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.

dittmer 02/09/2010 2:00pm
in reply to Amonite Nov 03, 2009 9:16pm

So why do all the rest of the civilized countries in the world have some form on single-payer? Do you even understand what this bill proposes? It would mean that millions of Americans wouldn’t have to worry about going bankrupt and losing their homes if they lose their jobs. I have had personal experience. My husband has had cancer FIVE times and lost his leg in 2001. We are both 58 years old and still working because we simply can’t afford to take retirement. We will have to continue to work until gods know when because of his health bills because EVEN WITH insurance, these are still crippling. Anyone who opposes this bill is a selfish hypocrite who cares not one iota about their fellow human beings. Do you want millions of Americans to continue to rely on charity and organizations like RAM which was initiated to serve the people of the Third World? Is that what you want – for us to be like the Third World?

jorel 02/06/2010 11:31am

I am absolutely, 100 % in favor of this bill being passed, and I feel strongly that all Americans should get behind this bill and support it with all your might. Write your congressperson, write both of your senators and tell them that they should quit fooling around and vote in favor of this bill. Get with the program. PRONTO !!!
The administrative cost savings is estimated to be about 400 Billion from what we waste on the beastly system we currently have. That is far more than enough to pay for this plan. You should not notice any increase in your taxes by going to this system, and every single person in America (even the homeless child sleeping behind a dumpster downtown) would have health care from cradle to grave. This is the humane system to have.
C’mon people, let’s get it done !!!

tyg 12/19/2009 5:03am
in reply to DoulaLady Oct 20, 2009 8:03am

“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?

Amonite 11/03/2009 9:17pm
Link Reply
+ -2

And under this plan doctors would not get to have competitive pay, rather there would be a ‘national scale’.
And it is unlawful for a private insurer to sell benefits duplicating the benefits given by the government plan?? What

This plan is almost communist in output, and progressive/socialist in payment!

Amonite 11/03/2009 9:16pm
Link Reply
+ -4

….please tell me this bill is a joke, and when I wake up this man will be voted out of office for even proposing it.

The 5% of the wealthiest americans, as well as those who are self employed among other things, are shouldering the bulk of the health care costs of the rest of America – ie – those who would be FREELOADING on those who probably have the highest work ethic in america? I mean, yes, some of the richest probably inherited their wealth or have retired into managment, but usually to retain that sort of fortune or gain it, one has to have a strong work ethic, and usually has built some form of company putting many others to work! The last thing we should be doing is taking away the investment capital they have, which means the companies cannot grow, and people lose jobs!

Or do we think the government does better at giving jobs at 900,000 a head or whatever the current rate is?

bmwtriton 10/22/2009 5:52pm
in reply to bgrossen Jul 18, 2009 9:41am

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.

DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:20am

If you want President Obama to hear what you have to say, AND want more room to post… Check out President Obama’s facebook page. He has an entire discussion dedicated to HR Bill 676. Check it out at the following link:

DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:13am
in reply to DoulaLady Oct 20, 2009 8:12am

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?

DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:12am
in reply to caa014611 Jul 13, 2009 4:01pm

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.)

DoulaLady 10/20/2009 8:03am
in reply to chicubsman Sep 11, 2009 3:45am

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?

DoulaLady 10/16/2009 6:04pm
in reply to DoulaLady Oct 16, 2009 6:03pm
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?
DoulaLady 10/16/2009 6:03pm
in reply to chicubsman Sep 11, 2009 3:45am

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.

DoulaLady 10/16/2009 4:18pm
in reply to DoulaLady Oct 16, 2009 4:15pm

The above 2 links refer are a letter that is being sent to Congress and the Senate. Copy and paste them, and e-mail them to your Congressmen and Senators. There are a lot more people who support HR Bill 676 than the media lets on, because the media is currently run by corporations who stand to lose if HR Bill 676 is passed. The language is a little raw, but it makes its point. Right now there are thousands upon thousands of people who would like to work part time as their health allows, but to do so they have to give up SSI and with it medicaid…meaning it is not an option unless money and a short life span are the ultimate goal. Spread the word, we have a real chance at getting HR Bill 676 passed this year IF we all work together!

DoulaLady 10/16/2009 4:15pm
in reply to DoulaLady Oct 16, 2009 4:15pm
Healthy people are able to work more, and produce more. Which is why HR Bill 676 demonstrated that it will actually LOWER our healthcare costs while increasing our quality of care. This may be why over 70% of the healthcare profession supports HR Bill 676, even when they are being bullied into remaining quiet on the issue.
DoulaLady 10/16/2009 4:15pm
in reply to capricorn7nc Sep 29, 2009 5:51am

If FDR had not died when he did, healthcare reform would be a non-issue, because he would have gotten his 2nd Bill of Rights passed, and with it, Universal Healthcare. Instead, we are left depending on our current Congress and Senate to make this change for us. True health care reform would be passing HR Bill 676, anything less is merely Congress prostituting itself for the insurance industry. If Congress chooses to prostitute itself, I sincerely hope they legalize it for the rest of the country so we can afford to pay our health bills. Otherwise, I pray that Congress grows a backbone and pushes HR Bill 676 through, showing that people are more important than profits, which will eventually lead to a more profitable country.

cbsullivan16 10/13/2009 2:11pm
in reply to ramanajan Feb 12, 2009 3:34am

I would suggest reading the following study. The gist of it is that Medicare operates with an administrative cost of only around 5% of total payments whereas private insurers have administrative costs of around 17%. These findings have been echoed in other studies. This seems like a pretty efficient government program to me…


msouthard 10/06/2009 6:35am
in reply to chicubsman Sep 11, 2009 3:45am

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.

capricorn7nc 09/29/2009 6:00am
in reply to americanmuscle Aug 17, 2009 4:26pm

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?

capricorn7nc 09/29/2009 5:55am
in reply to oderintdummetuant Aug 17, 2009 12:48pm

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.

capricorn7nc 09/29/2009 5:51am

I wish this would pass because speaking as someone with a pre-existing condition with high medical costs, this will help me immensely. I think it is sad that we do not have a better system than allowing insurance companies to run the show. At least do the public option, so we can shape the way these companies operate, because I have been in a situation where they delayed care over and over again until I just gave up doing the procedure. I am alive, but I had to go into a government program just to get help. I think without having real oversight over the insurance industry they will keep ignoring what is right for what is profitable.

Euclid_543 09/21/2009 8:22am
Link Reply
+ -1

Love of our neighbors is what causes Americans to be the most generous supporters of charity in the world. There is no love shown by government confiscation and redistribution of anyone’s wealth, or the USSR would have been the most “Christian” regime on earth.

These arguments over the control the Federal Government wants over our health care are all “straw men.” The real issue is that they do not have a right to do this, based on the US Constitution, as reiterated in the 10th Amendment.

chicubsman 09/11/2009 3:45am
Link Reply
+ -4
in reply to rbain1 Jan 29, 2009 10:22am

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.

2123melissap 09/04/2009 7:50am

The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level. Premiums, copayments, and deductibles would be eliminated. Employers would pay a 7.0 percent payroll tax and employees would pay 2.0 percent, essentially converting premium payments to a health care payroll tax. 90 to 95 percent of people would pay less overall for health care. Financing includes a $2 per pack cigarette tax.

2123melissap 09/04/2009 7:49am


The massive numbers of administrative personnel needed to handle itemized billing to 1,500 private insurance companies would no longer be needed. A negotiated “global budget” would cover operating expenses. Budgets for capital would be allocated separately based on health care priorities. Hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills.

The need for private insurance would be eliminated. One single payer bill currently in the House (H.R. 1200) would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

In general, businesses would see Single Payer limit their health costs and remove the burden of administering health insurance for their employees.

Single payer would be the simplest and most efficient health care plan that Congress could implement.

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.

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%"


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.

oderintdummetuant 08/17/2009 5:47pm
in reply to americanmuscle Aug 17, 2009 4:26pm

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.

americanmuscle 08/17/2009 4:26pm
in reply to oderintdummetuant Aug 17, 2009 12:44pm

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.

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.

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