Comparing HCR Bills

I do hope Republicans line up behind Boehner’s alternative health care reform. After all, that is what they said they would do: present a bill that will whip the Democrats’ and take care of health care once and for all. I have a feeling, though, the Republican “unity” on the bill will be some sort of hogwash mix of Fantasy World jubilation about how their bill rocks and nearly creates world peace with lukewarm support for a bill that does absolutely nothing to reform health care but will have to be supported if they still want to be referred to as Freedom Fighters.

In comparison, the Republican bill will actually accomplish nothing other than ensuring 5 years from now we will have to yet again reform health care in America.

Based on CBO estimates:

In the end, the Republican bill costs substantially less but provides nothing in the way of reform. Furthermore, in comparison of deficit reduction and costs, the Republican bill will cost less, cover much less people, and put a much larger burden on the deficit (increase the deficit more than the Dem bill).

So would you rather pay $8 billion to regulate health care that will do nothing to cover people already without insurance; that will-- in comparison-- increase the deficit, and still would allow Members of Congress to partake in a publicly financed system by denying such a system to everyone else? Or would you rather pay $870 billion for health care regulation that will cover 96% of Americans, decrease the deficit, forbids denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions, and allows tax payers to opt-in to a plan Members of Congress currently enjoy and raise their entire families on?