Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 676

Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      House Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Health
      House Committee on Ways and Means
      House Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedJanuary 26th, 2009
    Republicans’ AHCA “health care” bill is not really about health care. It’s not about improving access to health insurance, or reducing premiums, or making sure you get to keep your doctor if you like your doctor. And it’s certainly not about preventing people from dying in the streets. Instead, it’s about hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts — tax cuts that will quietly pave the way for more profits, and far larger, tax cuts. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has released a series of estimates showing what some of the tax-related provisions of Trumpcare would do. Among the biggest are repeals of two ACA surtaxes on the highest-earning Americans: a 0.9 percent payroll tax add-on and a 3.8 percent tax on net investment income for couples whose incomes exceed $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals). Repealing these would cost $275 billion over the next decade. The best replacement choice is not an "upward spiraling profiteering scheme" but an improved Medicare for All that provides affordable, accessible health care for everyone, like the one outlined in H.R. 676. H.R.676 was filed in the last Congress and covers health/medical care for all Americans, and significantly lowers costs by eliminating the private health insurance industry with its massive overhead and immense profits. H.R. 676, "The Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Act," would establish a unique American universal health insurance program with single-payer financing. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that improves and expands the existing Medicare program to everyone.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to get huge for profit out of healthcare! Don't get me wrong, doctors and healthcare professionals should make money congruent with their training, hospitals and clinics should make enough to stay afloat and continue to offer great infrastructure, pharmaceutical companies should be able to support R&D, and insurers should be able to cover administrative costs - but none of these should be out for huge profits for shareholders. For profit health insurance is unethical because at its core it should be about covering as many people as possible, not covering as few claims as possible to serve the shareholders financially. There is a place for insurers: they are a check on doctors and hospitals who might otherwise charge too much; they are also a check on patients who might otherwise demand an unnecessary million dollar work up, depriving funds for legitimate interventions. These purposes can be served without making huge profits. Just as drug research can go on without sky high CEO pay, large profits for shareholders and gigantic advertising budgets fueled by disposable price gouging and outrageous medication prices. It is a moral imperative to provide a minimum level of healthcare for all citizens, including preventative care. This bill is the path forward to get to all of these things without sacrificing choice to add on top of this minimum level with supplemental coverage from the private sector.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Physicians for a National Health Plan endorse this bill and say it will save the US 350 billion per year. It leaves a role for insurers. It makes health costs predictable for citizens, while giving people freedom to pay more for additional coverage. What excuse can there be for not enacting this plan?
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    You want an alternative to the ACA? Well this is the only way to go up from there. And for those who claim we can't afford it...each Tomahawk Missile recently launched at Syria cost $1mil. And the replacements that need to be built will cost even more. Maybe reflect on your morals and contemplate where money should be invested and realize that it would be better to put it into people's well being instead of their destruction.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    There's no reason why one of the wealthiest nations in the world cannot have this. Not to mention, having medical care is pro-life so that people have the resources needed to stay that way
    Like
    Follow
    Share