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 121-150 of 721 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/06/2009 2:31am

    :-O … Interesting the world you come from includes the description of the word “Quiet” as being rude…

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/06/2009 3:20pm

    Are you going to tell us what the similarities are between S.1796 and this bill, or were you just sent here to waste our time?

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/06/2009 7:31pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    You tell me, you’re the one trolling these posts.

    I’ve already told you that there are differences. Your inability to connect the dots has lead you to failing to realize that both of these bills will be combined and a combination of both will go before the President for his signature.

    Are you going to admit that you’re a troll? A troll that goes around these blogs and bill posts leaving no doubt in the rest of our minds as to the true depths of your utter ignorance?

    “It is better for one to be thought a fool and be silent rather than speak and have all doubt removed”

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/07/2009 4:51pm

    You clearly know the vernacular better than I do. But you have answered my question.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/06/2009 2:35am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    The fact still remains that you have no idea how to recognize and address the facts. Your creation of unsupported and unsubstantiated facts seems almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/06/2009 3:48am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Not to mention your propensity for making ludicrous assumptions.

  • Comm_reply
    dihayden29 07/22/2010 4:07pm

    Nancy Pelosi is a joke and another one of Obama’s croonies, that I wouldnt vote for or wish on my worst enemy! Flush out Washington and get people in Congress who care and will LISTEN to the People and the Constitution!!

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/31/2009 11:20am

    You are helping to propogate the H1N1 “urgency”. Have you not read all the actual research on the fact that vaccines no not work anyway? It is a ploy to instill fear in the public in order that they can take more control over our lives! See this (http://www.naturalnews.com/027364_internet_pandemic_traffic.html) If we all beleive that they will take care of us, then we will allow them to do it. More than 36,000 people die every year from the seansonal flu. Why the call for a “National Emergency” for this particular strand? The second leading cause of death in America today is perscription drugs! Do more research and wake up.

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/02/2009 7:11am

    You are the one who doesn’t have the facts, H1N1 is MUCH worse than seasonal flu. Try going to actual sources and statistics, say from the National Library of Medicine or the CDC… natural news is not an actual news source…

    1) H1N1 infects deep in the lungs which seasonal flu does NOT http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910083915.htm
    2) H1N1 has already killed over 90 children. Seasonal flu kills at max 88. 74 have died since they just ‘reset’ the clock in August, 19 http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm#MS
    3) Seasonal flu usually only kills elderly and immune compromised. This flu is killing young people, and middle-aged people, many previously healthy
    4) When it comes down to it, H1N1 will end up claiming many more lives than seasonal flu. It is foolish to compare a year of a disease course with a disease that just emerged a few months ago. I’ll be happy if you were right, but sadly I fear you’ll be eating your words by next April.

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/02/2009 7:15am

    Also, natural news is NOT a news source. I’m not arguing that vaccines could, sometimes have bad side effects, but most of the time they are effective in preventing disease.

    Vaccines are effective in most that have them, IF the shot is a good match. Seasonal flu prevents it 70-90% of the time when there is a good match. http://www.cdc.gov/Flu/about/qa/flushot.htm

    Why, do you think, do we not have Smallpox anymore? It didn’t just peter out on it’s own… Do you think it would have been better to let 1/3 of people who get a disease die, or be scarred for life (like smallpox did…)?

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 2:51am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Your third point about H1N1 killing young and middle aged healthy people, you need to cite a source on that one. Every one of the articles I’ve read regarding to H1N1 (and I’ve read ALOT trying to determine if I want my kids to get the vaccination or not) has stated that most of the fatalities has been in people with underlying respritory conditions.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/04/2009 6:51am

    Submitted by LiveScience Staff
    posted: 02 November 2009 08:48 am ET
    Swine flu has killed at least 114 U.S. children according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Nineteen swine flu-related pediatric deaths were reported this week, the agency stated Friday in announcing the worst week to date since the outbreak began in April.
    More deaths are likely but not confirmed, the agency’s chief Thomas R. Frieden said. About two-thirds of the childhood deaths are among children with other health problems.
    Here’s what’s different about swine flu, however: “In a usual flu season, 90 percent of the deaths are among people over the age of 65. In H1N1, 90 percent of the deaths are in people under the age of 65,” Frieden said.


  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/04/2009 3:42pm

    OK. No problem. I can give you more, if you want. I’ve been doing lots of research on it myself.

    Here is one from WHO (World Health Organization)


    “many severe cases occur in previously healthy young people. In these patients, predisposing factors that increase the risk of severe illness are not presently understood, though research is under way.
    In severe cases, patients generally begin to deteriorate around 3 to 5 days after symptom onset. Deterioration is rapid, with many patients progressing to respiratory failure within 24 hours…"

    By the way NINETEEN pediatric H1N1 deaths just last week in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/04/2009 3:55pm

    Here is something from the CDC, talking about risks for asthma… but see statistics below..
    “the percentage of 2009 H1N1 related deaths that occurred among people 0 years to 4 years was 3%; among those 5 years to 18 years was 14%; among people 19 to 24 years was 7%; among people 25 to 49 years was 33%; among people 50-64 years was 32%; and among people 65 years and older was 12%”

    ON seasonal flu
    “How does 2009 H1N1 flu compare to seasonal flu in terms of its severity and infection rates?”
    …"Over 90% of deaths and about 60 percent of hospitalization occur in people older than 65.:

    So…. seasonal flu… 90% of deaths in over 65. H1N1… 88 percent of deaths are in those under 65.

    Does it really matter how many had ‘underlying conditions’… still about 30% DON’T, and these people are not usually dying at these rates with seasonal flu…

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/06/2009 11:49am

    Also, please read today’s press briefing from the CDC

    “. More than half the hospitalizations are in people under 25. 90% of the deaths are in people under 65. A flip-flop from what we see with seasonal flu. The pediatric deaths are high. Children have died from flu where the typing wasn’t done, but that’s an increase from last week’s number. Two-thirds of the children who died from the H1N1 virus have underlying condition that is increase their risk of this problem. "

    That means 1/3 of the kids who died had NO UNDERLYING CONDITION.


  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/10/2009 4:20am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Thank you. Much appreciated.

  • Betonavette 10/31/2009 6:47am

    It is my belief that this Healthcare bill is a somke screen used by the Obama administration to bring socialism to this country. Period!

  • Comm_reply
    TSpringer59 10/31/2009 11:09am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Unfortunately it is not a smokescreen. It is part of the plan!

  • TSpringer59 10/31/2009 11:07am

    Regardless of the “contents” of this, or any other proposed legislation, is there no thought given to WHY IS THIS SO URGENT? Any legislation that is this important, and this highly debated, should not be rushed (remember the last few times there was and “urgent” need?). No plan is a noble plan if it cannot stand the test of thoughtful reflection without urgency! In fact, the actions of the elected are the opposite of noble. The elected continue to demonstrate they are not using an ounce of integrity with respect to the process or the fiscal accountability for their actions. I will answer this recklessness in the upcoming elections. I hope you all will too. Because, regardless of what the bill is supposed to accomplish, it will be forever tainted by the process that was used to pass it.

  • Comm_reply
    desolation_anonymous 11/02/2009 7:28am

    No disagreement with you here.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/05/2009 2:59am

    Very much agreed.

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/05/2009 5:27am

    Well said. JUST-SAY-NO TO HR-3962

  • steve4608 11/01/2009 2:27am

    if every individual would have to shop for their own insurance instead of employers – the market would become client driven – instead of today’s market were people at the corporate and government level get wined and dined and lobbied and the incentive to create a cost effective health care system is mismanaged. The government has proven that it can not perform tasks of this magnitude. The health care bill should be that of privatizing the monolithic money black holes it now has responsibility of managing. It could be called the health care stewardship bill.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    bkrueg 11/02/2009 10:28am

    I’ve read your words and at the end the question that stands out in my mind is, “When did you sonni43 ever read the Holy Bible?” It is in my thoughts that liberals like you use the Bible the same as they do the United States Constitution and that is it’s a growing, living document that changes with society and the feelings of the day. HR 3962 is an unpopular and a costly power grab by the Democrat President and the Congress. The facts are HR 3962 will be found un-constitutional by the high court. Just look what your OBAMA government has done for the Native Americans who turn to government for their health care. It is the worst health care in the USA. They run out of money in June. DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE. JUST-SAY-NO TO HR-3962

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/02/2009 2:06pm

    You probably haven’t either.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 11/04/2009 2:59am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    There you go again, running your mouth and not even addressing the issue at hand. I quote another mumism… “If you cant say anything nice, then dont say anything at all”

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 11/04/2009 3:14pm

    He’s already established that he doesn’t scrutinize his sources, let alone read them. I was just mocking him. You’re right. I should stop.

  • Comm_reply
    batmomva 11/05/2009 9:21am

    Finally someone in this comment list with some sense and grace! These people need to realize they are already paying for the people that don’t have healthcare. I have a family member that has racked up thousands in ER visits because she knows they won’t turn her away for treatment (she has a few chronic conditions) even though she can’t pay the bill. She can’t go to a regular office, because she can’t pay, so the ER is her regular doctor. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a public option where people are contributing to say, a hundred dollar office visit, than to keep paying for a two thousand dollar ER visit for a sugar check? When the ER (or any other hospital bill) isn’t paid, the facility eats the cost, raises their fees and in return your insurance raises their fees……….

    So I guess all of you against the bill want to keep paying our ER fees? Not very smart if you ask me.

  • cwhiteside 11/01/2009 3:52pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    If insurance companies could sell across state lines — wouldn’t that lead to larger companies being dominant? Maybe getting “too big to fail”? Also insurance regulation is set up at the state level. If companies go national, the federal government would have to be the regulator — isn’t that more “big government”?

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