H.R.3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. view all titles (10)

All Bill Titles

  • 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: Affordable Health Care for America Act as introduced.
  • Short: Affordable Health Care for America Act as introduced.
  • Short: Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Affordable Health Care for America Act as passed house.
  • Short: Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009 as passed house.
  • Official: An act to provide a physician payment update, to provide pension funding relief, and for other purposes. as amended by senate.
  • Short: Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 as passed senate.
  • Short: Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Short: Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 as enacted.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 719 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    jasonledtke 11/08/2009 5:20am

    Factually incorrect. BCBS is far from a monopoly in any state.

    Allowing insurance across state lines would indeed inspire competition — states would be inspired to reduce consumer protection in order to attract insurance businesses. One state would ultimately benefit with new jobs and some tax revenue, but the citizens living in the other 49 states would pay the price of decreased protection… and they would have no recourse because they can’t vote in the state where the rules regulating them are passed.

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

    The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a national federation of 39 independent, community-based and locally operated Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies, that collectively provide healthcare coverage for 100 million – one in three – Americans. The Association is headquartered in Chicago, with offices in Washington, D.C.
    You want to take your health care financial coverage away from someone with whom you have legal recourse in the courts and give it to big government who you cannot sue and who has the power to fine you and/or put you in jail. How stupid is that?

  • Comm_reply
    shc227 11/30/2009 5:45am

    Thats idiotic. The insurance companies wouldn’t need to move to the states where they would now be doing business. How would the other 49 pay “the price of decreased protection”? These are businesses, they have to compete for your monthly premiums. If the price goes up, you don’t vote them out, you change companies.

    And it is factually correct that BCBS is a monopoly in Alabama. As a result, they have squeezed physician reimbursement, with no recourse by the physicians (they can’t drop them because all of their patients are BCBS customers, hence the monopoly). They have shifted all of the risk to the hospitals by paying a per diem amount, regardless of the reason for admission or the costs associated with the admission. Their premiums are actually very reasonable, but the coverage is poor and the out of pocket expenses are high, and there are very few coverage choices for the consumer.

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 11/07/2009 4:05am

    Another one with that me mentality her family has PAID into our society, for God only knows how many years her husband has worked proir to their situation, but they have paid for health insurance, why shouldn’t everyone help pay for everyone else’s health care if everyone shared the burden then no one would have these excessive fees.

    Also, I’m sure you’d be right there at the front of the line with your hand out if your family was starving.

  • Comm_reply
    shc227 11/30/2009 7:05am

    We will all have the excessive fees, the only difference is the amount of the fees will go up with politicians running healthcare. It would be great if “everyone” paid for “everyone else’s healthcare” and that is the way it works with people owning a private health insurance plan (at least everyone within that plan). That is not the way it works with government run healthcare. Under the compassion of the government, they take a much higher “premium” from people who pay the most taxes and give it to those making less than 400% of the poverty level. All the while, they will be skimming huge amounts off the top for untold political favors and general governmental, bureaucratic wastefulness. This bill creates HUGE bureaucracy and unlimited decision making power to politicians that you didn’t elect and you won’t have the right to argue with them.

  • Comm_reply
    LividMonkey 03/23/2010 6:00am

    Wait, I’m confused Abatts1. You held a benefit to help your friend with his medical bills but you don’t want to pay other people’s bills. I mean, I know you know this guy, but I’m sure that everyone who donated didn’t. What’s the difference? You’re not making a clear and concise point. Basically you’re saying that if you don’t know the person then you don’t want to pay for their bills. But, at the same time, you’re expecting others to foot somebody’s bill out of good will for the mere fact that you know the guy. That’s the twisted logic that is ruining America. If the problem in not on your front door then you don’t want to deal with it.

  • Comm_reply
    khaentlahn 03/23/2010 8:19am

    There is a big difference in the two scenarios, choice and force. With the benefit, no one had to help his friend at all, but they made the ‘choice’ to do so regardless whether they knew him. With the bill, you are no longer given that choice, but are ‘forced’.

    Freedom is the power to determine your actions.

    The people at the benefit chose to use that freedom by donating money to help someone else and should be applauded for being responsible. This bill is simply another freedom we’re being denied, because we aren’t considered responsible enough toward our fellow men to do so ourselves.

