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.

thejock13 01/15/2011 10:14am
in reply to kir Jan 09, 2011 5:42am

BTW, the health care reform bill makes it so you can afford health care insurance. So, please stop leeching of the rest of us. Thanks!

Cite: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

grant3719 02/02/2011 9:49am

Obamacare has to be repealed. It dose nothing about the cost of health care! Health Insurance is from the Insurance industry. Health Care is from the Health Care industry. Two differant Industries. The cost of health care is what I pay when I go to the doc. or hospital. Insurance is money I would be giving away.

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.

kbthiede 03/14/2011 7:13pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 02, 2011 1:51pm

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.

suzieqs 03/30/2011 3:45pm
in reply to grant3719 Feb 02, 2011 9:49am

Do you really believe repealing this bill will reduce your Health Insurance Premiums? Please! Give me a break, if you’ve already proven your willingness to pay for a higher premium, then the insurance company is not going to reduce it, if this is taken away.

Just like prices at the pump, price for crude went down, but the price at the pump hasn’t changed to match.

Besides, it’s just business. Right? Right!

DanKat 01/17/2011 8:05am
in reply to kir Jan 07, 2011 6:07am

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.

DanKat 01/17/2011 8:18am
in reply to faheem2774 Jan 13, 2011 3:27pm

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.

DanKat 01/17/2011 8:27am
in reply to BECKYTOM Jan 15, 2011 5:59am

Well, from what I’ve seen, the Conservatives attack ideas and the Democrats attack the person.
Democrats ideas and philosophies simply don’t hold up to real debate, which is what Conservatives want. So the Democrats attack the person’s character, families, decisions, etc. and not truthfully either. Look at last weekend’s AZ shooting. Perfect example of Democrats taking advantage of a crisis to spread ugly lies about the Conservatives.
Look at Obama. How long has he been playing the Bush card to take the heat off himself and try to make himself look good?

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”?

fakk2 02/02/2011 1:49pm
in reply to Snexas Jan 31, 2011 10:33am

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.”

jdubya1977 02/02/2011 3:20pm
in reply to kir Jan 09, 2011 5:42am

And I cannot afford to pay more in my health insurance premiums to cover your in ability to pay for health insurance. If you do not want to buy health insurance and cannot pay cash for the services rendered at your local hospital or doctors office then don’t go when you are sick, in a car accident, or fall and break your arm. A big part of the problem is people like you. Stop smoking a carton of cigarettes a week and you may be able to afford health insurance….

fakk2 02/15/2011 10:24pm
in reply to Snexas Jan 31, 2011 10:28am

Ok, I have to mention something that hasn’t been said here.

I currently have insurance, but when the individual mandate goes into effect, I plan on dropping my coverage until I need it because it’s cheaper just to break the law as far as this goes. I know I’m not the only one willing to do that. So, if insurance companies fail because of people like me, doesn’t that just leave us with the government or “public” option. And if so, wouldn’t this create more government spending?

Snexas 01/31/2011 10:28am
in reply to DanKat Jan 24, 2011 9:19am

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.

suzieqs 04/12/2011 7:01am
in reply to kir Jan 17, 2011 2:12am

But it’s ok for the Health Insurance Companies to “leech” off of the consumer, & it’s ok for the Big Oil companies to “leech” off the land and it’s ok for Big Corporations to “leech” off of the taxpayer in tax loopholes & government subsidies.

My earnings have remained stagnant for 12 years now, even a .50 cent an hour increase doesn’t anywhere near make up for the increased cost for heat & utilities, or the cost for gas at the pump. Never mind that food prices have risen sharply as well.

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.

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.

kwittlieff 01/14/2011 5:32am
in reply to suzieqs Jan 08, 2011 11:57am

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

suzieqs 04/12/2011 6:52am
in reply to apollobartender Jan 20, 2011 9:09am

Conservatives attack ideas? So if they repeal the LIHEAP program that means they’re only attacking an ideal, not a collection of society, it’s just our imagination that Low Income Families & Seniors will be harmed if this happens, and it’s just our imagination that those people with pre-existing conditions will be harmed if this were to truly be enacted.

Yea, conservatives don’t attack people, you’re right. It’s just our imagination.

HildaSuf 03/20/2011 10:10pm

No Republican voted for the healthscare bill/tax.
This bill was written, passed, and forced on the citizens corruptly.
Yes, repeal – there is no way of making something so obviously a federal power grab anything near reform.
We’re not in a free America if people are forced to buy an inferior product, that they passionately do not want.

kir 01/15/2011 2:57am
in reply to stidmatt Jan 14, 2011 2:26pm

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.

grant3719 02/02/2011 9:20am
in reply to kir Jan 15, 2011 2:57am

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.

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.

kbthiede 03/14/2011 7:17pm
in reply to grant3719 Feb 02, 2011 9:20am

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.

Nicklar 01/28/2011 10:35am
in reply to suzieqs Jan 25, 2011 7:55pm

Actually, it is common practice to in some way connect a politician’s name to legislation when that politician was instrumental in its passage. It is more often done in a way such as the McCain/Feingold Act.

As to the term “Obamacare” being an attack, the only way that someone in the Democratic party could truly view this as an attack would be if they had a negative view of the bill itself. If they are as fond of it as they claim to be, they should instead be jealous that it is not THEIR name on it!

hardhatgal 02/12/2011 7:07am
in reply to hardhatgal Feb 12, 2011 7:05am

here is a link that explains the healthc are bill…http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/your-money/health-insurance/22consumer.html?scp=1&sq=health%20care%20bill&st=Search

duvexy 03/04/2011 5:00pm
in reply to Sxeptomaniac Jan 18, 2011 8:08am

Lets compare then. Who attacks who the most? That is clearly the Democrats who are attacking the Republicans the most. There is not justification and condescention does not change the facts.

Snexas 01/31/2011 10:33am
in reply to fakk2 Jan 22, 2011 8:23am

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.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care/

DanKat 01/24/2011 9:19am
in reply to JeannieD Jan 22, 2011 5:46am

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.

fakk2 02/02/2011 1:51pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 02, 2011 1:50pm

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

tom989 04/22/2011 9:51am
in reply to hardhatgal Feb 12, 2011 7:07am

Thanks for the link…lays it out well.


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