Health Care and Transperency

Throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Barrack Obama pledged to open his administration up to a new level of transperency.  Gone would be the Bush tactics of declaring executive privilege, and hiding information from the public.

After the health care debacle, the American people know what I assumed all along...this is total BS.  Word is today that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will begin informal meetings to hash out differences between the two bills.  This also breaks Obama's pledge for bipartisanship, but than again, he doesn't need and GOP support to ram an unpopular bill down the throats of Americans.

While the reconciliation won't be easy, it looks like Democratic members of the House will have to give up a lot more than the Senate. 

Here are the major issues that seperate the two bills:

How to pay for it:
The largest source of new revenue in the House version of healthcare reform legislation is a tax on wealthy Americans. It consists of a 5.4 percent surcharge on families with annual incomes over $1 million and on individuals with incomes over $500,000. It's estimated to bring in $461 billion over the next decade.


In contrast, the largest source of new revenue in the Senate version of the bill is an excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this would raise $149 billion over 10 years. The Senate raises another $238 billion over the decade via a mix of fees on insurers and some health device manufacturers, and other provisions.

The Public Option:
The House version has a public option – a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals. (Liberals would have preferred that it use the Medicare rates set by the government, which would probably have been lower.)


The House bill allocates $2 billion for public option start-up money. But premiums from beneficiaries would have to pay for the full cost of the plan after it got up and running.

The Senate bill ... well, that was kind of a struggle, wasn't it? The Senate bill has no public option, following objections from Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I) of Connecticut and moderate Democrats about government intervention in the marketplace.

Instead, under the Senate bill, the federal Office of Personnel Management would oversee two national health plans from private firms offered through the exchanges to individuals, families, and small businesses. At least one of those plans would have to be operated on a nonprofit basis.

Abortion:
Under the House bill, health plans, in general, could choose whether to cover abortion or not. But federal money couldn't be used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman was in danger.


The public option plan would not provide abortion coverage, for instance, in the House version of the bill. Nor could individuals who received federal subsidies to buy insurance choose a plan that covers elective abortions.

Abortion language in the Senate bill is different in important details. As in the House version, the Senate language allows health plans, in general, to choose whether to cover abortion or not. But states could block plans that cover abortion from being offered through the new insurance exchanges.

The Senate would allow people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance to enroll in plans that cover abortion. But they would have to make two separate monthly payments: one for abortion coverage, and one for all other health coverage.

As shown in the recent negotiations in the Senate, including the now infamous Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback, there is little room for Harry Reid to opperate with.  Anything more progressive or liberal the the bill that passed on Chirstmas Eve is sure to be met with opposition from the Senate's centrist Democrats.

This is going to proove to be very interesting political theater over the next month.  It's just too bad that, as Americans, we won't be able to know what's going on behind closed doors.

Hope & Change my ass