H.R.4872 - Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. view all titles (23)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Health care reconciliation bill as .
  • Popular: Reconciliation Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Official: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. as introduced.
  • Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Short: Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Short: Reconciliation Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Reconciliation Act of 2010 as reported to house.
  • Short: Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Popular: Health care reconciliation bill.
  • Short: SAFRA Act as passed house.
  • Official: An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13). as amended by house.
  • Popular: Health Care & Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 201 as introduced.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Official: An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal as amended by house.
  • Short: SAFRA Ac as passed house.
  • Short: America's Affor as introduced.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as enacted.
  • Short: SAFRA Act as enacted.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as passed senate.
  • Short: SAFRA Act as passed senate.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 47 total comments.

  • chadlupkes 03/18/2010 2:25pm

    25% support right now. Why? Does it go too far, or not far enough?

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/19/2010 5:18pm

    That’s this crowd. Fortunately, it doesn’t reflect the electorate. Don’t expect much. Most of this crowd would fall under the “it goes too far” sentiment, because the whole idea of it is “unconstitutional” or “anti-capitalism” or just “un-American.”

  • Comm_reply
    aero405 03/21/2010 11:30am

    You’re right, the opinion here doesn’t represent the electorate. It represents people who have taken the time to look for/at the actual bill, and therefore have a much better idea of what’s actually in it rather than what’s merely advertised by its proponents on television. So if the support level is even lower here than at large, what does that tell you?

    It’s certainly convenient to dismiss the bill’s opposition as ignorant loonies with half-baked opinions, but there are plenty of informed people against it for well-supported reasons if you truly care to know. Financial burden (amidst a recession and growing national debt) is one big reason, and this concern was succinctly justified in a NY Times op-ed yesterday:

    http://www.nytimes.com//2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    aero405 03/21/2010 4:47pm

    You missed the point, which was that there are valid and well-reasoned arguments against the current bill. I suppose it’s easier to ignore those and go for the low-hanging fruit in your mockeries though, right?

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    jjustice 03/24/2010 9:24am

    Actually this is also an overstatement. It only reflects the people who have both taken the time to look at the actual bill on this website, and also taken the time to register an account and render an oppinion one way or the other on this website about the bill.

  • Comm_reply
    aero405 03/21/2010 11:33am

    Also, as I review the bill’s contents I’m baffled to find $255,000,000 of tax money dedicated to colleges based on the skin color of their students. Is this a health reform bill or an affirmative action bill? Funny that you hear nothing about this content when Obama speaks on television.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    aero405 03/21/2010 4:32pm

    Sure: Sec 103 (b). The provision extends race-specific college funding originally established (in HR2669) for another 10 years (to 2019) at $255,000,000 per year, for a total new commitment of $2.55 billion. I’ll even link it for you:

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/text?version=rh&nid=t0:rh:14079

    So now that you’ve found it, care to take a shot at explaining to us how this improves health care?

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 7:54am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Thanks, I see it now. On its face, it doesn’t improve Health Care. But it is hardly unprecedented. “INVESTMENT IN HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS” Doesn’t make it a skin color issue, it’s an issue of underserved institutions. I don’t have a problem with this.

  • Comm_reply
    zombiexl 03/25/2010 9:05am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Personally I have a problem with any public (tax payers) money going to any Universities. They charge enough for tuition to more than cover their costs and make a profit.

    How about this part “90 percent shall be available for Hispanic-serving institutions for activities described in sections 503 and 513, with a priority given to applications that propose”. For the record I am from Hispanic descent and I don’t agree with this. Its more of the same old let’s act like were not racists by being racist and only helping certain groups we deem worthy of help.

    To slip this into a health care bill is even more infuriating. 255Million a year, when China already owns enough bonds to cripple our economy into oblivion is just wasteful spending.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/26/2010 12:55am

    This deserves a response, but it’s very tough to determine where to start. You first question the value of supporting a world class educational system. You then claim that equal opportunity exacerbates racial prejudice, which is a fairly uncommon stance. You also seem to want to pull funding from education to maintain competition with China (which is a nation increasing funding for education to catch up with us).

    Maybe you can help the conversation by focusing on a smaller range of objections to the education affordability aspects of the “Health Care and Education Affordability and Reconciliation Act.”

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 03/26/2010 6:43am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    While there are still people living with personal experience of the institutional racism in this country before the Civil Rights Act (and with modern examples from the TeaParty movement), I couldn’t disagree more with your position on affirmative action type of programs. And as this bill falls with the proposed budget numbers, I’m not particularly concerned about additional debt to China with this bill either. But you are free to your opinion.

    As this bill is now law, I’m no longer following it. I’m glad some kind of HCR has passed. I wish it was better.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 03/28/2010 4:23pm

    “…(and with modern examples from the TeaParty movement)…”

    …and there went the rest of your credibility.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/23/2010 12:35am

    Not a minority here, but I find it quite reasonable. Race specific vs. low income is a little difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t had the misfortune of witnessing the general trend against equal opportunity in the same spectrum I’ve been exposed to. In general, it seems providing such opportunities is a small counterbalance to certain real factors which aren’t always apparent.

    In any case, I want the smartest and most talented people in every college education required field. This will help provide that in medical fields to a small degree, while also increasing the pool of insurance buying participants across the board. Yes, it’s a bit unfortunate that the free market doesn’t magically find and pay for the education of the best talent.

  • Comm_reply
    jjustice 03/24/2010 9:33am

    Yes part of the original education bill, not part of the health care bill.

  • Comm_reply
    jjustice 03/24/2010 9:34am

    I can’t be the only one who noticed that the Reconciliation Act of 2010 combines 2 separate bills.

  • Comm_reply
    jjustice 03/24/2010 9:31am

    Apparently you missed the part where the bill being voted on currently is actually 2 separate bills being combined partly because the effect of combining the 2 bills reduces their cost by about $10 billion, according to the congressional budget office. One of those bills is the senate passed health care reform bill, the other is a bill concerning education. This isn’t something that just came out of the blue, the education bill was a seperately considered but already existed House Resolution, it’s just that now it’s being reconciled with the health care reform bill.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/23/2010 12:52am

    I’m optimistic that the low numbers simply reflect the influx to the site from fearful consumers of a certain genre of punditry. I would like to be able to do queries on that data based on date of user registration.

    Yet a poll is a poll and it reflects, to a non-quantifiable degree, the percentage of the electorate motivated enough to seek out and voice their opinion in a specific way.

    Nonetheless, I’m a huge fan of this forum. Such classy and well thought out comments on here.

  • jebarnhart 03/18/2010 3:41pm

    Not allowing for a complete review, vote and introduction of additional points of view limmits the future benefits to Americans. It took years for our Founding Fathers to finally come up with a government plan that we should cherish more than we do today. This reconciliation bill is another form of political manuevaring, payback, and hijacking of America by corrupt individuals who care more about themselves than the country as a whole. It ruined Rome centuries ago, this style of politics will ruin our democracy too. It needs to stop. I thought government was going to be clear, concise, without earmarks, special treatments would be what the people WANT!!! Keeping Freedom Free!!!

  • Godizincontrol 03/18/2010 8:38pm

    There is no justification for this bill. It is a scare tactic by the Democrats to limit the checks and balances provided by the Constitution. There is NO way as 2,000 page document can only be debated in 20 hours, have no amendments to it, and attempt to pass Congress. How long will we let our representatives in Washington destroy the freedoms and rights that are protected in this nation?

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    zagrovich 03/19/2010 3:23pm

    Have you read the Constitution?
    Is the government the answer to all?
    Simple and common sense solutions that are not intrusive on our liberty is the answer not all encompassing government.

  • Comm_reply
    applemanmatt 03/22/2010 4:56pm

    Anyone who has a brain understands that there is a right way to do budget rec. and a wrong way. BR is for taxes and spending, not for creating a new entitlement program or even making new policy/law. It’s for taxes and spending.

    Let’s have an intelligent discussion. Yea health care is complicated. But if it were split into seperate issues, instead of tackling everything in one single bill, maybe things would get done in Washington, and maybe people wouldn’t complain about a bill being 2000 pages long.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 03/28/2010 4:37pm

    “Republicans used reconciliation to pass their tax cut package in 2001. Was that a hijacking of America?”

    Returning property that rightfully belongs to someone is not usually considered a ‘hijacking’. But yes, the Republicans that whine about the Democrats use of reconciliation are hypocrites. They should instead focus purely on the unprecedented and utterly unconstitutional contents of the bill.

  • Comm_reply
    jonhoye 03/29/2010 4:17pm

    Since you’re only 1 click away from the text of the bill, you should try reading some of it. I think you’ll find that many of the exaggerations expressed in common party talking points are simply hyperbole, in that they aren’t in the actual bill.

    You’re in one of two groups of people. Either you’re a very rich citizen, as in one of the top .01% making over $500,000 per year. Or, you’re benefiting from this legislation but have been influenced from the very .01% that I just mentioned. Most likely the latter, which is sad, because to know the type of person in the first class, you wouldn’t think they deserve what’s been handed to them for largely a lack of effort on their part.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 04/04/2010 3:33pm

    The very subject matter of the bill makes it unconstitutional. The federal government was not granted the authority by the Constitution to regulate health care and therefore such authority does not exist. The only thing keeping legislation such as this from withstanding legal challenges is the horrible precedents set by the Supreme Court during your beloved “New Deal” era, most notably in cases like Wickard vs. Filburn. In my opinion this will very likely be thrown out along with vast portions of your precious health care “reform” in the somewhat near future. Stay tuned and I’ll spare you the “I told you so”.

    Oh and I’d appreciate it if you’d cut out the tired class warfare nonsense already. It’s not an argument, it has no connection to reality, and it just makes you sound like a leftist hack.

  • Comm_reply
    ZAPEM 04/09/2010 5:22am

    This administration seems to feel it has the totalitarian right to usurp the Constitution itself, nevermind the majority, they couldn’t care less about them either.

    This Congress and this administration are full of themselves to the point of unprecedented arrogance. They shouldn’t just be thrown out of government, I see it as nothing less than treasonous.

    Look at Jennifer Granholm, a person who brags about being Governor and being a dual-citizen. She’s not even 100% American! I say throw these people out of here. The Founders NEVER allowed for citizens to voluntarily hold dual-allegiances. Even naturalized citizens must vow allegiance to only this country.

    What is happening to the United States is unconscionable and it starts with jerks like Granholm who are bent on changing us into socialist totalitarianism. It has to stop and will soon. I have news for them.

  • Comm_reply
    brking 07/05/2010 12:54am

    last time i read the constitution i remember my favorite parts of article 1 section 8: "congress shall have the power to…provide for the common welfare of the united states,…
    regulate commerce (that means the health care industry)
    …(my favorite vague statement) 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."

    I’m no lawyer but I’m very sure due to their vagueness and vastness one of these three clauses cover it. i guess fox news pundits didn’t read the constitution either, yet they love stressing patriotism how ironic (or rather manipulative for their political end). sorry didn’t meant to pick on fox because CNN and the rest do it too. that is they are hypocrites for profit and political power.


Vote on This Bill

31% Users Support Bill

244 in favor / 550 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments