Questions for your health care town hall: Secs. 411 and 412

posted at 8:30 am on August 8, 2009 by King Banaian

For the end of the week, I’m going to show the effects of H.R. 3200′s provisions for health care coverage that is placed on employers large and small. These show up in Sections 411 and 412 of the Act. Here’s the text via THOMAS. (Please note, I often edit these to eliminate some naming and exception language that is routine. So here, for example, I’ll skip all the rules they need to deal with the railroad industry.)

SEC. 411. ELECTION TO SATISFY HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`SEC. 4980H. ELECTION WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

`(a) Election of Employer Responsibility To Provide Health Coverage-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) shall apply to any employer with respect to whom an election under paragraph (2) is in effect.
`(2) TIME AND MANNER- An employer may make an election under this paragraph at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe.
`(3) AFFILIATED GROUPS- In the case of any employer which is part of a group of employers who are treated as a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414, the election under paragraph (2) shall be made by such person as the Secretary may provide. Any such election, once made, shall apply to all members of such group.
`(4) SEPARATE ELECTIONS- Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, separate elections may be made under paragraph (2) with respect to–
`(A) separate lines of business, and
`(B) full-time employees and employees who are not full-time employees.
`(5) TERMINATION OF ELECTION IN CASES OF SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE- The Secretary may terminate the election of any employer under paragraph (2) if the Secretary (in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) determines that such employer is in substantial noncompliance with the health coverage participation requirements.
`(b) Excise Tax With Respect to Failure To Meet Health Coverage Participation Requirements-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who fails (during any period with respect to which the election under subsection (a) is in effect) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with respect to any employee to whom such election applies, there is hereby imposed on each such failure with respect to each such employee a tax of $100 for each day in the period beginning on the date such failure first occurs and ending on the date such failure is corrected.
`(2) LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF TAX-
`(A) TAX NOT TO APPLY WHERE FAILURE NOT DISCOVERED EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE- No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on any failure during any period for which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the employer neither knew, nor exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
`(B) TAX NOT TO APPLY TO FAILURES CORRECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS- No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on any failure if–
`(i) such failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, and
`(ii) such failure is corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the 1st date that the employer knew, or exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
`(C) OVERALL LIMITATION FOR UNINTENTIONAL FAILURES- In the case of failures which are due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the employer shall not exceed the amount equal to the lesser of–
`(i) 10 percent of the aggregate amount paid or incurred by the employer (or predecessor employer) during the preceding taxable year for employment-based health plans, or
`(ii) $500,000.

SEC. 412. RESPONSIBILITIES OF NONELECTING EMPLOYERS.

(a) In General- Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
`(c) Employers Electing to Not Provide Health Benefits-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).
`(2) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who is small employer for any calendar year, paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for `8 percent’:
———————————————————————————————————————
———————————————————————————————————————
`If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: The applicable percentage is:
Does not exceed $250,000 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent
———————————————————————————————————————
`(B) SMALL EMPLOYER- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `small employer’ means any employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year does not exceed $400,000.
`(C) ANNUAL PAYROLL- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `annual payroll’ means, with respect to any employer for any calendar year, the aggregate wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) during such calendar year.
`(3) NONELECTING EMPLOYER- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `nonelecting employer’ means any employer for any period with respect to which such employer does not have an election under section 4980H(a) in effect.
`(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR SEPARATE ELECTIONS- In the case of an employer who makes a separate election described in section 4980H(a)(4) for any period, paragraph (1) shall be applied for such period by taking into account only the wages paid to employees who are not subject to such election.

My understanding is that the table for small employers above was changed in committee, and I don’t have the new language. One question you could ask is when the amended bill from Energy and Commerce will be posted. The section proposes an addition to Title 26, Chapter 43 of the US Code, which is part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, link provided for reference.

So read this and find some questions. Here would be mine:

  1. The bill imposes a very stiff fine on employers for noncompliance of $100/day per employee if it is determined they are not in compliance with providing qualifying coverage, but a much smaller fine if it’s unintentional. The burden of proof appears to be on the employer if it’s determined the employer was not “employing reasonable diligence”. Who makes that determination of reasonable diligence? If someone is determined to be intentionally in violation, how could an employer appeal the fine?
  2. Likewise, the Commissioner of the Health Choices Administration is permitted to “terminate the election of any employer” to provide a plan. Does this place all of those employees in the government exchange? Again, how does an employer or its employees appeal this decision and seek to provide their own remedy?
  3. Can you explain the exceptions in the calculation of the wage base on which I pay the 8% (or less, for small employers) if I drop my insurance and put my employees on the government plan? (There are several, see subsection (b) in Section 412, you can refer to this for the calculation of wages that the section modifies.) If you find a legislator that can actually explain that, give them a gold star and point them out. They must have tried to read the bill.

I will continue to work over the weekend on other sections. I invite you to print these and ask them at town halls. Don’t shout, but be sure to show up early, because it sounds like some people are hogging seats.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This thing is an economy killer.

elduende on August 8, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Was that in English?

darktood on August 8, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Many thanks, Kbanaian, you are saving me a boatload of time.

doctormom on August 8, 2009 at 8:45 AM

your not supposed to read bills!

rob verdi on August 8, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Is there crib notes on where at what the language of the Abortion clause is.

Great catch.

tjexcite on August 8, 2009 at 8:53 AM

This thing is an economy killer.

elduende on August 8, 2009 at 8:36 AM

That is the intention, they’re just disguising it as a healthcare bill. Cap and Trade is a similar situation, killing the economy under the assumption that they care about the environment.

thomasaur on August 8, 2009 at 8:54 AM

If any of this legislation passes, it will be a heyday for attorneys. It seems to me that even the smallest businesses will be dependent upon a lawyer to interpret the Gordian knot of rules and regulations.

I also worry every time there’s a payroll threshold for regulations on business. It results in salaries being held down. If a small business is defined by a payroll of less than $400,000, then they won’t allow it to exceed that amount to avoid paying more or suffering under additional regulation.

This is all so crazy. The only reforms we need are to allow individuals to buy policies from any insurer they choose. An individual should be able to tailor a plan to suit his or her needs.

When I change jobs I don’t have to change my car insurance. I do, however, shop my auto and homeowner’s insurance around every year.

Ampleforth on August 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM

My congressman is only doing phone town halls.

jgapinoy on August 8, 2009 at 9:05 AM

1. Make a lifesize cardboard cutout of your Congressman
2. Stand them in front of a room of Patriots
3. Allow the Patriots to present coherent, clear and principled questions regarding healthcare issues
4. Give the cutout a chance to respond…..cricket cricket cricket….
5. Video the whole thing and put it on YouTube

Premise: Congressmen are unable, unwilling or too scared to face principled questions from American Citizens.

ted c on August 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM

…and you people expect your congressional representatives to read 1,000 pages of that? Draconian thugs, each and every one of you!

Just let them vote and get on those nice new airplanes. I’m sure they’ll tell us if we really need to know any of the important stuff.

/obvious sarc off

Tom_OC on August 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Was that in English?

darktood on August 8, 2009 at 8:42 AM

translation: “Small businesses are ”

Seriously though, It would be tough to think of a law that do more to stifle hiring and limit growth of small businesses.

I mentioned this in another thread recently, but what I think you might see is small businesses setting up new and different entities for each project they are involved in or each store they have or whatever. It will be sota inefficient, but it would be getter than crossing the dreaded $5000,000 payroll threashold.

Also, depending on how “payroll” is defined, we’ll see 1099 “employment” continue to increase.

forest on August 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Probably at a ‘prayer vigil.’

Tom_OC on August 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM

ted c on August 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM

That’s not a bad idea.

myrenovations on August 8, 2009 at 9:19 AM

ted c on August 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Good one ted c!!! +1

Problem is, most of the Congressmen are a cutout!

yoda on August 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM

there are libs at some Virginia liberal blog sites who say that the abortion funding of this bill cannot supersede the Hyde amendment.

that’s not the way i read it. does anyone know?

kelley in virginia on August 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM

thomasaur on August 8, 2009 at 8:54 AM

yep. these people really do have a dark vision of the future don’t they? Its a perversion of everything this nation stands for.

elduende on August 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Brilliant,
No thine enemy!

Thanks for your efforts.

Can’t wait to hear the politician’s
replies to these questions…

“Em err weeell don’t you terrorists try to hijack
this important meeting from all these good people bla bla bla”

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on August 8, 2009 at 9:33 AM

ted c on August 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM

That is a really good idea! lol

becki51758 on August 8, 2009 at 9:34 AM

The bottom line on H.R. 3200 is that it will provide government funding for the wholesale slaughter of the unborn; managed death for the elderly; and, low quality rationed care for the masses. it is very sad what is happening to this once great Republic.

rplat on August 8, 2009 at 9:37 AM

Warning:
It could be hazardous to your health fielding questions at a town hall meeting. It may endanger your career to not have a town hall meeting.

seven on August 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM

rplat: i’ve got the bill saved on my computer & have read parts of it on my own& when highlighted by this blog & others.

i can’t remember the allowance of abortion part. i know that it does allow fed. funding, but can’t find it.

can’t congress index their bills?

kelley in virginia on August 8, 2009 at 9:43 AM

You can also ask why obamacare is a welfare bill.

From the draft House bill:

SEC 2213 Training in Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, General Pediatrics, Geriatrics, and Physician Assistantship

The Secretary shall establish a primary care training and capacity building program consisting of awarding grants and contracts.

Preference – In awarding grants or contracts the Secretary shall give preference to entities that .. train individuals from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds
**********************

p883 Training of Medical Residents in Community based Settings
The Secretary shall establish a program for the training of medical residents in community based settings

Preferences – the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training individuals from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds
******************************

p887 The Secretary shall establish a dental medicine training program consisting of awarding grants and contracts

Preference – training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds
****************************

p908 The Secretary shall award grants and contracts to develop training for nurses, health administration, preventive medicine, laboratory science ….

Preference – The Secretary shall give preference to entities with demonstrated record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds
**********************************

p913 Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students
The govt agrees to pay $35,000 of tuition loans for each year of service a disadvantaged student later serves as a health teaching professor. You have to go to 42 USC 293b(a) to figure this out.

• From a disadvantaged background as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
An individual from a disadvantaged background is defined as one who comes from an environment that has inhibited the individual from obtaining the knowledge, skill, and abilities required to enroll in and graduate from a health professions school, or from a program providing education or training in an allied health profession; or comes from a family with an annual income below a level based on low income thresholds according to family size published by the U.S. Bureau of Census, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted by the Secretary, HHS, for use in health professions and nursing programs.

4thQTR on August 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Yikes, if the whole thing is 1000 pages of this stuff, I can understand why our Congressmen don’t want to read it. The real question is, how could anyone think it would work?

jwolf on August 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Just want to say that I appreciate all the work that is going into this, kbanaian. It is really helping me get to the meat of this boondoggle of a bill. My brain cells are reeling.

Shirley on August 8, 2009 at 9:49 AM

hyde amendment applies to funds flowing to medicaid. therefore, even if it applies to this bill, HR 3200, it would not keep all funds from flowing to abortions.

please correct me if i’m screwed up on this.

kelley in virginia on August 8, 2009 at 9:52 AM

i would love to train new medical personnel. but HR 3200 allows grants to train those who are so disadvantaged that they don’t have the background to get to college or med school.

and that somehow makes sense?

that being the case, all Congressmen could be brain surgeons.

kelley in virginia on August 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM

1. Make a lifesize cardboard cutout of your Congressman
2. Stand them in front of a room of Patriots
3. Allow the Patriots to present coherent, clear and principled questions regarding healthcare issues
4. Give the cutout a chance to respond…..cricket cricket cricket….
5. Video the whole thing and put it on YouTube

Premise: Congressmen are unable, unwilling or too scared to face principled questions from American Citizens.

Be sure to preface your video w/ an explanation that you called the Congressman’s office several times and tried to meet with him to get answers for these questions, with no results.

Make the questions simple and obvious, like “Since the non-partisan CBO, after taking everything into consideration, says this bill will cost X trillion dollars over 10 years, and we are already basically bankrupt, if you vote for this bill how do you propose to pay for it?”

and

“If health care is a basic human right, under this plan will an 80 year old have as much right to a particular lifesaving procedure as a 20 year old? If so, then why must an 80 year old undergo periodic “end of life” counseling?”

Give the video a good name and put up flyers/send out emails in your neighborhood saying “See Congressman X’s response to to citizen’s questions on health bill.”

ksm on August 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Here are some pictures of the Denver protest on another blog. Yes, union organizers showed up and tried to make a mess. Sanfran Nan showed up and tried to sneak through the back door.

The best part is when the astroturf with some hispanics who can’t speak english. They didn’t even know what the signs said!

boomer on August 8, 2009 at 9:57 AM

…and you people expect your congressional representatives to read 1,000 pages of that? Draconian thugs, each and every one of you!

Just let them vote and get on those nice new airplanes. I’m sure they’ll tell us if we really need to know any of the important stuff.

/obvious sarc off

Tom_OC on August 8, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Obvious sarc noted. what puzzles me is the absolute crap “my dog ate my homework excuses” these clowns come up with.

I mean, if I were a congressman and had a budget to hire staffers, I would hire the goddam staffers, tell them to read the goddam bill and brief me. I would hire some wonk to keep me abreast of the changes. in other words, I would use the money in my budget and my own personal effort to do the job the people elected me to do.

Instead, they can’t be bothered and proffer these lame-assed excuses and protest about reading the bill.

Compare and contrast, boys and girls, one motivated volunteer citizen — kbanaian — takes the time to read and post alient sections for the public consumption and debate.

Which is another reason why these people are so-o-o-o- lazy. If the Boy King had just lived up to a promise he made, POSTED bills on the internet, and made a plea to the citizens of this country to READ and COMMENT and created an atmosphere which generally sought consensus on what needs to be fixed instead of inciting goon squads to quash public debate..

..oh, who in the hell am I kidding, expecting gummint to actually be intelligent.

VoyskaPVO on August 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Here are some pictures of the Denver protest on another blog. Yes, union organizers showed up and tried to make a mess. Sanfran Nan showed up and tried to sneak through the back door.

The best part is when the astroturf with some hispanics who can’t speak english. They didn’t even know what the signs said!

boomer on August 8, 2009 at 9:57 AM

These pictures and this compendium of commentary (going for the Spiro Agnew award here) are astounding! Everyone needs to take a look at this site!

VoyskaPVO on August 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM

i would love to train new medical personnel. but HR 3200 allows grants to train those who are so disadvantaged that they don’t have the background to get to college or med school.

and that somehow makes sense?

that being the case, all Congressmen could be brain surgeons.

kelley in virginia on August 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM”

Your right Kelly, another new government program promoting and paying for unqualified people to be foisted onto the general population. Except this time it is professions that have people’s lives and health in their hands.

Do you want to be cared for by people that are not qualified. Giving them educational handouts in these fields is even worse than the handouts to other “disadvantaged” to teach our children.

And we know what a disaster that has turned out to be.

Get out and get heard, be polite, but loud and know your facts. Get others involved, shine the light of truth on this effort to destroy not only our health care but our Republic.

Prepare.

Papa Ray
West Texas

Papa Ray on August 8, 2009 at 10:51 AM

I developed a dossier of the health care bill. If you want a detailed analysis, full of page numbers, so you can ask a plethora of specific questions just go here.

mike volpe on August 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM

You can also ask why obamacare is a welfare bill.

The Secretary shall establish a primary care training and capacity building program consisting of awarding grants and contracts.

Preference – In awarding grants or contracts the Secretary shall give preference to entities that .. train individuals from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds

4thQTR on August 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Blah, blah, preference, blah, blah, disadvantaged “youts”, blah, ACORN, blah, community organizing, blah, preference, blah, La Raza, blah, TAXES, blah, waste, blah, blah.

CAPICE??

fred5678 on August 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM

And after they can’t answer any of those questions, stick it to ‘em with the left’s very own argument:

MY BODY; MY CHOICE!!! I want to select my own doctor, take his/her advice, OR if I don’t like what they say, select another doctor for a second opinion to make sure I always have the very best care possible.

ocbrat on August 8, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Southern Californians Please Note:
You will not be able to ask these or any other questions to Henry Waxman.
Waxman is not going to have a town hall on health care. Instead, he is having a global warming town hall during which he may or may not talk about health care.
In any case, his staff says that they will be taking questions in advance which will be read by Waxman’s staff (presumably to ensure that no one can ask a question that doesn’t fit the talking points playbook).

PoodleSkirt on August 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Thank you so much for posting this. We are having a healthcare town hell today, but I am unable to attend. There will be another town hall type meeting on Monday night hosted by Congressman Jeff Flake, and I am going to make that one. These questions will be very helpful.

Thank you again.

koz on August 8, 2009 at 1:36 PM

MY BODY; MY CHOICE!!!

The pro-abortion crowd has long used this slogan. Since the Left has accepted it as the only valid argument for abortion, I totally agree that it should become a slogan for anti-Obamacare. How can they argue with their own argument without looking like complete hypocrites?

PoodleSkirt on August 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM

That’s just the bill. Each clause, phrase and sentence will raise questions for those trying to implement it. Therefore, the government regulations that attempt to translate this bill into something human beings could use when trying to follow the law will be at least 30 times as long. Just check the Social Security situation if you don’t believe this.

Fred 2 on August 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM

We’re just hoe from attending a Town Hall with MA-3 Rep. Tsongas, the only MA rep so far to have the decency to hold an open to the public event. Unfortunately that’s as glowing as I can get in my report. Supporters of single payer (I didn’t realize this is what we were debating;)) were present along with public plan supporters but the opposition outnumbered them all 2 to 1. In Massachusetts, that says a lot because we already have a public option. Anyway, there were three “facts” the congresswoman pointed out I’d like to share as I’m sure we will hear them over and over again.

- 47 million Americans want health insurance and cannot get it

- 60% of US bankruptcies are caused by healthcare bills

- this public single payer system will save $600 billion a year

Remember these because they have all been debunked multiple times but still are carrying weight. I added emphasis where emphasis was given.

I got to ask a question and I had a stack but I chose the following because it is a simple yes or no and had not been addressed after an entire hour – “Are you willing to propose an amendment, in support of the Hyde Amendment, to any healthcare bill that might eventually come to a vote in the House banning all use of Federal funds (taxpayer money) to pay for any and all abortion procedures?”

Her answer – “Private insurance plans pay for abortions. And nowhere in HR 3200 does it say Federal funds will pay for abortions. It doesn’t say that.”

Needless to say, most of the crowd saw through her answer, many chanting “answer the question” but my point was made. One shout from the room was “it doesn’t not say it, either.”

Well, I tried. There were other great questions, too – many challenging the funding in regard to deficits, many challenging end of life counseling and one interesting “is there not one thing in HR 3200, which she claims to have read, that you find illogical or questionable”. To this she responded there was something but they already changed it (top limit on payroll amount where business owners must offer insurance was raised from 250K to ?).

I learned nothing new but I wasn’t expecting to. Lots of good signs – my favorite was “HR 3200 should come with a Surgeon General’s Warning.” I encourage everyone to go to one or hold a rally of your own. It is good to know we are the majority.

gopmom on August 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM

My question is ….

a) Who exactly is it that writes these bloviating bills?

and

b) Do they happen to have anything that even comes remotely close to being called a life?

pilamaye on August 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Here’s another one: is the provision they stuck in the bailout bill to mandate mental health care still in?

Sure, it’s a nice idea, but can you imagine what that will do to premiums?

PattyJ on August 8, 2009 at 7:11 PM

I was at a meeting today.
I found out that my congressman-Jesse Jackson Jr.-will be having some town hall meetings.
I know there are “Southlanders” on this blog.
Maybe a group of us could go and make our voices known.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 8, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Read the bill for yourself: go to http://www.thomas.gov/. On the top of the main page is a link to HR 3200. Click on the link, then click on “Text of Legislation.”
 
I found the following items after about an hour of skimming:
 
- Unions and other favored groups are exempt (Sec 154).
 
- No disparity of benefits. You can’t for example buy ‘premium’ coverage unless it is in a plan specifically approved by the Commissioner (Sec 203(c)(5)). Except for unions and other favored groups.

 
- Report of your health information to the government (Sec 204(b)(2)), the scope of which to be determined by the Commissioner.
 
- Mandatory enrollment. If you don’t pick a plan the government can randomly put you in one (Sec 205(b)(3)(A)).
 
- Empower the IRS the right to impose punitive tax of 2.5% if you aren’t in one (Sec 401).
 
I stopped skimming after section 401 because it was getting too depressing.

Gideon7 on August 8, 2009 at 8:59 PM

HR 3200 requires funding for “family planning services” but does not define the term.
 
What may happen is that a liberal federal judge will use the language to later mandate taxpayer funded abortion.
 
Similarly, HR 3200 requires health care for all “individuals” but does not define who is an “individual”. Presumably it includes illegal aliens. Again the language is vague (again probably on purpose).

Gideon7 on August 8, 2009 at 9:10 PM

test

Dave R. on August 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM