Forget ArnoldCare, Rep. Pete Stark wants to go BIG.(h/t to Josh Richman)
Stark’s plan would basically expand MediCare (and redub it AmeriCare…how patriotic) by um, basically doing what Arnold wants to do. However, Stark’s plan would leverage the existing MediCare infrastructure. Americans would either be covered by employers or AmeriCare. The plan would be funded through employer contributions and other government revenue. And check out this doozy:
In 2007, {a Commonwealth Fund study} suggests Stark’s legislation would cost the federal government $154.5 billion – less than the price of the Bush tax breaks for the top 20 percent of wage earners. But AmeriCare would save households $142.6 billion, state and local governments $57.4 billion and private employers $15.2 billion. As a result, its net impact on health care costs would be a $60.7 billion reduction in overall spending.
First, let me say that I appreciate the efforts of those in California that are trying to get us universal health care. Especially Shiel Kuehl. Single payer is ultimately where we are going to end up, but in the interim, we’ll need some stepping stones. The federal government has advantages due to the size and the national economy that make these things more workable there. That’s why Rep. Stark’s plan is so important.
Over the flip, you shall find Stark’s press release.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, today introduced the AmeriCare Health Care Act. This straightforward legislation would provide universal coverage by building on what works in today’s health care system – Medicare and employer-based coverage.
“After more than a decade on the back burner, America’s 45 million uninsured are finally receiving the attention they deserve,” said Stark. “Employers, unions, consumer groups and presidential candidates are all debating not whether our health care system needs reform, but how it should be improved. I suggest AmeriCare, a simple proposal that would guarantee quality health care for all, reduce costs and improve quality for people who already have coverage.”
Under the AmeriCare Health Care Act, people would either be covered through their employer or through AmeriCare, a new program modeled on Medicare. AmeriCare would use Medicare’s existing administrative infrastructure, but improve upon its benefits to provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit, mental health parity, pediatric care and family planning and pregnancy-related services.
Financed through contributions from employers, individuals and states, AmeriCare would limit out-of-pocket costs for all and subsidize costs for people with incomes of less than 300 percent of the poverty level.
The Commonwealth Fund, a nationally recognized foundation that provides independent health care research, last week released an evaluation of existing proposals to expand health insurance coverage. According to the study, only AmeriCare would provide universal coverage and lower national health care spending.
In 2007, the study suggests Stark’s legislation would cost the federal government $154.5 billion – less than the price of the Bush tax breaks for the top 20 percent of wage earners. But AmeriCare would save households $142.6 billion, state and local governments $57.4 billion and private employers $15.2 billion. As a result, its net impact on health care costs would be a $60.7 billion reduction in overall spending.
AmeriCare has been endorsed by a broad coalition of organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, AFL-CIO, Center for Medicare Advocacy, SEIU, NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, United Auto Workers, National Association of Community Health Centers, Families USA, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, AFSCME, Consumers Union, American Federation of Teachers and the Communication Workers of America.
A one-page summary of the “AmeriCare Health Care Act” is available at
http://www.house.gov…
The Commonwealth Fund study is available at
http://www.cmwf.org/…