How much would H.R. 676 cost consumers?

[JDPriestly]

Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year, including premiums, services, prescription drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%. Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage.

Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year. Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 annually, the employer would pay roughly $2,700.

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

Here is H.R. 676. Read it for yourself. E-mail it to your friends, family and neighbors.

http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676text

It is not a tough read (not compared to similar bills).

[slipslidingaway]

1. knr rec# 1 nt

[JDPriestly]

4. Thanks. Let's try to get this information out there.

I forwarded a YouTube link to the Jon Stewart clip with Bill Kristol to a lot of people this morning. That combined with information about H.R. 676, meaning the link to the website, should win some trust. People are frightened. Change is never easy, but we need to change the way and the amounts we pay for health care.

[slipslidingaway]

8. YW, been trying for awhile :) n/t

[bkkyosemite]

2. It is what we need and those Blue Dogs are keeping it from us bastards.

[sabrina 1]

3. Last time I looked at that bill it only had 38 sponsors.

It's clear that the people are not represented at all in this 'war' over healthcare. Lobbiests for the health industry, at least 4 to each member of Congress, according to Michael Moore's movie, Sicko, are all over DC spending billions to kill any bill that might cut into their profits.

I just heard a Repub on TV spouting off the usual talking points, 'a bureaucrat will be making your medical decisions' etc. with virutally no argument from the Dem, who to be fair, was cut off after the Repub made his false statements.

I've seen so many ads from the health industry, and hardly any supporting single payer or even a public option.

I have not seen Conyers or any of those who sponsored his bill explaining it to the American people, anywhere.

This battle will not be won until there is real leadership and organization and money to fight the huge machine that is bound and determined to kill any bill that benefits the American people. It is a war, to save the lives of over 22,000 Americans who die each year because of not having access to healthcare. But, the battle seems to be very one-sided as most of this information is not being made available to the American people. Most people I talk to have no idea that people are actually dying under the current system. Whose fault is that?

[bvar22]

5. You are mistaken.

HR 676 has over 85 Co-Sponsors, but I don't blame you for not knowing this.
The celebrity "Centrist" Democrats and the Media have agreed to NOT tell America about HR 676.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/labor-delegation-persuades-john-murtha-to-co-sponsor-hr-676/

[sabrina 1]

6. Thank you, as I said it was a while ago that I had looked

at the bill and sponsors. You are right that we are not being informed by the media, which I already acknowledged in my previous post. Keeping up with what is actually happening with every important issue is a full-time job in the absence of real news, or 'news' paid for by special interests. Most people do not have time to follow every issue.

I was about to check that bill again so thank you for the information and saving me time as I was already involved in researching another issue also not generally covered by our 'news' media.

That is definitely an improvement and encouraging. What do you think about not getting a bill passed by Obama's deadline? Could that be turned into a positive situation, providing those in favor of reform with more time to get their message out, or is it a bad sign, that maybe the opposition is winning?

[Aragorn]

7. nice info

but remember, Medicare HAS deductibles and co-payments. Part A for hospitals has deductible and co-payments. Part B for doctors costs more than Part A alone, each month and has both. Part D for medications also costs extra and has co-payements. The "deductible" comes later - often called the doughnut hole.

In my state, Medicaid covers these (or most of it) if one is poor enough, etc.

I am FOR HR 676. It is still better all around as well as cheaper.

Aside from direct costs, we lose jobs from USA because of health insurance costs.

[truedelphi]

9. Those of us who find employers won't touch us because of age

Might have some help if the USPHC is passed.

Then we would have jobs and would contribute.

So with the revenue from our IRS 1040's - rather than the drain that we pose to society while being kept unemployed, I cannot think of a better way to show that in some cases - there would be a net gain, rather than a loss.

[slipslidingaway]

10. kick nt

[KoKo]

11. Thanks for the links...what I read earlier today about this Bill left me

with many questions. I'll check out your links. Thanks for the post. We need all the info we can get about what Obama is proposing and what the House is doing and then to the Senate where all good Dem Bills "go to DIE" under Harry Reid.

K&R.