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 511-540 of 719 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/12/2009 9:36pm

    The same issue is in H.R.3395: “The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement,” until completely adjudicated. We have enough holes in our false advertising laws as it is. Wouldn’t this just add more loopholes for an industry that already profits from selling amphetamines to teenagers disguised as nutritional supplements?

    *Great avatar.

  • bkrueg 11/13/2009 7:05am

    The former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, insisted that “there are other ways to reform health care without violating our Constitution and our personal liberties.”
    “Let’s get back to discussing market-driven, patient-centered, result-driven solutions, like, for example, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, tackling existing government waste and fraud, and reforming medical malpractice laws (tort reform) to stop unwarranted lawsuits that force doctors to order unnecessary procedures just to cover themselves,” she wrote.
    “Please let your senators know that the Pelosi bill should be dead on arrival,” she continued. “Once we go down this Big Government path, it will be virtually impossible to reverse course. Let’s fight for the reform that makes sense for Americans before it’s too late.”
    I agree with these words of the former governor and vice presidential candidate, how about you liberals?

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/13/2009 12:59pm

    Obama is proposing one government health insurance plan for those under 65 to go along with the private ones. Medicare is actually single-payer, government-run health insurance for people over 65. According to the Harris poll it is tied for third place in popularity of government programs:
    The National Park Service: 85%
    Crime-fighting and prevention services: 77%
    Medicare: 76%
    Social Security: 76%
    I think market driven works if you have real competition, but I neither trust nor want my health care in the hands of big insurance companies or large health conglomerates. Many of these same ideas have been part of the discussion since 1948. Obama endorsed the same tort reform presented by the Bush Administration and was rebuked by the minority, Bush’s own party. Careful don’t step on State’s rights when you talk about going across State Lines. Some of these ideas should be included in the bill as long as a government plan is also part of the equation.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/13/2009 3:10pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Part-term Alaska governor and professional spokes model, Sarah Palin, prostituting for the insurance industry, recited, “there are other ways to reform health care without violating our Constitution and our personal liberties,” just like it says in the BCBS pamphlet she was given to memorize.

    “market-driven” –Check
    “patient-centered” –Check
    “result-driven solutions” –Check
    “insurance across state lines” –Check
    “GOVERNMENT waste and fraud” –Check
    “tort reform” –Check
    “dead on arrival” – Extra Bonus Credit
    “Big Government” –Check

    Pay her and move on.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/13/2009 4:34pm

    ROFL-I knew I could count on you LIBERALS lucasfoxx. You liberals are so full of hate and venom you couldn’t resist. Just say the name Sarah Palin and you all crap your pants trying to belittle and besmirch her. Attack the messenger and not the message. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin lol She hasn’t said anything that hasn’t been written in this thread before yet you call her a whore for saying it. SHAME ON YOU. JUST-SAY-NO TO OBAMA/PALOSI CARE.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/13/2009 6:38pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Hatred and venom may be your domain, but they are not mine. I would have applied the same mocking attitude if you had quoted Paris Hilton or Carrie Prejean or Dick Morris, all of whom have the same level of credibility. It amuses me that you find her worthy to quote. It disappoints me that the Republican party and the conservative movement in general is allowing an empty suit like that to further tear themselves apart and lead them to irrelevance.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/13/2009 11:10pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I don’t have a particularly high opinion of Sarah Palin myself, but if you look past the rhetoric her statement is fundamentally correct. There are many other legal ways of improving the health care situation. By legal I mean the opposite of illegal, as in not blatantly unconstitutional.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/14/2009 6:46am

    Health Care reform is not Unconstitutional and if those against it think it is then take it to the supreme court and let them decide after all that is how our constitution works.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 8:12am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The concept of health care reform is not necessarily unconstitutional. The Congress could legally pass a bill which removes restrictions to interstate commerce in order to keep that commerce ‘regular’ according to the original definition of the word. However, this health care bill is unconstitutional. I’d like you to tell me exactly where in Article I Section 8 it authorizes Congress to mandate the purchase of health care, create a public option to compete with private citizens, or regulate any part of the many private plans in existence today. I’ll save you some time — it’s not there.

    Also, read the 9th Ammendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I have the right not to be forced to purchase health care, etc.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 8:31am

    Please identify the sections of this bill that are unconstitutional and please tell us how.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/14/2009 1:16pm

    You say that it is unconstitutional from your interpretation. I say that you don’t get to make that determination for the whole Country. The Supreme Court makes that interpretation. You are forced by penalty of law to pay taxes, which have been held constitutional. Even though we don’t like paying taxes it provides a means for the services that maintain our infrastructure. If we don’t have that infrastructure then our commerce is restricted. So it is not black and white like some would believe, our constitution is a roadmap that gives us direction, as a society we must interpret that roadmap under the circumstances of today. Our children must also work with what we leave them like what our forefathers or previous administrations left for us. No one likes to be forced to do anything, but private enterprise has had over 60 years to work for a better health care system and they have failed. It is time for our government to reform that failed system.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 2:04pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I can burglarize my neighbors, liquidate their possessions, and do quite a lot of good for a single homeless person. Noone likes to have their possessions stolen, of course, but my neighbors clearly have had years to help that person. Never mind the law; it is merely a roadmap and can be broken at will for the right cause.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/14/2009 2:46pm

    Laws are how we define the roadmap. Your analogies are extreme to the point of ridicules. The comparison of the health care and a homeless person seems interesting considering the lack of mental health services correlate directly with an increase in the homeless population. This bill does not burglarize or liquidate your possessions, but it does require that you have health insurance. That particular part of the bill was what the insurance industry supported. They were upset when the percentage of those covered went down a few percent, saying it would not work for them unless everyone is required to have insurance.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 4:42pm

    Laws are how we define the roadmap, sure, but you’re way off of the road. My example is only extreme by degree. Why does the government get to ignore the laws that govern its behavior whenever it is convenient?

  • Comm_reply
    brking 11/22/2009 3:06am

    although it will be up to the supreme court to interpret it. Article I, section 8 [very bottom] "Congress shall have the power to… make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    This is know as the elastic clause which was intended to help the government adjust to unforeseen events or changes. still it is up to the supreme court if this is “necessary and proper”. which is still mostly conservative. so it might be declared unconstitutional. still i getting the feel you can almost justify any law as “necessary and proper” but i really know nothing about it’s legal interpretation, other than what i just said.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/23/2009 6:27am

    The reason Pelosi never answered the question about the constitutional foundation for the legislation, is because quite simply, there is none. There is no legitimate basis in the Constitution for the government to control decisions regarding what health care a person receives, what medical services and medications are appropriate for a patient, who is to pay for those services and products and how much they are to cost. At a recent Commerce Committee hearing, during which concerns were raised about the constitutionality of such legislation, and about the principle of “federalism,” Rockefeller proudly proclaimed his constitutional disinterest thus — “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights on this one. I care about results.” by Bob Barr

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 8:24am

    I have yet to hear a compelling argument spelling out how health care reform, in general, is un-constitutional. They cite the 10th Amendment which states: 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. But the Supreme Court of the United States has already held that legislation, that is not geographically specific, addressing basic human needs and our common fragile mortality – such as the Social Security Act and unemployment insurance – is constitutional under the “general welfare” clause in Article I Sec. 8 (See United States v. Butler, HELVERING v. DAVIS, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,…). Do you have any Case Law or Supreme Court precedent that supports your theory? Of are you basing your opinion on your own personal interpretation of the Constitution?

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 1:22pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I’m not a Supreme Court justice, so how dare I interpret the Constitution?!

    Only taxation for general welfare is constitutional as suggested by the text; the Congress may not appropriate those funds for anything not otherwise enumerated in Article I Section 8. Taxation that’s sole goal is to enable legislation is also forbidden. Did you read the opinion in United States v. Butler (http://openjurist.org/297/us/1) or did you just skim the wikipedia article? It does not support your assertion. Neither does Steward (http://openjurist.org/301/us/548 — McReynold’s dissenting opinion is particularly interesting, btw) since it only addresses titles III (grants to state unemployment programs) and IX (unapportioned excise taxes wrt. employment) of the Social Security Act. Helvering supports you but is poorly reasoned and an utter travesty.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/14/2009 2:25pm

    Good internet law review, but it still is a question that will be answered by the court if the bill gets challenged. Health Care for the general welfare seems like a good fit to me?
    You are not enabling the legislation with the funds generated through this bill. The funds generated are used to pay for health insurance.
    And yes it is always a travesty when the decision goes against what you want.
    You can always give you interpretation of the constitution and I would encourage it. The point was that you will not decide, the court will. Although I do appreciate your arguments they give me pause, I just have a different view.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 3:24pm

    United States v. Butler: "the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.”

    Steward Machine Co. v. Davis: “The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. The nation responded to the call of the distressed.”

    But you’ve answered my question; it was your opinion. And you are entitled to it.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 4:17pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    “Congress has no power to enforce its commands on the farmer to the ends sought by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. It must follow that it may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance. The Constitution and the entire plan of our government negative any such use of the power to tax and to spend as the act undertakes to authorize. It does not help to declare that local conditions throughout the nation have created a situation of national concern; for this is but to say that whenever there is a widespread similarity of local conditions, Congress may ignore constitutional limitations upon its own powers and usurp those reserved to the states.” …

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 8:08pm

    Irrelevant. This is clearly more than a “similarity of local conditions.”

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/15/2009 8:14am

    Your ability to cherry pick and ignore context is amazing. Do I have to quote every paragraph in the decision perhaps? With the 1000 character limit that would take awhile…

    The quotation is perfectly relevant to the decision. You do know what the decision was, don’t you? I somewhat apologize for my mocking tone, but I believe it is necessary here. If you’re going to continue to be extremely obtuse on the subject, there’s really no point in arguing further. I can see this devolving into an endless series of “Yes it is! No it isn’t! Yes it is! No it isn’t!” I’m taking my ball and going home; good day, sir.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/15/2009 6:38pm

    Since that is the best you can do, we have something we can agree on. Good day.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 4:18pm

    … “If, in lieu of compulsory regulation of subjects within the states’ reserved jurisdiction, which is prohibited, the Congress could invoke the taxing and spending power as a means to accomplish the same end, clause 1 of section 8 of article 1 would become the instrument for total subversion of the governmental powers reserved to the individual states.”

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 4:20pm

    You really should read the entire opinion. Your quote was Justice Story’s opinion on the subject in support of a particular point.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 8:08pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Perhaps you should learn how to read them. Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court using Justice Story’s conclusion in buttressing the majority opinion; just as it supports mine.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/15/2009 8:17am

    Certainly, but I persist that the decision itself does not support your ‘general welfare’ assertions.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 4:40pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Steward was concerned with two titles of the Social Security Act that arguably are constitutional. The decision doesn’t really support your case. Title IX is constitutional because it does not actually appropriate any money and is not apparently coercive (enough?) and didn’t violate the 9th and 10th ammendments. If it had or was, it would probably have been struck down as in Butler. As for title III, it appears that it does not really affect the sovereignty of the states since the grants in question are linked to state programs which can basically disappear at the whims of their legislatures. I found the title III discussion a little arcane, actually.

    The other quotes were from Butler, btw.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 8:10pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    It looks like you got your titles mixed up. Title IX is the Tax on Employers of Eight or More. And Title III was deemed separable from title IX, and its validity was “not at issue.” Other than that, you haven’t told me anything I don’t already know. You’ll find it is rarely the crux of a case, but usually the questions in the case and the opinion of the Court on those questions that are most often used as precedent. The question was the scope of the “general welfare” clause.


Vote on This Bill

23% Users Support Bill

980 in favor / 3296 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments