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 91-120 of 721 total comments.

justamick 12/03/2009 3:52am
in reply to justamick Dec 03, 2009 3:43am

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.

justamick 12/03/2009 3:43am
in reply to justamick Dec 03, 2009 3:42am

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.

justamick 12/03/2009 3:42am
in reply to bkrueg Dec 02, 2009 7:27am

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.

bkrueg 12/02/2009 12:58pm

by Dick Morris
As the Congress prepared to vote to let us enter the world of waits for doctors, waits for specialists, waits for testing and waits for surgery, radiation and chemo, we should pause to consider the relative records of the private medical care system in the United States with the socialized system in the U.K.

In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only 0.18%. The UK cancer death rate was 38% higher than in the United States.

The Guardian, the UK’s left wing daily, estimated that “up to 10,000 people” are dying each year of cancer “because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government’s director of cancer services.” While many people die because of late detection due to their own negligence, there is no reason to believe this self-neglect is more common in the UK than in the US.

In Canada, the cancer death rate is 16% higher than in the United States.

bkrueg 12/02/2009 7:27am
in reply to justamick Dec 01, 2009 4:25am

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.

justamick 12/01/2009 4:36am
in reply to justamick Dec 01, 2009 4:31am

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.

justamick 12/01/2009 4:31am
in reply to justamick Dec 01, 2009 4:25am

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?

justamick 12/01/2009 4:25am
in reply to nobama1 Nov 22, 2009 4:34pm

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.

justamick 12/01/2009 4:07am
in reply to brking Nov 22, 2009 2:34am

I agree, Palin is an idiot. Her farewell speech when she left the Governorship in Alaska and also her interviews during the Presidential Election Campaign in 2008 are indication enough of her complete and utter stupidity.

Thats why when she came out with her anti-medical insurance reform rhetoric, I simply ignored it. That’s why I don’t believe what politicians say about anything, they twist it into their own truth. Just like Obama and Pelosi. All these people do not deserve the public’s trust. A citizen led congress, not a politician led congress is this country’s only salvation. Term limits are essential in beginning to meet this goal.

bkrueg 11/30/2009 11:47am
in reply to bkrueg Nov 30, 2009 11:46am

“If it was not bad enough that illegal immigrants take jobs that rightfully belong to citizens and legal immigrants, now they will get health care benefits that should go to Americans,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “If they were not in the country, we wouldn’t have to worry about emergency room or health insurance costs at all. And Americans would have these jobs.”
A Congressional Research Service report notes that the House Democrats’ bill does not expressly prohibit illegal immigrants from getting health insurance and, in fact, would mandate that they obtain insurance if they meet the “substantial presence test.”
That test calculates U.S. residency based on the number of days per year a person is in the country.

bkrueg 11/30/2009 11:46am

“This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Mr. Obama said. That statement elicited an outburst of “You lie” from Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican.
Most of the focus has been on whether the bills in the House and Senate go far enough to screen out illegal immigrants applying for public benefits. The Senate bill is generally considered to have stronger provisions than the House version to exclude participation by illegal immigrants.
Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, said about 6.5 million illegal immigrants work in the United States, though nearly half do so off the books and wouldn’t be counted for purposes of employer-sponsored health insurance.

shc227 11/30/2009 9:29am

Why are there hardly any comments on the actual provisions of this bill on this site? With HR3200, there were thousands of comments related to the individual provisions. This bill has almost none. If you click on “Official Bill Text” in the upper right of this screen, you can comment in context to each provision. Are people tired of reading these bills?

shc227 11/30/2009 9:11am
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to LucasFoxx Nov 05, 2009 5:20pm

Don’t confuse the charges you see on your EOB with what actually gets paid. Typically, insurance co.s negotiate payments at a fraction of the charge. The problem is that the guy with no insurance gets the whole bill. I believe there is a law that states that providers can’t CHARGE different amounts, but obviously they can accept different payments. This is bad law in my opinion. I have been successful in negotiating with hospitals and labs to accept the amount they negotiated with my insurance co for claims that were denied for various reasons (all within the language of my plan, not some insurance co. conspiracy).

