Tweet
The Harry Reid is in the process of merging the two Senate bills, but what the final Senate product will be is still a secret. For the most part, the bill from the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) is expected to serve as the base that the new Senate bill is being built upon. It is by far the worse of the two Senate committee bills.
Here is a compare/contrast between the new House version and the Baucus version of the Senate bill. The House bill is superior in many ways:
- It covers more people. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) bill, written by Max Baucus, would only provide coverage to an additional 29 million people. The House bill with extend coverage to roughly 36 million individuals. That is 7 million more people.
- Contains a public health insurance option. The SFC bill did not contain a public option.
- Employer mandate instead of “free rider” provision. The “free rider” provision is a terrible and probably unworkable idea that would hurt low-income Americans.
- Stronger, better regulated exchange. At the insistence of Olympia Snowe, the SFC’s exchange was made basically worthless, the equivalent of a health care yellow pages. The House bill will let the exchange use its power to help hold down premiums and get the best deal for customers.
- Lower out-of-pocket cap. The House bill places an annual out-of-pocket limit on expenses for individuals at $5,000 and families at $10,000. The SFC places the annual limit at $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families
- Higher quality insurance plans. In the House bill’s lowest qualified plans must have an actuarial value of 70 percent. In the SFC bill, the lowest qualified plans must only have an actuarial value of 65 percent.
- More generous affordablity tax credits. The House bill will provide working class American families more help affording health insurance than the SFC bill will.
- Tighter age ratings. The House bill will only allow insurance companies to charge older people twice as much as younger individuals. The SFC bill would let insurance companies charge older people four times as much. The health insurance lobby has been pushing hard for an age rating of 5:1.
- Minimum medical loss ratio. In the House bill, there is a minimum medical loss ratio of at least 85%. An insurance company needs to use 85 cents of every dollar it brings in through premiums to pay for claims. The SFC bill does not have a minimum medical loss ratio.
- One national exchange instead of state-based exchanges. Creating a single national exchange is better than having states create 50 different state-based exchanges like the SFC bill. It should increase efficiency and bring down cost.
- Better ombudsman. Both bills would create a new health care ombudsman office (or offices) to help people deal with insurance companies. In the SFC bill, people would only be allowed to seek help from the ombudsman if their internal appeals last more than three months, or they were facing a life-threatening situation. The House bill puts no restrictions on when a person could seek help from the ombudsman.
These are not the only eleven ways the House bill is significantly better than the bill written by Baucus, they are just some of the most glaring examples.
19 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
When is the CBO report expected on Reid’s proposed Senate legislation?
Another great list, Thanks.
BUT neither does what is needed !! And I’m one of those who could benefit from the bills !! Again, just like in elections, the American public is being forced to take the lesser of two evils.
There is the perspective that major change occurs one step at a time(I’m absolutely certain that such is Obama’s mantra) but that such doesn’t apply to engaging in war.
Well ,health insurance/prescription drug costs ARE a ‘war’ upon most citizens and simple effective solutions were presented, only to be shot down by the President and his minions. Don’t blame the whores that are in Congress,blame the so called ‘leader of the free world’ who could have stood up for real reform and chose not to.
Now we know what is right with the bill, we need to hammer on the leadership to throw out the Eshoo Amendment and preserve the Kucinich Amendment.
The “READ MORE” link goes to preview (had to edit the link to get here)…
Sorry, Petro, little wrinkle behind the currents, should be fixed now.
You may see video going and coming, too.
Aren’t you smart…)
The House bill may be better than the Baucus bill but it is still a bad bill. At this point, the public option has been trashed. The insurance companies are getting the individual mandate and we are getting the shaft. The sellout continues and we need to kill this bill.
Holy crap! That’s more than a double compound fracture with no insurance cost me this year.
unforkingbelievable.
Anyone watching Rachel? Apparently Bayh has walked way back on the threat to filibuster cloture or the bill.
And, she listed Mrs. Bayh’s healthcare positions = and got Bayh’s office to insist that those have “no effect” on his positions. Hah. But at least the subject is out there.
Jane is back! Yay!
Forget about this bill,it’s costs a trillion,and Obama prefers bails out
the banks to big to fail.
Philly 1- bankers 0
This bill is a joke. It requires mandatory insurance.The insurance companies are celebrating today.I agree with kucinich. The insurance companies should get the same medicare rates.This is a sell out!!!! Strip Lieberman of all committees.He is always been a turn coat.2014 let’s take him out.Robust health care bill or a “no” vote for this bill.Where is the repeal of the anti-trust law for insurance companies.VOTERS we have been sold out!!!!
Obama has sold us out to the banks and insurance companies.I will vote next time for Bernie Sanders for president!!!!!
The CBO report says that the premiums for the public option will be “somewhat higher” than the private plans in the exchange. If that turns out to be true, the public option will not survive.
Obama is a coward.
As I see it, the PO is useful only to the extent that it is competitive with private insurers with respect to overall costs and services covered, and in so doing expands by drawing more enrollees irrespective of their risk than would private insurers.
Because the PO will inevitably contain higher risk enrollees, to provide comprehensive services at costs that are lower than private insurers it must depend on efficiency and lower reimbursement rates to accomplish this. That is if the PO is willing or required by design to assume higher risk enrollees it must be allowed to charge less for services to stay competitive.
Jon wonder if you could expound on the following:
-Are people that receive subsidies to meet their premiums ineligible for the PO? If so they would by default be subsidized and go to private insurers.
-How would the exchange as described be able to independently bargain down costs from providers. And between the PO plan and private insurers which if either would benefit more from these bargained down costs?
It falls way way short, and considering that high unemployment and broad under employment are likely to stay with us for a very, very long time, as well as that wages will remain flat. The limited ability of these bills to contain rising costs, – it is high time to call Obama out.
The progressive caucus needs to be very public in pleading (demanding) that the President casts his support with the majority of American people! We must make Rahmbama realize that there will be a price to pay, if he continues to thwart the will of the people.
Albert Gore chose Lieberman , and Obama’s second choice was Bayh. That aught to make anyone want to hurl, and realize that the government, as is belongs to the Corporations, and that voting for Democrats is at best marginally better than the voting for the other cocksuckers.
People, ignore the pleas of those whores, vote them all out in 2010 or watch your futures, your lives turn into ashes. The reason this shit is not criminal is that the criminals are writing the laws.
We need an anti-Schindler’s list of sorts.
There is no reason to believe the exchanges will be national. States are allowed to pull out and create their own or group off into regional exchanges.