H.R.4872 - Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. view all titles (23)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Health care reconciliation bill as .
  • Popular: Reconciliation Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Official: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010. as introduced.
  • Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Short: Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Short: Reconciliation Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Reconciliation Act of 2010 as reported to house.
  • Short: Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported to house.
  • Popular: Health care reconciliation bill.
  • Short: SAFRA Act as passed house.
  • Official: An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13). as amended by house.
  • Popular: Health Care & Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 201 as introduced.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Official: An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal as amended by house.
  • Short: SAFRA Ac as passed house.
  • Short: America's Affor as introduced.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as enacted.
  • Short: SAFRA Act as enacted.
  • Short: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as passed senate.
  • Short: SAFRA Act as passed senate.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 47 total comments.

JenniferK 03/21/2010 12:49pm

Any one else notice that with this plan(on the comparison page)“4 million fewer people would have employer coverage than under current law”


applemanmatt 03/22/2010 4:56pm
in reply to chadlupkes Mar 19, 2010 7:20am

Anyone who has a brain understands that there is a right way to do budget rec. and a wrong way. BR is for taxes and spending, not for creating a new entitlement program or even making new policy/law. It’s for taxes and spending.

Let’s have an intelligent discussion. Yea health care is complicated. But if it were split into seperate issues, instead of tackling everything in one single bill, maybe things would get done in Washington, and maybe people wouldn’t complain about a bill being 2000 pages long.

aero405 03/21/2010 4:32pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 21, 2010 1:20pm

Sure: Sec 103 (b). The provision extends race-specific college funding originally established (in HR2669) for another 10 years (to 2019) at $255,000,000 per year, for a total new commitment of $2.55 billion. I’ll even link it for you:


So now that you’ve found it, care to take a shot at explaining to us how this improves health care?

aero405 03/21/2010 4:47pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 21, 2010 1:17pm

You missed the point, which was that there are valid and well-reasoned arguments against the current bill. I suppose it’s easier to ignore those and go for the low-hanging fruit in your mockeries though, right?

LucasFoxx 03/19/2010 5:18pm
in reply to chadlupkes Mar 18, 2010 2:25pm

That’s this crowd. Fortunately, it doesn’t reflect the electorate. Don’t expect much. Most of this crowd would fall under the “it goes too far” sentiment, because the whole idea of it is “unconstitutional” or “anti-capitalism” or just “un-American.”

zagrovich 03/19/2010 3:23pm
in reply to chadlupkes Mar 19, 2010 7:20am

Have you read the Constitution?
Is the government the answer to all?
Simple and common sense solutions that are not intrusive on our liberty is the answer not all encompassing government.

aero405 03/21/2010 11:33am
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 19, 2010 5:18pm

Also, as I review the bill’s contents I’m baffled to find $255,000,000 of tax money dedicated to colleges based on the skin color of their students. Is this a health reform bill or an affirmative action bill? Funny that you hear nothing about this content when Obama speaks on television.

chadlupkes 03/18/2010 2:25pm

25% support right now. Why? Does it go too far, or not far enough?

LucasFoxx 03/19/2010 5:09pm

I almost did what stage people call a “spit take” when I read the words “Public Option.” The Public Option is essentially the Exchange.

Good stuff in here: medical loss ratio rebates, elimination of annual or lifetime limits, no cost-sharing for preventive care, increased penalties for fraud and abuse, money and more authority for enforcement of consumer protection laws, whistle blower protection, lots of transparency issues are addressed,…

Other than communism, socialism, the wrath of God, and the end of the democracy, capitalism, and maybe the Earth itself, what’s not to like?

JenniferK 03/21/2010 3:28pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 21, 2010 1:22pm

No I would hope that more companies would offer insurance plans considering the posible fine if they don’t. This also means you have to subtract the 4 million from the 30 they promised health care for. 26 million is the result which is about the same as the say the 5% of uninsured Americas they say will be left. So basicly this great plan is to insure 5% of the public. Really that much money for 5%?

klassylady25 03/22/2010 12:24pm

Very well said snappy. And yes, Judge Napolitano, does get it!

LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 8:02am
in reply to JenniferK Mar 21, 2010 3:28pm

I think you’re getting the wrong impression from the original post. The companies have to offer it, but you don’t won’t be stuck with the Company option. You will have other options. The stat reflects the individual responsibility and the freedom to find your own plan.

LucasFoxx 03/22/2010 8:40pm
in reply to USCITIZEN10 Mar 22, 2010 6:47pm


*Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the “doughnut hole” coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.


jonhoye 03/23/2010 12:52am
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 19, 2010 5:18pm

I’m optimistic that the low numbers simply reflect the influx to the site from fearful consumers of a certain genre of punditry. I would like to be able to do queries on that data based on date of user registration.

Yet a poll is a poll and it reflects, to a non-quantifiable degree, the percentage of the electorate motivated enough to seek out and voice their opinion in a specific way.

Nonetheless, I’m a huge fan of this forum. Such classy and well thought out comments on here.

aero405 03/21/2010 11:30am
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 19, 2010 5:18pm

You’re right, the opinion here doesn’t represent the electorate. It represents people who have taken the time to look for/at the actual bill, and therefore have a much better idea of what’s actually in it rather than what’s merely advertised by its proponents on television. So if the support level is even lower here than at large, what does that tell you?

It’s certainly convenient to dismiss the bill’s opposition as ignorant loonies with half-baked opinions, but there are plenty of informed people against it for well-supported reasons if you truly care to know. Financial burden (amidst a recession and growing national debt) is one big reason, and this concern was succinctly justified in a NY Times op-ed yesterday:


jjustice 03/24/2010 9:24am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 11:30am

Actually this is also an overstatement. It only reflects the people who have both taken the time to look at the actual bill on this website, and also taken the time to register an account and render an oppinion one way or the other on this website about the bill.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:31am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 11:33am

Apparently you missed the part where the bill being voted on currently is actually 2 separate bills being combined partly because the effect of combining the 2 bills reduces their cost by about $10 billion, according to the congressional budget office. One of those bills is the senate passed health care reform bill, the other is a bill concerning education. This isn’t something that just came out of the blue, the education bill was a seperately considered but already existed House Resolution, it’s just that now it’s being reconciled with the health care reform bill.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:33am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 4:32pm

Yes part of the original education bill, not part of the health care bill.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:34am
in reply to jjustice Mar 24, 2010 9:33am

I can’t be the only one who noticed that the Reconciliation Act of 2010 combines 2 separate bills.

LucasFoxx 03/20/2010 12:19pm

Just heard Cantor say "…there are festivities outside, because people are angry.” Anger makes some people festive. Really? That’s creepy.

Vote yes on this reconciliation bill. If you do not, we (your employers) will remove you from your positions and replace you with individuals who truly represent the people of the United States of America. This is a promise. You are on notice. This is your probationary period due to your cloture votes, your inability to clear important cabinet appointments, and your general legislative lethargy! You have been hashing and dragging this issue out for over a year. Your actions in the coming days will decide your future with this institution.
The Management

jonhoye 03/23/2010 12:35am
in reply to aero405 Mar 21, 2010 4:32pm

Not a minority here, but I find it quite reasonable. Race specific vs. low income is a little difficult to explain to someone who hasn’t had the misfortune of witnessing the general trend against equal opportunity in the same spectrum I’ve been exposed to. In general, it seems providing such opportunities is a small counterbalance to certain real factors which aren’t always apparent.

In any case, I want the smartest and most talented people in every college education required field. This will help provide that in medical fields to a small degree, while also increasing the pool of insurance buying participants across the board. Yes, it’s a bit unfortunate that the free market doesn’t magically find and pay for the education of the best talent.

nmeagent 03/28/2010 4:23pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 26, 2010 6:43am

“…(and with modern examples from the TeaParty movement)…”

…and there went the rest of your credibility.

nmeagent 04/04/2010 3:33pm
in reply to jonhoye Mar 29, 2010 4:17pm

The very subject matter of the bill makes it unconstitutional. The federal government was not granted the authority by the Constitution to regulate health care and therefore such authority does not exist. The only thing keeping legislation such as this from withstanding legal challenges is the horrible precedents set by the Supreme Court during your beloved “New Deal” era, most notably in cases like Wickard vs. Filburn. In my opinion this will very likely be thrown out along with vast portions of your precious health care “reform” in the somewhat near future. Stay tuned and I’ll spare you the “I told you so”.

Oh and I’d appreciate it if you’d cut out the tired class warfare nonsense already. It’s not an argument, it has no connection to reality, and it just makes you sound like a leftist hack.

ZAPEM 04/09/2010 5:22am
in reply to nmeagent Apr 04, 2010 3:33pm

This administration seems to feel it has the totalitarian right to usurp the Constitution itself, nevermind the majority, they couldn’t care less about them either.

This Congress and this administration are full of themselves to the point of unprecedented arrogance. They shouldn’t just be thrown out of government, I see it as nothing less than treasonous.

Look at Jennifer Granholm, a person who brags about being Governor and being a dual-citizen. She’s not even 100% American! I say throw these people out of here. The Founders NEVER allowed for citizens to voluntarily hold dual-allegiances. Even naturalized citizens must vow allegiance to only this country.

What is happening to the United States is unconscionable and it starts with jerks like Granholm who are bent on changing us into socialist totalitarianism. It has to stop and will soon. I have news for them.

jonhoye 03/26/2010 12:55am
in reply to zombiexl Mar 25, 2010 9:05am

This deserves a response, but it’s very tough to determine where to start. You first question the value of supporting a world class educational system. You then claim that equal opportunity exacerbates racial prejudice, which is a fairly uncommon stance. You also seem to want to pull funding from education to maintain competition with China (which is a nation increasing funding for education to catch up with us).

Maybe you can help the conversation by focusing on a smaller range of objections to the education affordability aspects of the “Health Care and Education Affordability and Reconciliation Act.”

nmeagent 03/28/2010 4:37pm
in reply to chadlupkes Mar 19, 2010 7:20am

“Republicans used reconciliation to pass their tax cut package in 2001. Was that a hijacking of America?”

Returning property that rightfully belongs to someone is not usually considered a ‘hijacking’. But yes, the Republicans that whine about the Democrats use of reconciliation are hypocrites. They should instead focus purely on the unprecedented and utterly unconstitutional contents of the bill.

CamYogi 06/18/2010 4:04am

We need a system focusing more on rewards for people who take care of themselves rather than bailing out people who don’t.

jonhoye 03/29/2010 4:17pm
in reply to nmeagent Mar 28, 2010 4:37pm

Since you’re only 1 click away from the text of the bill, you should try reading some of it. I think you’ll find that many of the exaggerations expressed in common party talking points are simply hyperbole, in that they aren’t in the actual bill.

You’re in one of two groups of people. Either you’re a very rich citizen, as in one of the top .01% making over $500,000 per year. Or, you’re benefiting from this legislation but have been influenced from the very .01% that I just mentioned. Most likely the latter, which is sad, because to know the type of person in the first class, you wouldn’t think they deserve what’s been handed to them for largely a lack of effort on their part.

ZAPEM 04/09/2010 5:13am

There’s an e-mail going around about this bill and people are not liking it. Quoting from said e-mail:

“So basically this bill creates a National Database of any type of data deemed appropriate by the executive branch of the US Federal Government. This could literally be anything. This could include anything you might have expected to find in an East German Stasi file. All of this data will then be linked to a “Class II implantable device” under your skin. There you have it, just like Lindsey Williams warned us. Forget the national ID card, implantable microchips are coming to a clinic near you no later than 36 months after the bill is signed into law.”

Food for thought: If you have to bury something like this in a bill, there’s good reason to believe the people are being deceived yet again. Because if you had nothing to hide, make it separate bill and tell people what the government is really up to and why you want to do this specifically.

I vote NO.

jjustice 03/24/2010 9:43am
in reply to JenniferK Mar 21, 2010 3:28pm

First the details. It’s 32 million so by your arithmetic it would be 28 million. The opposite side of that coin was 23 million nonelderly left uninsured, so by your arithmetic it would become 25 million nonelderly people about a third of which would be illegals. I’m not sure that the CBO’s figures concerning how many people would be added to the insurance rolls didn’t take this into account, though. You may be double counting what needs to be subtracted.

Vote on This Bill

31% Users Support Bill

244 in favor / 550 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments