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 91-120 of 211 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    caj51fish 03/26/2010 5:29am

    It was the only way to start the reform process without creating another entitlement.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • grant3719 12/24/2009 7:25am

    We must remember that one person’s “rights” stop where another person’s begin.
    This bill assumes that all people want insurance. I personally don’t want nor can I afford insurance. I want affordable “Health Care”. You are free to say what you want about me; I have heard it all before. However, it is my “right” not to patron any business I chose. Including Insurance companies.
    This whole bill has been about Insurance and never about the cost/PRICE of “Health Care”. Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent.
    Pharmaceutical companies have a profit margin of 16.4 percent—seventh highest of the 215 industries that Morningstar tracks.

    http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html

  • Comm_reply
    Leopardskinpillboxhat 11/15/2010 6:24pm

    Finally, someone writes an informed and insightful post. I couldn’t agree more!

  • applemanmatt 12/24/2009 6:24pm

    The problem with this so called public option is that it is not legit competition and that it will bankrupt the private health insurance industry, which is by definition called a single payer system. The best way to insure 48 million Americans and bring down costs is to allow employers to buy private insurance from other states. That is the best way to reform our health care system.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    applemanmatt 03/23/2010 11:17am

    “Because each state has it’s own set of rules in regards to what their package can and can not include, so most of the time the reason private insurance may be cheaper in one state rather than another is because the coverage isn’t as good as many might think.”

    So to solve the problem create a nationwide private health insurance market with nationwide policies of what a package can include…and ban companies from rejecting people from pre-existing conditions. That will fix our health care system.

  • Comm_reply
    magicalpig 12/30/2010 7:49am

    “So to solve the problem create a nationwide private health insurance market with nationwide policies of what a package can include…and ban companies from rejecting people from pre-existing conditions. That will fix our health care system.”

    And isn’t that what this bill aims to do?

  • KISS 12/26/2009 3:02pm

    California Health Care Almanac “…California’s large population, the number of people without insurance — 6.6 million — is the highest of any state.”
    That’s approximately 23% of America’s uninsured. A large % of that population choose not to purchase insurance. There ARE affordable plans with high deductables. My daughter is one of them.(Don’t lecture or judge). “Almost one third of uninsured Californians have family incomes of more than $50,000 per year.” Look at California, and you can see the direction of the nation – it’s quickly going in the toilet. This is my home, and it sickens me to see people like Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein in representing CA. The original complaint platform was to do something NOW! It’s urgent, we must stop the rising costs of health care. This bill is nothing about health care, it’s about insurance mandates that will increase health insurance premiums for the rest of us. The bill should be used as toilet paper.

  • nmeagent 12/26/2009 6:41pm

    All supporters of this bill, enjoy your victory while it lasts. Even if it passes:
    (a) It will be challenged immediately after being signed into law and some portions (if not all) will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. If not, the Constitution is effectively meaningless and we’re all in serious trouble.
    (b) It will likely be nullified by several state governments (e.g. Arizona) and have no effect there.
    © It will be ignored by those of us who understand the concept of limited government and will not be forced to buy a damned commodity (health insurance) for any reason whatsoever.
    (d) It will possibly be repealed following the 2010 or 2012 elections. I don’t think some of you realize how much political fallout this is going to cause.

  • LookingtoMakeaDifference 12/28/2009 4:19am

    I don’t want “affordable” insurance either. This defeats the whole purpose of Free Health Care, I’m thinking.

    I would like to walk into a doctor’s office/clinic with only my proper ID and simply leave with my ID and my prescription (if necessary). An insurance card would not be needed. I think that is what all of us are seeking. This bill is very confusing when it doesn’t have to be. We need to overthrow all of the insurance companies, we have the power NOT THEM.

    Is there a possibility of a public vote on this?

    Also, I don’t fully understand how this bill is unconsitiutional. Please don’t beat me up, I would just like to understand so I can support.

