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 541-570 of 720 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/15/2009 8:19am

    Sorry, one of those sentences wasn’t exactly clear. It should have read “It does NOT grant the power to appropriate for this purpose and the decision does not support your claim…”

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/15/2009 1:48pm

    Sorry, I misspoke — Helvering actually addresses title VIII which is similar to title IX. I’m all over the place today.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/14/2009 6:34am
    Link Reply
    + -1


  • bigdogg62 11/14/2009 8:03am

    GOP had all of 8 yrs to make changes in insurance industries and did nothing, so i say overhaul the whole system, tired of insurance industry imposing there socialist tactics. where u pay insurance and then when u need it they come up with a reason to deny u.

  • nmeagent 11/14/2009 8:14am

    A helpful link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 11/14/2009 8:14am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Ah, perfect, and I posted it in the wrong place…

  • bhumphreys52 11/14/2009 1:56pm

    In 2003 bureaucracy consumed at least $399.4 billion ($1,389 per capita) out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion ($5,775 per capita). This was based on the conservative assumption that administrative overhead represents the same share of health spending on hospital care, nursing home care, physicians’ services, home care, employers’ costs to administer health benefits and insurance overhead in 2003 as in 1999

    Medicare, the publicly managed plan for the elderly in the United States, spends 5 percent of each health care dollar on administrative expenses, compared with the 17 percent devoured by private insurers on average. This is because private companies spend more on marketing, often pay exorbitant salaries to executives, and take a cut of each health care dollar for profits and company reserves.

    Countries with a public insurance plan for the population immediately save over 10 percent on every health care dollar by cutting out private insurance overhead.

  • jfarnes 11/14/2009 3:29pm

    While it obvious that some kind of health care reform is needed, it baffles me that such extreme measures are being taken without first resorting to simple, safe, and effective steps toward positive reform. For example, why not start with repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 thus opening the insurance industry to the same anti-trust laws all other industries must comply with? Not only does a repeal of this act prohibit an industry from comparing data and price fixing, it opens the marketplace for consumers across state borders to national competition for price and coverage comparison, thus resulting in lower prices, better coverage, and increased availability. This is a small step that can bring positive reform without increasing taxation and the deficit.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/14/2009 8:07pm

    The CBO says that repealing McCarran-Ferguson will have a minimal affect. But it looks like that’s going to happen. If they say it would have a negligible effect, good or bad, fine there shouldn’t be an issue. Get it off the books.

  • hworta 11/15/2009 2:44am

    Socialized medicine is about keeping socialists in power pure and simple. The governments absurd regulation of this industry has made it so expensive. This bill does not do anything to reign in costs. Having a government insurance company does not guarentee competition, it ensures that the private sector can not compete especially after they tax the crap out of private insurance companies. To boot this plan will still leave something like 30 million people uninsured which is far larger then the 10 ~ 14 million Americans that want insurance and cannot afford it. This bill is so bad they are afraid to let people even read the damned thing. I am sure in conference it will change drastically.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/15/2009 5:53am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    You are confused with your use of the word socialists and socialized medicine. Obviously you know nothing of how the private insurance companies have worked for the past 60 plus years when dealing with health care. Your comments bring nothing but fear mongering to the debate. To leave the system as is does nothing to guarantee competition. Your assumption about the private sector not being able to compete is ridicules. As it sits now the overhead of private insurance companies is about 17%, with some restructuring and working with what has been purposed they could bring that overhead down to 5% and then include a 3% profit they would easily compete. This model is proven to work but the insurance industry said they could not do it unless everyone was required to have insurance. So Republicans wanted this included to help their buddies in the Insurance business. If all you want is kill reform you care nothing for even the 10 to 14 million Americans that you talk about.

  • b58 11/15/2009 3:13am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    I think Washington has gotten to big for it’s pants. If you look back in history at the real cause of the Civil War between the states. It was mainly over the taxes on the southern states.They were taxing the people till they were going broke and losing everything.It got bad enough the states started pulling out of the union. They wanted the states back in for the tax money that Lincoln decided to fight to free the slaves was the excuse he used to force the states back into the union.By the way you will not find the truth in a public school library but it is in the public city library to get the true history. History does repeat it’s self. The ones running Washington right now don’t care how many laws and taxes they dump on us. It is a little over the line to put someone in prison for not having healthcare. It might take another civil war to end this.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/15/2009 6:23am

    I am sorry that our educationsystem fail you. Maybe you could take some night classes on history

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/15/2009 6:34pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    What book did you read that crazy version of history from? I’m glad you didn’t get it from public schools.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/17/2009 7:10am

    Yeah… you need to go back and do some research on the causes and effects of the American Civil War…

  • b58 11/15/2009 3:48am

    You can take Medicare for starters was suppose to be a good program when it was written in to law. Look at Social Security what has happened to it. The government started dipping into the money for every reason you can think of until it is bankrupt. Washington has let fraud and spending bankrupt every program it has ever started. They can’t even pass a simple bill without all the pork they dump on a bill before it gets passed. They can’t even fix or try to fix Medicare and now they want to put the whole country on a Medicare like healthcare that will be bankrupt before it goes into effect. Then they will be throwing money at it like they do Medicare and Medicaid until it is totally useless. They will be raising taxes every year trying to bail it out just like they do Medicare now. Besides no one in Washington can balance a check book and pay their income taxes.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/15/2009 4:14am


  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/15/2009 6:06am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Let’s talk about Social Security and the claim that it is going bankrupt? Below were claims made by those who wanted to privatize the program .
    1. Claim: The crisis starts when the first dollar is needed from the trust fund (in 2018). But, private accounts require dipping into the trust from day one — they see no problem with that.
    2. Claim: The trust fund is just paper and of no use. But they plan to spend all of it — ~$2 trillion
    3. Claim: Once the trust is gone Social Security is “bankrupt.” But, if they get their private accounts, no problem, they say. Just borrow trillions.
    4. When Bush talked to those over 55, he said there’s no crisis for them.
    5. The privatizers told us in 1983 they would need a crisis to push this through. They’re tired of waiting, so now they pretend there’s a crisis.
    The government programs you blast have worked well and served the American people. These programs do not cheat people out of what they have put in unlike Worldcom, Enron, and Madoff.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/17/2009 7:16am

    First of all, thank God that Social Security didn’t become privatized because the failing system would have completely crashed in the recession…

    Secondly, you cannot deny that Congress has treated Social Security as their own private little “rainy day” account to fund any types of government initiatives that they wanted to.

    The long and short of it is that the the institution of Government programs has a long history of being corrupted by Congress. That is the reason why we cannot have HR3962.

  • Betonavette 11/15/2009 5:11am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    To all members of Congress who support this government run healthcare bill, we will work to get you out of office your next elecions. We do not want the government to run our healthcare system. Rest assured, we are watching and you will lose your next election.

  • Comm_reply
    bhumphreys52 11/15/2009 6:10am

    Those who agree will work to keep them in office. Rest assured we are watching too and if they work for the good of the American people they will win the next election. I don’t care which party they are from those in office must put working people first and not those who look to seek only power.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/15/2009 6:35pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I’ll see your people, and raise you the voters that put these people in office to get something done. Next year, those who are standing in the way of progress and not contributing constructively will get the same thing they had coming to them in 2008 and 2006. See you at the polls.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/16/2009 4:14am

    The definition of the term “progress” is debatable when it comes to this bill.

    I think the Independent minded voters (the fastest growing number of voters in the US) might disagree with your definition of “progress”.

    In my mind, as an Independent and a Constitutionalist, I define progress as:

    1) Instituting the least amount of Federal Control as possible but still achieving the goals of health coverage for all.
    2) Leaving the power of regualting healt insurance issues to the states by only stipulating guiding principles as a “blueprint” for what each of the states should do Instead of having all of this mandated at the federal level. This would also include a measure where as no medical institute, public or private, can deny treatment to anyone as well as a measure regulating medical costs such as routine exams, tests, procedures and check-ups to prevent overcharging.
    3) Change focus of Insurance company’s to “not for profit” organizations to prevent price gouging.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/16/2009 4:14am

    The key is that all of this can be done with out trampling on state rights and trampling on civil liberties. Wouldnt you agree that pushing the states to address these issues would be better than having the Federal Government regulate all of this?

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/16/2009 2:49pm

    The problem is that the states haven’t done it. Federal pressure on the states instead of federal regulation is a great idea. In the 70’s the federal government withheld highway funds to pressure the states to lower the speed limits to 55. I’d like to see that as well. But there are other ways to skin this cat and give it health care. I would prefer to see reforms in the direction you propose, but I don’t see them on the table. What is on the table is better than the status quo.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/17/2009 3:20am

    Which is exactly where I was going with that. If the Federal Government exacted pressure on the States to force them to enable them to pass Health Care reform, then we’d be in a far better position. The problem is, just as you’ve said, no one has put that on the table. I would argue that no one has put that on the table because the ones who drafted the legislation would rather have federal control over this monstrosity than delegate it out to the states.

    The way we get this done is simple. The Federal Government only has to threaten to withold federal dollars to Medicade/ Medicare to the states if they do not enact sufficent legislation to properly reform the health care system. If Federal dollars for Medicade/Medicare get stripped there will be an uproar by those who use the systems. Most states will not risk that kind of loss in faith from their constituents.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/17/2009 4:41pm

    I think they’d rather not even be touching this 3rd rail at all. I don’t know how simple that would be. That would be a tough sell. Would this be budgetary; by forcing the states to provide care? Or would this harm the people?

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/18/2009 2:13am

    What I would also put out there is that it would be better for the states to shoulder the costs than the Federal Gov’t. I dont think that forceing states to have a “public option” will even be a concerns if Insurance company’s are forced to be “not for profit”.

    Then all you have to do is provide state subsidies for families on the low income side that dont qualify for medicade but still cant afford purchasing a decent plan.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/17/2009 6:16am

    The GOP has their own version of health care reform. The Democrats wouldn’t let it see the light of day. The REAL alternative here is to put both bills up for a public vote. Let the voters decide which they want. It is, after all, our government and our lively hoods at stake here.

    The problem I see is that Democrats are using this bill as a means by which to institute their own foothold in Congress. They want this bill passed at all cost and they don’t care about it being partisan. (I might also add that just because one person from the GOP voted for it, does not make it a partisan effort)

    All in all, Democrats are playing politics with our lives.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/17/2009 6:26am

    Honestly, I’m not sure if I like the GOP version as I think it may be powerless. But the difference is that I believe it to be less invasive than the Dem’s version.

    That’s why I believe the best solution is to pressure the states to take on Health Care Reform. Not the Federal Government. The cost of the Federal Government becoming more powerful has been the national debt. It just keeps soaring. distributing the burden out to the states would decrease the need for there to be an increase in taxes on the federal level. If the states take on the fiscal responsibility, there could be a multitude of ingenious ways to cost effectively enhance the health care system. This bill doesn’t come close.

    All in all, spending needs to stop. The deficit needs to be fixed, national debt needs to decrease and there needs to be a surplus in our income to spending ratio. We need to look towards fixing the overspending mess created by the wars of the Bush Administration.

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