The first key element to understanding the 2009 health reform bills is the differences between the plans put forth by the Senate and the House. The Senate plan includes a mandate for employers to offer health insurance, while the House bill does not. The Senate plan also does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored plans. Instead, it expands the current system of tax credits to help employers cover the costs of premiums. The House plan, however, does include a provision to cap the value of tax deductions for employer-sponsored health plans. The Senate plan also includes a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the House bill does not. Instead, the House bill provides subsidies to those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line to help them buy coverage. The Senate plan does not have a similar provision, but it does include other provisions to help make coverage more affordable. Finally, both plans expand Medicaid coverage in order to provide coverage to more lower-income individuals.KFF | Comparison of the Senate & House Plans for 2009
KFF
The Senate and House versions of health care reform offer many similarities, but there are also key differences between the two plans. One of the biggest differences between the two plans is the individual mandate. The House plan does not include any provisions for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the Senate version does. The Senate plan has a provision that would require individuals to purchase coverage or pay a penalty. The House bill also offers a more comprehensive approach to subsidies. The plan would create a new system of subsidies for people with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line to help them buy coverage, while the Senate plan only offers subsidies to those who are below certain income thresholds. The Senate plan also does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored insurance, while the House plan does.Kaiser Health News | Senate vs. House On Health Reform: What's Different
Comparison of the Senate & House Plans for 2009
The Senate and House health care bills both offer several benefits for the elderly and disabled. The House bill includes provisions that would allow individuals to buy into the existing Medicare system, while the Senate bill expands the existing system to include a public health insurance option. The Senate plan also provides additional funding to help cover the cost of long-term care. Both plans expand Medicaid coverage to provide health care access for more lower-income individuals. The House plan would also create a Medicare-like public option for people who are not eligible for Medicaid or employer-sponsored insurance, while the Senate plan does not. Additionally, the Senate bill includes a provision to cap the value of health insurance tax deductions for employer-sponsored plans, while the House plan does not.Health Reform & Medicare | Comparing the Senate and House Health Care Bills
Kaiser Health News
The House and Senate plans both contain provisions that would help make health care more affordable and accessible. The House plan includes subsidies for those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line, while the Senate plan does not. The Senate plan instead expands the current system of tax credits to help employers cover the cost of premiums. Both plans also expand Medicaid coverage. The Senate bill also includes a provision to cap the value of employer-sponsored health plans for tax deductions, while the House bill does not. Additionally, the Senate bill contains a provision that would require individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, while the House bill does not.Health Care for America Now | Compare-House-Senate-Plans-July-2009
Senate vs. House On Health Reform: What's Different
When it comes to the differences between the House and Senate health reform bills, there are several key considerations. The House bill does not include a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the Senate bill does. Additionally, the House version provides a more comprehensive system of subsidies for people with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line, while the Senate plan does not. The Senate version also does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored plans, while the House plan does. Both plans also expand Medicaid coverage. The Senate version also includes additional funding for long-term care, while the House bill does not. Finally, the Senate version contains a provision to cap the value of tax deductions for employer-sponsored health plans, while the House plan does not.Washington Post | House and Senate Health Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison
Health Reform & Medicare
Both plans include a focus on expanding health care coverage to more individuals. The House version offers subsidies for those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line and does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored plans. The Senate plan does not include these subsidies but instead expands the current system of tax credits to help employers cover the costs of premiums. Additionally, the Senate plan includes a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the House bill does not. Finally, the Senate plan includes additional funding to help cover the cost of long-term care, while the House plan does not. Both plans also expand Medicaid coverage in order to provide health care access to more lower-income individuals.White House | A Side-By-Side Comparison of Major Provisions in the House Bill and the Senate Health Care Reform Bill
Comparing the Senate and House Health Care Bills
Both the House and Senate versions of health care reform bills contain several key elements. The Senate version includes a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the House bill does not. Instead, the House bill provides subsidies for those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line to help them buy coverage. The Senate plan does not have a similar provision, but it does include other provisions to help make coverage more affordable. Additionally, both plans expand Medicaid coverage in order to provide coverage to more lower-income individuals. The House and Senate plans also differ on the issue of taxing employer-sponsored plans. The Senate plan does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored plans, while the House bill does. Finally, the Senate plan includes a provision to cap the value of health insurance tax deductions for employer-sponsored plans, while the House plan does not.Kaiser Family Foundation | Key Elements of the House and Senate Bills to Reform U.S. Health Care
Health Care for America Now
The House and Senate versions of health reform offer several similarities but key differences do exist. The House bill does not include any provisions for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the Senate plan does include a mandate. The Senate plan does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored plans either, while the House plan does. Additionally, the House bill provides subsidies for those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line, while the Senate plan only offers subsidies to those who are below certain income thresholds. Both plans also expand Medicaid coverage. The Senate plan also includes a provision to cap the value of health insurance tax deductions for employer-sponsored plans, while the House plan does not. Finally, the Senate bill includes additional funding to help cover the cost of long-term care, while the House bill does not.Washington Post | House and Senate Health Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison
Compare-House-Senate-Plans-July-2009
The House and Senate versions of health reform offer some key similarities, but there are some key differences between the two plans. One of the biggest differences is the individual mandate. The House plan does not include any provisions for individuals to purchase health insurance, while the Senate version does. Additionally, the Senate plan includes a provision to cap the value of health insurance tax deductions for employer-sponsored plans, while the House plan does not. Both plans also expand Medicaid coverage. The House bill also offers a more comprehensive approach to subsidies, while the Senate version only offers subsidies to those who are below certain income thresholds. Finally, the Senate bill includes additional funding to help cover the cost of long-term care, while the House plan does not.American Public Health Association | Comparing the House and Senate Health Reform Bills
Washington Post
The House health reform bill includes several key elements, including provisions to expand health care coverage to more individuals. The House bill includes subsidies for those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty line to help them buy coverage, while the Senate plan does not. Additionally, the House plan does not include any provisions for taxing employer-sponsored plans, while the Senate plan does. Both plans also expand Medicaid coverage. The Senate bill contains a provision that would require individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, while the House bill does not. Additionally, the Senate bill includes additional funding for long-term care, while the House bill does not. Finally, the Senate version includes a provision to cap the value of health insurance tax deductions for employer-sponsored plans, while the House plan does not.U.S. House of Representatives | House Designs Health Care Reform Legislation
House and Senate Health Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison
Comparing the Senate and House Plans from 2009
The year 2009 saw two major banking and financial plans proposed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both had their own merits and were designed to address the various needs of the American people. Though the Senate plan was considered more comprehensive, the House plan had some advantages too, and a comparison of the two will provide a better understanding of the nuances of each.
Regulations and Oversight
The Senate plan proposed sweeping regulation and oversight to make sure banks and creditors followed rules and regulations set forth by the government. These regulations included restrictions on executive pay and demanding banks meet certain capital requirements. In addition, it proposed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, designed to ensure individuals and families could trust and understand the products they were using.
The House plan, on the other hand, took a slightly different approach. While it proposed significant changes to the oversight of the financial sector, including the establishment of a Federal Reserve System Board of Governors, it did not include the regulations and restrictions on executive pay as part of the plan. Instead, the idea was that these regulations should be addressed independently.
Government Intervention
The Senate plan also proposed a greater government role in the financial sector. This included the government purchasing bad assets from banks and other financial institutions in order to free up credit. This would, in turn, be used to provide liquidity to the markets and stimulate economic growth.
The House plan did not propose the same level of government intervention. Instead, it sought to address the crisis through the use of government guarantees, regulatory oversight, and the creation of a new regulatory body to oversee the entire financial sector.
Conclusion
Both plans proposed by the Senate and House of Representatives in 2009 had their own merits and provided different approaches to addressing the financial and banking crisis. The Senate plan took a comprehensive approach with regards to regulation and oversight, while the House plan proposed a different approach by focusing on government guarantees and regulatory oversight. Ultimately, it was a combination of these two approaches that helped to turn the economy around.
