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.

Comments Feed

Displaying 211-240 of 2046 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    KD5NRH 09/13/2009 11:01pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    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

  • Comm_reply
    snowden 08/26/2009 8:46pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Pardon, but how does comparing private and public education pertain to healthcare? Apples to oranges, if you ask me.

  • Comm_reply
    KD5NRH 09/13/2009 7:16am

    Government inefficiency and bureaucratic incompetence taint everything controlled by government.

  • Comm_reply
    scottowego 08/19/2009 6:29am

    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!!!!

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    mattpileggi 07/31/2009 8:06am
    Link Reply
    + -1
    1. HR 3200 is a terrible compromise. It taxes households with incomes over $350k, penalizes businesses (small as much as 4%, large as much as 8%), and penalizes any non-comforming Americans (to the tune of 2% of their gross income) in order to subsidize the cost of health insurance. It makes allowances for Grandfathered-in plans, but does not allow you to make ANY changes to them (losing their grandfathered status then must be exchange-qualified plans only). The Secretary defines essential benefits – so instead of your imagined multi-millionaires running private HMO’s you get one multi-millionaire running the whole show …that’s a comprimise?
    1. The public option has already be done right. Most employers offer only PPO now.

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    ajwz24 08/10/2009 11:30am

    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.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    Hakib 08/13/2009 8:22am

    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.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    DKennedy 08/28/2009 7:37am

    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

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    jimprjayp 08/18/2009 2:02am

    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

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    ThirdEve 08/14/2009 10:24am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    jimprjayp 08/18/2009 2:19am

    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.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 08/27/2009 9:15am

    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

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    NoMoney2FELONSamongUS 09/15/2009 5:36am

    “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

  • Comm_reply
    NoMoney2FELONSamongUS 09/15/2009 6:33am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-need-a-return-to-principled-government/

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    lxtkn1989 08/14/2009 8:32pm

    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.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    jimprjayp 08/18/2009 2:24am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    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.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment


Vote on This Bill

22% Users Support Bill

2320 in favor / 8051 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments