Discussion: S. 1099, The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011 (3 comments ↓)

  • This item is from the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and is no longer current.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 S. 1455, The Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act.

No discussion on this article yet.

Learn More

    Saves: $167.20 per
    and decreases their $162,301.27 share of the national debt by $167.20.
    (source info)

  • Read the Bill
  • See What People Are Saying

To What Comittee was this Bill Referred?

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Darcy Bailey

March 4, 2012, 1:14am (report abuse)

This is a huge savings per year. In a big family every penny counts.

Everyone should be entitled to affordable care, these changes can help for all.

G. Arntson

June 2, 2012, 5:48pm (report abuse)

I support this bill because I think it’s time we start treating our healthcare system less as a private market business and more as a public necessity. Healthcare malpractice is a major reason for high healthcare costs and it should be caped, mistakes happen and no doctor or hospital is perfect. We should have healthcare for everyone and the elderly should not have to worry about if there insurance is going to be cut when they are in need of medical assistance.

Jason M. Schmidt

September 13, 2012, 11:01am (report abuse)

I oppose this bill for a variety of reasons, the main one being that it provides health care service providers with what amounts to a $250,000 fine, a pittance, for reckless behavior. The purpose of imposing damages is as much to deter the conduct of those who the penalty is imposed on as it is to award victims. Imposing a $250,000 fine on multi-billion dollar corporations is the tort law equivalent of a seat belt fine, in that is more of a behavior tax than the behavior deterrent that awarded damages should be. The three year time limit on filing suit against pharmaceutical companies is rather preposterous, in that it is quite possible that harm from drugs prescribed to a patient would take much longer than three years to show up, but the patient would be unable to seek damages due to this bill being passed. It is a blatantly one-sided piece of legislation, written in favor of big business.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)