The Big Surprise in the House Bill

The AP has scored quite the coup, releasing details on the health care bill that’s being worked on in the House.  I’m really glad they did because it’s got quite a number of surprises!  You’re not going to believe it, but… uh… well… hrm… well, you see… OK fine, there’s absolutely nothing surprising about the details that have leaked.  Nada.

By the way, we can say “House bill” rather than “House bills” because the committee chairs with jurisdiction – Henry Waxman for Energy & Commerce, Charlie Rangel for Ways & Means, and George Miller for Education, Labor & Pensions – have already agreed to work on a unified bill, bypassing the normal process of having three separate bills that need to be reconciled.  This streamlined process makes the pledge that those three, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, the President, and the Vice President made at the White House to have a bill on the floor of the House by July 31 not just possible but likely.

But it’s clear that expediency isn’t the only reason for the unified bill.  There’s just not enough disagreement between where the House leaders wants to go and where the President wants to go to warrant a long, drawn-out process in the House.  There’s also probably not much disagreement between the chairpersons themselves – Rep. Rangel is the only one in that group who has been a diehard single-payer supporter and professedly still is, but he had no problem endorsing Hillary Clinton’s health care plan a year and a half ago, despite it being virtually identical to what the AP says is currently being considered.

If you’ve been following health care at all, you can probably recite along with the AP’s findings:

• “allowing [those happy with their insurance] to keep their coverage"
• “an insurance purchasing pool called an ‘exchange’” for individuals and small businesses to buy into
• the government will be involved “setting insurance rules and providing financial help to low- and middle-income families” – up to 400% of the poverty line, according to the AP
• “employers, government and individuals share responsibility,” meaning mandates
• “stricter consumer protections” on insurance, meaning no pre-existing conditions, lifetime maximum benefit, stratified individual ratings, etc.
• “a government insurance program to compete with private companies. It would be financed by premium payments, not taxpayer dollars.”

Yeah, we’ve seen this movie, folks.  This is what we’ve been talking about since the presidential primary season.  There’s no news here.  The only detail that’s not immediately familiar is the AP’s claim that only small business with 10 employees or fewer would be able to purchase coverage through the Exchange when it starts up, and other businesses will get that option eventually.  Other than that tiny detail, I could have written this article without benefit of a leaked document.  You probably could have, too.

So come to think of it, having watched Congress for years, the big surprise is that there is so little difference of opinion.  The stars (pun intended) are aligned.

(Photo credit:  White House.gov)