H.R.676 - United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes. view all titles (5)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act as introduced.
  • Short: United States National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act as introduced.
  • Short: Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act as introduced.
  • Short: United States National Health Care Act as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 61-90 of 102 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    kimjones1 07/17/2009 12:58pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Did you not read the bill? It says tax…tax…tax. I think what your paying now it a lot less than the extimated 1 trillon dollars this will cost

  • Comm_reply
    bgrossen 07/18/2009 5:50pm

    I think you are talking abouta HR 3200. This is HR 676. No CBO report has come out yet on this one, probably because it would be a substantial savings over HR 676—a savings gained by diverting the 31% of health care costs that go to feeding the profits of private insurance companies into real health care for the uninsured.

  • tbmmoe 06/19/2009 11:26am
    “Look at every country that has ever tried letting government run their healthcare. Is that what you really want?”

    well…yes…The U.S. is near the bottom in measurable health standards compared to every other industrialized country that has a government administered program. Health care is a right of every citizen, and should not be rationed and dictated by the for-profit health insurance industry. Their only goal is to ensure maximum profits for the stock holders. They care nothing about people, health, or indeed prevention. WE THE PEOPLE should demand what other civilized nations already have. The propoganda from big pharma and the health insurance industry, along with every bought and paid for politician who supports them can be overcome.

  • riven37 06/27/2009 3:51am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Our Health Care isn’t broken remove those HMO’s and cost will come down. I remember health care was better before those HMO’s started up once they had cost started rising.

  • amandacaudill 06/27/2009 5:12am

    I work in medical insurance. I will tell you one thing, If the government would get their hands out of this, and privatize healthcare, it WOULD be affordable to all. Health insurance companies are the least to blame for the prices. They have to be ABLE to cover the HOSPITAL’s prices…hmmm…why your premium is so high is because the hospital charges and arm and a leg. But the hospital has to charge so much due to liability insurance. All the while people are rushing to get the latest FDA released drug at the local emergency room doesnt help either. There NEEDS to be education about healthcare, its broken because of the government.

  • deannalee1369 07/15/2009 2:34pm

    This is an awesome bill! Yes your taxes will increase if you are one of the top 5% wage earners in the nation. This is an awesome bill. No one else would have a tax increase. This is an awesome bill.

  • kimjones1 07/17/2009 12:51pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    These comments were taken out of the bill….do you see a common thread?

    (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% income earners;
    (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income; and
    (4) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

    2 says increasing tax. 3 says instuting tax and 4 says instituting tax.

    When you institue a tax on the top 5% you institute a tax on me because i will be forced to pay higher prices for the goods or services they produce. When you institue a tax on payroll you are taking more money out of my paycheck and when you institute a tax on stocks and bonds you are taxing my 401k

    Free healthcare doesnt look so free anymore does it?

    The last estimate i heard was 1 trillion dollars (try to count to a trillion you cant do it in your entire lifetime)

  • Comm_reply
    bgrossen 07/18/2009 9:47am

    I believe the excise tax would replace the current payments for health insurance.
    The top 5% need to pay more taxes. Do you realize that each dollar you earn after your 102,000th dollar (figure is near correct) you pay less taxes? You pay no social security. And if you earn your money by means other than working (capital gains), you pay even less, about half. Us working stiffs are footing the bills for this country.
    If every dollar earned were taxed the same for social security, the system would become solvent overnight. Only because the first 100,000 dollars are taxed, there is not enough money.

  • bgrossen 07/18/2009 9:41am

    This is the bill we need, a single-payer plan. The physicians support it. See www.pnhp.org the website of Physicians for a National Health Plan.
    This bill is cheaper because the 31% we currently pay for bureaucracy in the privatized insurance industry would be diverted to health care for the uninsured.
    For profit motives have no place in medicine. Which would produce more profit: a flu vaccine that irradicates the flu, or a flu shot each year?
    Hospitals, insurance, and drugs should all be not for profit businesses. This bill takes some important steps toward really cutting the cost of health care. No one is talking about it though because the insurance lobbyists are in control of our congress.

  • Comm_reply
    bmwtriton 10/22/2009 5:52pm

    The reason we need a flu shot each year is because the flu virus mutates every year. Each year often means a different flu virus. If one tried to find a vaccine that would eradicate the flu one year, the same vaccine may be useless the next year if the virus changes, making it unrecognizable by the immune system. Biology is the reason for having a flu shot each year, not profits.

