H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. view all titles (46)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Health care reform bill as .
  • Official: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Popular: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as introduced.
  • Popular: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Legislative Vehicle) as introduced.
  • Short: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed senate.
  • Official: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. as amended by senate.
  • Short: Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: CLASS Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Congenital Heart Futures Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Cures Acceleration Network Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: EARLY Act as passed senate.
  • Short: Elder Justice Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: ENHANCED Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Establishing a Network of Health-Advancing National Centers of Excellence for Depression Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Short: Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 as passed senate.
  • Official: An act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. as introduced.
  • Popular: Health care reform bill.
  • Popular: Patient protection and affordable care bill.
  • Short: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed house.
  • Short: Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: CLASS Act as passed house.
  • Short: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act as passed house.
  • Short: Congenital Heart Futures Act as passed house.
  • Short: Cures Acceleration Network Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: EARLY Act as passed house.
  • Short: Elder Justice Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: ENHANCED Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Establishing a Network of Health-Advancing National Centers of Excellence for Depression Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 as passed house.
  • Short: Young Women's Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as enacted.
  • Short: Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: Catalyst to Better Diabetes Care Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: CLASS Act as enacted.
  • Short: Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act as enacted.
  • Short: Congenital Heart Futures Act as enacted.
  • Short: Cures Acceleration Network Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: EARLY Act as enacted.
  • Short: Elder Justice Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: ENHANCED Act of 2009 as enacted.
  • Short: Establishing a Network of Health-Advancing National Centers of Excellence for Depression Act of 2009 as enacted.

Comments Feed

Displaying 151-180 of 211 total comments.

nmeagent 01/03/2010 5:38pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Dec 31, 2009 12:12pm

You conveniently leave out that the supreme court precedent for declaring these acts “constitutional” is a direct result of FDR’s thinly veiled threats to pack the court in the 1930s. The fact that social security and friends have been declared constitutional is not a valid argument for the constitutionality of this (or any other such) legislation but merely a symptom of a federal government not currently bound by the rule of law.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

LucasFoxx 12/31/2009 12:12pm
in reply to LookingtoMakeaDifference Dec 28, 2009 4:19am

It would be nice to do away with the middle man (insurance). It doen’t look like that will happen.

The opponents quote the 10th Amendment to the constitution as their rational for the “unconstitutional” argument: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What they leave out is that other social programs like unemployment and Social Security, have been upheld by the courts as constitutional under the “general welfare” clause of Article 1 sec. 8 of the Constitution. Will the bill congress is working on stand up in the courts? Hard to say. Most of these people scream “unconstitutional” at just about anything. Take it with a grain of salt.

LucasFoxx 12/31/2009 11:56am
in reply to yellow Dec 31, 2009 8:22am

You mean the Transportation Safety Administration that keeps the average nut-job from boarding planes with guns and grenades and prevents the airlines themselves from cost cutting below saftey limits. In a back-handed way, you are making the case for government regulated health care reform.

yellow 12/31/2009 8:22am
in reply to suzieqs Dec 31, 2009 3:26am

There is a big difference when it comes to cars: I am not required to purchase/drive a car in the first place. If I don’t want to buy auto insurance, I don’t have to. With this healthcare bill, I am required to purchase/obtain insurance no matter the circumstances.

In regards to the market not working the way it should have, I blame the government controls imposed on it in the first place. We never did have a free market. Government stepping in to help the healthcare market will be a disaster. Think TSA and airports.

suzieqs 12/31/2009 3:35am
in reply to BelovedEmpress Dec 21, 2009 9:59am

I’m sorry but even the working poor pay taxes, they pay Social Security and Medicare tax for their entire earnings, stop calling them non-taxpayers! They may not pay as much in Income tax as most, but some do (they don’t qualify for deductions).

I agree with you that capping lawsuits would help, making insurance portable, (we wouldn’t need insurance if our doctors, charged less for their services though).

Stop the handouts to whom? The working poor to the very rich? Do you want to stop Domestic Welfare or Corporate Welfare or both?

I remember it cost 12.00 to see a doctor in the 70’s, now you’re lucky if you can get out of his office for less than 60.00. There are fewer and fewer General Practioners, and more specialists than ever. Want health care reform be a part of the solution not a part of the problem.

suzieqs 12/31/2009 3:26am
in reply to freetobeme500 Dec 26, 2009 3:48am

freetobeme500, I agree with your statement, however, those who let the fear-mongers of the media rule their lives is the cause of much of this polarization of the 2 major parties. In regards to your last statement we are required to have a Driver’s License in order to drive on public streets, we are required to have our vehicles registered and liscensed in order to have those vehicles on those same streets, we are required to have proof of insurance to get those vehicles registered and licensed. So why aren’t you crying about those things. If our market would have worked the way it should have in the first place, our government wouldn’t have had to step in in the first place.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

jnjnelson 12/30/2009 5:22am
in reply to MercilessPit Dec 27, 2009 5:19am

I don’t want to do away with Veteran Care, but I have a moral disagreement with forcing anyone to provide Veteran Care. Veteran Care should be the best care available, but it should be provided voluntarily, and the funds for it should be provided voluntarily. Every time governmental force is used to gather funds, freedom goes out the window.

nfarrow 12/30/2009 5:17am

Was kind of reading the bill and looking at, “INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT” and from what it reads, “has not attained the age of 30 before the beginning of the plan year” page 115. So does that mean that not everyone is covered if the individual is over the age of 30 when trying to enroll would be denied coverage? Not saying I wish it wasn’t not passed just kind wanted to know who is covered.

jnjnelson 12/30/2009 5:00am
in reply to driskells Dec 26, 2009 12:30am

Social Security and Medicare would be OK, if they received their funds from completely voluntary contributions. Therefore, yes – Social Security, Medicare, and most national agencies, departments, and bureaucracies should be dissolved. The exceptions are those that provide for the national defense. Veteran Care should also be funded on a voluntary basis.

However, none of these governmental encroachments will be dissolved until the large majority of individual citizens demand of their representatives that they be dissolved. The only way that will happen is if the large majority of individual citizens also assume personal responsibility, and refrain from using governmental force to escape accountability. The only way that will happen is on an individual level – each individual must understand that freedom and prosperity are directly associated with responsibility, accountability, knowledge, and morality.

jnjnelson 12/30/2009 4:46am
in reply to LookingtoMakeaDifference Dec 28, 2009 4:19am

Too many congressmen misunderstand the meaning of parts of the Constitution, especially the Preamble. Too many mistake “promote the general Welfare” to be “provide the general welfare.” Government doesn’t need to provide for the welfare of a free people – free people naturally provide it for themselves; freedom promotes the best general welfare possible, so government is charged with protecting freedom.

jnjnelson 12/30/2009 4:44am
in reply to LookingtoMakeaDifference Dec 28, 2009 4:19am

The Constitution of the United States of America is a document that defines the national government of the people of the United States. It is short and relatively easy to understand. The main purpose of the Constitution is to restrict those in government from practicing tyranny over the governed. It clearly defines the limited roles of the three branches of our national government, and prohibits those three branches from taking any actions outside their respective roles. Providing health care for every citizen is not within the limited role of any of the three branches, least of all Congress.

The Constitution is like a “white list” of things government is allowed to do. Anything not on the list, government is not authorized to do.

dawnd470 12/28/2009 9:00am

This bill, quite frankly, frightens me. I admit I haven’t read the full text, but from what I hear and have read, it appears that every citizen will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance, but I haven’t seen or heard anything about regulating the cost of it. Sure, there’s talk about a subsidy for those who can’t afford it, but what are the eligibility requirements? If you want proof of the disaster this can be, look at Massachusetts. Their mandatory insurance premiums are forcing people to either bankrupt themselves or become criminals. If this passes and is signed into law, I foresee a situation in which people avoid getting healthcare at all…not only because they can’t afford it, but because they don’t want to be fined for not carrying mandated insurance. I have insurance, but my daughter, age 21 and working part time, does not. What will become of her and those like her who cannot afford to pay $500 a month for coverage?

LookingtoMakeaDifference 12/28/2009 4:19am

I don’t want “affordable” insurance either. This defeats the whole purpose of Free Health Care, I’m thinking.

I would like to walk into a doctor’s office/clinic with only my proper ID and simply leave with my ID and my prescription (if necessary). An insurance card would not be needed. I think that is what all of us are seeking. This bill is very confusing when it doesn’t have to be. We need to overthrow all of the insurance companies, we have the power NOT THEM.

Is there a possibility of a public vote on this?

Also, I don’t fully understand how this bill is unconsitiutional. Please don’t beat me up, I would just like to understand so I can support.

MercilessPit 12/27/2009 5:19am
in reply to driskells Dec 26, 2009 12:31am

You would want to take away Veteran Care?! Care for the very people who keep your right to speak against them in such a manner?! You are the type of person that causes the problems in this country. You only see things in ’D’s and ’R’s. Just because you say you’re an independent and that you voted for Bush (obviously a lie) you tout the far left ideology at every corner.

nmeagent 12/26/2009 6:41pm

All supporters of this bill, enjoy your victory while it lasts. Even if it passes:
(a) It will be challenged immediately after being signed into law and some portions (if not all) will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. If not, the Constitution is effectively meaningless and we’re all in serious trouble.
(b) It will likely be nullified by several state governments (e.g. Arizona) and have no effect there.
© It will be ignored by those of us who understand the concept of limited government and will not be forced to buy a damned commodity (health insurance) for any reason whatsoever.
(d) It will possibly be repealed following the 2010 or 2012 elections. I don’t think some of you realize how much political fallout this is going to cause.

KISS 12/26/2009 3:02pm

California Health Care Almanac “…California’s large population, the number of people without insurance — 6.6 million — is the highest of any state.”
That’s approximately 23% of America’s uninsured. A large % of that population choose not to purchase insurance. There ARE affordable plans with high deductables. My daughter is one of them.(Don’t lecture or judge). “Almost one third of uninsured Californians have family incomes of more than $50,000 per year.” Look at California, and you can see the direction of the nation – it’s quickly going in the toilet. This is my home, and it sickens me to see people like Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein in representing CA. The original complaint platform was to do something NOW! It’s urgent, we must stop the rising costs of health care. This bill is nothing about health care, it’s about insurance mandates that will increase health insurance premiums for the rest of us. The bill should be used as toilet paper.

freetobeme500 12/26/2009 3:48am
in reply to driskells Dec 26, 2009 12:19am

This is a very scary comment. I find the individual to be the heart and soul of a nation. It is when we all fall in line and march the goosestep that great misfortune will befall us. History is full of examples of nations whose people have cowered to the government controls. This government has the right to collect taxes from a citizen, it also has the right to draft said citizen into the armed forces. Beyond that I do not believe they have the right to require me (or force me!) to do anything!

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

driskells 12/26/2009 12:26am
in reply to BelovedEmpress Dec 21, 2009 9:59am

I only agree with some of your comment. First, you have mis-spoken referencing paying for people whom don’t pay taxes. Many of the people that pay taxes don’t have healthcare. In fact, there are many middle class people that do not have any health coverage. The lower class people that pay taxes pay for your roads and parks without any of the taxes paying for their roads and parks in their communities. I only ask for the facts.

driskells 12/26/2009 12:22am
in reply to Slugger Dec 21, 2009 5:45am

Slugger, you hit the nail on the head. That is the major problem with our American process. The discusting part is that it is legalized bribery.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

driskells 12/26/2009 12:19am
in reply to eohusby Dec 20, 2009 2:08pm

It would be nice to consume some facts. I find many of the replies amusing. It is the individulism that has torn this country apart.

driskells 12/26/2009 12:11am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to LeMat Nov 29, 2009 11:14am

What about the Social Security policy? It has been in place for decades and the courts have not torn it to pieces. I am not in full support of any bill passed by our legislation, but expect all parties to propose solutions to American problems.

driskells 12/26/2009 12:08am
in reply to justamick Dec 08, 2009 4:16am

I have had a problem with additional policies riding the coattail of other policies as long as I can remember. That process has been leveraged by democrats and republicans for years. In fact, the size of many of the policies has been abrused in similar fashion by both parties. I want to see solutions presented by both parties. Don’t base your argument on the size or the bill or how fast the bill is passed. BTW, I am an Independent.

Filtered Comment [ show ]


Vote on This Bill

29% Users Support Bill

1087 in favor / 2696 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments