The U.S. National Health Insurance Act (USNHI Act, H.R.676), also known as Expanded and Improved Medicare for All
In 2007 the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan was $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care)
Under H.R.676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1,900 per year for health care coverage. (A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy.)
The U.S. National Health Insurance Act (USNHI Act, H.R.676, or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All) is a federal bill that lays out a financially sound way to provide health care to everyone in the U.S. It would provide it to everyone, and without people having to pay insurance premiums, co-pays and other out-of-pocket charges, deductibles, prescription costs, medical equipment costs, etc. It would be paid for by changes to how industry and the wealthy are taxed (an increase), and by a small increase to an existing payroll tax for employees and employers.
Opponents of H.R.676 try to label it "socialized medicine". But while it may be partly accurate to call it socialized insurance, it is definitely not socialized medicine. One's privately employed doctor of choice would remain at one's current private clinic. The actual health care would remain private under H.R.676. It's only the health insurance that would be removed from private business/profit sector and placed in public hands. An accurate term for H.R.676's proposed insurance is "single-payer". That is, there would be only one payer (the U.S. government) directly paying for our medical visits, with our pooled money. This would replace the current system in which various private insurance companies collect our money through premiums and spend about half of it elsewhere before only partly paying our doctors offices for our visits. And our single-payer would be keeping down costs (like medical procedure and drug costs), whereas the current array of insurance companies does not do this for us. Our single-payer insurance would have tiny overhead costs compared to the overhead costs that the array of private insurance companies has. These are just some of the reasons H.R.676 would save us money to the extent shown in the study quoted above.
There are provisions in H.R.676 that specifically would give hiring priority to current health insurance industry workers when transitioning to the new public single-payer system.
The insurance industry has said that it is the health care providers' (e.g., hospitals', clinics') charges that cause them (the insurers) to raise insurance premiums. In the current private health insurance system, it is unclear whether there is incentive or intention to negotiate down these charges. But under H.R.676, there are specific provisions for our single-payer system to negotiate these charges, controlling these costs for us instead of allowing them to escalate. Unlike the current private insurance system, our single-payer system would work with health care providers and drug companies to negotiate and control costs.
Removing health insurance from the business/profit sector and placing it in public hands (public sector) would result in immense cost savings for families and employers. Tax payers who currently pay lots of cash and credit to insurance companies (and to clinics for what insurers do not pay) would instead pay a small payroll tax into the new single-payer system, and no longer worry about paying increasing premiums, co-pays, deductibles, denied claims, etc. And, again, our single-payer would do the negotiating required to control prices of medical care visits and procedures, prescription drugs, etc., enabling the new system to work financially.
Polls show that already (without advertisement or significant outreach) most Americans want a single-payer health insurance system and the universal coverage and care that would result from it. See the chart of the polls and the poll summaries.
