I simply want to clarify the intent of the amendment and the language of the amendment, which says the funds simply would not be automatically spent under those conditions. If the Congress wanted to go ahead and make the appropriations to spend them, then that could occur. It does not prevent them from ever being spent; it simply says they are not spent as an entitlement.
Clarifying the intent and language of an amendment regarding fund appropriations.
Share
More from John Shadegg
Because of one word difference? One word difference. The Senate has already passed the Senate bill, the House has to pass that exact bill word for word. It can't have one word missing?
In the system today, your employer picks the plan, and the plan picks the doctor. You don't get to pick the plan, and you don't get to pick the doctor. If the plan or the doctor abuses you, you can't fire them.
I kind of think the American people are fairly bright. I think they see through this. If you are deeming a bill passed in a rule, aren't you actually passing that bill and aren't you voting for that bill? And isn't this just a trick or a…
Ah, so it's Republicans who oppose this bill that are the pals of the health insurance industry? I don't think so. And you're telling me that in the one State where we've already tried this, a mandate that you must buy health insurance…
Other voices in this conversation