  • Comm_reply
    jnjnelson 12/30/2009 4:44am

    The Constitution of the United States of America is a document that defines the national government of the people of the United States. It is short and relatively easy to understand. The main purpose of the Constitution is to restrict those in government from practicing tyranny over the governed. It clearly defines the limited roles of the three branches of our national government, and prohibits those three branches from taking any actions outside their respective roles. Providing health care for every citizen is not within the limited role of any of the three branches, least of all Congress.

    The Constitution is like a “white list” of things government is allowed to do. Anything not on the list, government is not authorized to do.

  • Comm_reply
    jnjnelson 12/30/2009 4:46am

    Too many congressmen misunderstand the meaning of parts of the Constitution, especially the Preamble. Too many mistake “promote the general Welfare” to be “provide the general welfare.” Government doesn’t need to provide for the welfare of a free people – free people naturally provide it for themselves; freedom promotes the best general welfare possible, so government is charged with protecting freedom.

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 03/03/2010 9:57pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The GOP has forgotten their history altogether, and I quote: "Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan free labor, free land, free men. “Free labor” referred to the Republican belief in a mobile middle class that left the workforce and set up small businesses. “Free land” referred to Republican efforts to facilitate this spirit of entrepreneurship by giving away government owned land. The Party hoped that this rapid growth would help check, and eventually end slavery"

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 03/03/2010 9:58pm

    Most of what the Republican party’s original ideology has been warped, and tainted by greed. Especially the part regarding ending slavery, which in some sense isn’t true, yes people get paid for working, but how much, in all reality we should be receiving a minimum wage of 13.78 per hr (based on rate of inflation and consumer price index calculator), but we still don’t even see the $10 per hr. minimum wage yet. When “Big Businesses” close up shop in the US and put millions out of work, how in the world do you expect them to afford any health care costs? You try to live on a fixed income like they have for just one month, I dare you, and see how you fare. Walk a mile in the other’s shoes.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 12/31/2009 12:12pm

    It would be nice to do away with the middle man (insurance). It doen’t look like that will happen.

    The opponents quote the 10th Amendment to the constitution as their rational for the “unconstitutional” argument: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    What they leave out is that other social programs like unemployment and Social Security, have been upheld by the courts as constitutional under the “general welfare” clause of Article 1 sec. 8 of the Constitution. Will the bill congress is working on stand up in the courts? Hard to say. Most of these people scream “unconstitutional” at just about anything. Take it with a grain of salt.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 01/03/2010 5:38pm

    You conveniently leave out that the supreme court precedent for declaring these acts “constitutional” is a direct result of FDR’s thinly veiled threats to pack the court in the 1930s. The fact that social security and friends have been declared constitutional is not a valid argument for the constitutionality of this (or any other such) legislation but merely a symptom of a federal government not currently bound by the rule of law.

  • Comm_reply
    ComputerGranny 03/29/2010 2:43pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I’m not sure what you mean. It’s not a requirement to have insurance to get treatment. You just have to pay cash. The problem with the current system is people with insurance get the “contract” price. Anyone without it pays double or more for the same service. The price should be the same for all. Then, if you want insurance or can afford it, fine. If not, pay for the service when you get it. Save the money you don’t pay for premiums to pay for your care when you need it.

  • dawnd470 12/28/2009 9:00am

    This bill, quite frankly, frightens me. I admit I haven’t read the full text, but from what I hear and have read, it appears that every citizen will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance, but I haven’t seen or heard anything about regulating the cost of it. Sure, there’s talk about a subsidy for those who can’t afford it, but what are the eligibility requirements? If you want proof of the disaster this can be, look at Massachusetts. Their mandatory insurance premiums are forcing people to either bankrupt themselves or become criminals. If this passes and is signed into law, I foresee a situation in which people avoid getting healthcare at all…not only because they can’t afford it, but because they don’t want to be fined for not carrying mandated insurance. I have insurance, but my daughter, age 21 and working part time, does not. What will become of her and those like her who cannot afford to pay $500 a month for coverage?

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 03/03/2010 9:59pm

    And I suppose “The Patriot Act” is constitutional? Why weren’t you screaming when that was passed? (By a republican president/congress, I might add)

  • nfarrow 12/30/2009 5:17am

    Was kind of reading the bill and looking at, “INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT” and from what it reads, “has not attained the age of 30 before the beginning of the plan year” page 115. So does that mean that not everyone is covered if the individual is over the age of 30 when trying to enroll would be denied coverage? Not saying I wish it wasn’t not passed just kind wanted to know who is covered.

  • ShawnFultonLucas 01/09/2010 11:03pm

    Don’t Tax Middle-Class Health Benefits

    American Federation of Televsion & Radio Artists are among millions of working Americans who will be seriously harmed by a proposed tax on health care benefits currently proposed in the latest version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590). A tax on middle-class Americans’ health benefits is the wrong way to finance health care reform. Please take a minute to call or write your representatives in Washington D.C. and tell them there are better ways to pay for health care reform.

    As a member and/or supporter of the American Federation of Television and and Radio Artists, a union representing more than 70,000 members, I am urging you to take out of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) a provision that would burden the middle-class with a tax on their benefits.

    The goal of health care reform is to make it both accessible and affordable for average Americans. A tax like this would defeat that goal.

  • suzieqs 01/10/2010 2:57am

    To all who don’t like the health care reform bill that’s currently in conference, tell me what you’d do to make health care more affordable. Since the “free market” doesn’t work. Do you feel that those who currently can’t afford it to just die? Deny them any assistance at all? I hear all of you complaining about it costing more in taxes, increasing our deficit. Do you complain about the salaries of our elected officials? How many other workers can vote in their own raises? To me their raises should be voted on by the taxpayers themselves and not them. Your opintions please.

  • a1marineonr 01/13/2010 9:25pm

    All of you don’t seem to realize the senate version is just a boost and another way for the insurance co.‘s to pillage from more Americans. You might be better informed if not for the corporate propaganda machine (Media). Why would you imagine the push to kill off PBS. The house bill would give us all a better chance to buy some more affordable health care. At any cost it will be MORE out of my pocket,working 16hrs. a day for a company that can’t help with med care, than it is for anyone in Congress.We TAXPAYERS pay 80% of their med care.Look at how much the Ins. co.‘s are spending to LOBBY the Senate. The BEST way for the Majority of us that make less than 250K per yr to get any representation in congress is with election reform.If you think of the saying “MONEY talks bs walks” we need to keep the free-flowing corporate money out of the equation,you and I,don’t have enough to get behind closed doors to keep honest politicians honestly for the people that elected them.HOPE fr the house

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 01/19/2010 3:59pm

    Good luck with the election reform. I agree, the House bill was a much better bill. We’re lucky to get anything out of this congress. I hope they try to fix this after the mid-term elections. The compromise is not sounding promising. I’d disagree with you about your representation. You are being better represented than you have been for nearly 2 decades. Just hang on and keep voting.

  • WoodyK 01/15/2010 8:50am

    Lets discuss the military First Time Home Buyers Tax Act of 2009. Will this bill which was separate from the Patient Protection Act of 2009 initailly ever even be utilized for this tax year after all April 2010 in the tax deadline. Seems crazy how this bill became tied to health care which is more important to Americans for obvious reasons. Will the military personnel ever be able to get the $8,000 first time homebuyers or will they just take the loss because time the bill will remain discussed even though already passed in the senate. Bill of the magnitude “health care” should never be tied to other bills.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 01/19/2010 4:12pm

    The military home buyers’ help you are seeking has been signed into law. This has been a mess of a way to do business. Partisans. Dug in. Fighting a war of attrition over small patches of rules in order to win the bigger battles. Democracy at it’s most frustrating.

  • M4Finny 01/15/2010 2:11pm

    “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, 1816

  • LucasFoxx 01/19/2010 4:14pm
    “I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116907 Perhaps you meant this for H.R.4173 – Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act?

Vote on This Bill

29% Users Support Bill

1085 in favor / 2695 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments