Health care reform comparisons
 

The House and Senate bills have the following that are basically the same.
Both reduce the projected cost of health insurance vs. doing nothing.

1. Create a "Health Insurance Exchange." The bills create a one-stop
marketplace where people can choose from various insurance plans, including
the public option. The details aren't set yet, but initially the Exchange
would likely be open to the self-employed, people without insurance at work,
and small businesses. The key with the Exchange is that it brings "the
bargaining power and scale that's generally accessible only to large
employers" to individuals-and with that, lower costs and better options.

2. Provide insurance to over 30 million more people. The House bill would
expand coverage to 36 million people by 2019. The Senate bill extends
coverage to 31 million.

3. Outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and gender.
Insurance companies will have to stop denying coverage to people with
"pre-existing conditions." And they won't be allowed to charge women more
than men for the same coverage.

4. Eliminate coverage limits and price-gouging. The bills differ on some
details, but in general would place limits on how much people have to pay
for health care beyond their premiums. They both cap out-of-pocket costs and
ban insurance companies from setting limits on how much health care they'll
cover for a person each year.

So, what's wrong with any of these requirements?

Here's what still needs to get fixed:

Both bills leave millions uninsured. The House bill leaves 18 million
without insurance in 2019; the Senate bill, 24 million.

1. The Senate public option is weak, and conservatives are pushing to make
it weaker. The public option is a core piece of reform that will create real
accountability and competition for private insurance-and that's why it's at
the center of such a huge fight. While the House bill creates a national
public option, the Senate lets states opt out, denying their residents
access to it.

2. Many reforms don't start quickly enough. While some pieces of reform go
into effect right away, the larger structural changes are not scheduled to
go into effect until 2013 (House bill) or 2014 (Senate bill). This includes
the Exchange, the public option, and subsidies-the major ways coverage will
be expanded.

3. Required insurance could still be too expensive for many. Both bills
require virtually all Americans to have insurance. But the caps on how much
we're expected to pay are way too high, and the subsidies are way too low.

4. Reproductive rights are severely restricted in the House bill. An
egregious anti-choice amendment in the bill virtually prohibits anyone
purchasing insurance in the Exchange from buying a plan that covers
abortion-even if paid for with their own money.

5. The Senate bill could discriminate against lower income workers. The
current Senate legislation retains a version of what's called the "free
rider" provision, which essentially penalizes employers for hiring lower
income workers.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Health care reform comparisons
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
The House and Senate bills have the following that are basically the same.
Both reduce the projected cost of health insurance vs. doing nothing.

1. Create a "Health Insurance Exchange." The bills create a one-stop
marketplace where people can choose from various insurance plans, including
the public option. The details aren't set yet, but initially the Exchange
would likely be open to the self-employed, people without insurance at work,
and small businesses. The key with the Exchange is that it brings "the
bargaining power and scale that's generally accessible only to large
employers" to individuals-and with that, lower costs and better options.

2. Provide insurance to over 30 million more people. The House bill would
expand coverage to 36 million people by 2019. The Senate bill extends
coverage to 31 million.

3. Outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and gender.
Insurance companies will have to stop denying coverage to people with
"pre-existing conditions." And they won't be allowed to charge women more
than men for the same coverage.

4. Eliminate coverage limits and price-gouging. The bills differ on some
details, but in general would place limits on how much people have to pay
for health care beyond their premiums. They both cap out-of-pocket costs and
ban insurance companies from setting limits on how much health care they'll
cover for a person each year.

So, what's wrong with any of these requirements?

Here's what still needs to get fixed:

Both bills leave millions uninsured. The House bill leaves 18 million
without insurance in 2019; the Senate bill, 24 million.

1. The Senate public option is weak, and conservatives are pushing to make
it weaker. The public option is a core piece of reform that will create real
accountability and competition for private insurance-and that's why it's at
the center of such a huge fight. While the House bill creates a national
public option, the Senate lets states opt out, denying their residents
access to it.

2. Many reforms don't start quickly enough. While some pieces of reform go
into effect right away, the larger structural changes are not scheduled to
go into effect until 2013 (House bill) or 2014 (Senate bill). This includes
the Exchange, the public option, and subsidies-the major ways coverage will
be expanded.

3. Required insurance could still be too expensive for many. Both bills
require virtually all Americans to have insurance. But the caps on how much
we're expected to pay are way too high, and the subsidies are way too low.

4. Reproductive rights are severely restricted in the House bill. An
egregious anti-choice amendment in the bill virtually prohibits anyone
purchasing insurance in the Exchange from buying a plan that covers
abortion-even if paid for with their own money.

5. The Senate bill could discriminate against lower income workers. The
current Senate legislation retains a version of what's called the "free
rider" provision, which essentially penalizes employers for hiring lower
income workers.



The lets do something stupid vs nothing argument is getting stale.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet,or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.