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 451-480 of 719 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/12/2009 8:45am

    My oath of enlistment in 1967 was, "I,do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/12/2009 2:36am

    Logical deduction will lead you to that conclusion.

    The bill stipulates that the fine for no insurance coverage is levied by the Internal Revenue Service. If you fail to pay the fine to the Internal Revenue Service, you could face jail time. THAT is logical deduction.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/12/2009 5:35am

    Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on HR-3962.

    According to the JCT analysis, you could face a fine of up to 2.5 percent of your income (collected by the IRS, of course) if you fail to maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage.” And refusal to pay the fine “is punishable by a fine of up to 250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” Congressman Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.”
  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/12/2009 12:28pm

    This argument is a nothing but smoke and mirrors. If you choose to steal then Jail is an option. In this case a highly unlikely option. But if you feel that Jail should not be a punishment then what else would incentivize you paying your share of the bill?

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/13/2009 10:48pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    How Orwellian of you to insinuate that resisting theft is theft itself. Stealing suggests taking something that rightfully belongs to another. In this case, you’re basically saying that I am somehow responsible for covering someone else’s health care. No! I own myself and am responsible for my own health care; you own yourself and are responsible for yours. If you cannot afford health care, seek voluntary assistance (quite a lot of charitable activity occurs in this country without government incentive, strangely enough) rather than use government to confiscate time and energy from me. Let’s all mind our own business while keeping government engaged in things which benefit everyone equally (defense, say).

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/14/2009 6:42am

    Yes let’s all mind our own business while keeping government engaged in things which benefit everyone equally (Health Care, say). And if you would like to contribute to charity please do, but it is not a solution to Health Care. Those who cannot afford health care are a growing number with costs going up exponentially. You and I will pay for those costs until we can no longer afford it. When you can’t afford the care will you just live with pain? Will you become debilitated unable to work, or will you just die and reduce the surplus population. What the hell let those profit driven corporations decide who should be able to afford health care.

  • bkrueg 11/10/2009 1:47pm
    Rasmussen Reports ^ 11/10/2009 by SoFloFreeper The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10.

    45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY- Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted. The poll contradicts the claims of the White House, and doctors’ own lobby — the powerful A M A. It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% doctors disagree that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/11/2009 7:05am

    Investor’s Business Daily is opening admitting they are reporting on an incomplete survey. Let’s look at another recent poll about health reform:

    A recent NPR poll shows that “63 percent of doctors say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they’d like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent”. The raw numbers for this poll can be found at the The New England Journal of Medicine’s website.

    Here we have two polls that perfectly contradict each other. One way to differenciate between the analysis of these two polls is to look at who’s doing the analysis.

    In one corner we have NPR and the New England Journal of Medicine. In the other corner…

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/11/2009 8:45am

    “63% of doctors say they favor giving the patents a choice….” Stop lying to the American people. There is no choice in HR-3962 because this bill will force private doctors and private insurance companies out of business leaving only the Obama Care.
    INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY-Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
    IBD/TIPP Poll, RELATED TOPICS- Responses are still coming in, and doctors’ positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
    YOU HAVE MISSREPESENTED THE FACTS AGAIN.

  • SOOGLASS 11/10/2009 5:14pm

    The uninsured/underinsured show up at the ER regularly for basic needs that cost thousands instead of hundreds at preventative primary care facilities. The OR receives stroke/heart attack/trauma victims that have no insurance everyday costing hundreds of thousands. Many of these could have been prevented with regular medical care and medication. I see it every day!! Some of you don’t want to pay for their doctor visits? WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEIR EMERGENT CARE!!! MY GOD—- What do YOU THINK COSTS MORE?

  • mpacny 11/10/2009 5:44pm

    While men, women and children waited outside horse stables in Tennessee to recieve medical care from doctors (pro bono) just a few months ago the ceo of Cigna pocketed a measly 23 million in salary, bonuses and stock options, not to be outdone Aetna paid their ceo 25 million, how many mansions does one person need? The last thing this country needs is a health care bill drafted by self serving politicians at the behest of their insurance industry puppet masters, to the me, me, me, mine, mine, mine tea baggers in the audience I would just love to see the look on your faces when your 20 year policy is cancelled because of that pesky cancer or that heart disease issue has made you a liability.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/10/2009 6:26pm

    Who decides how large of a bonus is too large? You?

    I’d like to see the look on your face when a government bureacrat decides that there are too many people working on your career field or that your salary is too large.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/10/2009 6:27pm

    I’d like to see the look on my face when I finally, once and for all, remember to check my post for typos before submitting it.

  • Comm_reply
    bravo6lima 11/11/2009 5:42am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I’d like to see the look the look on your face when this bill passes,your 76 years old,and the feds decide the cost of your needed procedeure is too costly.I mean,you’ve already lived a long time,right?RATIONING.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/11/2009 6:35am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Scare tactics? Rationing is bull when talking about the Feds. Now if you want to talk about the current system then yes insurance companies ration based on risk. If you won’t live long enough to pay them the premiums to ensure profit you will be denied. I mean you’ve already lived a long time, right? RATIONING.

    How about we stop trying to scare people and start working to help people with real solution.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/11/2009 2:51pm

    Okay. I have a real solution: free-market capitalism completely unfettered by government. Of course, that will never happen as it involves the government relinquishing quite a lot of power.

  • bkrueg 11/11/2009 7:03am

    House Health-Care Bill Does Not Prohibit Paying Federal Funds to Health Providers Who Withhold Food and Water From Patients
    By Karen Schuberg
    CNSNews.com

    The health-care bill that cleared the House on Saturday says federal funds cannot be used to “promote” assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. But Rep. Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-La.), who is a surgeon, says the bill does not prohibit the use of federal funds to pay health care providers who provide “end-of-life care” that involves denying food and water to a patient.

    “H.R. 3962 does not rule out using federal funds to reimburse health providers should they withhold nutrition or hydration,” Boustany spokesman Rick Curtsinger said.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/11/2009 7:17am

    Another scare tactic! “End of Life Care” language is referring to helping those with terminal illness and those who have specific wishes when their time comes. Assisted suicide is unlawful and is not part of this bill. End of Life care is the right thing to do and it should be in this bill. Playing up this issue as assisted suicide is shameful. Using scare tactics for political gain is a disgrace and Rep. Boustany should know better.

  • cdacar 11/11/2009 7:21am

    What I am concerned with, like many Americans, is what is this going to cost my family. Some Americans receive FREE health benefits from their employers as a PERK. With this bill, the employers are going to be faced with rising costs of premiums and thus be forced to start charging for a PERK. Something that my family receives for free because of the line of work, we are now going to have to go BROKE because of this health bill instituting new taxes to cover. Where is the justice in that?

    Just a thought, but those people who are going to have to pay for their once free benefits, are going to be faced with less money in their pockets… obviously, but what I am getting at is this money that was once used to FUEL the economy, is now being taken away from it to pay for the mandatory health taxes. We are already in a “recession” why potentially make it worse? Should I pay for my mortgage, or pay for health coverage (that I used to get free)?

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/11/2009 7:37am

    You get you health care for free, wow wouldn’t that be nice. I know you like many others have worries about what this bill is going to cost you personally. I would recommend that you evaluate your perk. If your employer already covers you then he/she will not pay any health tax. Employers who do not provide health coverage will pay the tax to help cover the costs of giving basic health coverage to the employees that are not insured. Yes those who do not have insurance now will have to buy health insurance. With a public option these people can get affordable coverage based on their income level. Overall most Americans will see more money in their pockets not less. That is the plan, but if it does not pass then the rising health care costs will surely do away with any free perks that you may have now.

  • Comm_reply
    cdacar 11/11/2009 7:47am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    But if our employer goes through a private insurer for the company, aren’t they faced with the likeliness that there will be new instituted guidelines for the premiums? For example, the lack of adding people to grandfathered plans, thus we will be faced with changing the plan to correspond to the guidelines under this Health Care Reform, which increases the likeliness that we will be subjected to further changes, including, paying the premiums ourselves.

    The private insurance companies have quite the battle ahead of them if they plan to stay “competitive” with the public option. As another respondent said, over time, private insurance companies will disappear.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/11/2009 8:34am

    Private insurance companies will not battle with the public option. The public option will compete on the same footing as private companies except that the public option will serve a portion of the population that current providers will not serve. Private insurance companies can change their guidelines now which could result in you paying premiums, health care reform will not increase the chance of this happening. With the reform you should see better competition and lower rates not higher. The public option will not put private insurance companies out of business. In fact two things should occur, the private insurance companies may increase their market share because everyone will need to be insured and overhead should be reduced because processes will become standardized. Private Insurance Companies will never disappear. Next large city you visit find the tallest building and chances are it is owned by a Private Insurance Company. Health insurance is not their only revenue.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/11/2009 8:59am

    YOU HAVE MISSREPESENTED THE FACTS AGAIN.
    The American Benefits Council, Washington, a group that represents large employers, says H.R. 3962 would hurt the private health insurance system so badly that many employers would drop their health plans and choose to pay the proposed 8% payroll tax penalty.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/11/2009 10:03am

    Well that is a bold statement by the Council and I would be surprised to see that actually happen. If of course the purposed 8% is less than the amount that the insurance companies could provide services it would make good business sense. On the other hand if the cost to insure is less than the 8% then they would keep the private health insurance. Insurance costs vary widely around the Country and if private insurance companies bring in their product under 8% then the Council would have a different outlook. Insurance companies have a vested interest in saying they would not be able to meet the 8% and therefore the Council likely based their determination on the Insurance Companies assertions. Of course the Insurance industry would not inflate their numbers would they? I have not misrepresented the facts. The health care reform can create the competition and bring down overall costs. The 8% target should be something the private insurance industry can match and even beat if challenged.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/11/2009 3:13pm

    No entity that is backed by government force can possibly compete ‘on the same footing’. The public option does not have to make a profit or break even to survive. It will never die. If it does not make a profit, the balance it needs to continue operation will come from increased confiscatory taxation. With corporate taxes the way they are in this country, a significant portion of this funding will come from its competitors. In other words, the public option has the deck stacked in its favor.

  • mpacny 11/11/2009 8:38am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    nmeagent, just the type of response I would expect from someone with pencils shoved up his nose.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/11/2009 3:15pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    LOL, yeah…I’m sure this avatar doesn’t lend any credibility to my arguments.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/12/2009 3:41am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Fortunately, it’s John Belushi not you :)

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/12/2009 2:39pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Ah, what a relief…

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/13/2009 3:15am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Unless… John Belushi never died and you’re him and I’m ACTUALLY talking to you!!!


Vote on This Bill

23% Users Support Bill

983 in favor / 3296 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments