Talk:Affordable Health Care for America Act/Archive 1

Length of bill
Since the number of pages has become an issue while completely ignoring the fact this total is more of a function of the format used to present the legislation's content than it is a true measurement of it's length, I thought the word count of the bill using available online scripts to calculate it (an approximation) would be more noteworthy to mention if the trend is to persist to keep citing this. ... so while 2,000 pages in PDF seems like a lot, it's not all that uncommon or even the longest when you actually measure the content (word count) and not the format used (pages). So, should this info be included along with the page count or stop mentioning both altogether? 68.237.235.127 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Affordable Health Care for America Act = 298,764 words.
 * National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 = 408,981 words.

Changes with H.R. 3200
in progress

division, title and subtitle level

 * Division A
 * Titles I thru IV renumbered as Titles II thru V
 * Subtitle G &minus; Early Investments removed from new Title II [old Title I]
 * Insert new title I; Title I &minus; Immediate Reforms
 * Title V table of contents [the old Title IV] incorrectly shows Subtitle A thru Subtitle D
 * Portions of Subtitle B and Subtitle C incorporated into Subtitle A and remaining portions deleted
 * Subtitle D renamed as Subtitle B and expanded to include language from the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act in new sub-division, "Part 3" [Section 571. Specifically].
 * Division B
 * appears unchanged
 * Division C
 * Titles I thru IV appear unchanged
 * Subtitles A thru E under Title V replaced with 5 new subtitles.
 * Division D
 * New division ``D´´ added at the end of Division C   (this new insertion added from the very bottom of PDF page 1635 to end page, 1990 alone!)
 * Two new titles appear under this new division ``D´´
 * Generally, the entire division with both new titles re-write or amend existing & related health care laws that affect Tribal or Native American Indians only.

The External Links may have additional or more specific info on the changes from H.R. 3200 to H.R. 3962. 68.237.235.127 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 

incomplete roll call.
Until a complete listing and analysis of voting can be listed on the page, I've moved the incomplete vote here. Hires an editor (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "" The majority of Democratic Nay votes were in the South and Midwest. A complete list of Democratic Party Nay votes


 * Jason Altmire, PA-4
 * John Adler,   NJ-3
 * Rick Boucher, VA-9
 * Allen Boyd,  FL-2
 * Brian Baird,  WA-3
 * John Barrow,  GA-12
 * Dan Boren,    OK-2
 * John Boccieri, OH-16
 * Bobby Bright, AL-2
 * Ben Chandler, KY-6
 * Travis Childers, MS-1
 * Lincoln Davis, TN-4
 * Artur Davis, AL-7
 * Chet Edwards, TX-17
 * Bart Gordon, TN-6
 * Parker Griffith, AL-5
 * Tim Holden, PA-17
 * Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, SD-1
 * Dennis J. Kucinich, OH-10
 * Larry Kissell, NC-8
 * Suzanne Kosmas, FL-24
 * Frank Kratovil, MD-1
 * Mike McIntyre, NC-7
 * Jim Matheson, UT-2
 * Jim Marshall, GA-8
 * Charlie Melancon, LA-3
 * Betsy Markey, CO-4
 * Eric Massa, NY-29
 * Michael E. McMahon, NY-13
 * Walt Minnick, ID-1
 * Scott Murphy, NY-20
 * Glenn Nye, VA-2
 * Collin C. Peterson, MN-7
 * Mike Ross, AR-4
 * Ike Skelton, MO-4
 * Heath Shuler, NC-11
 * John Tanner, TN-8
 * Gene Taylor, MS-4
 * Harry Teague, NM-2""

author?
Who wrote this bill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.116.204.252 (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tax Penalty
Before the article goes round and round on what the "penalty" is for not securing qualifying health coverage benefits, the relevant portion of Division A, Title V, Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart A, Section 501 follows as it appears in the Engrossed revision of the bill.

<>>
 * SEC. 501. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.


 * (a) In General.—


 * Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

“PART VIII — Health care related taxes “Subpart A — Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage “'''Sec. 59B'''. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.


 * (a) Tax Imposed.—


 * In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—


 * (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over


 * (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.


 * (b) Limitations.—


 * (1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—


 * (A) IN GENERAL.—


 * The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.


 * (B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM.—


 * (i) IN GENERAL.—


 * For purposes of subparagraph (A), the ‘applicable national average premium’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.


 * (ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.—


 * In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only coverage’.

>>SNIP<<

. . . so if one reads 59B(a) carefully, its clear that the new tax code does not impose a penalty of 2.5% of income but a portion thereof OR the applicable national average premium for that same taxable year - WHICHEVER IS LOWER 68.237.235.127 (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're more than splitting hairs here. The section of the Tax Code referenced merely defines the, extremely low, amount of income, above which one is required to file a return – the personal exemption plus the standard deduction. I think "up to 2.5% of income" was a fair description of the general impact of the surtax (would "taxable income" be better?) and at least conveys more information than the original (and current) phrasing. But since my main reason for modifying the item was the POV impact, now one-half fixed (is it "requires" or "encourages"? Do high cigarette taxes "require" people to stop smoking or "encourage" them to do so?) I won't insist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fat&Happy (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with specifying either way was problematic because Section 501 (adds 59B to tax code) cannot be objectively summarized in one sentence when you consider not only the rest of the caveats in that section but the 3 or 4 other sections in other titles that relate or affect the reporting or measures that could go towards compliance either way.
 * As far as the income statement goes - You betcha! Saying something like that without all the variations on a theme of Gross Income or Net Income and so on, runs into that same problem of trying to explain it in one sentence fairly & objectively IMO. Taxable Income would have been better. The thing about "encourages" vs. "requires" is that reporting is still required to be excluded from the thresholds or triggers the way I reading it, but I can live with "encourages" in the absence of a better term. 68.237.235.127 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After mulling over various options, I've decided you're right – I can't come up with a better way to summarize that section in one or two lines. And "encourage", my somewhat facetious alternative, leans POV the other direction. If we must have a verb imputing motivation, something along the line of "pressures" is most accurate, but would surely offend somebody. It's not worth spending as much time considering this sentence as was spent writing the bill. Stet. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Legislative language vs. the press
Here is the very begining of the bill language concerning the poverty level with the confusing amendments, deletions and insertions crossed out.

DIVISION B TITLE VII—Medicaid and CHIP subtitle A—Medicaid and Health Reform,

'''SEC. 1701. ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOME BELOW 150 PERCENT OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL.'''


 * (a) Eligibility for non-traditional individuals with income below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.—


 * (1) FULL MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR NON-MEDICARE ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—


 * Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(10)(A)(i)) is amended—
 * (A) by striking “or” at the end of subclause (VI);
 * (B) by adding “or” at the end of subclause (VII); and
 * (C) by adding at the end the following new subclause:


 * “(VIII) who are under 65 years of age, who are not described in a previous subclause of this clause, who are not entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII, and whose family income (determined using methodologies and procedures specified by the Secretary in consultation with the Health Choices Commissioner) does not exceed 150 percent of the income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of the size involved;”.

>>>SNIP<<<


 * (b) Eligibility for traditional Medicaid eligible individuals with income not exceeding 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.—


 * (1) IN GENERAL.—


 * Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(10)(A)(i)), as amended by subsection (a), is amended—


 * (A) by striking “or” at the end of subclause (VII); and


 * (B) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:


 * “(IX) who are over 18, and under 65 years of age, who would be eligible for medical assistance under the State plan under subclause (I) or section 1931 (based on the income standards, methodologies, and procedures in effect as of June 16, 2009) but for income, who are in families whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of the size involved; or


 * “(X) beginning with 2014, who are under 19, years of age, who would be eligible for medical assistance under the State plan under subclause (I), (IV) (insofar as it relates to subsection (l)(1)(B)), (VI), or (VII) (based on the income standards, methodologies, and procedures in effect as of June 16, 2009) but for income, who are in families whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the income official poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of the size involved; or


 * “(XI) beginning with 2014, who are under 19 years of age, who are not described in subclause (X), and who would be eligible for child health assistance under a State child health plan insofar as such plan provides benefits under this title (as described in section 2101(a)(2)) based on such plan as in effect as of June 16, 2009; or”.

>> So can we still say eveybody gets covered or that all sections of the population will meet qualification even with the new triggers being set with by the new Federal Poverty Level when the opening sub-sections already start to dictate what's in (Traditional) and what's out (non-Traditional)???? 68.237.235.127 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable secondary sources are preferred as sources for the articles at Wikipedia. According to the rules, primary sources (i.e. the legislation) can be used, but not to overrule what a RSS says.  This would be  original research.  I would be willing to make an exception if it were clear to me though a brief interpretation based on a primary source that most people could readily understand. (Of course, that argument would be made in the article).


