Some important notes:
1) The full text of the bill is here (and it has been ever since it was brought to the floor, before that, there wasn't any bill--just the individual committee ones):
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
2) The public option in both houses of Congress is only offered via the Exchange to a tiny subset of Americans without insurance through their employers and within certain income limits. The public option is NOT pegged to Medicare and will use negotiated rates by the same standards of private insurers. Moreover, the public option is NOT taxpayer supported. IT will be funded only through premiums, just like private insurance. The government will provide $2 billion in start-up fees, but the public option must repay that money with interest. This is NOT an entitlement program. Frankly, the only difference from private insurers is that the public option will have minimal overhead (2-3% like Medicare). Its severely limited scope will lower its premiums enough to create competition without becoming a dominant player.
3) Illegal immigrants aren't covered under this bill. pp. 228-232 explain the rigorous verification process put in place to ensure that only legal residents of the US can have access to Exchanges, tax credits, the public option, etc.
4) The House bill will cost $891 billion over 10 years. However, the bill is totally paid for and will actually REDUCE the deficit by $109 billion in the first 10 years. These savings are realized through several avenues, but mostly, the bill controls cost increases drastically. The bill also would cover an additional 36 million people over 10 years, increasing the non-elderly insured rate from 83% to 96%. (CBO estimate here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell_mgr_amendment_update.pdf)
5) The Republican alternative bill is totally and utterly untenable. It does not prevent discrimination due to preexisting conditions, allows insurance to be bought across state lines, and introduces hard caps on medical malpractice. The CBO estimates that this bill will reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years (less than the Democratic bill). It will insure only an additional 3 million people over 10 years, leaving 52 million uninsured. Thus, the percentage of uninsured in the US will remain the same (83%). (CBO estimate here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf)
6) The Democratic bill controls costs. In 10 years, the average premium for an individual would be $5300 per year, and $15,000 per year for a family of 4. Compare that to $13,400 for a family of 4 NOW, and $25,000 in 10 years (without reform). For those keeping count at home, that's around a 1-2% increase, bringing health care premiums back in line with inflation (as opposed to 7-15% increases like currently).
Out of curiosity, I hear a lot about all of the "government-takeover" and "socialism" in this bill, but truth be told, I just don't see it. I guess you could argue that some of the regulations placed on insurers participating in the Exchange constitutes government-intrusion...But, it's really just regulation, like we have of all industries in this country. And even so, the regulation is pretty lenient. Obviously, the public option is too small and emasculated to be considered any sort of government-takeover. In fact, due to its likelihood of covering disproportionately less healthy consumers (and its negotiated rates), the CBO estimates it might actually have HIGHER premiums than comparable private plans.
Seriously, though, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Obviously, this bill is far from perfect, and I would like to hear the parts you find objectionable (if possible, could you point to quotes in the bill itself?).