As far as standardization, the scope of that project is too huge to fathom. If you could diagnose and treat every ailment by referring to a standardized algorithm, there would be no need for medical doctors.

shc227 11/30/2009 7:16am
in reply to tob1303 Nov 03, 2009 6:58am

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.

shc227 11/30/2009 7:05am
in reply to suzieqs Nov 07, 2009 4:05am

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.

shc227 11/30/2009 6:38am
in reply to bhumphreys52 Nov 11, 2009 6:53am

You are confusing civic duty and compassion with socialism (which has been sold to many other civilizations as a compassion based form of government). I feel that it is my civic duty to hold governments accountable to exercise it’s duties and not extend it’s reach outside of what is called for by the constitution. I feel that I can serve my neighbors better by helping them directly instead of taking all of the money that I would spend on consumer products (such as health insurance, among a long list of others) and sending it to Washington and hoping that they dole it out in a way that is compassionate and civic minded. I happen to think you are naive to think this money is going to anything other than the purchase of power. It is a proven impossibility that the government can run healthcare as well as private industry. That is from a quality and an efficiency measure.

shc227 11/30/2009 6:29am
in reply to RBI3 Nov 09, 2009 12:53pm

There is somewhat of a precedent since it says that no private insurance will be available after 2013, conveniently right after the next presidential election. Health insurance is not a right, there is nothing in law or constitution anywhere that guarantees you a health insurance card. If you’re trying to make that leap from the “promote the general welfare” clause in the preamble of the constitution you are idiotic at best. The preamble is simply the preface to the constituion and doesn’t outline any specific law or right. It references what they hoped to achieve with the specifics that were written into the constitution. Free healthcare isn’t in there.

shc227 11/30/2009 6:16am
in reply to shc227 Nov 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.

shc227 11/30/2009 6:16am
in reply to msginamay Oct 29, 2009 10:19am

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.

shc227 11/30/2009 5:45am
in reply to jasonledtke Nov 08, 2009 5:20am

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.

bkrueg 11/29/2009 3:33pm

RATIONING: Elderly question flu shot controls

65 and older face H1N1 vaccine limits

Two months after H1N1 flu vaccine was first distributed to public health districts around the country, people 65 and older with serious medical conditions still can’t get vaccinated.
Public health authorities admit they have been inundated with calls from the elderly who want to know when they can receive vaccinations.
Many seniors have called the Review-Journal to complain. Some refrain from giving their names because they fear their complaints could cause their Social Security benefits to be cut off.

joe_vndyke 11/28/2009 2:24pm

I don’t particularly like that Section 302 of the bill clearly says “all individuals” are eligible for the exchange program, when it should say something more like “all legal U.S. citizens” are eligible. Obama and the democrats lie when they say this bill won’t cover illegals – read section 302 for yourself, and you’ll see that it allows for illegal aliens to enter the exchange program.

Powers 11/28/2009 7:49am
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to Powers Nov 28, 2009 7:37am

But anyway, on topic, what I see happening it the government “competing” with the private insurers by making it so freaking “affordable” that in a decades time there will be no private insurers left. Then government will be like “Look! See? The free market is a failure! Good job the government stepped in before it was too late!” Then the real fun will begin. Hell, it might even happen faster than that.

Or, who knows, maybe the private sector can and will compete and shut down the government plan. wouldn’t that be sweet? Albeit unlikely.

Powers 11/28/2009 7:37am
Link Reply
+ -3
in reply to Powers Nov 28, 2009 7:35am

Weird. once I commented, the problem was resolved, so, nevermind.

Powers 11/28/2009 7:35am
Link Reply
+ -3

Why does the site log me out when I try to vote on this bill?

Hawk7 11/26/2009 7:18am
Link Reply
+ -1

Is it true that they trying to put in a some gun law into the back of the health care? I have someone watching the gun laws and stated that in the 2000 or so pages they trying to attach it to the back of it.

bravo6lima 11/26/2009 3:19am
Link Reply
+ -2

I apologize as this issue was already posted,my fault.

bravo6lima 11/26/2009 3:17am
Link Reply
+ -2

Did anyone notice that this bill lowers the cap on pre tax heath care savings accounts from an employer allowed average of 5000 to a max of 2500?For those of us who have special needs children like me,that’s gonna hurt a bit.What a great bill.Giving it to average guy with no lube.

Nolander 11/25/2009 4:44pm
in reply to justamick Nov 25, 2009 3:11pm

Well, he left out the limitations of the SEC 59B. That tax applies to people who don’t sign up for Health Insurance of any kind.(Meaning Unacceptable) T

justamick 11/25/2009 3:11pm
in reply to Nolander Nov 25, 2009 2:12pm

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

983 in favor / 3296 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments