H.R.2 - Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. as introduced.
  • Short: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act as introduced.
  • Short: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act as passed house.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 71 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    DanKat 01/17/2011 8:05am

    Absolutely have to try to do anything and everything to repeal. If you don’t try then what? I will very interested to see who votes which way.

  • Spam Comment

  • suzieqs 01/08/2011 11:57am

    Well, this does not include REAL reform whatsoever in it, it is a 1-1/2 page piece of nothing that just calls to repeal the original in it’s entirety, so if this does pass, which I truly doubt, the pre-existing clause will be repealed, the ability to insure your children until age 25 will be repealed, the lifetime cap will be re-instated, and you know the GOP will not do one single solitary thing in regards to reforming health care they had 4 years during Clinton admin, and 6 years during Bush and didn’t do anything then, so what makes you think they’ll do anything now?

    So go ahead and continue to believe that the GOP is for everyone, they aren’t and never have been, they are only for those who can line their pockets the best.

  • Comm_reply
    kwittlieff 01/14/2011 5:32am

    And the Democrats only have our best interest in mind right?

  • Comm_reply
    DanKat 01/17/2011 8:14am

    The point of this bill is not reform – it is only repeal. Simple, quick, efficient. Get the mess cleaned up first, then move for some proper reforms.

  • faheem2774 01/13/2011 3:27pm

    I too would want more reform, but dismantling this bill (which does include many Republican ideas) is not the solution. If you do not like portions, then legislate – don’t repeal and tell me that this is what we the people want.

  • Comm_reply
    DanKat 01/17/2011 8:18am

    There is so much garbage intertwined in this mess of a bill, it would be incredibly difficult and time consuming to go through it. Make a clean break and start over. Also all the other non-health care provisions that were sneaked into this bill (like always) will be taken away as well.
    I bet if you really knew everything that is in this bill, you would think twice about keeping it.

  • stidmatt 01/14/2011 2:26pm

    There are a few things to me that make my position on health care clear:
    1. There is a clear correlation between the Human Development Indexes of countries that DO have government involved in health care to some extent (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, JAPAN, TAIWAN, Canada) and countries that DON’T (Iran, Russia, any third world nation really).
    2. We pay a lot for health care. This was not a complete overhaul, it was so vandalized by Republicans that all that is left is a lot of restrictions on abusive practices from insurers that kept people from getting the care they need.
    3. Health care is a public good like roads, mass transit, communication, energy, etc. There are three things that make it so: my having health care doesn’t keep you from having health care, and my having health care makes you need less health care because the person who didn’t have health care is no longer an incubator for disease.

    Because of these economic, scientific, and quality of life reasons, I support health.

  • Comm_reply
    kir 01/15/2011 2:57am

    I support health as well. I just don’t support this bill which does nothing to increase the health of this nation. By the way we DO have “government involved in health care to some extent” as you put it.

    The United States already supplies health care to low income families and the elderly (Medicare and Medicaid). The two programs were created to supply health coverage to those who truly couldn’t afford it. The fact that we still have such an issue with health care in this country only strengthens the image that govt attempts to provide coverage are failures.

    Why don’t we try to fix the programs in place AND why don’t we try to lower the burden on middle and upper middle class families by lowering taxes as well. I know my family would be able to afford insurance if they weren’t paying 40% of their income to taxes.

  • Comm_reply
    grant3719 02/02/2011 9:20am

    kir, From reading your post I bet you and your family are like mine, We PAY for OUR own health Care. We just don’t have Health insurance. I don’t want health insurance and I don’t need any help paying for the services I contract. If I can’t afford to get an annual check-up I DON"T. I get the health services I can afford and that’s enough.

  • Comm_reply
    kbthiede 03/14/2011 7:17pm

    You sir are ridiculous. It seems as though your proposal for those who are sick and unable to pay for treatment is to simply die without receiving any treatment.

  • badams82 01/16/2011 3:46pm

    Waste of time. Nothing but a front to appease those who voted for them. It will most likely not pass. Precious time wasted. Time, that could be utilized to deal with other pertinent issues that will actually help our economy.

  • fakk2 01/17/2011 12:50pm

    I’m not trying to say anyone is wrong, but I have to wonder, when someone finally keeps their campaign promise, although it’s a hopeless situation currently, why should they be condemned against? I’m sure we’re all used to politicians who say things during the campaign, then never deliver or even attempt; but if they run on a platform and attempt to deliver on that platform, even if they can’t, shouldn’t we at least say “thank you for being honest about this”?

  • mouseissue 01/17/2011 1:36pm

    This is a LOUD shout over the bow of the Obama administration.

    It will start by letting everyone know that this law is NOT what the people asked for by passing repeal in the House.

    Next, parts of it that require funding will not get that funding.
    Remember, the House controls the purse strings.

    In the next couple of years, the house will propose alternate bills that
    will keep the good stuff in this law, remove the bad, and add more stuff like tort reform.

    And finally in 2013 after Obama has left, the repeal will be sent forward again and remove this monstrosity from our midst.

  • Comm_reply
    Sxeptomaniac 01/19/2011 8:12am

    Not really. It’s just a front to appear to be keeping a promise that recently-elected congress-persons made. It has zero chance of making it past the Senate or the President once, much less after a veto. I doubt it will make it out of the House, and it may not even leave committee.

    There’s a reason it has an absurdly dramatic name: to make it look good for their constituents. It’s not a shot over Obama’s bow by any stretch, as it was expected after the results mid-term elections.

  • Comm_reply
    Nicklar 01/28/2011 10:14am

    I beg to differ, Sxeptomaniac. This is a very important bill for a number of reasons. Consider this: Republicans vowed during the campaign period to repeal heathcare. How would it look if they then took office and said “Well, you know, we can’t really do it anyway, so why try?” The reason that they went ahead with this bill was that it showed the people who voted for them that they are SERIOUS about repealing Obamacare. Do you realize, Sxeptomaniac, that it would only take FOUR Democratic Senators to unite with the Republicans in the Senate to pass it there as well? “Well, what good is that?” you ask “President Obama would still have to sign it”. You are correct, but by sending this bill to the President’s desk, Congress would force him to use his signature to deny the American people legislation that they clearly WANT. You incidentally have already been proven wrong about the bill never leaving committee or the House.

  • b58 01/19/2011 2:29am

    First a good president would not have signed off on a healthcare bill he had not read yet. Congress was not working for the people to pass such a bill when nobody had even read it. The ones that had a part in passing and the final one that signed it into law needs to be impeached from office ASAP.

  • b58 01/19/2011 2:44am

    This country don’t need a government run healthcare. We have Medicare and Medicaid that just needs all the fraud taken out of it. We have illegals and others that come into our country and drain our resourses that our tax money has put up for the american poor people. The ones in this country illegal and collecting medicare and welfare and all the other freebees and not paying taxes is taking things from our seniors that has worked all their life and paid their taxes.

  • apollobartender 01/20/2011 9:12am

    B58 – it is not a government run healthcare, which is the purpose for all of this theatre. If the constituents truly understood that the Affordable Healthcare Act takes government money to help Americans purchase private healthcare, we wouldn’t have to go through this whole dance on the Congress floor, believe me, the Healthcare industry has no intention of letting this Act get repealed. Its the best deal they could hope for actually, this was a republican idea in the first place. What the Healthcare industry really wants is to get the republicans to dismantle all of the consumer protections that are in the bill so they can sell more junk insurance policies. – which is really what this fight is about. The real issues haven’t surfaced yet. Stay tuned

  • meadowj 01/20/2011 10:26am

    Just—- elected officials doing what they were voted to do. “Stop the ever expanding government”. The repeal will not be successful but it will let the electorate know who needs to voted out in 2012.(If we could see the representatives that voted no)Why is it that the Aye button works for those that voted for the bill yet the nay button does not work? Choke the finances and work on other reductions.
    Yes we need to fix a lot of things with health care but as the people requested such as work on things that can help without socializing the country and ruining the best health care in the world.

  • JeannieD 01/22/2011 5:46am

    The 112Th Congress is proving by their actions thus far,that they will be the most egregious legislative body ever to be seated in the Peoples’ House. Their total lack of respect for the health and well being of this nation is shameful to say the least.
    The Government of the United States has grown for a reason, to serve it’s large population and the growing needs of today’s society. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in my opinion an anarchist and shouldn’t be part of a government that they so despise.
    A final word for all those that repeat the same talking points over and over. I have one of my own to add: The United states Of America is not a business, it is a Nation. And wanting to preserve the social net doesn’t make us all Socialists, it makes us humane.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/22/2011 8:23am

    Just curious, have you read the constitution in it’s entirety? Or the federalist papers? Or original works by Jefferson & Hamilton? The reason I ask is because the constitution was never intended to form a government to replace personal responsibility. So, when someone says “…the United States has grown…to serve it’s large population and the growing needs of today’s society” is missing the point of America. Our founding fathers lived under a government where EVERYONE’s needs were decided by a ruling class, and they hated it. Why are those who believe we don’t need a government deciding what is and isn’t right for us wrong? Why should we be mandated to buy ANYTHING? Also, you’re right, we are a nation. That doesn’t mean I have to pay taxes for someone to afford insurance through state managed exchanges. If they want that, tell them to look me up and ask me for a handout themselves instead of hiding behind congress.

  • Comm_reply
    Snexas 01/31/2011 10:33am

    What is your opinion on the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen that President John Adams signed into law? It apparently garnished the wages of merchant sailors to pay for government built and run hospitals in order to help protect the economy of the day.


  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/02/2011 1:49pm

    Snexas, good question. Overall, and just considering the wording of the bill/law, I like it. [http://www.history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf]

    1.) It takes from a certain group of people 1% or less of the overall income they received and provides the direct benefits back to those same people in sec 3: “to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now estab- lished in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct.”

    2.) In the same section, it states a provision of who can receive the benfits of the tax: “Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended within the same.”

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/02/2011 1:50pm

    3.) Sec 4 states something I’m WILDLY excited about: It only allowed the government to build hospitals “…if any surplus shall remain…”, and then only “…after defraying the expense of such temporary relief and support…”, AND THEN ONLY “…when, in [the President’s] opinion, a suficient fund shall be accumulated, [the President] is hereby authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings, when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.”

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/02/2011 1:51pm

    4.) Sec 5 allows the President to “…nominate and appoint, in such ports of the United States, as he may think proper, one or more persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United States…” with the stipulation that “…no other allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge of the duties required by this act…” except to “…direct the expenditure of the fund assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen…”

    5.) But I think the thing that I like most is that the people impacted WEREN’T REQUIRED TO PURCHASE ANYTHING. They weren’t required to buy a good or service. It gave them freedom of choice. If they didn’t like it, they could always stop being seamen. They could get away from it, and if they did, they wouldn’t receive the benefits of the act.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 02/02/2011 1:51pm

    Overall the 1798 Act sets a strong precedence for being taxed, and a precedence for the government to be involved in health care, which is directed by the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause in the constitution. But this act is nothing like Obamacare which DOES mandate to purchase a private good or service. See, it’s kinda like Social Security taxes: If I could opt out of it, and thus not receive the benefit, or if I could stay in, and thus receive the benefit, then at least I have a choice. With insurance and Obamacare, the only choice I have is to comply with the individual mandate, or break the law and face a fine. That’s not really a choice at all, aka, break the damn law. It’s cheaper that way anyway.

    BTW, I think Adams was SOOOO boring in his SOTU address: http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/02.asp

  • Comm_reply
    kbthiede 03/14/2011 7:13pm

    I agree with having choices. I think a government-run insurance provider would be a great choice to have. In England, most people CHOOSE the govt single-payer system, there are also private insurance providers, but most choose the public option.

    Too bad those poor old insurance barons need another fleet of yachts. A public option would have been really good.

  • Comm_reply
    DanKat 01/24/2011 9:19am

    Government is not supposed to step in take over personal responsibilities. America became what it is by American’s hard work and personal responsibility. Compare that to where we are now. It is sickening to see our country changing from within so much.

    What our federal government is doing now is similar to a person who lights a fire, which quickly becomes out of control and then this same person offers his advice and help to put it out, but does so badly.

  • Comm_reply
    Snexas 01/31/2011 10:28am

    And where is the personal responsibility in not buying health insurance, waiting until your sick to use emergency room care, and then forcing tax payers to foot the bill and causing insurance rates to skyrocket? The original health care law helps level the playing field. It seems like the government should only really help the neediest people who can’t afford health care, not those irresponsible people who choose not to have health insurance because they think nothing will ever happen to them and then they go bankrupt from health bills because they can’t get insurance after they’re already sick.

Vote on This Bill

48% Users Support Bill

597 in favor / 634 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments