The list of proposed amendments to Demcare; Update: GOP Rep. Barton: “This process corrupts and prostitutes the system;” Update: Chaos at House Rules Committee
Scroll for updates…1:13pm Eastern. DEMOCRAT Rep. Dennis Cardoza opposes deem-and-pass tactics…”I don’t believe it’s smart of us to pass a bill this momentous with a deemed rule.”
These amendments to the Demcare behemoth were posted on the House Rules Committee website last night at 9:23pm Eastern. The committee meets at 10am this morning. GOP Rep. Pete Sessions will be live-tweeting the hearing. Follow him here.
I want you to read the whole list (click here for link-throughs to all of the amendments) and keep in mind that Pelosi’s Slaughter House wants all of these debated, voted on, and dispensed with by tomorrow.
But, you know, noooooo one’s rushing aaaaaaaaanything through.
Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for
H.R. 4872 – Reconciliation Act of 2010
(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)
Listed in Alphabetical Order
Mar 19, 2010 9:23PM
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#48
Would remove the provision which provides extra funds to Louisiana’s Medicaid program.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#49
Would remove the provision which provides funds for a medical facility in Connecticut.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#50
Would remove the provision that would allow certain hospitals to benefit from Section 508 if it means higher Medicare payments.
Barton (TX)
#53
Would prevent this bill from taking effect until the Office of Management and Budget certifies that the federal budget deficit has been eliminated
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#54
Would remove the provision that provides for increased Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in frontier states.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#62
Would require that all individuals under Medicaid have to demonstrate their identity and citizenship.
Barton (TX)
#68
Would strike all taxes in the bill.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#70
Would repeal a provision providing Medicare coverage to certain individuals exposed to environmental health hazards.
Barton (TX)
#74
Would prevent the bill from taking effect until Medicare and Medicaid are solvent for the next 20 years.
Barton (TX)
#76
Would repeal section 6001 of the bill, Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals.
Blackburn (TN)
#4
Would require the HHS Secretary to certify that no American will lose access to his or her current health insurance due to the establishment and operation of health plans offered through a state Exchange. This will be an annual certification. Until certification is made, no State is required or penalized for the failure to establish plans in an Exchange.
Blackburn (TN)
#5
Would provide that if any provision of this Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or amendments thereto) imposes an unfunded mandate on the States, such provision or amendment shall be null and void and the States shall not be subject to such provision or amendment.
Blackburn (TN)
#7
Would provide that nothing in the Act shall preclude an individual from purchasing or maintaining insurance qualifying for Health Savings Account deposits and nothing shall interfere with their ability to continue to make deposits according to the schedule created in the 2006 HSA legislation.
Blackburn (TN)
#8
Would provide that if OMB submits a report saying that the costs of title I of the bill and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are 25% or greater than the Federal budget, than the Congress shall consider a joint resolution to repeal such provisions.
Blackburn (TN)
#12
Would prohibit exchange plans from being established until the HHS Secretary certifies that the establishment of exchange plans will not cause the cost of the average price of private health insurance premiums to increase.
Blackburn (TN)
#13
Would prohibit the Federal government from passing any law that would give it authority to ration health care for the American people.
Broun (GA)
#46
Would provide individuals 100% deductibility for all medical expenses; reform EMTALA; provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage; and provide for Association Health Plans. The amendment is the same as H.R.3889.
Broun (GA)
#85
Would require any business that is characterized as a minority owned business or small business concern (as defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632) is exempt from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA)
#86
Would exempt any business whose gross revenues per year do not exceed $500,000 from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA)
#87
Would exempt any business whose gross revenues have declined from the previous fiscal year from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA)
#88
Would allow for 100% deductibility of individual medical expenses.
Brown-Waite (FL)
#66
Would repeal the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL)
#67
Would repeal the sections of the bill that require the IRS to enforce the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL)
#81
Would require that all cuts to the Medicare program in this bill be used to ensure the solvency of the Medicare program and not for any other program.
Brown-Waite (FL)
#82
Would eliminate any cuts to Medicare in the bill.
Burgess (TX)
#18
Would make Members of Congress a mandatory covered population under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid) without consideration of any other asset or qualification test. Family members of Members of Congress are not impacted and remain eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FHEBP).
Burgess (TX)
#19
Would require that to have a qualified state plan under the Medicaid program states must pay providers at least 75% of the payment rate paid to a provider under the state employees plan or the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) most chosen by families. For dental & vision services, in the case where such services are covered under a state employee plan, providers must be paid at 75% of the rate paid under the plan. In the case where supplemental dental and vision services are not offered to a state employee providers must be paid at a rate of 75 % of the rate paid by the supplemental (vision & dental) FEHBP plan most often chosen by families.
Burgess (TX)
#20
Would establish a utilization review and appeals process for qualified health plans.
Burgess (TX)
#61
Would add a division based on the medical liability reforms adopted in Texas.
Buyer (IN), McKeon (CA)
#31
Would protect the integrity and independence of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems and state that the TRICARE program and veterans’ health care programs meet all of the requirements for individual health insurance under the bill.
Cassidy (LA)
#91
Would clarify that high-deductible health plans with an HSA meet the definition of adequate coverage. Furthermore, any new standards adopted by the Secretary shall not apply to high-deductible health plans and health savings accounts if such standards would have the effect of disqualifying such plans from meeting the essential benefit package requirements.
Cole (OK)
#3
Would require that savings resulting from spending reductions in Medicare will stay in Medicare to pay down long-term unfunded financial obligations.
Dent (PA)
#89
Would add a new division titled, ending defensive medicine and encouraging innovation.
Foxx (NC)
#6
Would strike the entire Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) from the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872.
Franks (AZ)
#43
Would prohibit cuts to Medicare Advantage plans.
Gingrey (GA)
#26
Would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for a methodology that ensures that any savings to the Medicare program resulting from (and amendments to) HR 3962 shall be retained in the Medicare program to make seniors health care more stable and affordable.
Gingrey (GA)
#27
Would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for an opt-out process from the individual mandate for every American citizen.
Gingrey (GA)
#28
Would include caps on non-economic damages and other reforms included in the CBO score that showed a $54 billion in savings over a 10 year period. The amendment reflects H.R. 1086, the HEALTH ACT, which seeks to enact medical liability reform in the states.
Gingrey (GA)
#29
Would state that nothing in H.R. 4872 shall be construed to allow any Federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.
Grayson (FL)
#2
Would allow any American citizen or permanent resident to buy into Medicare at cost and benefit from Medicare parts A, B, and D. The amendment creates six age brackets (actuarial pools) and requires each pool to be solvent or pay for itself.
Hall, Ralph (TX)
#69
Would require a social security number for eligibility for participation in an exchange.
Hall, Ralph (TX)
#80
Would require a valid photo ID when applying for Medicaid or SCHIP.
Herger (CA), Boustany (LA), Broun (GA)
#45
Would prohibit CMS from making coverage determinations using Comparative Effectiveness Research solely on the basis of cost.
Kagen (WI)
#1
Withdrawn Would require any and all individuals and business entities that offer health care products or services for sale to the public must at all times openly disclose all of their prices, including on the Internet.
Lee, Christopher (NY)
#11
Would create a 3 year / 5 state medical tribunal pilot program to be administered by the Secretary of HHS.
Lummis (WY), Johnson, Sam (TX)
#41
Would allow States to opt out of any provisions of the bill to the extent that they mandate the purchasing of health insurance by residents in such State, mandate the provision of health insurance by employers in such State, or interfere with the ability of patients to privately contract with medical providers and insurers under the laws of such State.
Moore, Gwen (WI)
#9
Would change the date when insurers would need to comply with the new Medical Loss Ratio requirements from 2011 to 2014, to conform to when the American Health Benefits Exchanges will be established. Redirects MLR rebates to the Treasury.
Moore, Gwen (WI)
#10
Would change the date when insurers would be required to comply with new Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements from the current draft date of 2011 to 2014, synchronizing it with the year when the American Health Benefit Exchanges will be established. Redirects the MLR rebates to the Treasury to be made available for the funding of premium assistance credits.
Paulsen (MN), Gerlach (PA), Lance (NJ), Dent (PA)
#30
Would remove the medical innovation tax and replaces it with unobligated stimulus funds.
Paulsen (MN)
#42
Would exclude temporary workers from the employer mandate.
Roe (TN)
#44
Would repeal the enactment of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#32
Would express the sense of Congress that any new Social Security payroll tax revenue that results from this legislation could only be used for future Social Security benefit payments.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#33
Would strike the employer health insurance mandate from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#34
Would strike the provisions in section 1405 relating to an excise tax on medical devices from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#35
Would allow all health insurance plans in effect today to be considered acceptable coverage for purposes of the Senate health reform bill’s individual insurance mandate.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#36
Would strike all Medicare cuts from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#37
Would require Health Savings Accounts to be considered acceptable coverage under the Senate health reform bill’s individual insurance mandate.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#38
Would strike all provisions related to student lending reforms in the reconciliation bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#39
Would require the Secretary of HHS to certify that no seniors would lose access to their current Medicare Advantage plan before any cuts to the MA program could be enacted.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#51
Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if in a state where unemployment is over 10%
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#64
Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if national unemployment is over 10%.
Rogers, Mike (MI)
#73
Would require there to be no changes to Medicare Advantage for a given year until the HHS Secretary certifies that no senior will be forced away from or losing their enrollment in the MA plan they were enrolled on as of the day before enactment of the bill.
Roskam (IL)
#90
Would strike the current section 1302, essential health benefits requirements, and replace with a new section, medicare waste, fraud, and abuse prevention pilot program.
Scalise (LA)
#65
Would strike the individual health care mandate.
Shadegg (AZ), Broun (GA)
#83
Adds a section to establish universal access programs to improve high risk pools and reinsurance markets.
Shadegg (AZ), Blackburn (TN), Broun (GA)
#84
Would add a section on interstate purchasing of health insurance.
Shimkus (IL)
#47
Would provide funds to Medicaid recipients so they can buy into employer-sponsored insurance.
Shimkus (IL)
#55
Would require a certification that the bill would lower national health costs.
Shimkus (IL)
#58
Would allow states to opt-out of the Medicaid expansion.
Shimkus (IL)
#72
Would allow individuals or states to opt out of any fee or tax imposed or increased under the bill.
Stearns (FL)
#14
Would require the co-equal heads of the three branches of government – the President, Congress and Supreme Court Justices to be enrolled in the health exchange.
Stearns (FL)
#15
Would strike Sections 9009 and 10904, which tax medical devices.
Stearns (FL)
#16
Would allow individuals to deduct the cost of medical care and prescription drugs from their income taxes above the line.
Stearns (FL)
#17
Would require that any written, visual or audio materials distributed through a covered official, entity or program shall be in English only.
Stearns (FL)
#24
Would require any individual who wishes to access to the Health Exchange or Affordability Tax Credits to provide documentation of citizenship or nationality.
Stearns (FL)
#25
Would extend the protection of existing coverage in section 1251 Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage to are enrolled on after the date of enactment.
Stearns (FL)
#40
Would strike sections 1102 and 1103, and repeal the provisions related to Medicare Advantage.
Sullivan (OK)
#22
Would require the HHS Secretary to conduct a study on new and old programs affected by this legislation to determine if there is any program duplication. Would require the Secretary to write a report on the study within one year of the enactment of this bill. After writing that report, the Secretary would be required to eliminate any duplicative programs within one year.
Sullivan (OK)
#23
Would require the HHS Secretary to conduct a study on new and old grant programs affected by this legislation to determine if there is any program duplication. Would require the Secretary to write a report on the study within one year of the enactment of this bill. After writing that report, the Secretary would be required to eliminate any duplicative programs within one year.
Sullivan (OK)
#59
Would eliminate duplicative programs at HHS.
Sullivan (OK)
#60
Would eliminate duplicative grants at HHS.
Terry (NE)
#21
Substitute Would establish the Citizen’s Congressional Health Benefits Program (CCHBP).
Terry (NE)
#52
Would strike market basket update reductions.
Terry (NE)
#75
Would ensure that additional hospital insurance taxes be deposited into the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and used only for purpose funding Medicare Part A.
Terry (NE)
#79
Would strike Medicare payment cuts to disproportionate share hospitals.
Upton (MI)
#77
Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if unemployment is over 7%.
Upton (MI)
#78
Would prohibit the bill from taking effect until the Medicare Trustees publish projections that show that Medicare is solvent for the next 30 years.
Walden (OR)
#63
Would ensure proportional representation of interest of rural areas on IPAB.
Walden (OR)
#71
Would ensure that MEDPAC has adequate rural representation.
Whitfield (KY)
#56
Would remove the “prompt pay” discount from the Medicare part B reimbursement formula.
Whitfield (KY)
#57
Would place a moratorium on the cuts to reimbursement for procedure performed by interventional pain physicians.
***
Update: GOP Rep. Barton at House Rules Committee hearing calls for regular order. A very grave Barton warns against the Slaughter House deeming tactics. “This process corrupts and prostitutes the system…we are about to unleash a cultural war on this country…don’t do this deem and pass…It doesn’t have to be this way.”
Update: Chaos, reports Byron York:
At the House Rules Committee meeting, Democrats desperate to pass their national health care plan are running into the barrier of basic civics. Here is the problem: The Senate has passed its HCR bill. If the House passes the same bill, it goes on to the president; once he signs it, the bill becomes law. But House Democrats, when they vote for the Senate bill using the “Deem & Pass” dodge, also want to simultaneously pass a package of amendments to the law. Except HCR will not, at that point, be law. It will only become law when the president signs it. Congress can amend the law — it does so all the time — but can it amend something that isn’t law?
Which is where Democrats are tripping up. Passage of their HCR proposal should be very simple: Senate passes it, House passes it, president signs it. But House Democrats are terrified of voting for the unpopular bill, so they hope to pass it by “Deem & Pass,” in which they will vote, not for the bill, but for a rule that both deems the Senate bill to have passed and, in the same vote, passes the package of amendments. So House Democrats will have two fig leaves: 1) they didn’t vote directly for the Senate bill, and 2) they voted to simultaneously amend — to “fix” — the Senate bill.
The problem is the sequence. Can the House vote to amend something that isn’t the law, as the Senate bill will not be law before the president’s signature? The Rules Committee meeting turned into mass confusion when Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman said, “We’re not going to ‘deem’ the bill passed. We’re going to pass the Senate bill…I would be against the idea of ‘deeming’ something — we either pass it or we don’t.”
To Republican ears, that sounded as if Waxman was speaking out in support of a direct vote on the Senate plan. “I hope we’re making news here,” said Republican Rep. Joe Barton. If so, Barton added, “Praise the Lord!” Other Democrats jumped in to say that no, there would not be a direct vote on the Senate bill.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 CommentsIllinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 CommentsDestroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsWhite House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 CommentsBiden predicts Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare
April 1, 2012 12:49 PM by Doug Powers
63 Comments
Categories: Health care

Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year




JustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like This










#10000000
Would require that all members of Congress be subject to the same crap sandwich that Congress is willing to impose on the American citizenry.
When the Democrat Caucus exercises its
“Need for Speed” in this matter I sense that never in the course of human events have so few dug so many deep and lasting ditches in such a short period of time.
#271234 Would require a general vote to determine eligible treatments authorized for the co-equal heads of the three branches of government. If your approval level is lower than 50% treatments will be denied.
What the heck are frontier states? Are land claims available there? Is there a gold rush? Are there hostile Indians?
Good luck getting all these amendments to be voted on. I somehow have a feeling they won’t be. This old hag will find some new way to say it is illegal.
L
This amendment needs to be added: Would repeal the bill if not approved by Durangodarlin.
This is a comprehensive list of bribes to get democrats to deem and pass. Then Pelosi strips them away and sends the Senate bill to Obama. All of these amendments will be slated for future legislation, if at all.
I was going to ask the same question. Virginia used to be a frontier state once. Is that okay? We do have Indians around, though they only get peeved at us, not necessarily hostile, once and awhile.
Red states? Redneck/gun toting/bible thumping states? Hmmmmm…
Is there an amendment to strip out of this fiasco the government takeover of student loans?
Could be, Jangar. Alaska could be a frontier state. California, maybe. They don’t have hostile Indians, just hostile Mexicans (demanding more and more money), and hostile politicians doing the same. They could have a land rush soon, as everyone who could, would have left the state.
Is there anyway to insert an amendment that says any yes vote on this legislation is also a resignation from congress?
rooster, maybe one of these 2 address the student loan handouts:
#6 Would strike the entire Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) from the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872.
#38 Would strike all provisions related to student lending reforms in the reconciliation bill.
Right down the democrats’ alley. To them, nothing is better than corruption and prostitution of the Constitution, as we have seen.
This is the best example of why centralizing health care, or anything, under the federal government is unfair and inefficient. All of the these bribes to individual states could be eliminated by allowing the states to deal with the problems themselves. The key would be for the feds to lift the prohibition of interstate competition by insurance companies.
I am still not hearing ANY Republicans declaring this bill and the process to pass it as being unconstitutional. I still don’t hear any of them threatening to take action that would be “impolite”. It’s all just kabuki theater.
We need to vote all incumbents out in November. Does anyone really believe that a party led by McCain/Graham who added one of the most obnoxious, expensive and corrupting features of this bill, blanket amnesty, is going to repeal this bill later? Fat chance.
Might I suggest that the target be specific politicians and not a broad stroke of all? Elections of 2006 & 2008 gave us this democrat mess we’re in, because voters were fed up. Need better focus.
Don’t see how they will be able to discuss all the amendments.
Parliamentary procedure?
Parliamentary procedure was probably amended a long time ago by a Democrat.
It’s precisely that kind of thinking that keeps the big government monster alive. I notice your extremist and dire language about the consequences of continuing on this path but when it comes to solutions, you stick to the same old partisan solutions. It’s all about getting the Republicans back in the majority.
These cramdowns began under Bush/McCain/Kennedy, not at the election of Obama. Bush and the GOP inherited a balanced budget which they immediately set out blowing up once back in power. It is important to remember that Bush’s signature victories were Kennedy socialist budget busters like No Child Left Behind and the MediCare drug entitlement. And then there was his speeches in Mexico calling for America to “tear down that wall” while being mocked as a “windshield cowboy” by Vicente Fox.
There is only one way to kill this monster and that is to rip this government out at its roots. I am very confident that the DeMints and Ryans will survive the purge.
I am not buying into this “we will repeal this bill” after November and I am not interested in surgical strikes.
THIS Republican Party gave us this
democraticpost-partisan one-world-without-borders mess we are in and voters ARE even MORE fed up today. Thank God we didn’t elect McCain. But you will put that scumbag back in power as a solution? FOCUS!All of these will be dispensed with as fast as possible so they can “deem” the Senate bill passed, then they will move on to the next nail in our coffin, Amnesty.
The most important election date this year is Aug 24, AZ primary, we must get rid of McCain to have any chance of righting the GOP.
Did he say he would advocate voting McCain back in? I think, “need better focus”, means not to do the simple but wrong path of “voting them all out” even the ones who deserve to stay, (yes, there are some). Some incumbents are likely to be at least as good as, and probably better than, the replacement who was elected, “just because”.
It’s called “thinking” and and not just reacting.
Well, here we finally are. The Professional Criminal Class is finally on the verge of saying “F-You, we’re shoving it up your posterior no matter how loud you squeel.”
The real question is: Will the Idiot American Electorate finally understand what’s happening to them, and trigger a sufficient amount of civil disobedience to undo all the crimes?
Good news on that front. After all of McCain’s campaigning, aggressive ads, the avalanche of endorsements, and Scott Brown campaigning for him, his lead has slipped from 22% over Hayworth to just 7% (according to Rasmussen). Looks like he still has the same knack for winning that he did with Obama.
I say we all get a fund together and hire Schmidt to work for him again on his behalf. That should be enough to finish the job. =)
Not a good idea.
I recognize the difference between Michele Bachmann, Marcia Blackburn, and Mike Pence vs. Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, and Pete Stark. I don’t live in MN, TN, IN, MA or CA so I can can’t vote for any or the first 3 or against any of the second 3. Instead I get to vote against a Blue Dog Democrat because at the end of the day, a Democrat is a Democrat, all of whom reside somewhere on the axis of evil.
*I continue to send coin to JD Hayworth; Targeting McCain for removal from office is a top priority for me; He has RINO in his DNA, and is the Teddy Kennedy of Arizona; You CANNOT be a patriot and be an advocacy pimp for illegal alien amnesty at the same time; McCain is the latter, and he needs to become an ex-senator!
Talk is easy, please the yahoos at home, after voting yes on demon pass this week and agreeing to vote for hell care to get the water turned back on to the Valley before the November elections. I don’t know what will happen to those poor delta smelt which will get flung around the fields by the sprinklers.
Oh, I’d keep Bachmann, Ryan, DeMint, Dr. Coburn…
That is a very Good Point, Phil.
Barton and Burgess, Texas patriots, have some amendments to hell care that would really gum up the machinery.
They won’t pass, but I give them an A for effort. Especially making hell care apply to Congress, and delaying implementation of hell care until there is no budget deficit.
Phil in Pasadena (Pasa-get down-dena Texas?)
Dr. Coburn in the Senate has made it clear he will do his best to block or delay confirmation to House demonrats who have been promised jobs by Obama in exchange for voting for hell care and losing their seats.
I saw King of Iowa, on the House floor (C-Span), make it clear he thought demon pass was an assault on the Constitution.
Don’t paint too broad a stroke with that “lets give Obama four more years by pushing a third party because the GOP is just as bad as the Dems” brush.
Oh, good…
There is always that 2% that never gets the word.
Let’s go ahead and take away their job security and pension while we’re at it.
Oh, right, the unions. Way to go, JFK.
The Kennedys did more to destroy this republic than anybody else.
The section in the bill that will force citizens to buy insurance or go to jail must be immediately challenged in court.
Is any group getting ready to challenge this provision before the Supreme Court?