As we go into the break and folks have the time, we are starting to get more numbers run so as to see the effect the two health care versions (House and senate) would have. Paul Krugman does that on his blog today, continuing a theme we've been discussing about the safety net:
For people on the left who think this is all a big nothing, consider the subsidies. From the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator, here’s the percentage of insurance premiums on the individual market that would be covered by subsidies at different levels of income measured as a percentage of the poverty line (all calculations are for a family of 4 headed by a 40-year-old): (graphic):
"Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?
For people in the center who worry, as my colleague David Brooks puts it, that there may be unintended consequences if you "centrally regulate 17 percent of the economy": um, it’s a little late for that."
In addition, here's a "what's in the bill" guide from MSNBC and Kaiser:
Q: I don't have health insurance. Would I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?
A: Under both bills, most Americans would be required to have coverage or to pay a penalty. Some would be exempted from the requirement, called an individual mandate, due to financial hardship or religious reasons. Under the House bill, you'd have to have coverage by 2013 or pay up to 2.5 percent of your income; the penalty couldn't exceed the average cost of a plan sold in the exchanges.
The Senate version would take effect in 2014. The penalty for not having coverage would be $95 in 2014 or 0.5 percent of an individual's income, whichever is higher. The penalty would rise in 2016 to $750, or 2 percent of income, up to the cost of the cheapest health plan.
This ABC News review looks at the bill from the point of view of the insurance companies, quoting Bob Laszewski, a respected health industry analyst and former industry executive who runs a health care blog:
The Senate bill calls for fines for people who do not purchase coverage and are not exempt from a mandate to buy it. They start at $95 in 2014 and rise to $750 by 2016.
That's a lot more affordable than what some people would pay for insurance. A sliding scale of subsidies will help people or families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $88,200 for a family of four this year. But a family of four with income of $65,000 would still have to pay nearly 10 percent of that income, or $6,500, toward coverage.
"There aren't a lot of families with an extra $6,500 in their checking account," Laszewski said. "The problem with this bill is the subsidies are really quite modest, and there really aren't any penalties."
An ideal bill for insurers, he said, would pair better subsidies for the uninsured with higher penalties that motivate people to buy coverage and get more healthy people into the risk pools.
An ideal bill for consumers is different than an ideal bill for the industry, of course. Lazsewski has several other posts on the blog about the impact on the industry (no jumping for joy in sight.)
You can find a previous cited article from Jonathan Cohn here, using numbers from Jonathan Gruber at MIT:
If reform doesn’t pass, according to Gruber’s figures, the average premium for the non-group market--that is, the market for people buying coverage on their own--will be around $12,000 a year. Right off the bat, you’re spending a fifth of your income on health insurance.
But what does it cover? Policies in the non-group market are notoriously spotty and unreliable. And benefit requirements vary enormously depending on the state. Many allow considerable, sometimes unlimited, out-of-pocket expenses. For the sake of comparison, though, let’s assume you have a policy with a deductible no higher than that allowed for a Health Savings Account. According to Gruber’s projections, that would mean you’re on the hook for--wait for it--another $12,000, plus a few hundred in change.
Put it altogether and that’s a total liability of around nearly $25,000--about half of your income.
Linda Bergthold has a summary of some other analysis pieces at HuffPo Monday, highlighting some pieces from USA Today and from the Health Affairs blog.
Also, Nate runs some of the same numbers Marcy runs, and comes up with The Senate's Bill Helps Working Families.
All in all, the numbers suggest that the proposed bills are a reasonable addition to the safety net, and there's a case to be made for what it does, particularly compared to the cost of doing nothing (no one argues that part - 36% of the insurance buying population had a pre-existing condition), even as we recognize what it doesn't accomplish and where else we need to go.
OK, that's the reasonable part. The unreasonable part is brought up by Bob Herbert today:
The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.
Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.
And where do we need to go? It's great to expand the safety net, but we need affordability for the middle class. The House has a better bill for it, because it avoids the Herbert-described 
"Cadillac" tax (Kaiser issue brief, .pdf):
The largest element of the financing of the House plan is a surtax on high income taxpayers (raising $460 billion over 10 years), a proposal not included in the Senate bill. The Senate plan, in turn, includes two proposals not in the House bill – an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high income workers (producing $54 billion), and a new tax on high-premium employer-sponsored health plans (raising $149 billion). Both proposals contain new excise taxes on various health industries, though the scope of the taxes varies – the House taxes only medical device makers (for revenues of $20 billion), while the Senate bill also includes taxes on brand-name drug companies and health insurers (for total revenue of $102 billion).
What's the logic for the Cadillac tax? The idea is to pay for health care within the health care system itself, rather than going outside the system (the House does this by taxing wealthy individuals.) Some Dem Senators (Landreau, Lincoln and Nelson come to mind) have threatened passage over this if it's removed. In return, the Senate taxes health care industry components much higher than the House version.
Play with the Health Reform Subsidy Calculator and see where you are at. And look to the House version as a better model for the middle class. It sounds like it'll take WH intervention to convince the Senate to lower or eliminate the high-premium plan tax. And whatever the final bill looks like, it has to be affordable to those making 90K or less (400% of Federal poverty levels - all individuals and families with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid and between 133 and 400%, there are subsidies.)
In the final analysis, remember we are comparing this to not having insurance at all - unless your current plan gets hit with a hidden tax, in which case you're going to be looking to retire a few Senators.
