The current bill is
HR 7435, introduced on April 7.
I don't expect this to go anywhere either. That said, IMHO it still has significant flaws.
As I understand it,
HSAs were part of a package added to the Medicare expansion act in 2003 (that created Part D) in order to
mollify thirteen conservative representatives. Without
HSAs, high deductible health plans (HDHPs) leave many people with health coverage in name only - a complaint heard more recently including here about some ACA plans.
HSAs make HDHPs, where people have more skin in the game, more palatable.
Medicare does not have high deductibles, nor is it a disliked program. So it doesn't need
HSAs to spur participation. And to the extent that people want alternatives, there is already Medicare Advantage. So it seems that the main raisons d'etre for
HSAs don't apply.
If the intent is simply to hand seniors who need extra help some money, one could target it better. For example, reduce premiums so that instead of covering 1/4 of costs, they cover 1/5 (that's a 20% reduction). Then increase IRMAA amounts to make up this difference. Revenue neutral, while providing Medicare assistance to those most in need instead of giving tax breaks that most benefit those who need it least.
There's another type of problem with this proposal. AFAIK, the government has not set up a program where people were promised tax-free earnings only to have them later taxed upon withdrawal. It would be as if the government said about Roths: sorry, we're taxing your earnings now.
I could see disallowing tax-free use of
HSA contributions and earnings for premiums
going forward, but disallowing the tax-free use of
past contributions and earnings sets a dangerous precedent.