 * You're making one here, of course, but it isn't proof and it can't be brief. You would need, for starters, to prove the definition you gave of the jargon non-traditional individuals is what you stated.  Then there is all the stuff you talk about. What's the end of all this?  I don't know.  This is an involved piece of legislation, making extensive changes to existing law in the Medicare part, further complicated by legalistic jargon.  Really, I think that I am not qualified to judge what changes it will make by reading the text when it starts referring to changes in this and that of previous legislation, with both texts being jargony.  From your edits I see you have detailed knowledge, so maybe you are qualified, it's just that I don't think you can prove, certainly not briefly, what you are saying to nonspecialists, and so we can't put your interpretation in the article, and we must stick to the RSS.


 * I suggest that you find a reliable secondary source that shares your view, and then maybe we can reinterpret things, depending on what it says and the reliability of the source. A prominent legal expert's (important law professor, for example) published opinion could also be useful as it could be included in separate section debating whether it is truly everyone who's covered.   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed Ron Paul bit.
It doesn't seem at all notable to this article since it hasn't received any outside coverage. Really, it's more about Ron Paul than it is about the subject of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On recentism and criticism of the bill
I added a recentism tag. The criticism section is exceptionally bulky. It consists of quotes that are very unspecific: "a de facto bailout of the healthcare insurance companies," contain speculation: "the average American will receive worse health care, American physicians will decline in status and income," and include claims that should be, but aren't cited: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that only 2% of Americans (6 million) will be able to participate in this plan while 33% of Americans will remain either uninsured or underinsured." These quotes are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I think this article should be reworked to more clearly delineate reasons for opposition to the bill.

Furthermore, certain facts about this bill that are of historical importance have been omitted; for example, the fact that it was completely split along party lines, and that it was the first bill in over a century for which the senate voted on the day before Christmas. These could serve as a jumping off point for explaining opposition and criticism, and it provides a much needed historical perspective. Aykantspel (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your points in the first paragraph. Looking over that "criticism" section, it's apparent that it's become a coatrack of random quotes, most of them non-notable (what difference does it make what Ron Paul says about the bill as opposed to the other 434 representatives?).  The section certainly needs to be trimmed at the least, but actually, Criticism sections are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia.  Any notable criticism should be woven into the article, and non-notable criticism removed. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. In this case, a 'criticism' section is not ideal, but I think a clear and concise controversy section needs to explain all the hoopla that has made this bill famous. Aykantspel (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Senate never passed this bill
The senate passed a completely separate bill, not HR 3962. I don't believe this bill even came to a vote in the senate.

FYI, yesterday Rush Limbaugh noted that if the House passes the Senate bill it goes directly to Obama to sign into law and so the House is trusting the other two branches that their 'changes' will be 'reconciled'. But why wait? Team Obama says they will do "anything" go get Obamacare passed. Limbaugh says, "It may be a feign." [head-fake.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles is correct. The Senate version consists of amendments attached to a completely unrelated house resolution H.R. 3590. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Law as Ministry (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This may seem somewhat bizzare to non Americans but from what I can tell, it seems a not uncommon thing in the US, e.g. Origination clause Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

US House Voting Map
Using an SVG file from wikipedia I recently created a tool that creates a voting map for any bill that has had a roll call in the House. Please feel free to use images from this tool: http://www.greentoko.com/nytimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestring (talk • contribs) 13:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This map, since it assigns more weight to red than green by space, makes the vote misleading. I would suggest removing it.  99.104.126.16 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to agree, unless one can add a second graph at the bottom to counteract this false conclusion--Robert Wm &#34;Ruedii&#34; (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest changing the coloration of the map, red and green are not the easiest to look at next to each other or to discern for many peopleGmenold (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Gmenold

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Affordable Health Care for America Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103235228/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_TOPLINE.pdf to http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_TOPLINE.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022628/http://opencrs.com/document/R40981/2009-12-16/?24216 to http://opencrs.com/document/R40981/2009-12-16/?24216
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091101115133/http://www.cspan.org:80/Watch/Media/2009/10/29/HP/R/24837/House+Speaker+Pelosi+Unveils+Health+Care+Bill+GOP+Reacts.aspx to http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/29/HP/R/24837/House+Speaker+Pelosi+Unveils+Health+Care+Bill+GOP+Reacts.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106013943/http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml to http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091111093304/http://rules.house.gov:80/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4465 to http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4465

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Affordable Health Care for America Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/29/HP/R/24837/House%2BSpeaker%2BPelosi%2BUnveils%2BHealth%2BCare%2BBill%2BGOP%2BReacts.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091103214336/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=52 to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=52
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4465

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)