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 1-30 of 102 total comments.

  • busyb213 01/27/2009 6:42pm

    I’m happy to see this bill in the 111th Congress!

  • Comm_reply
    bgrossen 07/18/2009 5:46pm

    I agree. Vote YES.
    Check the www.pnhp.org website Physicians for National Health Plan.
    This is the bill the physicians support.
    We need to have the committee get the CBO report (cost analysis) so everyoe can see how much cheaper this bill is than the HR 3200 that keeps the for profit insurance companies feeding out of the medical trough. HR 676 saves $350 billion a year over the HR 3200.
    Taxpayers should favor HR 676 if they know the issues.
    Only big for profit companies would prefer HR 3200, and they are paying a lot to lobby their preference.

  • rbain1 01/27/2009 8:00pm
    Link Reply
    + 10

    This bill is the best approach to reforming our broken health care system. Eliminate the health insurance companies and let Medicare be expanded to include every American. Best common sense approach to the problem.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • rbain1 01/29/2009 10:22am

    I agree, socialized medicine is not good. We should really be thanking Representative Conyers for proposing this bill instead putting forth a socialized medicine program. As you know, this bill proposes a single payer system, so that the Medicare program can pay all bills to private medical offices. There would be no government run medical offices or hospitals under this bill. The government would have no say whatsoever in the type of care you get or which doctors you get to see. The care would still come from the private sector. This bill only proposes to eliminate health insurance companies so that we can cut out the “middleman” in the payment structure.

  • Comm_reply
    caa014611 07/13/2009 4:01pm

    Can you honestly be that naive? “The government would have no say whatsoever in the type of care…” The organization wielding the money controls the end product. In this case the government wields the money so they have all the say in the quality, type, amount, and duration of care one receives. They also decide the medical professionals salaries. So much for doctors that do well and rightly make more money because they are excellent at their profession. If you have read this bill you will see layer upon layer of beauracracy that will cause the cost of this endeavor to skyrocket. How does the government pay for the cost? Cutting benefits and/or raising taxes. That’ll raise your bloodpressure so I recommend getting in line for care now because you’ll be waiting a while.

  • Comm_reply
    DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:12am

    Re-read the Bill. Right now, doctors who don’t perform well, who are under investigation for medical mal-practice, are able to continue to see patients…sometimes even after being found guilty! Result: all doctors medical mal-practice rates go up to exhorbitant fees. Everyone loses, especially doctors who became doctors to make people better and keep their rates affordable AND do a good job at their practice. That is why most states are losing nearly 10 doctors a day. (Well, that and the fact that insurance companies now only pay doctors for only 7 minutes per patient.)

  • Comm_reply
    DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:13am

    Over 70% of the health care profession supports this bill because they will now have a say in how much they are paid, they will have more of a say in how their patients are treated under this bill, and finally because under this bill health, not profit, will be the bottom line. Falls in nicely with the Hippocratic oath all health care personell take: “Thou shalt do no harm.” Can the insurance companies make that claim?

  • Comm_reply
    chicubsman 09/11/2009 3:45am
    Link Reply
    + -4

    Do you even understand a word you say this is socialized (governemnt run) health care. not to mention a socialized concept of spreading the wealth to those who are to lazy to work. Come on really read more stuff and expand your liberal mind.

  • Comm_reply
    msouthard 10/06/2009 6:35am

    People who are, as you say, “too lazy to work” (an idiotic phrase to argue about another day) already have socialized health care. It’s called “Medicaid.” This bill will eliminate the need for Medicaid (saving our states millions) and expand Medicare for all, with the main beneficiaries being Middle Class and Lower Middle Class citizens and legal residents who are struggling to pay for expensive health care plans that are inadequate and will refuse to cover them if they get too sick. The people in this country that don’t have health insurance are not lazy or poor, they’re our neighbors and friends that are facing circumstances beyond their control.

    Who’s fault is all of this? Both insurance greed and our government, which doesn’t have the guts to pass a bill as good as HR 676. Better to have government regulate your health care than insurance companies that will send someone to their death just to turn a profit.

  • Comm_reply
    DoulaLady 10/16/2009 6:03pm

    Government run health care would imply that the government is hiring and providing the health care employees. That is not what HR Bill 676 is about. HR Bill 676 is about something that is REALLY controversial, upholding the ideal that we all have a “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is a little hard to pursue happiness when you are dead, or when you are limited to living off of a mere $600 a month to stay eligible for medicaid to cover your $3000 a month prescriptions…not even getting into the dr’s visits and hospital stays.

  • Comm_reply
    DoulaLady 10/16/2009 6:04pm
    HR Bill 676 is continuing what FDR set out to do in his Presidency, a Universal Healthcare System where doctors and health care providers worked independently from the government, but where the government provided the insurance with no co-pays and no out of pocket expenses. That would mean improved health care, for less than what we pay right now, and every man, woman and child would be covered. That doesn’t sound like socialism to me, just American. The government already pays for the police force to protect us, and the fire department to protect our houses and communities. Why not single payer health insurance? Or do you not ever plan on utilizing medicare?
  • Comm_reply
    DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:03am

    Chicubsman, reading your post we can tell 3 things. One, you are not a true Christian, because you do not follow Christ’s direction “What you do to the least of your brethren, you do unto Me.” Two, you have no education on Socialism, Communism or Humanism, because you can not use the definitions appropriately. And three, you have no concept of what is happening in America in our health care system. I was a well covered American citizen with what I thought was a good plan. Then I tested positive for the breast cancer gene. I was dropped, and can’t get coverage for my “pre-existing conditions” which cost nearly $3000 in medications a month. Please tell me how working 3 jobs at a time in addition to running a free-range organic farm and homeschooling my 3 children makes me a “lazy American”… how I am too lazy to work?

  • Comm_reply
    tyg 12/19/2009 5:03am

    “One, you are not a true Christian…”

    Hmmm. I seem to remember something along the lines of “Thou Shall NOT JUDGE” being among Christ’s directions. Why is it that “Christians” are the first to forget that?

  • Anonymous 01/29/2009 11:03am

    In my five years of Medicare coverage there has been no dimishment in the time or level of care. Huge savings should result along with expanded care to those not receiving it or paying far too much.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    boompa 02/10/2009 7:12am

    Government is not the primary reason for the high medical care costs. It is the insurance companies! The next time you visit your doc just ask him. Don’t be so shy.

  • Comm_reply
    rbain1 02/10/2009 1:05pm

    Government is most certainly NOT the reason that health care is so expensive. The health care industry today is run almost exclusively by the insurance companies and privatized hospitals. Government has virtually no presence in the system as it stands. That fact alone should tell you that government is not to blame for the outrageous costs associated with decent health care.

    How in the world do you expect the free market to help with insurance costs? Costs have been going up since the first day health insurers opened their doors for business.

    The basic point that everyone needs to accept is that there should be no profit motive whatsoever in the health care system. People’s lives are not to be bargained with, discounted, or be subject to some damn actuarial table. I’d much rather pay my government a tax to fund our nation’s health care system that covers every American. That’s a damn sight better than paying an insurer that keeps people on the payroll with the sole purpose of denying my claim when I need the coverage most.

    People better start realizing that health insurers are in the game to make money, not to make friends or keep people alive. No matter how much money they spend on advertising, charities, or other crap to make themselves look good, their only motive is profit, not your health. This bill takes that b.s. out of the picture, and lets doctors and nurses focus on your well-being, not your ability to pay.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    rbain1 03/01/2009 7:39pm

    The thing you don’t seem to realize is that government, even with all its faults, is the only weapon we have. In our current system, the only motive is profit. Public health care is not immoral. It’s decent, compassionate, and it’s what any civilized society does to ensure that ALL are cared for.

    It semms that some who oppose this bill have never faced a medical disaster. Haven’t experienced the frustration of dealing with a health insurer that only cares if you can keep paying. Not once do they ask how your treatment is going, or how well you’re adjusting after a surgery, and they’re incapable of showing compassion. Why do we put up with this?

    I hope you have a change of heart and realize that you might someday be deemed too risky to insure. When that day comes, what will you do if you get sick? Simply go home and wait to die?

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    adehart 04/09/2009 3:24am

    Please be clear РThis bill is NOT socialized health care. There’s a huge difference between socialized health care and single payer health care. In a socialized health care model, the doctors, nurses, every provider works for the government. In a single payer health care model providers work for themselves, or their practice or the facility. The difference is instead of billing the health insurance company they bill Medicare. This model results in massive cost savings because the profit margin is removed and because Medicare administrative costs are much lower than the huge health insurance companies.

  • Comm_reply
    drklassen 08/06/2009 6:04am

    And you don’t think the private insurance companies aren’t champing at the bit to do just this?! At least with a single payer system you have recourse and that eventually lead back to elected officials. With private insurance your recourse leads back to a CEO who just got a bonus for axing your coverage.

  • Comm_reply
    dygituljunky 04/14/2009 4:28am

    I recall from my economics class that in a free market system, the seller tries to raise their prices to the point where they will have the highest profit.

    The problems with free market health insurance are:
    – of course we will demand health services even if the price is absurd,
    – the insurance companies can deny a claim for an individual whom they supposedly cover,
    – the insurance companies can deny coverage for someone who might need their services more often.

    (end Part 1 of 2)

  • Comm_reply
    dygituljunky 04/14/2009 4:28am

    (begin part 2 of 2)

    The consumers in our current scenario have no power on the demand side of the supply-and-demand equation because health care is necessary (so you can stay employed, so you can live, so you can pursue happiness).

    And it’s not immoral to pay for your neighbor’s health care since it may well mean that you help carry the societal burden of squashing a communicable disease, it may well mean that I help pay for your health care when you need it the most, it may well mean that someone who can’t afford insurance under our current system will be able to get well, stay employed, keep paying taxes, and keep the economy going.

  • Anonymous 02/08/2009 7:53am

    Government is not the reason health care is so expensive; enormous insurance company profits and executive salaries are the reason health care is so expensive. This system would mean we could all stop paying those things, and our money would instead be going for medical services.

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    mpaone 06/05/2009 10:00am

    Because of massive agriculture subsidies that go to corn feed growers which are fed to cows which become beef. McDonald’s is only crafty insofar as they have massive lobbying machines to get the government to foot their bill.

  • Comm_reply
    dygituljunky 04/14/2009 4:30am

    Don’t forget that stockholder dividend payouts are a huge contributor to the cost of health insurance…

  • Infuriated 02/10/2009 8:31pm

    Did I read this right? All residents, which means illegal aliens, It doesn’t say all citizens..


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