While all the attention has been on the Senate with regards to health care and the public option, a lot has been going on the House of Representatives as well. It has been widely known that the house bill would be more liberal. But what we did not know is that the bill would also be more fiscally responsible.
From Ezra:
The House of Representatives is readying itself to release three delicious flavors of health-care reform. One of the bills will have a public option trigger. Another will have a level-playing field proposal. And the third will have the Hardy's Thickburger of public options: Medicare rates plus 5 percent, national, the whole deal.
The robust public option will save money, and this has allowed to house bill to have more generous subsidies and more expansive coverage.
From what I'm hearing, the specifics will look something like this. The Senate Finance Bill gets to 94 percent coverage. The House bill will hit 96 percent. The Senate Finance bill spends a bit over $450 billion on subsidies to help people afford insurance. The House bill will spend more than $700 billion. The Senate Finance bill doesn't have an employer mandate. The House bill does. The Senate Finance bill funds itself by taxing family health-care benefits over $21,000. The House bill funds itself by taxing incomes over $500,000. The Senate Finance bill expands Medicaid. The House bill expands Medicaid by more.
So, the house bill has to cost more, right? Here's the kicker:
The Senate Finance bill costs $829 billion. The House bill costs $871 billion.
Hear that Senator Landrieu? Not only will this not bankrupt the government, it will save money and make millions of lives better!
The house has even reached a compromise to appease rural reps unhappy with medicare reimbursement rates:
On Thursday, Democrats announced that they had struck a deal to have a group of experts who are neutral on the issue develop a strategy for addressing the geographic disparities that have prevented rural and Pacific Coast lawmakers from signing on to a public option.
Am I missing something? Strong public option, expanded coverage, addressing unfair medicare reimbursement rates, and it costs under $900 billion? What possible excuse could a conservadem senator have for opposing this? Well, I'm sure they'll come up with something.