Looking at the health care plan, it looks like there were improvements Kerry wanted

[karynnj]

The NYT has a very nice comparison chart of the Senate and House versions of the bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html?hp#tab=15

Here were some changes:
1) Kerry repeatedly asked that the threshold on the cadillac plans be raised - he initially had $25,000 (which per articles the unions were not going to oppose), the Finance bill had $21,000. It looks like they split the difference to get to $23,000.

2) Kerry argued that the 4:1 ratio for premiums of the oldest to the youngest was too high. MA has 2:1 and he argued for that. The HELP bill had 3:1 - and the final bill has 3:1.

There seem to be some pretty major differences in the two bills. The most drastic is that the House bill has national plans and a national exchange, where the Senate one in state level - though it allows states to combine into regions. This is a fundamental difference, not something that can be solved by "splitting the difference". I suspect that this was done to win the support of the more Conservative Democrats. (ie North Dakota can have its coop). This really is pretty much driven by the opt out provision. I would suspect that the final plan will look more like this. (Reid, Dodd, and Baucus (and the staff) really did a lot of work here.)

I think the abortion issue was handled as well as it could be. I will bet that the pro-life people will say it is just playing with numbers. One question is what about any people whose subsidy is greater than or equal to the Premium without abortion? If they select the plan with abortion, would the subsidy be limited to the cost of the plan without abortion? (In which case they pay out of pocket the difference in the 2 plans, which is presumably due to covering abortion as well.)

[sandnsea]

1. Better than expected

They increased the subsidy to 400% of poverty and it's on a sliding scale from 2% - 8%. So that's good too. There are a few flaws in it, but overall it is much better than I thought would come out of the Senate. The High Risk Pool ratio is 5:1, but that's a temporary program so maybe that'll be okay. And the tiers of plans pay from 60% - 90%. So if you have a bronze plan, you still have 40% of your medical coverage to pay. The poorest will still end up bankrupt. That shouldn't be the place they try to cut, especially if the plans have $2,000 deductibles. We'll see what gets noodged in conference, but it looks like we're going to get a health care plan to me.

[karynnj]

2. I agree with you on the bronze plan leading the poor to bankruptcy

if they face a major medical problem. There also is the likelihood that the bronze plan is what they will select as they couldn't afford the premiums of the higher plans.

Who are in the high risk pool? Does that mean that the pre-existing conditions provision does not take effect immediately?

It does look more likely that we will get a health care plan passed.

[sandnsea]

4. That's to cover the pre-existing people right away

I guess until companies can create policies to include them (us), I don't know. I haven't seen when that part of the plan has to go in affect, or whether they think it won't be possible for people to really get coverage until there are exchanges. I'm in an insurance pool and it's somewhere around $550 per person and higher when you're older. I only have thyroid and a slightly elevated blood sugar. I take medication, but ten years ago I'd have been in the normal range on blood sugar. So I pay the same as my husband who has had a heart attack, triple hernia surgery, hep c, arthritis, and back pain that they finally discovered is a torn disc since insurance paid for an MRI. Oh, and nerve damage from a fire and diabetes. But no disability and Medicare, nosirree. That's why I am so grateful for the subsidies. I really don't know how anybody pays $1100 a month for insurance and that's what our premiums would be. I don't know that these high risk pools are going to be any help, but they will show some people that they're stupid without the subsidy so that will be good.

[beachmom]

3. Here is a Hill article about the abortion piece:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68453-reid-modifies-abortion-provisions-but-eschews-stupak-language-

Reid modifies abortion provisions but eschews Stupak language
By Jeffrey Young - 11/18/09 05:56 PM ET

...

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who supports abortion rights, said Reid's new provisions would preserve the Hyde amendment while enabling people to buy insurance plans with abortion coverage on the exchange.

"We're basically going to keep current law, which is what we ought to do," Kerry said after the Democratic caucus meeting.

I hope that it is indeed much better than Stupak. Given this:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/study-stupak-amendment-will-eliminate-abortion-coverage-over-time-for-all-women.php?ref=fpblg

A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services adds some expert imprimatur to what many progressives have been saying all along: The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope.

The report concludes that "the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."