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 121-150 of 2046 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    merrilln 09/11/2009 5:55pm

    If the Gov of CA is doing such a great job, then he should cut all the benefits to illegal aliens and deport them, shut down the San Francisco sanctuary city and all the other ones too.

  • Comm_reply
    KISS 08/30/2009 3:00pm

    Pandawa, Root causes for health care cost increases need to change — ADDING INEFFICIENT GOV’T AND MORE REGULATION IS NOT THE ANSWER! WWII Dems regulated wages triggering employers to offer health care insurance as a benefit – becoming the norm in response to regulation. Eliminate group plans! Enable individual health plans. Reform Tort Laws. Allow portable insurance for individuals across states, increasing competition and risk pool. Eliminate need for business to track pre-existing conditions. Increase use of HSA accounts, Open up Medicare for all ages and American Citizens who ACTUALLY CHOOSE to join a Gov’t deficit run program. The Health Care exchange is Nationalized Gov’t controlled ‘health care’ forcing ‘choice’, taxes, and penalizes. Get real, the bill is a pig (my apology to all innocent pigs).

  • Comm_reply
    pandawa 09/24/2009 12:29pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    oh KISS, your ideas are wonderful! absolutely amazing.
    Besides the fact that a conservative caused and made the Depression worse (talking about Hoover), a conservative (Reagan) tripled the deficit and a democrat (clinton) actually rendered a surplus, your ideas are incredible.
    well lemme see. you advocate opening up medicare. thats what this bill essentially does.
    What the bill does not do is mandate coverage on a government plan. Its called the freedom to choose, something everyone should be behind.
    and the purely american notion that government is inefficient is startling. it took the government to solve the fiasco of privatized police and fire depts. (the free market works wonders doesn’t it) and it took the government to help solve the fact that arsenic was being put in lettuce (FDA). government does a great job at those.
    what makes you think that government is a toddler?

  • Comm_reply
    cbsullivan16 10/13/2009 12:07pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Hey…it’s ok that those Republicans ran up our national debt to record levels. How can you possibly prioritize healthcare over romantic causes like missile defense and reducing taxes for the wealthy?

  • Comm_reply
    cbsullivan16 10/13/2009 12:04pm

    I agree on the tort reform…how about loser pays costs as a starter. However, why are group plans a bad idea? By forming groups, the power of the consumer is much higher (leading to reduced costs). Economies of scale…it’s a good thing.

  • Comm_reply
    scorsey 09/05/2009 1:30pm

    last i knew 3/4 of california legislature was democrat. If you was refering to Arnold, he is nothing but a rino. would not make a difference if he calle himself a dem

  • Comm_reply
    rj32 09/21/2009 5:14pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    It’s in Art. I, but you haven’t educated yourself on Constitutional Law so nobody at your level would expect you to know such things.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 09/21/2009 6:33pm

    rj32-Art 1? Be more specific. If a concerned citizen asks a proponent of nationalized healthcare to point to the constitutional authority for such a law, he may hear that the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause, or the “Interstate Commerce” clause enables Congress to create national public health insurance to act.

    None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system.
    The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.

  • Comm_reply
    pandawa 08/30/2009 8:16am

    kudos

  • Comm_reply
    beethoven 08/30/2009 10:04pm

    Heath care is allegedly a right. However it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are unalienable. Heath care is granted as a right by the State. It can therefore be removed by the State and there for is not unalienable and obviously not a right.

    Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists the enumerated powers of congress:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

    There is no mentions of heath care.

    FDR attempted to create a 2nd bill of rights which included heath care;

    “The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health”

    http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

    At least he made attempt to add it as a bill of rights.

    Congress can create new rights in two ways;

    1) by amendment

    2) by Constitutional convention

    Otherwise its runs in opposition to the Constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    uba 08/31/2009 2:11am

    Here’s how doctors described the current health care system:

    “Money-driven medicine in which millions of dollars are spent on unnecessary tests, unwanted procedures and overpriced prescriptions”.
    And get this, none of the doctors who graduated this year are going into primary health care….soon all we will have are doctors who specialize in a particular field.
    PBS Bill Moyers Journal, Sunday August 31, 2009

    Can you name one primary care doctor who makes house calls?
    Can you name one primary care doctor whom you can call in the middle of the night when your child is sick?
    In Germany you can!
    You counter with ‘long waiting lines’? They are not any longer than in the US where health care is nothing more than a production line health care system.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    KD5NRH 09/13/2009 6:56am

    Hmm, like the doctor we called on a holiday morning when our infant was sick? It took leaving a message and waiting a few minutes, but we had our answers within the hour.
    When both of us got sick suddenly, we were able to get an appointment to be seen within two hours of making the call. It wasn’t with our regular doctor, but his office made all the arrangements for us, including having our records and insurance paperwork waiting for us at the other doctor’s office.
    Doctors who believe in the free market also believe in customer service.

  • Comm_reply
    nlb99 11/09/2009 7:05pm

    Have you also heard the doctors in England and Canada talk about “Brain Drain”.. Look it up and see what you get. It is the reason America has some of the best scientist and doctors in the world. People can say what they want about our healthcare, but I believe it is the best in the world. I saw a report on TV and they were amazed that a baby was born 2 months premature and survived. My son was born in 1976, 2 months premature and survived, granted it was a rough 1st year. My sister almost died 4 years ago from a dissected aorta. She should have died, but she had an excellent doctor that saved her.

  • Comm_reply
    uba 11/11/2009 8:59am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/11/06/u-s-lags-behind-other-countries-in-primary-care/

  • Comm_reply
    uba 11/11/2009 9:15am

    Brain Drain by Docs in England and Canada?
    Brain drain by docs in the US and the resultants deaths are buried along with the patient ….they are never published because of the high risk of malpractice suits filed against them. Don’t tell me that US docs working in excess of 100 hr/week don’t have brain drain!

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/04/2009 3:23pm

    It seems there the vast majority of comments on this subject really miss this point, and are, it seems, totally ignorant o the facts (not they themselves are ignorant, of course). Take a look at the following from 1993:

    The Constitution afords its citizens certain rights (“these are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That’s all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald’s, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights — and only these.”) from: http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

    Good Luck in your search for knowledge!

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/04/2009 11:35pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    How do you have the “right to life” without life? I doubt 18th century doctors checked patients’ health insurance eligibility before treating them.
    True, we don’t get the free trip to Disneyland, but we are free to go there. For what we pay in premiums, we should be able to more out of them.

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/05/2009 1:12pm

    Lucas,
    The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

    The door to opportunity has “PUSH” wriiten on it.

  • Comm_reply
    mnvikefan 10/07/2009 12:05pm

    Really? Huge federal govern bureaucracy costing trillions of dollars rather than letting the states control their own health care initiatives for one.

  • Comm_reply
    mdchurch 10/14/2009 3:10am

    It is more of an issue with what is not in the Constitution. The only thing in the Constitution that generally covers this is “promoting the general welfare”, which has been stretched very thin by the Obama administration.

    Health care is an individual responsibility not the government’s. Each person if responsibly for their own body. We each control what we eat, our fitness level and life choices such as smoking and the use of alcoholic beverages. Insurance is just another part of the equation. It is a choice NOT a right, and certainly shouldn’t be mandated.

    The government’s role, if any, should be limited to regulating the industry to ensure fair pricing and the safety of patients. This will be difficult with big Health Care already deep in the pockets of politicians.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/14/2009 5:58pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    United States v. Butler, HELVERING v. DAVIS, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,..
    The Supreme Court has already addressed the scope of the general welfare clause. What could possibly more general than our mortality? I would agree that, if we could get regulatory control over the insurance industry, that might be all we need. I’ve said earlier, and I stand by it, they could cut all of the spending in this bill (including the public option) and it would still be revolutionary.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/15/2009 12:19pm

    LUCASFOXX-THE CASE WAS ABOUT TAXES, YOU LIED WHEN YOU STATED THE ABOVE.
    United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
    the phrase “to provide for the general welfare” is not an independent provision empowering Congress generally to provide for the general welfare, but is a qualification defining and limiting the power “to lay and collect taxes,” etc. P. 297 U. S. 64.
    15. The power to tax and spend is a separate and distinct power; its exercise is not confined to the fields committed to Congress by the other enumerated grants of power, but it is limited by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. P. 297 U. S. 65.
    Page 297 U. S. 3
    16. The Court is not required in this case to ascertain the scope of the phrase “general welfare of the United States,” or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it. P. 297 U. S. 68.

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 10/15/2009 4:48pm

    Thanks bkrueg, I’ve been unable to really devote any time to responding to Lucas lately, I’m touring the east coast with my wife and getting internet and time has been difficult to do with regularity. Well said though, its amazing what happens when you shine a light on the lies these supporters keep trying to spread…there arguments are barely related half the time.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/16/2009 5:29pm

    Thank you for at least trying to do the research. Some don’t even make an effort to get at the truth.

    What you quoted was in the Opinion, but it was not the opinion. You accurately describe it as about Taxes, and you accurately quote from Justice Roberts’ summation of the question. But you missed the Court’s conclusion that it, “makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.” To the case at hand, he said, “When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress. How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark.”

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/15/2009 12:44pm

    LUKASFOXX-AGAIN ABOUT TAXES, IS THE HR-3200 A NEW TAX? YES
    Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
    The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935. P. 301 U. S. 639.
    A petition for certiorari was filed by the intervening defendants, the Commissioner and the Collector, and brought two questions, and two only, to our
    Page 301 U. S. 639
    notice. We were asked to determine: (1) “whether the tax imposed upon employers by § 804 of the Social Security Act is within the power of Congress under the Constitution,” and (2)
    “whether the validity of the tax imposed upon employees by § 801 of the Social Security Act is properly in issue in this case, and if it is, whether that tax is within the power of Congress under the Constitution.”

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/16/2009 5:31pm

    Yes, you are correct. It is basically about taxes and the Social Security Act. But you did not read the conclusion: “Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare.”

  • Comm_reply
    Ozone 10/19/2009 4:12am

    I think the real question should be, what part of the constitution permits that Federal Government taking over health care?

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/19/2009 11:06am

    WSJ-Posted September 19th, 2009 by betty “The federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. Health-care backers understand this and have framed the mandate as a “tax” rather than a regulation. Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional. “

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/19/2009 6:47pm

    Article I section 8


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