Three More Join HR 676 Single Payer Bill in House

On Jan 24, 2017, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that outlines "MediCare for all" legislation. He has done this before without much luck.

Perhaps now, more Democrats will sign on to this thing.

Looks like it's funded by taxes in some specific areas.

Lots of possible pros & cons in this one.

How would private insurance companies survive along with all affected employees ?

Maybe they just become administrator contractors like some companies do already?

Wild.


Three More Join HR 676 Single Payer Bill in House

Three more members of the House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of HR 676, the single payer bill in the House.

Carolyn Maloney (New York), Adriano Espaillat (New York) and Nanette Barragan (California) — signed onto HR 676 yesterday, bringing the total number of co-sponsors to 72.

That leaves 22 members of the House Progressive Caucus yet to co-sponsor HR 676 — a bill that has been endorsed by the caucus as a whole.

H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

This is interesting because a single payer system is proven. It was either amend the current health bill or repeal it completely with the single payer option.

The whole quasi civilian agency deal might get a bit too convoluted, but I'm it is something to be worked on. At this point, I'm ready for them to try something.

a reply to: Arnie123

Maybe it ends MediCaid and employer provided insurance too.

Some people think that is OK.

I don't know the answers.

a reply to: xuenchen

Other industrial countries have this system and it works. Perfect nope.

For those who will yell that it will fail, stop look around. Ours is failing now. NOW.

If we do not get the medical monster under control, we will devote 20% GPD, then 22%, then 25%.....

The medical industry knows no ends to the profits it reaps. And next quarter it will demand another 2-3% growth.

a reply to: xuenchen

Fascinating; had no idea this was going on. I rather doubt the crappy Republicans currently in Congress would ever go for this........but.........maybe after 2018/2020 something could come of it.

Thanks for providing this timely and interesting information!

As an "assist" to further conversation, I provide:
en.wikipedia.org...

It is noted at the source:

The United States National Health Care Act, or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676) is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative John Conyers (D-MI).[1] The bill had 49 cosponsors in 2015. The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare and Taiwan's Bureau of National Health Insurance, among other examples. Under a single-payer system, most medical care would be paid for by the Government of the United States, ending the need for private health insurance and premiums, and probably recasting private insurance companies as providing purely supplemental coverage, to be used when non-essential care is sought.

I'm having trouble finding any meaningful debate about the bill on the Internet.

Thanks again!

a reply to: xuenchen

I like this part:

(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The appointed members of the Board shall include at least one of each of the following:

(A) Health care professionals.
(B) Representatives of institutional providers of health care.
(C) Representatives of health care advocacy groups.
(D) Representatives of labor unions.
(E) Citizen patient advocates.Text

Part (C) specifically could help get some advocacy from organizations that their primary goal is to GET RID of certain types of diseases. These members will be on the BOARD to help make decisions that could bring new treatments to the forefront. I'm thinking of advocacy groups that are also part of medical studies. Diabetes Research Institute in Miami is one example, and Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund is another advocacy group. I would like to see advocates as board members, and 2 for each disease.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well if anything this is interesting. Some food for thought. I just wonder how much it will cost.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Right now it is the most expensive system in the world and comes in about 30 in service outcomes.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: xuenchen

Well if anything this is interesting. Some food for thought. I just wonder how much it will cost.

Perhaps add up all the current costs of MediCare and MediCaid on all levels of government.



NHE Fact Sheet

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, I was going to say that this isn't going to be cheap. Its one of those that has to be implemented to see its real benefits. You'll just have to grind your teeth at those numbers.

a reply to: seasonal

My company helps pay for part of my health insurance. I wonder if they will have to pay into this also to help with the cost.

a reply to: xuenchen

Please let this pass.

Sure a lot of insurance companies will go out of business and their employees be unemployed. This is a good reason to justify unemployment. For the most part these are skilled workers who should be able to find other employment opportunities.

Single payer works, it has been proven to work for quite some time now.

Now is not the time for America to reinvent the wheel. Now is time for America to realize that the best and most cost effective form of health care has already been established. Sometimes it's better to follow what works rather trying to force innovation.

Everyone deserves medical coverage. If the elite want better coverage let them maintain private practice doctors at the top of their fields and allow them to pay the difference. Everyone is covered through a Socialist model. While capitalism can flourish by allowing the wealthy to procure the best in the industry for themselves.

The model for Socialism/Capitalism working together already exists in the public/private school system. It's not only feasible but actually works quite well.

Medicine for profit is not medicine, it is a business. The medical staff that signifies our medicine is the staff of Hermes. It is the staff of commerce...the staff of business. We need to adopt the other path, the one snake staff, the staff of medicine.

They do not even hide the fact that our medicine is nothing other than big business, and the governance of this is controlled by those that actually are trained by the business schooling of that trade.

We need to go to socialized healthcare at least for the basics and limit the amount of expenditures on this. We need to simplify the language so anyone can understand how to avoid health issues. Right now, the people who learn how to teach us about health learn it from those making medicines. The companies that make chemicals to treat our food also make chemicals to treat us for the illnesses that come from those chemicals. The same regulatory agency that regulates the medicines also regulates food chemistry added to food. Can you see the conflict of interest here? Less people to bribe with a future job means you can give them more of a bribe.

We got major problems with our health system and food system in this country. Also, increasing raw veggies in the diet can lead to problems which require medicines to balance. It is not only the insecticides, the plants make natural insecticides which can be dangerous too if too much is consumed, causing anxiety issues and neurogenerative diseases if overconsumed. They are making grains even more dangerous by allowing preharvest spraying of grains with glyphosate which can cause excitotoxic effects in people who cannot properly detox these chemicals in their body.

Our whole system is controlled by deceivers. Alchemistry at it's worst.

Thing to watch is... will congress be a part of it... if they exempt themselves the people should reject it cause we will get the shaft sans lube.

a reply to: xuenchen

If it makes its way to Trump, he better veto that socialist crap. I don't want a single payer. Now that Obama's left office, its ok to embrace socialism? Is that the way its gonna be?

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: seasonal

My company helps pay for part of my health insurance. I wonder if they will have to pay into this also to help with the cost.

There's something about that in the bill.

Agreed.Until we get out of this mindset,our healthcare system will continue to deteriorate.And it's not like premiums were going down pre -ACA.Pres. Obama couldn't get single-payer through when the Dema were the majority.We're all screwed.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: xuenchen

If it makes its way to Trump, he better veto that socialist crap. I don't want a single payer. Now that Obama's left office, its ok to embrace socialism? Is that the way its gonna be?

Yes, it's ok to embrace the most cost effective system of health care in the world. One that provides coverage for everyone. I'm pretty sure health care for all is Christ-like.

I'm pleasantly surprised that so many people from various "sides" of the political spectrum seem to be speaking favorably about this. It wasn't too long ago when single payer and "Medicare for All" were being demonized as evil socialized medicine.

In theory, it should be a boon for businesses since they'd no longer have to worry about providing health insurance plans to their employees (ETA: the version in this bill may be different). So I always figured big business would be behind it, even if strictly for the cost savings. However, the healthcare industry (and related industries) are immensely profitable here. The same businessmen & investors who would see their business costs in some sectors decrease would also be seeing their health industry investments decrease or disappear altogether. So passing single payer would require those people and their inner circles to give up some of their most profitable investments.

On top of that, healthcare related industries make up some of the largest spenders on lobbyists both at the federal and State level. According to OpenSecrets.org, the health sector was the largest spender on lobbying in 2016 with $509,584,091 spent (HERE). To put that in perspective, it shows that the infamous defense sector was only the 9th largest spender on lobbying last year, spending "only" $126,591,498. And this is just lobbying costs, so it doesn't include the ridiculous amount the spend on ads and marketing their products.

In short, the healthcare industry theoretically has more access to actual lawmakers and regulators than any other industry, which explains why we're stuck with this unnecessarily expensive system. If we ever want to see something like this bill pass, we're going to have to elect a lot of people who aren't heavily invested in the healthcare industry and people who don't take lobbying money or campaign donations from the healthcare industry. Otherwise we'll be asking our representatives in Congress to craft and pass a law that will directly hurt their own investments, which I doubt they have the integrity to do.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

I think, (but am wrong a lot) is they will no longer be part of the health care industry. Nothing to do but their business.

But what we would have is a caring govt. institution, not unlike what we have now. My thoughts are perhaps we maybe able to control health care costs. But this may not be the case.

I think medicare for all is a good idea, the system is in place. I am no expert in the medical field. But what we are doing is going to collapse if not changed with the customer in mind not the share holder.