U.S. Congress - H.R.3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 view all titles (5)
All Bill Titles
- Official: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Official: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. as introduced.
- Popular: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported to house.
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed
Displaying 211-240 of 2046 total comments.
Let’s pull one at random – ran a random number generator to get a zip code, then backed out to the county level – Mecklenburg County Virginia.
Public School: $8,794 per student per year
Oakdale Christian School tuition: (Day Student) $200/mo – max of $2400/year if they do all-year school
Pardon, but how does comparing private and public education pertain to healthcare? Apples to oranges, if you ask me.
Government inefficiency and bureaucratic incompetence taint everything controlled by government.
This is why we need Single payer! HMO’S are for profit. Coops aren’t but they will have a hard time competing. Especially the smaller ones with fewer members i.e. Rural areas vs. Urban. Wealthy vs. lower income etc. Public works, libraries, police, fire departments and schools all come from taxes the public pay. That’s the definition of socialized services. Everyone pays… everyone benefits. Private schools may be better…. I don’t really know. I do know they are allowed to discriminate (parochial schools) and are much more expensive. So much for the argument that a Single payer will ruin the profits of private insurance. Thanks so much for the input!!!!
HMOs were established by the government in 1973 to save money, Do you still believe them?
We need reform on the abuses that are increasing the cost of the care (not the insurance) We have only just begun to focus on the issue, and moving quickly to a Federally-run, tax-forced-contribution payed for, universal system is our worst alternative.
the insurance companies are the biggest abusers of the the healthcare system, as it is today, and believe it or not insurance companies are responsible for increasing the “cost of the care”. How many times in the last (just grabbing a number)5 yrs has your employer changed your coverage or raised your coverage rates? In other words, have many times have they changed providers or raised your premium or raised your deductable? I guarantee you it hasn’t gone down, either. More people paying in will lower the cost for everyone! And the penalties are for people and families and businesses that don’t buy into some kind of coverage. If you are in any plan, no penalty will be assessed.
" More people paying in will lower the cost for everyone! And the penalties are for people and families and businesses that don’t buy into some kind of coverage. If you are in any plan, no penalty will be assessed."
That is false when car insurance was made mandatory insurance rates went up, for a while there were several states that did not require car insurance their rate were less then half of states that required insurance.
Also this bill changes the insurance options available, HSAs with high deducible catastrophe policies will no longer be allowed, that will cost people more money. The insurance companies will be forced to raise their rates. Why should people be penalized for not wanting to buy health insurance?
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Because you don’t complete your thoughts.
“That is false when car insurance was made mandatory insurance rates went up, for a while there were several states that did not require car insurance their rate were less then half of states that required insurance.”
Complete that thought…. TODAY (2009), car insurance rates as a percentage of household income (and adjusted for inflation) are much lower than in the 50’s.
you need to look at the 80s , but I will provide a better example lets look at states that have made health insurance manditoery rates have doubled.
“New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have both community rating and guaranteed issue. And, no surprise, they have the three most expensive individual insurance markets among all 50 states, with premiums roughly two to three times higher than the rest of the country. In 2007, the average annual premium in New Jersey was $5,326 for singles and in New York $12,254 for a family, versus the national average of $2,613 and $5,799, respectively. ObamaCare would impose New York-type rates nationwide.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332293172846168.html
First off.. you do realize everything is more expensive in New York and Jersey right?
seriously.
Price of living is different in different areas – and that includes every aspect of ‘living’. When I was in Kansas not too many years back they had vending machines you could buy a pop for a quarter from. This is the benefit of living in (excuse me for saying) the middle of nowhere.
I live in Arizona now.. I use to live in Michigan.. everything is about 10% more expensive here.. not much, but that’s why I felt I could handle the move.. not too much of a change.
But I know I’m nowhere near ready to make the plunge of moving to the Big Apple… simply can’t afford it. Your statistics are nothing more than an example of what we already know about New York
no the difference in the rates is the requirement for guaranteed issuance and community rate policies in the universal coverage states and in this bill.
The requirements are such that if you bought home insurance, under such an agreement, the insurance company would have to pay to rebuild your house even if you didn’t buy the insurance until a week after your house burnt down, please read the bill before wasting anyone else’s time with your uninformed rantings.
Mandatory Auto Insurance Really Raises Rates
Monday, September 24, 1990
NYTimes
UninsuredDrivers Create Other Kinds of Wreckage sggests that enforcing mandatory automobile insurance laws has the favorable impact of reducing auto insurance rates. Every study on compulsory auto liability insurance has demonstrated that such laws accelerate the cost of such insurance. Enforcement increases the cost of administration to taxpayers and is ineffective.
The writer is retired president of the Government Employees Insurance Company, or Geico.
Link to complete story:http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/24/opinion/l-mandatory-auto-insurance-really-raises-rates-413590.html
Filtered Comment [ show ]
DKennedy you now make perfect since to me and now I understand were you are coming from and I understand why you say and feel the way you do. I understand you now, you brain lacks basic cognitive functionality or normal reasoning skills. Based on the way you see the world your opinion is correct, what makes your opinion wrong is your lack of ability to see things for how they really are.
For example lets look at your comparison to car insurance rates going down as you get older, you believe that is because more people are buying from the same insurance pool, when in reality the reason your car insurance rates go down as you get older is because you are less likely to get into a car wreck as you get older, in other words the older you get the less likely you are to cost the car insurance company money so they do not need to charge you as much.
The opposite goes for something like Life insurance, the older you get the more likely you are to die that is why life insurance is more expensive for older people. we can look at flood insurance, flood insurance is less expensive if you live on a mountain then in a coastal region, does this make since?
Do you believe that a person that is 50 years old and never had a wreck should have to pay the same car insurance rates as someone that is 17 and has has been arrested twice for driving drunk? Do you believe someone living on a dessert plateau in Nevada should have to pay the same for flood insurance as someone living in New Orleans? You probably do based on the way your head works however most people would agree that risk should be taken into account when insurance rates are determined
Actually, it is not only the individual who will be penalized for refusing the so-called employer-sponsored health coverage in this bill. Even if an employee refuses coverage (as would be their right), the employer must contribute to the Health Insurance Fund anyway! That’s right—there is no choice here; it’s smoke and mirrors. The people paying for this bill are going to be the employers, the small businesses (not to mention large ones). I think this is a great deal for every employed person in the U.S.
You do understand that the only way for the US to recover the economy is through jobs provided by small businesses? The big businesses will leave the US if the cost is too high thanks to NAFTA. The only employers will be small businesses who will fail because they can’t afford the health premium “tax”. Hence, less jobs.
Filtered Comment [ show ]
Repeat: Most of the problems we have with insurance companies could be fixed by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. If we had a free market in health care insurance it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance. JUST-SAY-NO ON HR-3200
Filtered Comment [ show ]
“Most of the problems we have with insurance companies could be fixed by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. If we had a free market in health care insurance it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance. JUST-SAY-NO ON HR-3200”
+1
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-need-a-return-to-principled-government/
dkennedy this is were you are lost, this bill might lower cost as far as the amount the government spends but as for you, me, other individuals and businesses this bill will triple our cost for health insurance. IF you goal is to lower the cost individuals pay for health care this bill does the opposite.
Big difference between a single-payer system and mandatory car insurance though. Car Insurance is provided by corporations, desiring a profit, and when it is mandatory that you buy a product, so long as all companies raise their rates, there is little that voting by wallet can do to help.
In this system however, all users of the public option would be paying into huge pot, and then those that need care pull from the pot. My only hope: That the system will cover preventative care, a piece that is largely missing from most healthcare plans at the moment, even though preventative care is much cheaper in the long run than paying for the catastrophic health problems that can arise without proper care.
you are correct but 3200 is not a single payer plan, it is based on the plans in Massachusetts New york and New Jersey were they simply mandated that everyone by private insurance.
At this point in time it looks as though the public option will be pulled from this bill in its entirety.
The scary part of this bill, unbelievably, is and was not the health insurance. I mean, we could go to another country and pay for a procedure if we wanted too. The scary part is “other purposes”. And those are the parts the government really wanted anyway, aren’t they.
I just did an exercise all should do, I went to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com and put in my zip code 80202 then a zip code from Massachusetts 02019 since they are one a few state that meet the requirements for the government health insurance plans. My cheapest bar bones policy for Denver (for a smoker) was $64 a month, for Massachusetts the cheapest was $218 a month and that was with a $2000 deductible so that plan won’t meet the qualifications for this bill. the plan that comes closest to meeting the requirements for this bill(o deductible) is $354 a month
I suggest everyone go to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com enter your zip code and get a quote then get a quote as if you lived in Massachusetts 02019, that should give you an idea if insurance rates will have to go up in your state if this bill passes. Would be cool if people posted the difference from their current state vs Massachusetts.
this bill is not going to have a public option it is simply going to mandate that everyone buy insurance with Massachusetts rates with a zero deductible and zero co payment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57D23Q20090816
The government says they are doing this to make things cheaper, but cheaper for the government not you, if you want to know what this bill will do to your families budget go to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com get a quote for your current zip code then one for 02019,Massachusetts policies already meet the community rating and guaranteed issue requirements of this bill, make sure you look at a quote that meets the zero deductible and zero co payment requirements also