The influential Heritage Foundation has come out against the Ryan version of Obamacare replacement, in an email to supporters saying, "This is bad politics and, more importantly, bad policy. If Republicans move forward with this bill, they will be accepting the flawed premises of Obamacare. Instead, they should fully repeal the failed law and begin a genuine effort to follow through on their seven year promises to create a free market health care system."
Two of the most influential conservative advocacy groups recently released their annual scoring of members of Congress. In both cases, the higher the score the more conservative the legislator.
Here is the ranking from the Heritage Foundation.
DISTRICT NAME PARTY SCORE
4 Rep. Scott DesJarlais R 100%
6 Rep. Diane Black R 93%
7 Rep. Marsha Blackburn R 92%
1 Rep. Phil Roe R 90%
3 Rep. Chuck Fleischmann R 87%
2 Rep. Jimmy Duncan R 79%
8 Rep. Stephen Fincher R 77%
Sen. Lamar Alexander R 50%
Sen. Bob Corker R 50%
5 Rep. Jim Cooper D 13%
9 Rep. Steve Cohen D 0%
Below is the results of the American Conservative Union ranking.
ALEXANDER 76
BLACK Diane 84
BLACKBURN 96
Cohen 8
Cooper 8
CORKER 76
DesJARLAIS 100
DUNCAN, Jr. John 76
FINCHER 80
FLEISCHMANN 80
ROE 76
Why are the scores different? The two organization chose different issue on which to score the candidates and use different criteria. The ACU scoring considered 25 votes and they list those issues and tell you how the legislator voted on each of the 25 recorded votes. One issue is given the same weight as another issue. The Heritage Action Scorecard measures votes, co-sponsorships, and
other legislative activity to show how conservative Members of Congress
are. Their scoring mechanism is not as readily understandable as ACU's but the pieces of legislation that go into making up the score are listed and on each piece of legislation you can see how your legislator voted.
How do our Legislators compare? Look at this chart from the ACU for members of the House:
 |
Stephen Siao
Southeast Regional Coordinator
Heritage Action for America |
The Heritage Action Scorecard measures votes, co-sponsorships, and
other legislative activity to show how conservative Members of Congress
are. Below are the latest scores for the Tennessee delegation. To see other scores and to see the key votes that went in to determining scores, follow this link.
| TN | 2 | Rep. John Duncan Jr. | R | 88% |
| TN | 4 | Rep. Scott DesJarlais | R | 79% |
| TN | 7 | Rep. Marsha Blackburn | R | 78% |
| TN | 3 | Rep. Chuck Fleischmann | R | 78% |
| TN | 6 | Rep. Diane Black | R | 72% |
| TN | 1 | Rep. Phil Roe | R | 66% |
| TN | 8 | Rep. Stephen Fincher | R | 65% |
| TN | Sen. Lamar Alexander | R | 46% | |
| TN | Sen. Bob Corker | R | 44% | |
| TN | 5 | Rep. Jim Cooper | D | 36% |
| TN | 9 | Rep. Steve Cohen | D | 17% |
Conservative groups span country in effort to defund ObamaCare
Aug 22, 2013 Reported By Nadia Ramdass,
WKRN, Nashville News, Nashville Weather and Sports
Nearly seven hundred people were in attendance at last night's health care town hall reports Channel 2.
From Heritage Foundation:
Members of Congress left Washington for the month of August, but even though they’re back home, few are hosting town hall events to hear from you, their constituents.
So Heritage Action is standing in the gap: bringing education on the critical issues and our message of Congressional accountability to critical cities across the country—including Nashville.
Join Jim DeMint, your neighbors, friends, and other local conservatives at the Heritage Action Nashville town hall meeting.
At the town hall you will:
At this town hall meeting, you will learn how your voice, when added to the growing chorus of conservatives across the country, can make the all difference.
- Meet your neighbors and friends that are willing to take a stand for conservative principles.
- Hear directly from Jim DeMint on the critical fights facing conservative—and how we can win.
- Get educated on key issues like defunding Obamacare.
Don’t miss your exclusive opportunity to meet Heritage President Jim DeMint on August 22nd in Nashville.
What you need to know about the event
Date: August 22, 2013
Time: Registration begins at 6:00 p.m. Town Hall Meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.
Location: Franklin Marriott Cool Springs, 700 Cool Springs Boulevard, Franklin, TN 37067
Cost:Free for conservatives. RSVP required.The Nashville event has reached its maximum capacity and they are no longer accepting new RSVPs.
WHAT: Tennessee Citizen Action’s “A Tennessee for All” Town Hall is a direct response to the extremism that Jim Demint and Heritage Action for America (aka The Heritage Foundation) are bringing to middle-Tennessee this week with their “Defund Obamacare Town Hall Tour.” Heritage Action for America are coming to town to rail against Obamacare and to spread a message of obstruction. Our message? We want to engage with government and create solutions that work for everyone.
WHO:
- Senator Estes Kefauver – Consumer protection, antitrust, and civil rights pioneer (portrayed by Greg Welsch)
- Molly Secours – Writer/Filmmaker (www.mollysecours)
- Michele Johnson – Executive Director, Tennessee Justice Center (http://www.tnjustice.org)
- Councilwoman Erica Gilmore
- Kelly Gregory – Breast Cancer Survivor
- Clare Sullivan – Nurse Practitioner
- Sam Rutherford – Student
WHEN: Thursday, August 22, 2013; Registration at 6:00 PM; Town Hall from 6:30 – 7:30 PM
WHERE: UAW Local 737, 6207 Centennial Blvd, Nashville, Tennessee
From the Heritage Foundation:
The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions
in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s
the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today
as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our
efforts to stand for marriage across America. Some key numbers following
the decisions:
50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.
38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision
beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate
and, most likely, further litigation.
12 The number of states that can now force the federal government
to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3
of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in
states that redefine marriage.
1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down
yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be
forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still
law.
0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.
The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme
Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue.
States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the
union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.
States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage
policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as
the union of a man and a woman remains strong.
Still, the Court should have respected the authority of California citizens and Congress. On DOMA, the Court did not respect Congress’s authority to define marriage for the purposes of federal programs and benefits. The Court got federalism wrong.
On Proposition 8, the citizens of California who voted twice to pass
Prop 8 should have been able to count on their Governor and Attorney
General to defend the state’s constitution. That’s what democratic
self-government is all about.
Now more than ever, we need to make it clear why marriage as the
union of a man and a woman matters—for children, for civil society, and
for limited government. As citizens, we all need to be prepared to make
the case for marriage. That’s why we at Heritage have worked with allies
to produce a booklet called “What You Need to Know about Marriage.” Download your free copy at TheMarriageFacts.com.
This is a great tool from the Heritage Foundation. You can sort and filter the information several different ways. Here is the link: http://heritageactionscorecard.com//members.
One interesting observation is that there is very little overlap. There are only a handful of Republicans that are more liberal than the most conservative Democrat. The most liberal Republican is Representative Chris Gibbons of New York with a score of 23. The most conservative Democrat is Rep. Jim Cooper with a score of 33.
Among Republican Senators Lamar Alexander scores a 47, the same score awarded Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, making him more liberal than John McCain or Senator Bob Corker each with a score of 53. Of the 41 Republican Senators only 3 are rated as more liberal than Alexander.
I find it interesting that Senator Lindsey Graham, who conservatives love to hate, has a respectable score of 59.
Only three Senators scored a perfect 100 and they are Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee.
It is worth keeping in mind that this scoring is based on only 19 votes. Someone else may have chosen different issues and the scores may have been different. Also, if I was doing the scoring I would give more weight to some issues than to others. If you go to the site you can see the issues included in the scoring matrix and see how any representative or senator voted on that particular issue.
Margaret Thatcher died of a stroke yesterday at the age of 86, becoming the last of the great leaders of the 20th century to have passed away. She will be remembered for turning Britain away from their slide into mediocrity, poverty, and insignificance, for privatizing many of the socialist enterprises of England, and for standing shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul in declaring Communism to be an evil in the world and helping to bring about the end of the Communist era. The world is a much better place because of Margaret Thatcher.
For tributes and comments see below:
Heritage Remembers Margaret Thatcher (VIDEO)
At a time when the Soviet Empire was still a powerful force, oppressing millions of people, Lady Thatcher tackled communism head on as prime minister of Great Britain.
She believed in the crucial need for America to exert international
leadership in the cause of freedom and partnered with conservative
American leaders like Ronald Reagan and The Heritage Foundation to
ensure individual liberty.
Her commitment to the principles of free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom lace the eternal friendship between The Heritage Foundation and Lady Thatcher.
With the controversy that is brewing over SB250, the bill sponsored by Mae Beavers that would nullify any new federal gun laws in Tennessee and would require local law enforcement officers to arrest federal agents carrying out federal law, Republicans are split on the issue. Those who favor nullification are claiming to be the real conservatives and are demonizing as statist those who support the supremacy clause of the Constitution and think that nullification is foolish, dangerous, and unconstitutional.
The pro-nullification forces are very vitriolic in their denunciation of those with whom they disagree. Many tea party types are claiming that the conservative position is to support nullification. If you disagree with them, well maybe you got your understanding of the constitution from liberal academics.
Rosine Ghawji, the co-chair of a group called Memphis Tea Party, posted a letter he wrote to Sen. Brian Kelsey on the Federation of Republican Women facebook page. Sen. Kelsey is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and led the fight to defeat SB250. Ghawji accuses Senator Kelsey of having been brainwashed and says he "doesn’t understand the most basic constitutional
construction." He goes on to say, "Brian Kelsey is a perfect example of one whom vows an oath the the US
Constitution - BUT CLEARLY doesn't know what is in it - or doesn't care."
The Tenth Amendment Center has posted a picture that features President Obama with a caption that ask, "Was this guy Tennessee Senator Brian Kelsey's law professor?" We conservative activist are being bombarded by self-taught constitutional experts who tell us to ignore the history of failed attempts by states to nullify federal law, to ignore the outcome of the civil war, and to ignore 250 years of constitutional case law.
If like me you believe the supremacy clause really means something and that nullification is unconstitutional and dangerous but feel like the whole conservative movement is heading in the other direction, take heart. The most vocal conservative activist may be on a bandwagon that is endorsing nullification, but you are not alone.
The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious well-respected research and educational
institution that has been around since 1979. There mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.:" It is difficult for anyone to claim they are part of the liberal establishment. A little over a year ago, they published a short essay on their web site explaining why nullification is unlawful and unconstitutional. "There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the
various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws
unilaterally," they say. Many advocates of nullification claim that Madison and Jefferson supported the theory of nullification. Heritage says that is not so and explains the historical record to prove it.
National Review in an article Nullification Temptation said , "Nullification is a dangerous weapon to brandish. Its danger lies in how
easily it could destroy not just Obamacare, but the entire Constitution." NR also argues against nullification in an article called Federal Nullification Is a Bad Idea. National Reveiw is the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley in the 1950's. They have been the leading source of conservative thought since their founding. No one could underestimate NR's contribution to the Conservative movement. Also, the Weekly Standard has taken a position against nullification.
Another prominent think tank often described as libertarian or libertarian-leaning is the Cato Institute. In an article exploring the constitutionality of Obamacare a Cato Institute journalist wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of
the 'powers … delegated to the United States by the Constitution,' then
that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state
power to 'nullify' unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected."
There are plenty of sensible respected conservative voices speaking out against nullification. Just because the proponents may yell the loudest it does not make them right. Do not question your conservative bona fides because you are not swept away by the passion of the moment. With National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Heritage Foundation and Cato on my side, I feel pretty confident of my position. Clearly nullification is unlawful, unconstitutional and dangerous. Below is a link to the Heritage article mentioned above.
Nullification: Unlawful and Unconstitutional
Feb 8, 2012 – Despite good intentions, some have been tempted to embrace nullification: the claim that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto ...
The Heritage Foundation has issue a report analyzing the ten worst regulations of the year. One can see the entire report at this link. There were two regulations that particularly interested me. There are the second and third of the ten worst. Below is an excerpt explaining these two regulations:
2. EPA Emissions StandardsDo you know what our city says about these regulations? Nashville loves them, so our Metro Council speaking on our behalf says. Below is the text of a resolution passed unanimously by our Metro Council on November 16th.
The EPA in February finalized strict new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utilities. The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually.
3. Fuel Efficiency Standards
In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency, finalized fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars.
The Council should admit they did not know what they were voting for when they passed the above resolution, should pass a resolution rescinding their previous support, should condemn the EPA's unauthorized power grab, and condemn job-killing and unrealistic EPA regulations.RESOLUTION NO. RS2012-478
A resolution supporting the reducing of greenhouse gas pollution under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act.
WHEREAS, the scientific community, most notably NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC support the following findings; andWHEREAS, the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2005 and 2010 tied for the hottest years on record; and
WHEREAS, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 392 parts per million (ppm); and
WHEREAS, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen, stated in 2008: “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 392 ppm to at most 350 ppm”; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that current and future greenhouse gas concentrations endanger public health, and according to the Global Humanitarian Forum climate change is already responsible every year for some 300,000 deaths, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses worldwide of $125 billion; and
WHEREAS, extreme weather events, most notably heat waves and precipitation extremes, are striking with increased frequency, with deadly consequences for people and wildlife; in the United States in 2011 alone, a record 14 weather and climate disasters occurred, including droughts, heat waves, and floods, that cost at least $1 billion each in damages and loss of human lives; and
WHEREAS, climate change is affecting food security by negatively impacting the growth and yields of important crops, and droughts, floods and changes in snowpack are altering water supplies; and
WHEREAS, scientists have concluded that by 2100 as many as one in ten species may be on the verge of extinction due to climate change; and
WHEREAS, the world’s land-based ice is rapidly melting, threatening water supplies in many regions and raising sea levels, and Arctic summer sea ice extent has decreased to about half what it was several decades ago, with an accompanying drastic reduction in sea-ice thickness and volume, which is severely jeopardizing ice-dependent animals; and
WHEREAS, sea level is rising faster along the U.S. East Coast than it has for at least 2,000 years, is accelerating in pace, and could rise by one to two meters in this century, threatening millions of Americans with severe flooding; and
WHEREAS, for four decades, the Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe through a proven, comprehensive, successful system of pollution control that saves lives and creates economic benefits exceeding its costs by many times; and
WHEREAS, with the Clean Air Act, air quality in this country has improved significantly since 1970, despite major growth both in our economy and industrial production; and
WHEREAS, between 1970 and 1990, the six main pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act — particulate matter and ground-level ozone (both of which contribute to smog and asthma), carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur and nitrogen oxides (the pollutants that cause acid rain) — were reduced by between 47 percent and 93 percent, and airborne lead was virtually eliminated; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act has produced economic benefits valued at $2 trillion or 30 times the cost of regulation; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA (2007) that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” as defined by the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate them; and
WHEREAS, The City of Nashville prides itself on being a leader in the fight against climate change and for clean air and, by creating the Mayor’s Office of Environment and Sustainability, has shown its ability to be a green leader in the Southeast; and
WHEREAS, The City of Nashville strives to meet the goals set out by the Green Ribbon
Committee’s 2009 Summary Report, which addresses environmental and livability issues in Nashville.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY:
Section 1. That the Metropolitan County Council hereby goes on record as supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas pollution under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act.
Section 2. The Council further goes on record as noting that climate change is not an abstract problem for the future or one that will only affect far-distant places, but rather climate change is happening now, we are contributing to it, and the longer we wait to act, the more we lose and the more difficult the problem will be to solve.
Section 3. We, the Metropolitan County Council, on behalf of the residents of Nashville, do hereby urge the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa P. Jackson, and President Barack Obama to move swiftly to fully employ and enforce the Clean Air Act to do our part to reduce carbon in our atmosphere to no more than 350 parts per million.
Section 4. The Metropolitan Clerk is directed to send a copy a copy of this Resolution to Lisa P. Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency and to President Barack Obama.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption, the welfare of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County requiring it.
Sponsored by: Jason Holleman, Erica Gilmore, Brady Banks, Burkley Allen, ,Lonnell Matthews, Sean McGuire, Bo Mitchell, Davette Blalock.
From the Heritage Foundation:
Today, the Senate will begin debating a bill that was supposed to be disaster recovery funds for those devastated by the storm. But so many special-interest projects were added on that the $60.4 billion request has turned into a farce. Roughly $28 billion of the request is marked for future disaster-mitigation projects.Using the excuse of a national disaster to fund roof repairs for the Smithsonian is almost enough to make one cynical, isn't it.
It includes:
The bill also seeks federal funding for things that are provided on a state and local level, or by nonprofits and communities, such as food for food banks.
- $200 million for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to be used freely at the discretion of the Secretary;
- Money for salmon fisheries in Alaska; and
- $2 million for roof repairs at the Smithsonian.
“Removing unnecessary items from the Administration’s request yields a reduced request of $12.8 billion in supplemental funds. These funds should be provided only after being offset by spending reductions.”
June 28, 2012, The Foundry (Heritage Foundation)This is a very important point. If Republicans take the White House, hold the House as they are assumed to do, and win a simple majority instead of a super majority, they can repeal Obamacare.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is in fact a tax levied on those who do not purchase insurance, Senate Republicans will look to repeal the full law through the budget reconciliation process.
Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law – or even the full law itself. (read more)
The Heritage Foundation has spoken out on Agenda 21.
by Rod Williams, May 19, 2012 - If you pay attention to politics at all you have probably heard of the Heritage Foundation. If you are a conservative activist you know them well. They are one of the most influential and respected conservative organization in existence. They are a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Their stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".
The foundation was founded in 1973 and took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and they have since continued to have a significant influence in U.S.
public policy making.
So, what does Heritage say about Agenda 21? While they are mildly critical, they are not hysterical. Below are some excerpts:
Abstract: Agenda 21, a voluntary plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, unabashedly calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. However, Agenda 21 is non-binding; it depends on governments for implementation. If opponents focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests. Preventing American implementation of Agenda 21 should therefore be viewed as only one part of a broader effort to convince U.S. government officials to repeal destructive smart-growth programs and prevent the enactment of new ones.
They should recognize that Agenda 21 is simply another facet of smart growth and not allow it to divert them from opposing the more ubiquitous, overarching agenda of homegrown environmental extremists.
However, Agenda 21 is non-binding; it depends entirely on national, state, and local governments for implementation and therefore poses little threat in and of itself. It is the policies endorsed by Agenda 21 that are of most concern, and these policies are not confined to Agenda 21.Please read the complete Heritage analysis, here. While Heritage is critical of policies that restrict economic growth, they seem to be calling for a little sanity. Heritage says nothing about the danger of traffic calming, or greenways, or bikepaths, or traffic roundabouts, paved parking lots, or annexation, or free trade. They say nothing about a plan to murder 95% or the worlds population by poisoning people with aspartame and fluoride.
| Below is the scorecard from the Heritage Foundation. The House Republican average is 66% and the House Democrat average is 16%. |
|---|
| State | District | Name | Party | Score% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | 7 | Rep. Marsha Blackburn | R | 82% | |||
| TN | 3 | Rep. Chuck Fleischmann | R | 77% | |||
| TN | TN | Sen. Bob Corker | R | 77% | |||
| TN | 6 | Rep. Diane Black | R | 74% | |||
| TN | 8 | Rep. Stephen Fincher | R | 72% | |||
| TN | 4 | Rep. Scott DesJarlais | R | 70% | |||
| TN | 2 | Rep. John Duncan Jr. | R | 67% | |||
| TN | 1 | Rep. Phil Roe | R | 63% | |||
| TN | TN | Sen. Lamar Alexander | R | 59% | |||
| TN | 5 | Rep. Jim Cooper | D | 27% | |||
| TN | 9 | Rep. Steve Cohen | D | 16% |
From The Heritage Foundation
President Barack Obama yesterday hosted yet another health care pep rally to shore up liberal support for his health care bill. Obama’s “rally” followed Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest capitulation to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) health care demands, whereby Reid removed a Medicare expansion that Lieberman had initially supported. From the Roosevelt Room, Obama claimed Democrats were “on the precipice of an achievement that’s eluded congresses and presidents for generations.” But hours later, former Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told Vermont National Public Radio:
This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. And, honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House … You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don’t have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it’s not close to health care reform.Later on MSNBC’s Countdown, Dean further responded to President Obama’s claims that “You talk to every healthcare economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are — whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses and government, those elements are in this bill.” Dean told guest host Lawrence O’Donnell: “There is no cost control of any substance. … You’re going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that is going to take on average of 27% of your money … and there is no choice about that. If you don’t buy that insurance you are going to get a fine.”
Posts
All Comments