  • goby 07/21/2009 1:48pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    We have the best health care in the world why not just make the best better get the government out of the way and let private enterprise take over. Dont tie health providers hands with an over abundance of regulations.

  • IraqWarVet 07/26/2009 8:17pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    For those that support this lunacy are either ignorant of what has happened to government run health care in Canada and England, or they just can’t see the bigger picture until it hits them upside the head…It’s called government rationed health care…Anybody who has had to endure the indignities of rationed care at the government run VA hospital might provide those looking for a free ride with some insight.

    It is also interesting to note that Con-gress makes exceptions for illegal aliens (free and tax exempt health care), but only gives veterans 10 more years of rationing at the VA.

    And where will con-gress be getting their insurance? And will your government run program be equal to theirs? If not, why?

  • helmofs 07/27/2009 1:43pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    Anyone who thinks the government will run better healthcare plan - hellloooooo! Medicare and Medicaid costs have climbed at rates far HIGHER than private insurance! AND, they are BROKE! Since WHEN did the government EVER make anything run well? This bill will have CITIZENS paying for ILLEGAL ALIENS’, it will lead to RATIONING of healthcare (meaning ALL seniors will receive LESS care), it will provide another “club” for government to hold over the heads of those who love their “nanny state”, and it has NOTHING in it to REDUCE COSTS! HMOs and the GOVERNMENT are what has driven the costs up ALREADY! STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!

  • ListenUpNow 08/11/2009 11:50am

    Why do the insurance companies get all the blame? The doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical cos., and let’s not forget the lawsuit happy folks, are the real reason health care is so damn expensive! Tell me that its okay for drug companies to spend more $$ on marketing than research. Why does the actual health care (treatment & medication) have to be so expensive? That’s what drives the cost of insurance. I previsouly worked for 15 years in the sales and some actuarial aspect of a health ins company so I know a little about what I’m saying.

  • americanmuscle 08/15/2009 11:50am

    What??? It would take 43% of all tax revenue for the next 75 years to save medicare. This bill will take us to full socialization. You people need to study what our fore fathers stated during the formation of this country. They have seen this type of thing coming and built into the Constitution protection against this. We as Americans have a duty to understand the Constitution along with other papers written by the founding fathers to be able to stand up against this.

  • shalfipat 08/15/2009 3:28pm

    It’s important to note that when invoking our forefathers, that they would disagree with a great deal of what happens today. Washington, et al. advocated against the formation of political parties for example. They also said something about the Constitution being a flexible document, hence amendments. The point is that the founding officials of our country could not have possibly foreseen the prosperity nor the level of technology that our country has achieved. Why do we have to limit ourselves to their standards?

    Secondarily, this measure could save the country money, further stimulating the economy. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Research has reported that the measure could save the country $387 Billion. Yearly. Imagine what kind of stimulus to the economy that would provide.

  • Comm_reply
    americanmuscle 08/15/2009 3:50pm

    You really need to read the Constitution and the Federalist papers. They do cover issues such as these. The term “living constitution” was not coined until 1937. That means there was 160 some odd years that a literal reading of the Constitution was in place. I believe we should read it with the intent of the founding fathers in mind.

    Your second point is way off. How is it that this Dean Baker can make this assesment when the CBO scored this as increasinig the defecit and they are typically way under on their assesments of social programs.

  • shalfipat 08/15/2009 5:30pm

    Could you post a link to the CBO numbers for me, I just want to make sure we’re on the same page before anything is said. Also, could you post a link for the 43% figure? Does this number include inflation, GDP increase (and the inherent increase in tax revenue), and the like?

    From Baker, his estimates come from things such as “savings from reduced administration, bulk purchasing, and coordination.” Also, there are provisions for assisting administration workers that lose their jobs as some employers choose to convert to a non-profit organization.

  • Comm_reply
    americanmuscle 08/16/2009 5:59pm

    “Budgetary Impact of Insurance Coverage Provisions. On a preliminary basis,
    CBO and the JCT staff estimate that the proposal’s provisions affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of $1,042 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019. That estimate primarily reflects $438 billion in additional federal outlays for Medicaid and $773 billion in federal subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges.

  • Comm_reply
    americanmuscle 08/16/2009 6:00pm

    Not all enrollees in the exchanges would receive subsidies, but the average subsidy among those who would be subsidized is projected to rise from roughly $4,800 in 2015 to roughly $6,000 in 2019. The other main element of the proposal that would increase federal deficits is the tax credit for small employerswho offer health insurance, which is estimated to reduce revenues by $53 billion over 10 years."

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf

    This is right from the CBO. Also, remember they ussually underestimate the costs of social programs.

  • americanmuscle 08/16/2009 6:05pm

    “The transfers required to pay current law benefits given current law taxes and premiums will grow from their current level to almost 19 percent of Federal income taxes in 2015, to over 32 percent in 2025, and will require over 90 percent of projected federal income tax revenues by 2075!”

    http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/5-02-18AllTaxes.htm

  • oderintdummetuant 08/17/2009 12:44pm

    Americanmuscle, I really only have read a few of your post but I have to say well spoken. What is a miraculously confusing point to me is the simple fact that in this bill as with H.R. 3200 there is a portion of the population (in this bill the top 5% of earners in the country) that will pay for others benefits. I don’t like government run health care but I like government health care funded FOR group A and funded BY group B even less.
    As to the cost of health care today why hasn’t the issue of medical malpractice tort reform been a blazing hot issue? Isn’t that the reason medical professionals have to charge exorbitant prices, to cover their malpractice insurance costs? Addressing the issue of emergency room care being absolutely undeniable and illegal aliens and the uninsured using the E-room as a private physician, the New York Times recently had an article that equated public health care to the Swiss public health care system.

  • Comm_reply
    americanmuscle 08/17/2009 4:26pm

    The top 1% of wage earners pays 40% of all income tax, top 5% pays 60%, top 10% pays 71%, top 25% pays 85%, top 50% pays 97%, and the bottom 50% pays 3%. Does that sound fair. Now some want them to pay our health insurance to. These numbers don’t even include other taxes they pay. The bottom 50% gets off pretty easy, anyone who makes less than $32,000. We already force some to pay for others which is not right.

  • Comm_reply
    oderintdummetuant 08/17/2009 5:47pm

    No, I agree with you. Thats my problem with ANY taxes. Everybody contributes equally proportionally and everybody benefits the same. I like the Fair Tax for that reason too. Now your income doesn’t matter, tax evasion doesn’t matter, unreported income doesn’t matter. I think you are on the money with the posts I’ve seen of yours. As a combat vet and officer thanks man. Glad to see a well informed Soldier taking the stand.

  • Comm_reply
    capricorn7nc 09/29/2009 6:00am

    There are not many places in America where you can comfortably support a family with less than $32,000. You are quoting that number like that is alot. That is less than the median income in America, which is $50,000. If we subtract the average cost for a family’s health care which is around $1200/mth over 12 mths. that comes out to $14,400 a year. If we subtract that from $32,000 that leaves you with $17,600. That is almost $4,000 about the poverty level. So that means that using your numbers than the bottom 50% percent are either in poverty and one emergency room, one lay off, or one accident from being in poverty. How is that easy?

  • oderintdummetuant 08/17/2009 12:48pm

    The article talked about national health care being more like the Swiss system of national health care and completely leaves out the related issues. The Swiss system of naturalization for instance, what it requires i.e…12 years of residency. The fact that those that receive benefits are PAYING into and for those benefits.

  • Comm_reply
    capricorn7nc 09/29/2009 5:55am

    Our system of naturalization is no better. There are people who are still on waiting lists for years for green cards. Please do not try to bring immigration into this issue. Our immigration system sucks and needs to be overhauled. I do not agree that people who break the law should be allowed to stay without penalty, but I do agree if their child is born here they should not have to lose their parents because they are not here legally.

  • freeduck 08/29/2009 12:27pm

    I just want to reiterate what others have said about getting the CBO cost estimate for this bill. I would really like to see the numbers so I can make an informed opinion about this issue.

  • freeduck 08/31/2009 6:23am

    “Do you favor or oppose, “Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?”
    Favor 58%, Oppose 38%, NA/DK 3%"

    http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7943.pdf

  • 2123melissap 09/04/2009 7:48am

    ACCESS AND BENEFITS All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures. Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.


Vote on This Bill

36% Users Support Bill

396 in favor / 701 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments