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.

brking 07/05/2010 12:54am
in reply to nmeagent Apr 04, 2010 3:33pm

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


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.

CamYogi 06/18/2010 4:04am

We need a system focusing more on rewards for people who take care of themselves rather than bailing out people who don’t.

kbthiede 04/22/2010 4:38pm
Link Reply
+ -1


How does this bill violate the Constitution? Could you please point out text in the bill and the text in the Constitution that it contradicts?

Thank you!

ZAPEM 04/09/2010 5:22am
in reply to nmeagent Apr 04, 2010 3:33pm

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.

ZAPEM 04/09/2010 5:13am

There’s an e-mail going around about this bill and people are not liking it. Quoting from said e-mail:

“So basically this bill creates a National Database of any type of data deemed appropriate by the executive branch of the US Federal Government. This could literally be anything. This could include anything you might have expected to find in an East German Stasi file. All of this data will then be linked to a “Class II implantable device” under your skin. There you have it, just like Lindsey Williams warned us. Forget the national ID card, implantable microchips are coming to a clinic near you no later than 36 months after the bill is signed into law.”

Food for thought: If you have to bury something like this in a bill, there’s good reason to believe the people are being deceived yet again. Because if you had nothing to hide, make it separate bill and tell people what the government is really up to and why you want to do this specifically.

I vote NO.

nmeagent 04/04/2010 3:33pm
in reply to jonhoye Mar 29, 2010 4:17pm

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.

kombatandfw 04/01/2010 1:39pm
Link Reply
+ -1

I personally do not see why education finance reform isn’t in its own bill. Unless restricted to medical career education, there is no reason for that to even be in a bill on healthcare. Non healthcare items in these bills smacks of lack of transparancy. It’s a major reason why I do not approve them. If my business plans looked like these bills I would starve. There are so many “need to study” and “to be determined” in essentially a contract by law, that allows for non delivery. Plus we get no say in what is determeined or how it is determeined. Fundamentally, even as written, the bills are not determined with defined text. Also, if education reform is such a good deal, it should stand on it’s own merits.

jonhoye 03/29/2010 4:17pm
in reply to nmeagent Mar 28, 2010 4:37pm

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.

nmeagent 03/28/2010 4:37pm
in reply to chadlupkes Mar 19, 2010 7:20am

“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.

nmeagent 03/28/2010 4:23pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 26, 2010 6:43am

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

…and there went the rest of your credibility.

LucasFoxx 03/26/2010 6:43am
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to zombiexl Mar 25, 2010 9:05am

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.

jonhoye 03/26/2010 12:55am
in reply to zombiexl Mar 25, 2010 9:05am

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.”

zombiexl 03/25/2010 9:05am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 22, 2010 7:54am

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.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:43am
in reply to JenniferK Mar 21, 2010 3:28pm

First the details. It’s 32 million so by your arithmetic it would be 28 million. The opposite side of that coin was 23 million nonelderly left uninsured, so by your arithmetic it would become 25 million nonelderly people about a third of which would be illegals. I’m not sure that the CBO’s figures concerning how many people would be added to the insurance rolls didn’t take this into account, though. You may be double counting what needs to be subtracted.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:34am
in reply to jjustice Mar 24, 2010 9:33am

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

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:33am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 4:32pm

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

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:31am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 11:33am

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.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:24am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 11:30am

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.

jonhoye 03/23/2010 12:52am
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 19, 2010 5:18pm

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.

jonhoye 03/23/2010 12:35am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 4:32pm

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.

LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 8:40pm
in reply to USCITIZEN10 Mar 22, 2010 6:47pm


*Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the “doughnut hole” coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.


USCITIZEN10 03/22/2010 6:47pm


surlydwarf 03/22/2010 6:00pm
Link Reply
+ -1

More entitlements and bureaucracy bought with many trillions in amortized cost! How can we get our Congress critters to stop spending ? We are broke. Every entitlement program run by our government is broke. Congress is buying high ticket items with their high interest, high limit credit card, setting us up for many “lost decades”.

Add to the above a rather secretive introduction process and hurried debate, and there is little reason to support this abomination. Our government is totally out of control from the looks of this bill and the process of its passage.

applemanmatt 03/22/2010 4:56pm
in reply to chadlupkes Mar 19, 2010 7:20am

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.

klassylady25 03/22/2010 12:24pm

Very well said snappy. And yes, Judge Napolitano, does get it!

LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 8:02am
in reply to JenniferK Mar 21, 2010 3:28pm

I think you’re getting the wrong impression from the original post. The companies have to offer it, but you don’t won’t be stuck with the Company option. You will have other options. The stat reflects the individual responsibility and the freedom to find your own plan.

LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 7:54am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 4:32pm

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

aero405 03/21/2010 4:47pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 21, 2010 1:17pm

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?

aero405 03/21/2010 4:32pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 21, 2010 1:20pm

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:


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

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