H.R. 3400, The Empowering Patients First Act
- This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
- This bill, or a similar bill, was reintroduced in the current Congress as H.R. 105, The Empowering Patients First Act.
Original version created by webmaster
H.R. 3400 would provide for incentives to encourage health insurance coverage.
Detailed Summary
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)
Status of the Legislation
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
AZ-man
August 21, 2009, 8:56pm (report abuse)I would surely hope that Michael Steele and the rest of th Republian Party would begin touting this bill as an alternative to the Obama/Pelosi/Ried debacle loudly and vigorously. It is time to speak up and present the alternative in series of television ads or the Party will once again to be seen as impotent and with direction.
fox III
August 31, 2009, 1:36pm (report abuse)YEs this is a good plan mabe needs some work and debate but the sky is not falling do not rush into an immediate plan which gives the government control of us and 1/6 of our economy(of course that is what the administration and liberals want - control of us)
foxIII
August 31, 2009, 1:37pm (report abuse)What info do you want?
Concern4Constitution
September 19, 2009, 2:05am (report abuse)Why isn't this bill being shouted from the highest mountain? There are so many people that don't really see all the pitfalls of 3200 but want reform. This one is WIN-WIN!!!
darren
September 21, 2009, 8:02am (report abuse)hello all,
the problem I have with this bill is very cloudy on pre-existing condition..and doesn't this plan have the same problem the right has been screaming about..this plan will bring in the same amount of people in theory to be covered. so we would have shortage of doctors and lack of hospital space..rationing of care..am i to believe that since this is a bill from the right that all those problems will disappear?
Christopher99
September 30, 2009, 2:17pm (report abuse)1) No, this "plan" is not a nationalized government insurance plan", so it would not distort the supply & demand ratio for health care users & providers. The supply:demand ratio is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem of hiding the real costs of health care, which our current system perpetuates.
2) If pre-existing conditions HAD to be covered by insurance, then why would anyone bother GETTING insurance until they had a problem?
If no one puts into the insurance pool until they need to take out far more, then there will be no help for ANYONE who ever has a problem.
3) That said, read the bill - it's only 268 pages, about the same size as a moderate novel.
Title 2, Subtitle A seeks to create a "Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions".
The implication that Republicans have no alternatives to "ObamaCare" is either breathtakingly ignorant or a baldfaced LIE.
Marcus R.
September 30, 2009, 5:37pm (report abuse)What a piece of toilet paper this bill is. Did the republicans pull an all nighter writing this crap??
Dubyar
November 1, 2009, 4:08pm (report abuse)Am I reading Sec. 2798 correctly that a person cannot buy from the same company, across state lines, unless the company is within 10% of Fed rates? How does this help a consumer if their insurer's rates are too high in their own state (thus preventing them from buying where it is cheaper)?
Also, if damage lawsuits are to be given limits, where is the quid-pro-quo from the AMA and their insurers?
Kadie K
January 5, 2010, 2:39pm (report abuse)No one here has commented upon the fact that section 105 prohibits federal dollars from being spent on abortion. This flies in the face of Republican rhetoric that says this bill empowers patients first. Hello people.
Dennis M.
February 18, 2010, 10:09pm (report abuse)The GOP is and has been pro life so this bill is not about empowering wholesale abortion rights activists. The Dems also deftly dodged this in their bill as well with obfuscation and disallowances/special grants, etc. Bottom line: the comment from Kadie K is a red herring and no progressive democrat is going to support anything the GOP is formulating...as usual.
John H
May 7, 2010, 4:48pm (report abuse)Marcus is an idiot. Thanks to Obama big and small companies are going to opt out. 2000.00 fine per employee. Pretty good deal. Republicans have a positive and patient orientated bill.