't read or have math skills at the 5th grade level you think that is success? I guess as long as they are well rounded and have successfully been through the Liberal indoctrination classes that is a good measure of success? I am very involved in my childs education and I can tell you that NCLB is working in the local schools here. Teachers are paid to teach. Kids are there to learn. If teachers are not teaching then how the hell can you call that a measure of success?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
protoham1 year ago
"He hasn't proposed any policy that will benefit us directly."
Maybe that is because he knows that you don't get something for nothing, which seems to be something Libs don't understand.
$A in taxes = $C in services - $B in government waste.
It is pretty simple math. But here is the trick
C = A - B
You are much better off keeping A in you pocket. Hey, this works for Social Security too. If we would stop taxing ourselves and giving a small portion back we would be much better off. Oh, would somebody be rich, don't frown, it might be you.
Reply-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
0%
StillUnashamed1 year ago
My wife is a public school teacher. We are both Bush supporters but NCLB is a hugh failure! It has not and cannot achieve the it's goals. It has only tied the hands of teachers and has short-changed the children.
The same would be true of that children's health-care bill. The government does great at taking something simple and making it extremely complex. So what will happen if it tackles something that starts out complex? Unimaginable!
Reply-
0%
toph19731 year ago
It's a shame that really good teachers are resigning because of this legislation. I know that when I graduated from high school the education that I got was substandard. I'd hate to know what our children are(n't) getting taught anymore.
I's like to thik of government healthcare about like the HMO's. Works, but very, very slowly. My mother waited a full year to get rotator cuff surgery because the HMO wanted to see if Rehab can heal a torn rotator cuff. I have no medical experience but I know they don't heal on their own.
Reply -
0%
ballbuster21 year ago
of course, the politician's like to create total confusion and chaos! otherwise they serve little purpose. if they did the job they were elected to do we would not have the problem's we face today.
Reply -
0%
protoham1 year ago
It started with Goals 2000. NCLB is another fed hack job. I have no idea what the Fed is doing or why they think they should be involved with education or health or welfare. These are state issues and HEW should be shut down.
I am very happy that Bush Vetoed this very Bad Bill. But it gives you a clue as to where we are headed if we don't stop them. Pretty soon the government will be taking care of you from cradle to grave, just do what they say.
Reply -
-
-
0%
ballbuster21 year ago
you left out education, home, quality food and i'm sure there is more.
Reply
-
-
0%
protoham1 year ago
Show me one Government run program that is efficient. If the government was capable of doing so I would be the first one to say "Cut the cord to the insurance companies", but this program is going to cost us a lot more than if we just pay our health insurance. Socialism does not work.
Reply
-
-
0%
StillUnashamed1 year ago
deathray "The fact is that millions of children will now be left without healthcare by the Bush Administration"
If this is so important, why didn't Clinton do something while he was in office? It was just as much a problem then as it is now. But really, Bush has taken nothing away from children! No child who was insured before is uninsured now because of his veto. The people responsible for children being uninsured are those children's parents.
Do I believe all children should have health insurance? Yes. Do I believe all children should have a nice home to live in? Yes. Do I believe all children should have plenty of healthy food to eat? Yes. Do I believe all children should experience Disney World at least once? Yes. But the responsibility for each of these needs and more lie with the parents, not the government!
Reply-
0%
hdthehn1 year ago
StillUnashamed
"But really, Bush has taken nothing away from children! "
Ask the Iraq parents who's children have been murdered what Bush has taken away from their children.
Your statement I quote above is evidence that you StillUnashamed are a fool and the reason we are in this abortion of a war for oil and I am ashamed of and for you.
Unbelievable!
Reply-
0%
saintetienne1 year ago
hdthehn,
And you should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to guzzle down gas for your SUV or whatever it is you drive, while "Iraqi children" are being "murdered by Bush".
The fault is at YOUR door, hdthehn. YOU and YOUR vehicle are every bit as much a culprit in what you say, as anyone else. Don't like that we're in this "war for oil"? Stop using it. Put your money where your big, fat, ugly mouth is, hang up your keys, and walk to work.
You can't have it both ways, hdthehn. You can't guzzle down oil AND get all angry and sanctimonious about a "war for oil".
Which is it, hdthehn? Your outrage or your car keys?
Reply
-
0%
david_nwpa1 year ago
Parents who work more than one full time job to support their families may not be able to afford health insurance for themselves, let alone their children. Many companies do not offer health insurance to non-salaried employees. Shouldn't the people of the US not respond to the needs of the weakest among us? I do not fault the parents, but I do fault President Bush for claiming to be a compassionate conservative and then doing nothing to show any compassion. He certainly is good at starting wars though.
Reply-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa1 year ago
Big brother doles out health care to senior citizens and we gladly hold out our hands to accept it. Big brother doles out education, fire and police services, paved roads, etc. and yet we gleefully go for those services too. You are right; employers should not be able to use health insurance benefits as a perk. Then again, Michael Moore has raised the same arguments. I am not going to bother looking back, but did you boo him when he raised the same arguments?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
StillUnashamed1 year ago
I'm responding only because you addressed this comment to me but I don't see how your comment relates to the current debate.
Are you saying that if we don't provide health insurance for all the children only the children of the wealthiest will get an education? I fail to see the connection, but then I was educated in a public school.
This country became great at a time when there was no Social Security, health insurance for anyone was rare, college was for the wealthy class, and there were no welfare or food stamp programs. But somehow, if this one bill fails, America is doomed????
You used "outsourcing" twice. Since when is it a function of our government to be the parents to our children? And outsourcing parental responsibilities is exactly what this bill does.
Reply-
-
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa1 year ago
I wholeheartedly disagree folks, and let me tell you why. First, age 25 is about the age some students finish with their university studies. Many from low-income families who are able to get the necessary funds to go to college lack the health care necessary to be able to take care of themselves while in school. In fact, the Federal Financial Aid forms which universities release to students to apply for financial aid ask for parental information unless the student is working toward a post-bachelor's degree or is married up to the age of 24. Hence, I think 25 is not too old at least for those in college.
Reply
-
-
-
-
