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 691-720 of 721 total comments.

bkrueg 10/30/2009 11:53am

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the committees of jurisdiction over health care, spoke with HUMAN EVENTS to go over a few particulars on the bill his press release dubbed, “Second verse, same as the first.”
“It’s still a massive government takeover of our health care system with tax increases on middle class Americans that will affect their ability to buy health care,” Camp said. “The government plan will force them out of private health care. The Medicare cuts are going to make health care less available to seniors. Fewer physicians will see Medicare patients and fewer hospitals will treat Medicare patients.”
One of the most important elements that remains in the bill is the end to private insurance.
“Because of the government-run plan, in five years you’re going to see millions of people lose the health care coverage they have now and be forced into a government-run plan,” Camp said.

bkrueg 10/30/2009 11:39am
in reply to nomadwolf Oct 30, 2009 12:54am

HR 3962: 1990 Pages, Thirteen New Taxes
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275):
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296):
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324):
Cap on FSAs (Page 325):
Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327):
Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336):
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339):
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344):
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345):
Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346):
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349):
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357):
The bill will add a huge new section to the federal tax code: PART VIII: HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES.

bkrueg 10/30/2009 11:23am
in reply to nomadwolf Oct 30, 2009 12:35am

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.

Betonavette 10/30/2009 8:59am
in reply to Betonavette Oct 30, 2009 8:54am

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). Simple extortion to say the least! My friends, we are now on our way to Socialism and the elimination of the Free Market System, better known as Capitalism. Sad, very sad!

Betonavette 10/30/2009 8:54am

To the Democrats & Republicans in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I and a lot of other people have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the majority of the American people want but without any type of public option attached. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election. We do not want the “Public Option (single payer of any kind)”…..period! Rest assured, we are all watching how you vote now and in the future.

bkrueg 10/30/2009 8:11am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to NotAPundit Oct 29, 2009 11:34am

THATS $2.2 M PER WORD.

rafter109 10/30/2009 7:08am
in reply to bkrueg Oct 30, 2009 6:37am

You are exactly right! On election 2010 lets vote against all of the encumbents, no matter what party they are in. Our representatives and senators have been sitting in Washington for too long cozying up to the lobbyists and allowing the perception of absolute power to corrupt them.

CLEAN OUT CONGRESS 2010!!!

bkrueg 10/30/2009 7:06am
in reply to LucasFoxx Oct 29, 2009 5:48pm

Premiums to Skyrocket Under Obamacare

Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:55 PM

By: David A. Patten

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office said, Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill (both the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform) would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90 percent of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

rafter109 10/30/2009 7:06am

The only reason the Democrats wanted to fastrack this bill was because they didn’t want people to have time to read the text stating that we would be paying for it for 4 years before we got any benefits from it. This would allow congress to shrink their budget deficit before the end of Pres. Obama’s term. Here’s a thought – Stop spending money on pointless pet projects. If you want to spend money to stimulate the economy, do it on infrastructure repairs and upgrades and allow private contractors to compete for the jobs. If they took all the TARP funds and had invested it in road resurfacing and expansion they could have added hundreds of thousands of jobs, albeit temporary, to the economy. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

bkrueg 10/30/2009 6:37am
in reply to nomadwolf Oct 30, 2009 12:54am

The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday the U.S. House health-care system re-write has penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, that would raise $161 billion. WE THE PEOPLE would pay the government $161,000,000,000.00 in just PENALTIES. IT’S JUST A ‘TAX & SPEND’ POWER SCAM.

nomadwolf 10/30/2009 12:54am
in reply to bkrueg Oct 29, 2009 7:06pm

You are excluded from the coverage requirement for the time residing in foreign countries [which is the main source of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion]. See page 299.

nomadwolf 10/30/2009 12:50am
in reply to Abatts1 Oct 29, 2009 11:12am

You don’t pay for her family’s healthcare. Unless they make less than 4 times the federal poverty level (4*14,570 for a family of 2), they cannot receive any subsidies.

Even if they only make 3 times the FPL ($43,710/year), the subsidy is only the average of the 3 cheapest basic plans in their area minus 10% of their annual income.

nomadwolf 10/30/2009 12:35am
in reply to coloratura29 Oct 29, 2009 4:31pm

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

algoresucks 10/29/2009 6:00pm

This bill is he biggest power grab attempt of all time by the government.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

LucasFoxx 10/29/2009 5:48pm
in reply to kcelebratejc Oct 29, 2009 10:11am

It looks like this does. There is funding to fight waste and fraud, more penalties, and some enforcement in here.

coloratura29 10/29/2009 4:39pm
in reply to msginamay Oct 29, 2009 10:19am

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).

coloratura29 10/29/2009 4:31pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to eszeto Oct 29, 2009 10:21am

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.

deborahg6 10/29/2009 2:32pm
in reply to NotAPundit Oct 29, 2009 11:34am

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.

NotAPundit 10/29/2009 11:45am
in reply to Abatts1 Oct 29, 2009 11:12am

Abraham Lincoln once said,

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.

—The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland” (April 18, 1864), p. 301-302.

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?

Abatts1 10/29/2009 11:12am
in reply to msginamay Oct 29, 2009 10:19am

So everyone in America should pay for your family’s healthcare? I think not. We raised $25,000 in a benefit for my friend’s cancer bills in ONE weekend. I think American’s need to get off their behinds and remove their hand from in front of the rest of the Americans. What the heck happened to this country?

Also, freedom. Yeah, I want the FREEDOM from paying your debt and everyone elses. Maybe the state’s should lift the ban on intrastate insurance and put the free market back into the insurance industry. —Now THAT gives you your freedom AND choice and I’M not footing the bill (and neither is your company).

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

kcelebratejc 10/29/2009 10:11am
in reply to coloratura29 Oct 29, 2009 9:45am

Well stated! I never understood why President Obama has stated over and over that there is so much money to be found in fraud but doesn’t pursue that revenue. I’m not sure what is holding him bAck. We don’t need more spending and overloading the medical system with medical bills that are unsustainable.

coloratura29 10/29/2009 9:45am

I just read the section that says "ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF
MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.’

This sounds awesome, but as I read further, I realized that the key word was MINIMUM. From what I am reading, the government run option will have tiers. The minimum tier is prohibited from covering abortion…but the other government run tiers are not prohibited.

Am I reading this right? If so, it is very shady to give wording that would suggest Abortion is not covered when it is…just not under the MINIMUM coverage.

JTaylor76 10/29/2009 9:28am

This type of healthcare did not work in TN and it will not work for the Nation.. The reform we need is to cut the wasteful spending in healthcare and to stop allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country! We should steer away from employer provided health care and move toward an Actual Health Insurance type program. Medicare and Medicaid need to be revamp to eliminate waste and kick off those who abuse the system….

Filtered Comment [ show ]


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