Its not ditz like her. She doesn't make the decisions. Its dits like Obama and many other that won't start the cleansing by auditing the fed.

i dint find anything about page 92

did find this though

Page 297 - Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health insurance - the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama's presidential campaign.

Good eye!!! Love it when Americans read.... Kudos!!!!!!!!!!!!!

some of us know that when said read it, it means that theres going to be stuff that will screw us, and they wnat to give a chance for us to screw ourselves by having the ability to know whats in it. afterall, we cant do shit if we were told by our lords and masters to read it, and we dont, and then try to complain. its basically paying attention to the fine print.

Why do you think it is that a public OPTION would be a bad thing in light of hat has become of the house bill. An individual mandate wit no public option is nothing more than slavery to the insurance industry. But perhaps by now you might be startig to see the writing on the wall on the public OPTION.

because some of us dont WANT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH INSURANCD. how hard is that for you to comprehend?!

Ok than jerkey...if it is an OPTION than you don't have to have it. It really is that simple but you seem to just choose to make it soo much more dificult than it has to be.

but when you are being fined to not take it then its no longer a free option. your being punished for NOT giving up your own health care.

herse another way to look at it. arent they ()the democrats) supposed to be helping the poor, and the lower class,yet, the tax is for thsoe who make LESS than 250,000. yuup, thatsd helping!

Last time i checked, it was the land of the free. looks like our freedom of choice is starting to come with a price tag.

"but when you are being fined to not take it then its no longer a free option. your being punished for NOT giving up your own health care."

I have no idea where you are getting your informaton from but your source is way off my friend. Ganted the House bill dose contain an individual mandate, but their is no fine for selecting a private plan over a public one what so ever. Accoring to the House bill so long as you have a privte OR public health plan than no fine is incurred. I do no like the individual mandate but I do understand the purpse of it. The purpose of the individual mandate is to prevent people from puchasing health insuance only when they are sick than droping their plan and going with no insurance when they are in good health.

but it has to be "bureaucratic approved"

thast like teh gov't telling you that you must drive one of these types of cars or you will be fined

Actually it is nothing like that at all.

ok. so tell me this. if it has to be approved by the gov't first. is it really that free of choice?

seriously. take off the rose colored glasses you have on, and use the brain cells in your head to look at it from a rational point of view.

When they say Bureaucratic approved, that means that its whatever they say is an insurance company that you can use. which is obviously going to be only companies that will benefit them.

incase you didnt know, our "elected officials" dont give two rips about us, they care about the special interest groups that dump millions of dollars into their pockets. so tell me, how is this a good thing. infact, taking the special interest groups in mind, how would gov't run health care be a good thing for any of us? and please dont put your math up. im sick of seeing your math that doesnt take basic economic ideals into mind, such as, to keep any sort of a profit margin (current profit averages for ins companies are 2.2% btw) with a lower number of people, they will either, a, have to raise rates or B, keep them the same, (i am leaning towards the former)