  • Comm_reply
    coloratura29 10/29/2009 4:39pm

    I really feel for you and your situation. You were not stupid to get sick. No one can help that. However, there are supplemental insurance plans that can always be bought ahead of time to cover those sorts of catastrophes. I have always carried AFLAC insurance whenever I can for just the reason you stated. The great thing about their coverage is that they pay you directly and very quickly in the case of an incident. Most employers offer AFLAC these days. Even if they don’t, they are not that expensive to buy on an individual basis. there have been times in my life where they were the only insurance I carried and I paid cash for the normal doctors visits. It was sooo much cheaper this way than getting the cheap health insurance (Florida has some great inexpensive plans).

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 11/08/2009 3:06am

    Have you ever really had to use AFLAC? Well I have and it’s a real joke. You have to be out of work for 2 weeks + before AFLAC will even become active and you’re lucky if you receive a payment by week 10 after you’re injured.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    shc227 11/30/2009 6:16am

    I find it hard to believe that any BCBS plan (and btw, I am not a fan of BCBS) has a plan that would allow for $40K in out of pocket expenses. You were not “stupid” to have a health emergency, but you may not have been wise to select the plan that you did select.

    You must also know that the plans outlined by this bill will not cover all of your out of pocket expenses either.

    Please don’t blame the good ole’ USofA for your maladies, and the freedom and choice we enjoy in this country have nothing to do with your medical issues. This bill eliminates some of the freedom and choices of many Americans, it doesn’t expand freedom or choice for any American. I tremble to think that people would rather have the government manage their helathcare instead of corporations that have to compete with one another.

  • Comm_reply
    shc227 11/30/2009 6:16am

    Look over your policy, get a customer service agent on the phone, negotiate with the providers you owe money to to only pay what BCBS would pay (a greatly reduced amount) and get out and sell some donuts. You can overcome this without begging for entitlements from the government.

  • eszeto 10/29/2009 10:21am

    If this is anything like the Baucus bill in the Senate, then the basic public health plan won’t have abortion coverage, but the “premium” plans will. Also, if this is like the Baucus bill, then all health insurance providers will be required to have some “premium” plan that will include abortion. And, even if the plan you select doesn’t cover abortion, it will have to charge you “no less than $1” as part of your premium to cover abortions for the “premium” plans.

    In other words, like it or not, you’ll be paying for abortions.

    I haven’t read this new bill yet, but the Chairman’s Mark that Baucus started with in September had this information in it. I also haven’t read S.1796 (the official bill) yet, but I’m sure his guidelines about paying for abortion made it into the final bill.

  • Comm_reply
    coloratura29 10/29/2009 4:31pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    After I wrote my first comment I did see further in to the bill language that states something to the effect that no credit money can go to the funding of abortions…however, it left it open in other areas. There are just enough loopholes to keep it open for debate further down the line .

    Like you said, in combination with the Baucus Bill, they can say down the line that the taxpayer money isn’t going towards the abortion, but the premium paid above the credit is going to fund the abortion. It’s all semantics.

    My point is this, no government plan should pay for abortions whether it is a premium plan where the recipient is paying part of the premium or not. The fact is, abortions (unless medically necessary for the life of the mother)are always elective procedures and come with more risks than benefits. If private companies want to offer abortions as a way to compete and beat out the government, then so be it. That is their perogative whether I like it or not.

  • Comm_reply
    nomadwolf 10/30/2009 12:35am

    If I want to participate in a program that covers abortion, why can’t I pay for the right to have it covered?
    The program will not require you to purchase such coverage.

    Additionally, you do not consider the cost of severely deformed babies that would require intensive medical care after birth and may only survive days weeks or months. Even if the mother’s life is not at risk (though all child birth has some inherent risk), this is hardly an elective procedure.

    As I said, regardless of how you view the issue, I should have the right to purchase insurance that covers legal medical procedures.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/30/2009 11:23am

    President Obama’s health care plan has sparked alarm among Roman Catholic bishops who say that without an explicit prohibition on federal funding for abortion, it could be included in taxpayer-subsidized coverage offered through the plan.
    Roman Catholic bishops are launching a massive e-mail campaign opposing the sweeping health care reform plan being proposed by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, because they say it will allow federal funds to pay for abortions.
    Obama’s health care plan has sparked alarm among Republicans and conservative Democrats who say that without an explicit prohibition on federal funding for abortion, it could be included in taxpayer-subsidized coverage offered through the plan.
    The Supreme Court established in 1973 that women have the right to have an abortion, but federal law prohibits government funds from being used to pay for the procedure in most cases.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 2:20am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    As it should.

  • Comm_reply
    lindatemp 10/31/2009 2:38am

    How can you compare the cost of healthcare for sick babies with the cost of an abortion? How are the two related? 99% of babies aborted are perfectly healthy. They’re NOT aborted because of birth defects (except in very rare cases). They are aborted for the most part because their existence is inconvenient for someone else. We all know from common sense that an unborn baby is just that – a baby. It‘s exactly what each of us has been at some point. We were all unborn babies –then infants – then children -then adolescents -then adults. Fortunately for you, you were given the right to stay alive (to live long enough to take away that right from another ).

    You have a legal right to an abortion, pay for it yourself. (A moral and ethical right is a different issue). You have to answer for what you do in your life. As for me, I don’t want to participate in any way, shape or form in the taking of an innocent life.

    You don’t have the right to make me participate.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 2:18am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    But, who’s call is it? Really? Who has the right to hold the power to take or give life to a child? It’s just as bad as capital punishment! No one has the right to take someone else’s life.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 2:16am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Exactly, you wouldn’t want the taxpayers to have to pay for liposuction or cosmetic surgery right? Right! Elective surgeries should not be covered.

  • NotAPundit 10/29/2009 11:34am

    1990 pages of text, obfuscating a convoluted mess that is going to cost us more money for less care, and fewer choices.

    What on earth makes congress think that they have the constitutional power to pass this in the first place?

  • Comm_reply
    deborahg6 10/29/2009 2:32pm

    Congress could care less about the Constitution….it’s all about their own perceived power. Power that will be nonexistent to them in 2010 if this bill passes.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 10/30/2009 8:11am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    THATS $2.2 M PER WORD.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 10/30/2009 5:24pm

    That’s a savings of $260,000 per word.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/02/2009 7:17am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The Senate Health Bill: Yet Another Budget Gimmick
    In the desperate attempt to portray their massive new spending bill as “budget neutral,” Congress and the Obama Administration are relying on more desperate measures to hide the true cost of the legislation. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes Section 1209, aka the “Fail-Safe Mechanism to Prevent Increase in Federal Budget Deficit.” But it is more than just a budget gimmick, it is an unprecedented change in the balance of power from Congress to the President that ought to unite liberals and conservatives in opposition to it. This is either a dangerous or cynical game.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/02/2009 1:52pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    “unprecedented” Really. You’re kind of a gimmick yourself.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 2:23am

    And all you are doing is attacking him and not addressing the issue.

  • Comm_reply
    tob1303 11/03/2009 6:58am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    How is it less choices? explain that statement please. It’s in fact, adding choice for those who can’t currently afford any of the choices available.

  • Comm_reply
    NotAPundit 11/03/2009 9:11am

    In order to be a government-approved health plan, an insurance plan (that we are mandated to buy whether we want it or not) must have certain characteristics. Families like mine will have to buy more expensive plans with coverage we won’t use in order to meet the requirement. Additionally, plans with coverage that is “too good” by government standards face punitive taxes — meaning it will cost at least 40% more than it does now for a more feature-rich plan covering my son’s speech therapy, which the government has deemed a “luxury”.

    Also, as we’ve seen before, the government uses health coverage it pays for (medicaid, medicare) to enforce its whims on people who pay for their own care. For example, I cannot find a doctor who does not use the horribly insecure prescription database that the government requires all medicaid and medicare providers use. I don’t want my or my son’s information in such a system, but I don’t have a choice thanks to our federal government.

  • Comm_reply
    shc227 11/30/2009 7:16am

    You are confusing the choices of those who will be paying for this debacle and those getting the new entitlement. Paying consumers, purchasing a product will have less choice because the coverage provided for under any plan will be dictated by our dictator. The people on the receiving end won’t have any choice either, they will get the basic plan. Problem is, we don;t know what the basic plan is until after they pass this bill. It may be that the basic plan still leaves them high and dry for most things and they will end up in the ER anyway. But the important thing is that they will have a shiny new insurance card and that should make all the libs feel warm and fuzzy with their loss of freedom and their higher taxes.


Vote on This Bill

23% Users Support Bill

981 in favor / 3297 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments