Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed. You can submit a short question too.

Answered by a visitor on May 22, 2009 5:19 PM - H.R. 676 calls for an extension of the national Medicare program in both benefit coverage (comprehensive) and eligibility qualifications (all citizens, not just the aged or disabled. S.R. 703 calls for the creation of state-based programs to replace Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP), Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). The comparative advantages of H.R. 676 include lower costs (fewer administrative/operational changes needed at the national level compared to the state level as well as lower per capita expenses with larger population); greater individual and societal benefits; more equal distribution of healthcare coverage (state-run programs would vary); and, in the future, integration with the Indian Health Service into the Program and possible integration with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health programs.

Answered by a visitor on Jun 2, 2009 3:29 PM - http://singlepayernewyork.org/S-703.php. This link has a comparison of the two bills. The main difference is how it will be administered; by individual state or federally. It is a short good read.

Answered by a visitor on Jul 11, 2009 10:50 PM - S.703 is a Single Payer bill - just as HR676 is a Single Payer bill. In fact, I don't understand for the life of me why GovTrack posts HR1200 as the "Related Legislation" (but NOT HR676) when there really is no relation other than they are both being proposed for healthcare reform.

HR1200, in my opinion, is welfare for private insurers; it would subsidize private insurance companies & coverage (both for individuals & employers). It also includes the "public option" program you keep hearing about - which is NOT a Single Payer system. However, some of the elements of the public option are modeled after Single Payer.

Single Payer means ALL insurance claims would be paid by the government, and all healthcare provided by private practitioners and institutions. And thus is often described as "Everybody in, Nobody out" or "Medicare for All" - and it would be a not-for-profit system. While the "public option" is exactly what it suggests; a public option provided for individuals & employers to get insurance via the government, instead of through private insurers - and it would still leave the for-profit insurance & medical entities in tact.

Two sources I think you might find helpful in differentiating the two, are these websites that host all kinds of information for each proposal:

Public Option:

"Health Care for America Now"

http://www.healthcareforamericanow.org/

Single Payer:

"Physicians for a National Health Program"

http://www.pnhp.org/

The PNHP does an excellent job of explaining the difference between the two as well.