It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's discuss what's in the Health Care Bill

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
PG 202-215 is a Government rewrite of the tax code ensuring more taxes for EVERYONE, Everywhere.


gross income shall be determined as provided in section
2 67(e).
3 ‘‘(e) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—
4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of taxable years
5 beginning after 2011, the dollar amounts in sub6
section (a) shall be increased by an amount equal
7 to—
8 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
9 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter10
mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar
11 year in which the taxable year begins, by sub12
stituting ‘calendar year 2010’ for ‘calendar year
13 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
14 ‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—If any amount as adjusted
15 under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $5,000,
16 such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest
17 multiple of $5,000.
18 ‘‘(f) SPECIAL RULES.—
19 ‘‘(1) NONRESIDENT ALIEN.—In the case of a
20 nonresident alien individual, only amounts taken
21 into account in connection with the tax imposed
22 under section 871(b) shall be taken into account
23 under this section.
24 ‘‘(2) CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS LIVING
25 ABROAD.—The dollar amounts in effect under sub-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
203
•HR 3200 IH
1 section (a) (after the application of subsections (b)
2 and (e)) shall be decreased by the excess of—
3 ‘‘(A) the amounts excluded from the tax4
payer’s gross income under section 911, over
5 ‘‘(B) the amounts of any deductions or ex6
clusions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)
7 with respect to the amounts described in sub8
paragraph (A).
9 ‘‘(3) CHARITABLE TRUSTS.—Subsection (a)
10 shall not apply to a trust all the unexpired interests
11 in which are devoted to one or more of the purposes
12 described in section 170(c)(2)(B).
13 ‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
14 CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax im15
posed under this section shall not be treated as tax
16 imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
17 the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
18 purposes of section 55.’’.
19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of subparts
20 for part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code,
21 as added by this title, is amended by inserting after the
22 item relating to subpart A the following new item:
‘‘SUBPART B. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.’’.
23 (c) SECTION 15 NOT TO APPLY.—The amendment
24 made by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
204
•HR 3200 IH
1 in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal
2 Revenue Code of 1986.
3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
5 December 31, 2010.
6 SEC. 442. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCA7
TION OF INTEREST.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of sec9
tion 864(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each
10 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and inserting
11 ‘‘December 31, 2019’’.
12 (b) TRANSITION.—Subsection (f) of section 864 of
13 such Code is amended by striking paragraph (7).
14 PART 2—PREVENTION OF TAX AVOIDANCE
15 SEC. 451. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN
16 DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.
17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 894 of the Internal Rev18
enue Code of 1986 (relating to income affected by treaty)
19 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub20
section:
21 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CER22
TAIN DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.—
23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any deduct24
ible related-party payment, any withholding tax im25
posed under chapter 3 (and any tax imposed under
VerDate Nov

I'm trying to wade through this, but the amount paid (tax) will increase throughout based on inflation. Kinda like a flat tax. Until you hit the high earners.

Plus there was a point about illegal aliens in there not having to pay.

Also, if you are an American living abroad, you will still have to pay.

If there is anyone with a better sense of the "legalese" and can make a better determination, you would be welcome.




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I would also like to add, for anybody else wanting to join in on a lot of these things you have to jump up to where the section starts and read from there, because just picking out a certain clause can be misleading.

As in a clause might sound very sinister and apply to everyone but the circumstances are outlined further up in the bill.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Ok, that makes a bit more sense to me. I can see how companies that are all part of the same corporation would be considered as the same place as far as payroll goes.

~~~~~~~~~~~

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


No worries, someone will get the ones you skip over. That's the first one I haven't been able to figure out by just reading further, but there's quite a few where I've had to sit here and re-read it 10 times to understand it.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Claim:

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." Government Abortions anyone?

Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include-economic self-sufficiency, employment advancement, school-readiness.


What it says:

4 SEC. 1713. OPTIONAL COVERAGE OF NURSE HOME VISITA5
TION SERVICES.
6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905 of the Social Secu7
rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections
8 1701(a)(2) and 1711(a), is amended—
9 (1) in subsection (a)—
10 (A) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘and’’
11 at the end;
12 (B) by redesignating paragraph (28) as
13 paragraph (29); and
14 (C) by inserting after paragraph (27) the
15 following new paragraph:
16 ‘‘(28) nurse home visitation services (as defined
17 in subsection (aa)); and’’; and.
18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub
19 section:
20 ‘‘(aa) The term ‘nurse home visitation services’
21 means home visits by trained nurses to families with a
22 first-time pregnant woman, or a child (under 2 years of
23 age), who is eligible for medical assistance under this title,
24 but only, to the extent determined by the Secretary based
1 upon evidence, that such services are effective in one or
2 more of the following:
3 ‘‘(1) Improving maternal or child health and
4 pregnancy outcomes or increasing birth intervals be
5 tween pregnancies.
6 ‘‘(2) Reducing the incidence of child abuse, ne
7 glect, and injury, improving family stability (includ
8 ing reduction in the incidence of intimate partner vi
9 olence), or reducing maternal and child involvement
10 in the criminal justice system.
11 ‘‘(3) Increasing economic self-sufficiency, em
12 ployment advancement, school-readiness, and edu
13 cational achievement, or reducing dependence on
14 public assistance.’’.


Well the claim is sem-true, there will be home nurse visitations, but it will be optional coverage. It does say to increase birth intervals, what that means I don't know, but it is written exactly like that in the bill.

And what nurses have to do with economic self-sufficiency, school readiness, and employment advancement is beyond me.

My take is that the government plan will provide "nannies" to people that opt for it.

____________

A little side commentary here, how much is all of this going to cost? I keep reading all this stuff and people cost a lot of money to employ. And they are also giving out grants and setting up medical education programs?

After reading what little bit I have I have to venture to say that the initial number of 1.4 trillion is very conservative.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
PG 239 Line 14-24 Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

(c) LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES IN15
CLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION TO
16 SERVICES COVERED UNDER PHYSICIAN FEE SCHED17
ULE.—Effective for services furnished on or after January
18 1, 2009, section 1848(f)(4)(A) of such Act is amended
19 striking ‘‘(such as clinical’’ and all that follows through
20 ‘‘in a physician’s office’’ and inserting ‘‘for which payment
21 under this part is made under the fee schedule under this
22 section, for services for practitioners described in section
23 1842(b)(18)(C) on a basis related to such fee schedule,
24 or for services described in section 1861(p) (other than
1 such services when furnished in the facility of a provider
2 of services)’’.


I don't know what to make of this one. I'd have to say false, because there was no mention made.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

PG 195 Officers & employees of HealthCare Administration (Government) will have access to ALL Americans financial/personal records.


From pages 195-196:

‘‘(21) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in sec16
tion 59B(e)(5)),
(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION.—Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.’’.


This claim is true to an extent. Your taxpayer identity (meaning name and social security number), tax filing status, modified gross income, number of dependents, the tax year, and any other information they deem necessary to determine your eligibility for an affordability credit will be released to the Health Choices Administration and their employees. It's only intended to be used for that purpose though, and anyone not applying for a credit won't have their tax records released to the HCA.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
PG 241 Line 6-8 Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE CAT6
EGORIES.—Subsection (j) of section 1848 of the So7
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4) is amended
8 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
9 ‘‘(5) SERVICE CATEGORIES.—For services fur10
nished on or after January 1, 2009, each of the fol11
lowing categories of physicians’ services (as defined
12 in paragraph (3)) shall be treated as a separate
13 ‘service category’:
14 ‘‘(A) Evaluation and management services
15 that are procedure codes (for services covered
16 under this title) for—
17 ‘‘(i) services in the category des18
ignated Evaluation and Management in the
19 Health Care Common Procedure Coding
20 System (established by the Secretary under
21 subsection (c)(5) as of December 31, 2009,
22 and as subsequently modified by the Sec23
retary); and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
241
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(ii) preventive services (as defined in
2 section 1861(iii)) for which payment is
3 made under this section.
4 ‘‘(B) All other services not described in
5 subparagraph (A).
6 Service categories established under this paragraph
7 shall apply without regard to the specialty of the
8 physician furnishing the service.’’.


Doctors will NOT be all paid the same, but every OB will be paid the same and every GP will be paid the same, etc. . . they group the specialties into SERVICE CATEGORIES. And all specific groups within the service categories will be paid the same.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Goodnight folks. It's been an honor doing something beneficial with you guys. I hope my contribution was helpful.
Wife wants me off the comp and spend some quality time. Will be back tomorrow.

Excellent post OP!



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

PG 238-249 Line 1121 Doctors-Government mandates your growth, costs, value, services, & income. Peeps- Welcome to rationing


HUGE SECTION

But basically, for Health Care PROVIDERS, 2009 becomes the baseline year & 2010 will be for monitoring growth, then by 2012 the GOV will tell you if your practice can grow more or not.

IF I am reading that right - LOTS of legalese.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

PG 199 Line 1-4 Surtax rates on raised AGAIN on Americans in 2012.



(c) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, subsection (a) shall be applied—
(A) by substituting ‘2 percent’ for ‘1 percent’, and
(B) by substituting ‘3 percent’ for ‘1.5 percent’.

(2) ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON EXCESS FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
(A) EXCEPTION IF FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS BASE AMOUNT.—If the excess Federal health reform
savings is more than $150,000,000,000 but not more than $175,000,000,000, paragraph (1) shall not apply.
(B) FURTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM SAVINGS.—
If the excess Federal health reform savings is more than $175,000,000,000, paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) (and paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall not apply to any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012.


True with conditions. The rates will be doubled unless excess savings are more than $150 billion but less than $175 billion. If excess savings are higher than $175 billion then there will not be a surcharge placed on high-income individuals.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   


PG 58 Government will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a National ID HealthCare Card will be issued
reply to post by redhatty
 




No No No! This is soooo wrong! everything after this statement is taking over our lives, finacially, personally, robbing us effectivly of our privacy and rights and our own personal healthcare!



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

PG 201 Line 12-19 Government will ignore whatever costs they see fit to show savings. (Cooking the books)


Page 201 Lines 12-19

(5) REDUCTIONS IN FEDERAL EXPENDITURES DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO PROGRAM INVESTMENTS.—For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4), reductions in Federal expenditures shall be determined without regard to section 1121 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and other program investments under division B thereof.


I searched for section 1121 and found it, but it seems to be a bunch of wording changes for other documents. Striking one line and making slight changes. It's rather long and I can't make heads or tails of it without searching for several other documents so I'm not reposting it here.

As far as the claim goes, the bill says that expenditure reductions will be determined without regard to investments. That to me means that they are going to ignore investments while making decisions on what reductions they are going to do.

My accounting is rusty, anyone know if this is indeed "cooking the books"?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Claim:

Pg 768 Section 1713 Government - Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks)


Posted here but I can definitely see where he would come up with this conclusion.

Welcome to the Nurses Union, if there already isn't one.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

PG 236 Line 22-25 PG 237 Line 1-3 National rate of uninsured defined by Census. Can you say ACORN corruption?



(B) NATIONAL RATE OF UNINSURANCE DEFINED.—The term ‘‘national rate of uninsurance’’ means, for a year, such rate for the under-65 population for the year as determined and published by the Bureau of the Census in its Current Population Survey in or about September of the succeeding year.


The national uninsured rate will indeed be determined and published by the Census Bureau. Whether or not ACORN will be a part of it is yet to be determined.


PG 239 Line 10-12 Medicare DSH payments will be increased. Can you say even higher taxes for all?


The referenced section has nothing to do with Medicare. Those two lines actually say this:


(ii) the reference in subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) to ‘April 1, 1996’ shall be treated as a reference to ‘January 1, 2009 (or, if later, the first day of the fifth year before the year involved)’.’’.


So unless he wrote the wrong page number down, this one is false.


PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans. We’re next.



(L) VALIDATING RELATIVE VALUE UNITS.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a process to validate relative value units under the fee schedule under subsection (b).
(ii) COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS OF WORK.—The process described in clause (i) may include validation of work elements (such as time, mental effort and professional judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk) involved with furnishing a service and may include validation of the pre, post, and intra-service components of work.


Claim is exaggerated. The referenced lines are part of this section:


SEC. 1122. MISVALUED CODES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1848(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
(K) POTENTIALLY MISVALUED CODES.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall—
(I) periodically identify services as being potentially misvalued using criteria specified in clause (ii); and
(II) review and make appropriate adjustments to the relative values established under this paragraph for services identified as being potentially misvalued under subclause (I).
(ii) IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY MISVALUED CODES.—For purposes of identifying potentially misvalued services pursuant to clause (i)(I), the Secretary shall examine (as the Secretary determines to be appropriate) codes (and families of codes as appropriate) for which there has been the fastest growth; codes (and families of codes as appropriate) that have experienced substantial changes in practice expenses; codes for new technologies or services within an appropriate period (such as three years) after the relative values are initially established for such codes; multiple codes that are frequently billed in conjunction with furnishing a single service; codes with low relative values, particularly those that are often billed multiple times for a single treatment; codes which have not been subject to review since the implementation of the RBRVS (the so called ‘Harvard-valued codes’); and such other codes determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.


So it's not quite as bad as the claim makes it out to be, and is intended to insure that services aren't being over- or under-charged for by identifying those that might be. The government will be deciding how much you can be charged for a specific service (code), but not what the doctor's time is worth itself. Might be splitting hairs here, but I'm calling this one half-true.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And with that I'm off for the night. Gotta get rest my poor mind after trying to decipher this bill all day.
I'll check and see what's been done before I pick back up tomorrow.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
After going back and reading more of this bill, I do think I am going to throw up. I have not really understood the underbelly of this bill, why so many elderly are seen, redfaced and screaming, on tv this past week. Now I know.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Claim:

Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)


What it says:

1 Subtitle B—Prevention
2 SEC. 1711. REQUIRED COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE SERV
3 ICES.
14 ‘‘(z) PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—The preventive serv
15 ices described in this subsection are services not otherwise
16 described in subsection (a) or (r) that the Secretary deter
17 mines are—
18 ‘‘(1)(A) recommended with a grade of A or B
19 by the Task Force for Clinical Preventive Services;
20 or
21 ‘‘(B) vaccines recommended for use as appro
22 priate by the Director of the Centers for Disease
23 Control and Prevention; and


This claim is true, there is no way we can refuse vaccines if this bill is enacted, or to use the new word I learned to day, promulgated.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I am new to the site so forgive me if I fall off topic. I was hoping for a health care bill that would help people like me.
A year ago in march i became ill - my intestines completely stopped working and I was in the hospital for 7 and 1/2 weeks and am just now recovering. I had blue cross/blue shield and believe it or not with a small amount of arguing they covered it, i was working so i was covered by mine and my husbands insurance. During the time i was in the hospital i got call almost daily from where i work wondering when i was coming back, they needed me.
I was a good worker, didn't miss work and did my work and the the work of the elderly men that worked there (in there 70's) this is a family run company, not corporate and never in the 75 years of being in business had any one been fired.
I got home from the hospital asked for a few more days off (with a doc note) and if i could work some half days till i recovered.
I did not get a call back, so i called again and was told I was laid off. so now i have med bills i can't cover, it was a furniture store and i had just put a washer.dryer on acct, and my husbands insurance went up 800.00. so no that i have cancelled my insurance (figured i could save the 800.00 for the next hospital stay) I am without insurance and was hoping (blindly of course that this bill would help) I have never been on state aid and am really nervous about what will happen to me. this issue that i have is not gonna go away, i was told it will come back.
so i have two issues i feel it was pretty crappy that my employer would do that, especially when i did not deserve it - i am only forty and they have 7 employees and 4 of them are over 70 and can't - simpll can't do the work that i could and can again. and i feel reaaly burned by the insurance companies that they raised my rates 800.00 which has me make a decision keep my house or pay for insurance - what is the little guy to do????



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


now that scares me to no end. I already refused the gardisil vaccine for my daughter and have been in fights with the schools out here over the Menningococcal Meningitis vaccine (now required before you get your diploma at graduation)

Oh Boy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thread readers & fellow researchers, Mike, Jenna Hasto & I are all needing some sleep, badly! I will be back at it sometime after 3:30pm (CST) tomorrow.

We still have LOTS more to cover



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by julzz
I am new to the site so forgive me if I fall off topic. I was hoping for a health care bill that would help people like me.
A year ago in march i became ill - my intestines completely stopped working and I was in the hospital for 7 and 1/2 weeks and am just now recovering. I had blue cross/blue shield and believe it or not with a small amount of arguing they covered it, i was working so i was covered by mine and my husbands insurance. During the time i was in the hospital i got call almost daily from where i work wondering when i was coming back, they needed me.
I was a good worker, didn't miss work and did my work and the the work of the elderly men that worked there (in there 70's) this is a family run company, not corporate and never in the 75 years of being in business had any one been fired.
I got home from the hospital asked for a few more days off (with a doc note) and if i could work some half days till i recovered.
I did not get a call back, so i called again and was told I was laid off. so now i have med bills i can't cover, it was a furniture store and i had just put a washer.dryer on acct, and my husbands insurance went up 800.00. so no that i have cancelled my insurance (figured i could save the 800.00 for the next hospital stay) I am without insurance and was hoping (blindly of course that this bill would help) I have never been on state aid and am really nervous about what will happen to me. this issue that i have is not gonna go away, i was told it will come back.
so i have two issues i feel it was pretty crappy that my employer would do that, especially when i did not deserve it - i am only forty and they have 7 employees and 4 of them are over 70 and can't - simpll can't do the work that i could and can again. and i feel reaaly burned by the insurance companies that they raised my rates 800.00 which has me make a decision keep my house or pay for insurance - what is the little guy to do????


You should check out the "Health Care Freedom Plan".

Your family would get a $5000 health care voucher and the ability top shop health care nationwide...among other things.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


I went back and reread the section and there is nothing in there that would lead me to believe otherwise.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join