Comprehensive health care reform is closer to reality than it’s ever been in the six decades of trying, but it’s far from accomplished and faces a difficult road as it moves to the Senate.
The House bill, though flawed in regrettable ways, would extend health insurance coverage to 96 percent of Americans — up from the only 83 percent now. That’s a huge step forward.
It also would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and requires most employers to provide coverage to workers. It’s worth reflecting on how monumental a change that would be for our nation.
But the measure championed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t bring down costs for those who already have insurance and for those businesses that struggle to continue covering the escalating costs of insurance premiums.
If only we could celebrate historic legislation today that actually controlled those costs.
“This bill provides new coverage for millions of Americans, but it simply does not do enough to cut the health care costs that are crushing our businesses and families,” said the sole Colorado Democrat to vote against the Pelosi bill, Rep. Betsy Markey of Fort Collins.
Democrats needed a simple majority of 218 votes in the House, which they edged by a vote of 220-215. But in the Senate, procedural rules mean that Democrats require 60 votes, making it possible for but a single senator to muck up the works.
While Democrats have a Senate caucus with 60 members, and potentially have the support of moderate Republican Olympia Snowe, the body holds plenty of moderate Democrats from conservative-leaning states who have expressed criticisms throughout the process.
And there are significant differences between the House and Senate versions that must be worked through, such as how expanded coverage will be paid for.
The House supports a 5.4 percent tax on individuals who make $500,000 a year and couples who gross more than $1 million. The Senate does not, and instead taxes the so-called “Cadillac” or high-dollar insurance plans.
It’s possible that both taxes will be needed in order to expand coverage and offer subsidies to lower-income individuals and families.
Another possible conflict is over the plan to offer insurance coverage run by the government.
The House version of the public option would charge premiums higher than most private plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And the Senate version would allow states to not take part in the public option.
The Post has consistently supported a public option as part of any health care reform, but Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, has said it’s a deal-breaker and that he will not vote for legislation that contains it. Further, he says he would join a Republican filibuster to keep the public option out of the bill.
We support the public option because we believe that ultimately it would increase competition among insurers and help bring down costs.
Clearly, lawmakers have a lot of work ahead of them if this historic opportunity is to be realized.
