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 151-180 of 721 total comments.

  • bkrueg 11/02/2009 6:18am

    WSJ reports, “What we do is we try to make the current system work better,” Boehner, of Ohio, said on CNN’s “State of the Nation.” The GOP plan would likely be less costly to taxpayers and involve less government intrusion into the private sector. Boehner said the bill would take “a step-by-step approach” to expanding coverage.

    It would, among other things, propose new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits and make it easier for individuals and small businesses to pool resources to purchase insurance.

    Boehner said the Republican bill would also propose grants for states that use “innovative” solutions to expand coverage. He pointed to states that have created special “high-risk pools” to provide insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions.

    He said the bill wouldn’t raise taxes, nor mandate that individuals and businesses purchase insurance, as the Democratic legislation does.

  • bkrueg 11/02/2009 6:43am

    The new House health care bill, H.R. 3962 includes the same problematic provisions found in the Capps Amendment added to H.R. 3200. The new bill:

    Allows private health insurance plans that cover elective abortion to receive government subsidies (Section 222(e)(2)) (The bill also includes the Capps provision that purports to segregate the “federal dollars” from “private dollars” that are used to pay for abortions (Sections 303(e)(2); 341©(3)) – but nothing alters the fact that this provision allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion);
    Permits the public option to include abortion coverage (Section 222(e)(3));
    Ensures that one plan in every coverage area covers abortion (Section 303(e)(1)(A)).
    H.R. 3962 also states that funds provided for school-based clinics cannot be used for abortions (Sec. 399Z-1©(2))) and that school-based clinics are defined as not providing abortions (Sec. 399Z-1(l)(3)(E)). However, it does not prohibit abortion referrals.

  • bkrueg 11/02/2009 7:00am

    Budgetary Gimmicks

    Unpaid-For Doctor Fix: While the Democrats claim their bill is now deficit-neutral, the majority also introduced a separate piece of stand-alone legislation (H.R. 3961). The more than $200 billion cost of this legislation is not paid for, thus adding hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending and interest costs to the federal debt. Many may also note that the Congressional Budget Office recently analyzed similar legislation (S. 1776) as raising Medicare premiums by $70 billion.

  • desolation_anonymous 11/02/2009 7:27am

    News sources read (I have yet to read the actual portion of the bill) that this also caps Flexible Medical accounts at $2,500 a year? That is an outrage… I know many people who are only making it financially because of their Flexible Spending accounts…

    I have yet to read the bill, but I got to say… I do not support government control of our healthcare insurance system, with our without a ‘public option’, it is still controlling and regulating our health insurance. I have yet to see the government regulate anything in a way that makes it better.

    Why not pass a few small laws at a time, to slowly improve… such as allowing insurance to be bought across state lines? If things don’t get better in 5 years, add another small option….

    This kind of massive regulation and overhaul cannot lead to anything good. I challenge anyone to name one government system that is run efficiently and without a lot of interference and red tape.

  • kevinmcc 11/02/2009 8:45am

    Question: Where does Congress get the authority to create a public option?

    Answer: They do not have that power. A public option is unconstitutional and beyond their regulatory powers.

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/02/2009 8:56am

    Good. Hopefully if they do overstep and this monstrosity actually passes, we can get the whole thing thrown out in court.

    I thought the main issue was, it is not in the Federal Government authority to force the American People to buy anything? Or am I wrong about that?

    I’d love to see that. Get the whole thing overturned because it is unconstitutional. I’m not a lawyer, but last I checked the Constitution is STILL the highest legal authority as law in this land.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/02/2009 1:56pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    You should ask a lawyer.

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/03/2009 2:09pm

    I would love to. Am having Thanksgiving with one, hopefully. I hope to ask then.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/03/2009 4:30pm

    Ask him how he would differentiate health care from Social Security and unemployment benefits which have already been upheld by the Supreme Court under the General Welfare provisions.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 3:16am

    First of all, it’s HEALTH INSURANCE not Health Care that is being regulated here.

    Second of all… Unemployment benefits are paid into by the worker and not everyone is entitled to them. Unemployment bennies do not carry along a hefty fine for those who do not have them.

    Thirdly… Social Security is a tax that (theoretically) goes into a pool where, when I am 60 or 65 I get to cash out on.

    Both of these areas are enforced by taxation and are not (too terribly) intrusive. Mandatory Health Insurance IS intrusive and carries a hefty fine with it. It does not fall under the general welfare clause because it adds another level of intrusion into the lives of US Citizens.

    I have faith that, if passed, this bill will be found to be unconstitutional.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/04/2009 3:19pm

    It’s only a tax if you aren’t covered. There is personal responsibility involved. My faith is in precedent.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/05/2009 2:20am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Uh, no, it’s a tax regardless. I mean, really, do you think that you’re going to have access to Social Security when you’re of retirement age (if not already or soon approaching)?

    I know for a fact that Social Security is not going to available to me when I get to retirement. Guess what, its because of mismanagement by both Democrats AND Republicans!

    I admire your ideology, but I think it just might be misplaced.

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/05/2009 3:20pm

    Interesting question. I will…. but I thought you could ‘opt out’ of Social Security with a lot of hassle?

    I don’t know about unemployment benefits… I know some small businesses don’t have them, but?

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/05/2009 5:43pm

    I’d need to talk to my accountant, but I’m not aware of any current option “out” of SS unless you are self-employed and above a certain tax bracket.

    Unemployment is federally mandated but managed at the state level through the U.S. Treasury. Some of the specifics vary from state to state. So it is very possible you’ve run across a business that had a negligible payment into the system, but you were covered by law.

  • Comm_reply
    dnewyear 11/02/2009 3:36pm

    I do not trust that our court system would throw it out. We now have at least one supreme court justice that believes the courts’ job is to create law from the bench not interpret the law. The checks and balances created by the constitution have been so eroded by politicians playing outside the rules that I believe the only solution is to hit the big reset button.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/03/2009 4:18pm

    We have at least 4 that believe in creatively interpreting the constitution: John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas.

  • Comm_reply
    batmomva 11/05/2009 9:27am
    Link Reply
    + -3

    Aren’t you required by law to have auto insurance? or pay an uninsured motorist fee?

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/05/2009 3:21pm

    I could be wrong, but isn’t that STATE laws, not Federal? I thought such things were under the jurisdiction of the states, not the Federal Government?

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/05/2009 5:44pm


  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/06/2009 7:35pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    There is, to my knowledge, such thing as an uninsured motorist fee. There is, however, a law that stipulates that it is unlawful to be uninsured AND you can be ticketed and fined for failure to present proof of automobile insurance.

    Fee implies that you can pay it and go on not having the insurance. Fine is a repercussion for violating a law or statute.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/07/2009 4:52pm

    It varies from state to state. In Virginia, for example: Uninsured Motor Vehicle Fee -
    If the vehicle is uninsured, the motor vehicle owner is required to pay to DMV a $500 uninsured motor vehicle fee in addition to normal registration fees. Payment of the $500 fee does not provide the motorist with any insurance coverage. If involved in an accident, the uninsured motorist remains personally liable. This fee is valid for twelve months but may be prorated for a shorter amount of time.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/10/2009 4:24am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Interesting, I did not know that.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/02/2009 1:55pm

    How do they not have that power?

  • Comm_reply
    NotAPundit 11/03/2009 9:25am
    Link Reply
    + -1


    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.

    Health care/insurance is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, least of all in the congressional powers section, so it is not something congress has the power to do under the constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/03/2009 4:24pm

    Those powers are delegated in Article I sec 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, …and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;”

    Broadcast radio was not mentioned in the constitution either. Good luck with that one as well.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 3:08am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    I think you’ve completely missed the mark in trying to make a point… I’m assuming you’re referring to the usage of broadcast radio as an instrument of free speech?

    Regardless of what your intention was with that statement, the fact still remains that it falls under a generalization of one of the Constitutionally garunteed rights.

    The Constitution provides Congress the power to provide for the GENERAL welfare, not the total or complete welfare of the United States. Forcing people to have health insurance does not fall under general welfare.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/04/2009 3:18pm

    Broadcasting is federally legislated down to a mathematical absolute. Just an example.

    This bill does not provide “total or complete welfare.” But, how is access to health care (which is what insurance provides) less general than Social Security, which has already been argued at the Supreme Court and found to be within the constitutional scope of the General Welfare clause? Many of us will never use Social Security, either because we’ve done well for ourselves or just that we are all mortal. But because we are all mortal, could anything be more general? Can you find no benefit in a stronger, healthier workforce on productivity?

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/05/2009 2:29am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Noooo… Insurance does not provide health care, it provides a means to pay for health care. Per most state laws, Hospitals MUST provide care regardless of whether or not one posess health insurance. Access to health care has already been garunteed. It’s the costs that are the wall to people being to actually PAY for that coverage. It isnt insurance. I’ve said this before in another post, but the issue isnt insurance coverage, its the out of control costs associated with health care. The government needs to reign in on what doctors charge for a routine check up and it needs to pressure standardization for routine exams and proceedures. The only thing that Congress needs to do Insurance related is make it unlawful to raise premiums because of age and make it unlawful to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Once that’s been done, I am fully confident that the Insurance coverage issue will fix itself… Simply because it will become affordable!

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/05/2009 5:20pm

    I agree fraud and abuse needs to be addressed. Those provisions in this bill were a pleasant surprise to me. But I think the costliest abuses are on the insurance side. There are primary care physicians that will charge less if you are not putting it on your insurance, for example.

  • Comm_reply
    shc227 11/30/2009 9:11am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    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.

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