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 601-630 of 719 total comments.

  • bkrueg 11/19/2009 5:55am

    The Senate bill has many similarities to the House-passed measure, but with some important differences.
    Reid called for increasing the Medicare payroll tax by half a percentage point to 1.95 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals, $250,000 for couples.
    He also included a tax on high-value insurance policies, meant to curb the appetite for expensive care.
    Reid would allow the new government insurance plan to cover abortions and would let companies that receive federal funds offer insurance plans that include abortion coverage.
    A provision in the House bill — passed at the insistence of anti-abortion Democrats over strenuous objections from liberals — banned both those things. Reid attempted to tighten up the abortion language to strictly segregate private from public funds, but that did not pass muster with the National Right to Life Committee, which issued a statement Wednesday night calling the language “completely unacceptable.” JUST-SAY-NO TO OBAMA/POLESI CARE

  • bkrueg 11/19/2009 6:05am

    “It’s classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, presidential, you can’t find a mention of public option,” Lieberman said. “It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform — insurance market reforms, cover people, cover people who are not covered. JUST-SAY-NO TO OBAMA/POLESI CARE

  • bkrueg 11/19/2009 11:10am

    Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

    What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services. JUST-SAY-NO TO THIS POWER GRAB BY OBAMA.

  • bkrueg 11/19/2009 12:12pm

    ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:
    On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”
    SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.
    I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.
    Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.
    How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.
    MARY LANDRIEU’S VOTE HAS BEEN BOUGHT. JUST-SAY-NO TO THE OBAMA POWER GRAB.

  • bmwtriton 11/19/2009 7:08pm

    “The Obama administration, as inexperienced as they are, are also holding back some of the TARP funds (which aren’t doing any good anyway) so that they can use some of the money to get the “Blue Dogs” on board with this healthcare bill and buy their votes with pork barrel project money to their districts and state(s)."

    If that is the case, then it’s bribery, and bribery is an impeachable offense and a felony. Also, according to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, only Congress can appropriate funds, not the president, and any funds previously appropriated may not be reappropriated without an act of Congress. Any official involved in this bribery should be immediately removed from office, prosecuted for bribery, and, if convicted, sentenced appropriately.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/20/2009 2:02am

    Amen

  • Comm_reply
    brking 11/22/2009 2:12am

    it’s not bribery because it goes to help that state in some way, even if it is a pet project. last time i look 99% of congressmen and woman this year have placed earmarks in laws. as you know earmarks are know for there pork-n-barrel quality.—→ http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/earmarks.php <—- anyways they accept these extra funds becomes they want to get reelected, and they want funding for PAC’s to fund their campaign.
    Appropriated funds are accounts represent funds made available to the Departments a result of an act of Congress that permits the Department to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Department of Treasury for
    specified purposes. In other words congress gives them the a budget and they are obligated to some extent by a time limit to spend it. don’t worry if enough people are worried about not getting tarp funds congress also has the power to form special oversight committees to make sure the fund are being spend in the manner they legislated.

  • bkrueg 11/20/2009 7:26am

    November 20, 2009
    Categories:Polls
    Sub-50%
    President Obama’s job approval numbers will dip below 50% for the first time today in Gallup’s daily tracking poll, according to a Gallup official.

    “Gallup Daily tracking results just in. Obama will be below 50% for the first time when we update our numbers at 1:00 p.m.,” wrote Gallup.com managing news editor Lymari Morales on Twitter.

  • steveocray 11/20/2009 4:22pm

    Socialisum works great until you run out of other peoples money.

  • nobama1 11/22/2009 4:34pm

    Affordable Health Care for America?? How about get off your rear and get a job. I mean this for the people that are sucking the system dry. Im tired of people that have been on it for years!!! I have worked hard for many years and paid my taxes, and now OBAMA is going to take away everything I’ve worked for all my life by taxing me to DEATH!!!! NO TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE!!! I’VE WORKED HARD FOR WHAT I HAVE FOR MANY YEARS!!!!!

  • Comm_reply
    nermin 11/22/2009 6:55pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I respect your opinion but just one thought. How are you going to loose everything if the people who make over $250K a year are paying a little bit more in taxes? Additionally, how are you not afraid that you are going to loose your house and everything you own should you get really sick (with something serious like cancer)?

    Do you understand that your insurance company won’t cover many things and that they may even drop you completely if you get really sick? What do you do then? Look for another insurance company? Well, good luck with that — no insurance company will want you because you have a “pre-existing condition”.

    What do you do then? Sell everything you own to save your life?

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/23/2009 5:06am

    The news is now $200,000.00 per year will pay for your medical. That is just one more broken promise by the Obama Administration. Soon it will by your turn to pay because Obama is spending America into bankruptcy on purpose.

    Obama team makes it official: Budget deficit hits record. $12.026 TRILLION 11/23/2009. ($2.84 BILLION PER DAY)
    A year ago, as the financial crisis hit and the Bush administration prepared massive bailout plans, the deficit was $455 billion.
    Republicans cited record deficits as another reason to oppose Obama’s health care plan and other big projects. “No more spending money we don’t have,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/23/2009 5:31am

    Correction: $12 TRILLION DEPT. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion—the highest since World War II—as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.
    There is no relief in sight, as spending far outpaces revenues and the federal budget is projected to be in enormous deficit every year

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/23/2009 7:37am

    Its amazing that this country hasnt gone bankrupt yet… $1.4T deficit and over $12T in debt… One might ask how can we afford this bill? Hmmm…

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/23/2009 5:51am

    First of all, you’re example is to the fear-mongering extreme.

    Secondly, most states require public hospitals provide treatment of patients despite whether or not they have health insurance. If people cannot foot the bill, that burden then placed on the taxpayers to take care of.

    So… with that said; what is the difference between that and a “public option”? Either way, taxpayer dollars are going towards treatments for people who cant afford good quality health coverage.

  • Comm_reply
    bravo6lima 11/24/2009 11:32am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The difference is that under the current situation,I’m not forced to take part under threat of jail.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/01/2009 4:25am

    What about the people who have never had means or opportunity to be able to get the education that they needed to land a good paying job that has health benefits? Don’t get me wrong here, I’m against this bill in its entirety, but claiming people need to get off their butts and get a job is not the answer to this problem. There are still many Americans that have jobs, but are still struggling to make ends meet and therefore cannot afford health insurance.

    The key to health coverage is to provide low income and middle income Americans with better opportunities for access to low cost/ affordable health insurance. Something that would not interfere with their ability to put bread on the table. Mandating health coverage and fining for not having health coverage is not going to fix the problem.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/01/2009 4:31am

    Not to mention the greater amount of public debt that will ensue from this.

    Just because the government says that we are going to force you to have health insurance, but we’re going to give you a public run option doesn’t mean that its going to provide availability to all of those who need it.

    I’ve been married for 8 years now. When my wife and I were first married, we only brought in about $400 – $600 a month. We had barely enough money to pay rent and utilities. We went to the government for food stamps, child health care and child care. Both me and my wife had to work so someone HAD to take care of our child. We got the food stamps and was able to take care of health care for our daughter but they didn’t fully cover the cost of child care. The rest of that had to come from us and we could not afford it. Who’s to say that this same time of situation isn’t going to happen to another low income family in regards to health care?

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/01/2009 4:36am

    The point of what I’m saying is that Government Bureaucracy always gets in the way of the welfare of the citizen. Your Government liaison isn’t working their job because they care about taking care of the less fortunate, they are there picking up a pay check and they don’t care about helping anyone get everything that they should.

    So, whether or not someone has a job is a completely ignorant means by which to get your point across.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 12/02/2009 7:27am

    It has been my experience that you get off your butt and get a job or two jobs to pay your bills and make a little extra for someone else in need. You don’t depend on the government handouts to solve your problems. Everyone that was not a deadbeat was sorry they went on the government dole afterwards because they take over your life and it’s even harder to get off. That is what government run healthcare is all about, paying for the deadbeats, illegal’s and abortionist. That the government employees exempted themselves from it should be enough to prove it is just a power takeover of our freedoms. The government is not fixing the problems in health care, they are the problem.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/03/2009 3:42am

    The current system still pays for the “deadbeats” who don’t foot the bill on their own. Who do you think foots the bill for the homeless guy who goes into the emergency room without insurance or a dime in his pocket? That would be you and I, Joe Schmo taxpayer. The only difference between these two things is that the new system with government run insurance puts a much heavier price tag on the taxpayer that, yes, will eventually trickle down to even the people who make below 100k/ year… It’s already dropped from 250k to 200k. Next it will be 150k, then 100k then 50k then every sees that outrageous increase in taxes. These decreases will happen in the future, when no one is paying attention… All of a sudden, WHAM! you’ve just lost another 1/4 of your paycheck to Uncle Sam.

    Regardless, it is short sighted to say that one should get out and get two or three jobs to cover the bills.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/03/2009 3:43am

    The statement that “its even harder to get off government run programs once you’re on them” is completely false. It is all about personal motivation, not a Government black hole. Case and point, with in a year I was off all government run programs and now 8 years later, I have three degrees; including a Masters degree. To make the statement true, you’d have to reword it to say “once most people are on a government run system, they’re too lazy to get off of it”, meaning its way too easy to have someone else pay your bills for you.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/03/2009 3:52am

    Heck, I’ve just come up with a brilliant plan! Something to make all you die hard socialists/ communists froth at the mouths… Lets just completely negate a paycheck it its entirety. Lets just give all our money to the Government and let them take care of us. Let the Government give you a house that you can never own, or land that you can never own, let the government feed you and ensure that your family’s mouths are fed. I mean seriously, at this rate you wont have any money to pay your bills with or feed your family with. Lets just give all our money to the Government now and save ourselves the pain of ever increasing taxes over the course of our life times.

  • b58 11/24/2009 4:55am

    Looks like Reid wants to take a chance and push this bill through with the people saying no to the whole thing. People out of jobs and moving into the streets and they ignore that and push health care is way out of line. They even want to put people in prison for not buying health care. What part of broke do you not understand and require someone to buy something without money. We can’t raise money like the government does when they run out and raise taxes like that. The government has already cost us our jobs now they want to put another bill on us we can’t pay. I think we have a bunch of idiots running Washington.

  • bravo6lima 11/24/2009 11:46am

    Anyone who thinks that being threatened with punishment for failure to purchase a service is a good idea needs to have thier head examined.And don’t bring up the “car” insurance thing,cause that dog don’t hunt.More than taxes and cost,this is about the principle of being forced into a plan.Thats what’s going to happen eventualy,as employers drop the coverage they help provide and force all on the govt plan.When that happens,govt will have access to parts of our lives that it never had before,including taking a part in the decisions that will determine your care.Don’t tell me it wont happen,cause it will.Yes,more people will get healthcare,and thats a GOOD thing.But what will the end result be?You need to test the water before you dive in.We are not doing that and we’re going to hit our head on a rockif this bill ( and cap-n-tax) passes.

  • bravo6lima 11/24/2009 11:48am

    And why ARE the congress and senate exempt from this plan?Because it SUCKS ASS and they know it.

  • bravo6lima 11/24/2009 11:50am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Good thing I’m not a literary professor.Or a spell checker.

  • jonnyal71 11/24/2009 4:18pm

    I have been looking through the copy of my Constitution and I can not find where it states Americans must purchase anything. The HR 3962 Bill states that there will be a tax up to 2.5% if an individual does not have “acceptable” health care coverage. When someone locates it please let me know. Thanks.

  • Comm_reply
    Nolander 11/25/2009 2:12pm

    Found it.
    “SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
    ‘(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection
    (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
    ‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
    ‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”

    Now I didn’t put down all the limitations of this tax, because it depends on how long people go without healthcare coverage. This tax only affects people who have not been covered by some form of insurance. This doesn’t affect people who already have health insurance.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/25/2009 3:11pm

    Read your comment then go back and read who you are replying to… You just repeated the same thing he was talking about. If your coverage does not meet the minimum requirements then you will be subject to a tax.


Vote on This Bill

23% Users Support Bill

981 in favor / 3295 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments