H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. view all titles (46)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Health care reform bill as .
  • Official: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Popular: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as introduced.
  • Popular: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Legislative Vehicle) as introduced.
  • Short: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed senate.
  • Official: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. as amended by senate.
  • Short: Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: CLASS Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Congenital Heart Futures Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Cures Acceleration Network Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: EARLY Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Elder Justice Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: ENHANCED Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Establishing a Network of Health-Advancing National Centers of Excellence for Depression Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Official: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. as introduced.
  • Popular: Health care reform bill.
  • Popular: Patient protection and affordable care bill.
  • Short: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed house.
  • Short: Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: CLASS Act as passed house.
  • Short: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act as passed house.
  • Short: Congenital Heart Futures Act as passed house.
  • Short: Cures Acceleration Network Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: EARLY Act as passed house.
  • Short: Elder Justice Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: ENHANCED Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Establishing a Network of Health-Advancing National Centers of Excellence for Depression Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as enacted.
  • Short: Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: CLASS Act as enacted.
  • Short: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act as enacted.
  • Short: Congenital Heart Futures Act as enacted.
  • Short: Cures Acceleration Network Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: EARLY Act as enacted.
  • Short: Elder Justice Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: ENHANCED Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: Establishing a Network of Health-Advancing National Centers of Excellence for Depression Act of 2009 as enacted.

Comments Feed

Displaying 151-180 of 211 total comments.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Moderated Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • JasonSpenc 03/19/2010 7:16am

    Can someone please explain to me in simple terms HOW we “trim” the federal deficit by $138 billion while adding 32 million uninsured? If the answer is further increase Medicare taxes on dividends/interest I’m concerned the constitutionality of coercive taking of wealth from one’s production and giving it to someone who didn’t produce it.

    The bill bars the insurance industry from denying coverage to pre-existing medical conditions. Gee, insurance only WORKS by excluding “pre-existing” conditions. Example in car insurance: Can I not pay premiums, then call and get car insurance only AFTER I’ve been in an accident? This whole bill is a car wreck…

    Most coercive government action I recall in my lifetime: Starting 2014, most Americans would be required for the first time to purchase insurance or face penalties if they refused. Large businesses would face fines if they did not offer good-quality coverage to their workers. Gee, I wouldn’t want to be a “large business” anytime soon then.

  • LucasFoxx 03/20/2010 1:30pm

    With this bill, we’ll get: a standard for Qualified Health Plans, individual options among those plans; requires those plans to provide coverage for, and not impose any cost sharing requirements for: preventive services, immunizations, and preventative screenings for women and children; reductions in the maximum limits for out-of-pocket expenses, improved Access to Medicaid, and modernizes public health systems. And provides that “nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act.”

    The Reconciliation bill adds: medical loss ratio rebates, elimination of annual or lifetime limits, no cost-sharing for preventive care, increased penalties for fraud and abuse, and money and more authority for enforcement, whistle blower protection, legislates more transparency from the insurance companies.

    Better than nothing.

  • entfaltend 03/21/2010 6:07pm

    Well… It’s something at least. Still can’t see why we have to support the insurance companies and couldn’t just get a single payer system and call it good.

  • jrford 03/21/2010 6:57pm

    Can someone please tell me why the House voted on this bill tonight when it was passed last year by both the House and the Senate. I’m confused as to why they had to vote on it again tonight. Thanks in advance.

  • LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 8:15am

    Both chambers passed Health Care Bills. But both houses have to pass the exact same legislation. This is the Senate version. The version that passed the House was HR3200. The Senate wrapped their version into this bill because, according to the Constitution, all bills for raising Revenue must begin in the house (sort of a shell game there). Since both bills were different, and only the legislation that has passed both houses can go forward to the President for signature, the House had to pass the Senate version as there were not enough Senate votes to pass the original House bill.

  • Moderated Comment

  • jonhoye 03/23/2010 3:12pm

    Is anyone out there good enough to tackle section 3401 and break it down for us? According to the CBO it’s the source of 146.7 billion in debt reduction over 10 years but the wording in the bill is at best cryptic.

    The social security act section 1886 that it references is no less cryptic.

  • nevaragain 03/23/2010 6:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Fantastic, seriously. Either we get to see this country circle the drain, or we watch the career suicide of over 200 elected officials. I’m an independent, but I will never vote for another democrat for as long as I can remember the scorn I have for being betrayed like this.

    I know that’s not the right frame of mind, but I doin’t even care anymore.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/24/2010 12:50am

    neveragain, I think you exaggerate the scale of this reform. This is one case where the money is at least accounted for. A certain other party used its house majority to engage in unilateral action on the other side of the world without even considering adding it to a budget.

    There’s a clear problem with the health insurance industry; everyone agrees on this. The republican party fails time and again to do anything about it, while millions of Americans suffer needlessly to outright corruption. If the free market consistently fails, the government steps in. It’s simple cause and effect.

  • Comm_reply
    Bostondan 03/24/2010 11:06am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I don’t think it is that simple. By giving insurance companies a free pass on the anti trust laws, and protecting the med malpractice community, the government pretty much eliminated the free market in health care a long time ago. Now, they cure it by creating a bigger mess. What in the world makes you think the government has ever done a better job than the free market?

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/24/2010 12:32pm

    It’s tough not to be simple in 1000 characters! The problem with insurance is that it’s a largely disreputable industry, so we very much agree that it’s regrettable that the government subsidized it so much years ago. Too bad the republican party threw a tantrum instead of participating in the solution. It would be great to have other, smaller solutions to examine. This is what we’ve got and it will probably go a long way to leashing an industry known more for its reputation of fraud than promoting health.

    As for what the government does better than private industry? The US Armed forces personnel represent the best and most professional at what they do. We tried to privatize aspects of war with huge consequences if you remember Blackwater’s excessive use of force. The police are better than the mob, and the TVA is better than Enron was.

  • Comm_reply
    Bostondan 03/24/2010 12:45pm

    If you were ever in the armed forces, you’d know that, although the best on the planet, there is HUGE ineffeciencies and waste. Same with TVA, police, etc. By the way, how’s the Energy department doing with their goal of eliminating dependence on foreign oil??

    Yep, free markets aren’t a great solution, just better than anything else ever invented. When was the last time you saw a government agency of any size save money and return it to the taxpayer?? There is no incentive to do so, and every incentive to spend as much as you possibly can get away with every year. Free markets punish those who do this quite effectively. Their products get too pricey, and stop selling. Government has no such check and balance.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/24/2010 1:20pm

    I have no disagreements with anything you’ve just said. At this point we just vary to the slightest degree in our faith in free markets. The past years have shown quite decisively that free markets can fail. They can punish consumers excessively and they can produce giant corporations, large enough to tap our government like a huge piggy bank while still paying their executives enormous amounts of money and escaping any degree of oversight.

    Our country is at a crossroads, and I for one believe it should protect the free market at all costs. This legislation I see as protecting the free market from itself. Take me for instance, as a young, self employed workaholic student, I’d never participate in the old insurance system. Now that there’s some degree of regulation in the Open Insurance Market, I don’t feel like I’d be buying snake oil.

  • Comm_reply
    Bostondan 03/24/2010 2:48pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Ah Grasshopper, you are young and have much to learn. Giant corporations cannot match the mischief giant goverments achieve on a regular basis.
    Example: Once the biggest corporation in the world, in less than 20 years it disappeared. It was protected by the government for 100 years, given monopoly status based on reasons that had disappeared decades before. It was stripped of it’s protection and, due to miserable customer service, huge bureaucracy, and inflated pay scales, went the way of the dinosaurs. I refer to AT&T. It survives in name only, which was purchased by one of it’s offspring. The market worked, once the goverment got out of the way. So, regulate, but don’t run should be the goverment’s role. Insure free market entrace and egress, enforce the anti-trust laws, and get out of the way.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/24/2010 3:36pm

    If you refer to the 1982 anti-trust lawsuit the United States vs AT&T, then lets do it, you have my vote. If health insurance reform is on the same road then I can’t wait for the day. As for the Howard Rich essay, if you have his kind of money, then I understand why you wouldn’t support this thing. Poor guy is about to get an extra 1/2 % income tax on his billion dollar investment portfolio windfalls when the house amendments go through. But I generally don’t trust what he says because he speaks in hyperbole.

    I simply fail to see the same thing you do in this bill, I don’t see a public option, or a new government run plan. It looks like regulation when I read it, and fiscally responsible, timely legislation at that. I do complain that it’s cumbersome, but at least it phases in so we can see some effects and have time to anticipate the rest.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/24/2010 9:53pm

    Yes: “HUGE ineffeciencies and waste”; and yet still: “the best on the planet.”

    What has the free market done for you without taking everything it can from you?

  • Comm_reply
    Bostondan 03/25/2010 11:38am

    Let’s see what HAS the free market given me? An incredibly high standard of living perhaps. More selection of goods an services than can be imagined in a centrally controlled economy? Competition is what is is all about. Government run industries have none and do take everything from you for crappy goods and services. This bill effectively will put private insurers out of busienss, forcing a government option as a response to an “emergency”. Or, government control of the companies. In either case, no competition and eventually very expensive very mediocre health care. Unless you are in Congress of course.
    But, this always boils down to this: Do you want to be self reliant or do you rely on and trust your government to fix your problems and make you happy? If you do want the government to take care of you, getting you to look at the history and impacts of big government is like teaching a pig to sing. It only annoys the pig and frustrates the teacher.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/25/2010 12:10pm

    According to gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html table 6.1 you can thank our victory in WWII as a manufacturer supplying the allies for a large amount of your purchasing parity. This is the period where the US economy grew the most since its inception. The delayed entry to war was a government decision, fully supported by our extremely unhawkish fathers and grandfathers.

    According to Dr. C. J. Tassava, our mobilization for war thanks in a large part to Roosevelt’s “the Arsenal of Democracy” in the year before we were attacked in Pearl Harbor gave us the preparedness advantage needed to win outright economically and militarily.

    So don’t be too quick to dismiss Goverment’s role in your quality of life. As for market competition… There exists no market competition under yesterdays system, when employees don’t have the opportunity to choose their provider you have a different form of governance, the kind that involves a company store.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/25/2010 3:03pm

    When the choice comes down to greed or saving lives, I will always back life.

  • Comm_reply
    moongirl61 03/30/2010 4:18am

    Well, Bostondan, I guess you’ll be forfeiting your right to use community services then, since you don’t think the government should do anything to help you. When your home is burning, or a family member has a heart attack, I don’t want to hear you calling 911 for help :)

  • Comm_reply
    mouseissue 05/23/2010 8:44am

    THESE ARE NOT RIGHTS!!!
    We pay sales and property taxes (among others) for these services.

    BTW, we are “endowed” with our rights.
    The gov’t can only regulate or take them from us.

    And, the gov’t has no money it has not taken from us!
    So if you think their being generous, you are a fool!

    Time to get back to earth and educated moongirl61!

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/24/2010 9:44pm

    That’s really the problem with the whole issue. Since our “news” outlets are no longer in the information business (they are in the entertainment business), and outrageous fights over fictional matters get more ratings than reasoned argument over matters of fact, we’ve ended up with an uninformed public that is rabid about things that don’t exist in this bill because their “news” (commentary) networks are.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/24/2010 9:50pm

    My point was supposed to be that people should know certian things, but since the issue is not simple and public media has failed to keep the public informed, we end up wasting a lot of time on rhetoric when matters of fact could be stated more simply. I got a little side tracked. It’s late.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/24/2010 11:16pm

    Check out Charlie Rose’s coverage of the issue. He’s been able to have straight, informative interviews with people involved in every aspect of this thing. Not sure how he does it, but when people appear on his show they don’t simply regurgitate party talking points. Until now I just followed him on mid-east related issues, such as when Petraeus was on, but these days I watch almost every show. Recent stuff is on hulu, with back logs available from his site.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/25/2010 6:49am

    Charlie Rose is a treasure, and an aberration.

  • OKStateBrad 03/24/2010 5:06am

    When did we start saying having insurance is a right? Insurance is a privilege, a benifit for those who earn it. The insurance I have comes with my job, its part of my compensation just like my pay check is. Why are we giving compensation to people who never earned it? Whats next, government run car insurance? When we start moving away from a merit-based society, society itself will collapse.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/24/2010 6:21am

    Your health insurance already covered the uninsured through added hospital costs when uninsured people are treated. Hospitals can’t and won’t let people die in the ER before they verify insurance coverage.

    This isn’t a rights based thing, it doesn’t cover all Americans, but serves to increase the insurability of those of us who are self employed or recently unemployed. Interesting that you mention car insurance, as much of the bill seems to emulate the government requirements on car insurance that most of us accept as common sense.


Vote on This Bill

29% Users Support Bill

1086 in favor / 2696 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments