Amid contentious health care issues, there's a lot lawmakers agree on

[babylonsister]

Yes, I know, potential postive news is NOT welcome here! :hide:


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/80626.html

Amid contentious health care issues, there's a lot lawmakers agree on

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — The mounting Senate tension in these last days of the 2009 session is all about public options, Medicare and abortion policy, but step away from the rhetorical flames and it turns out that a lot of lawmakers from both parties agree on many proposals to change the nation's health care system.

The headlines will say that Senate Democrats struggled Monday to find common ground on the more contentious issues, and President Barack Obama planned to meet with them Tuesday afternoon.

At the same time, though, there's little discord over plans to require insurers to offer a minimum amount of coverage to nearly everyone, and the Democratic-authored House of Representatives and Senate bills bar insurers from denying coverage or raising rates because of pre-existing conditions.

Under both bills, lower-income people could get government help to buy insurance, and Medicare costs would be trimmed significantly.

There are differences on how these policies could be implemented, but "There are overarching ideas that almost everybody (from both parties) agrees with," said Drew Nannis, an AARP spokesman.

snip//

They all tend to embrace the other changes, however, and have some Republican support.

Among the areas of agreement:

_ Requiring most people to have a certain level of health care coverage. In the Senate bill, those who don't would pay a $750 penalty after 2016, up to a maximum of $2,250 per family. The House penalty is on a sliding scale, depending on income.

_ Helping those who have trouble paying for coverage. Both bills offer help to people who earn up to 400 percent of the poverty level, currently about $88,000 a year for a family of four.

_ Creating health insurance exchanges. Though the bills differ in how the exchanges would be set up, they agree that consumers would be able to shop for coverage and rates easily through the exchange, or marketplace. Exchanges would have to offer four kinds of plans, from basic to premium. Basic plans would cover 70 percent of the actuarial value of costs in the House version, 60 percent in the Senate bill.

_ Barring insurers from denying coverage or charging people more because of pre-existing conditions.

_ Ending separate rates because of gender, which now is allowed in most states. In addition, both bills would limit how much more an insurer could charge someone because of age.

One question that's looming throughout the Capitol is whether lawmakers will be willing to enact the provisions they agree on if they deadlock on the more controversial issues.

[Peacetrain]

1. Light at the end of the tunnel is always welcome..!!!!

[swilton]

2. The detailed coverage of this article

is certainly illuminating -

However, I find that it ignores a fatal flaw in both chambers' proposals - the fact that there are no cost controls imposed on the insurance industry. They may cover more people but without cost controls, such coverage and treatment for procedures may prove prohibitive for the average income earner.

[Clio the Leo]

3. The press thrives off of controversy....

.... and we enable them.

I think what is truly sad in all of this is not that the bill will not be as progressive as we would have liked, but we're ignoring all of the GOOD that will come out of it. Just ONE of those things you listed would have been cheered a year ago.

Thanks Babs!