Here are the major differences:

FINANCING The Senate bill has the better financing feature to help subsidize coverage of the uninsured — a stiff excise tax on the most costly employer-provided health plans. The tax would provide a strong incentive for employers and workers to shift to lower-priced plans. Organized labor is strongly opposed to the tax and the House is cool to the idea, but it should be retained. Health economists of all political stripes see the tax as the major cost-reduction element.

The main source of money in the House bill would be an income tax surcharge on the amount by which incomes exceed $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples. This is eminently fair given that the wealthy benefited enormously from the Bush-era tax cuts. The Senate rejected such a tax, but should agree to extract more money from the wealthy.

If you see where the Times editorial deals with the objection to the excise tax as a tax on the middle class, you make sure to let me know. As it is, we are to believe "experts" about its "cost containment." I actually agree it will contain costs - by taking away health benefits from the middle class. Hell of a deal.

MEDICAL CARE REFORMS The House bill relies heavily on pilot projects within Medicare to determine which approaches to restraining medical costs might work best, but lacks a strong mechanism to drive successful reforms into widespread use. The Senate bill would empower an independent board to carry out successful reforms broadly within Medicare and recommend changes in private programs. The board is a crucial cost-control mechanism. It should be strengthened, by removing a 10-year exemption for hospitals and hospices.

but of course - a "commission" will "recommend" stuff. Proven cost control. Sheesh. Pathetic. Now let's get to the good in the bill - the stuff that actually matters and is real - as opposed to the phantom "reforms" the wonls are selling:

AFFORDABILITY Under the more generous House bill, low-income people would pay substantially less and get better benefits than under the Senate bill. The House bill has far better subsidies to help lower-income Americans with premiums and cost-sharing. The Senate bill offers better subsidies for middle-income people. House staffers calculate that a family of four earning $33,000 a year would pay $1,521 in premiums under the Senate bill, which is $530 more than under the House bill. The same family would be exposed to as much as $4,100 in cost-sharing under the Senate bill, which is $3,100 more than under the House bill.

Affordability is probably the most critical issue in winning popular support. The Senate needs to agree to more subsidies.

Winning popular support? How about in it being a good progressive bill? Indeed, this highlights just how feeble the Senate bill - which will be the final health bill, really is.

MEDICAID The House bill would expand Medicaid coverage to higher-earning people than the Senate bill does. It would raise Medicaid’s low payments to doctors in one crucial respect — paying primary-care doctors the same that Medicare pays. That would make it more likely that poor patients could find a doctor willing to serve them. The Senate should follow the House lead.

It should be it will not. Greatest piece of progressive legislation in 40 years is kind of a joke.

EMPLOYER MANDATES The House bill imposes higher penalties on employers who fail to offer coverage, a prod estimated to increase the number of covered workers by six million in 2019. The Senate bill has weaker penalties that would allow more employers to opt out, reducing by four million the number of workers covered. Under the House bill, employers would have to pay most of the premium and meet minimum benefit levels; the Senate has weaker requirements. The House bill is superior.

But the Senate bill will be the final bill - the greatest thing since sliced bread. What an embarrassment for "progressives."

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE The House has stronger penalties on individuals who decline to buy insurance and would exempt fewer individuals on grounds they could not afford to buy coverage. Given that the reforms would work best with the greatest number of people insured, the House provisions should prevail.

For once, given what the final bill will look like, I'd go with the Senate bill.

EXCHANGES Analysts disagree over whether it would be best to set up a strong national exchange while allowing states that meet national standards to operate the exchanges (the House bill) or to let the states set up exchanges with federal government oversight (the Senate bill). A national exchange would ensure greater uniformity and probably impose tougher standards. State exchanges would know their local markets the best. Either approach could work. The more important issue is how the exchanges would operate.

EXCHANGE RULES The House bill would merge individual buyers and small businesses into a large pool that would spread the risks among sick and healthy patients so as to keep average premiums low. The Senate bill would fragment the risk pools to the point that they might not function well.

I personally could not care less. the exchanges are a joke. I think they will be utter failures. National or state based.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS The House bill would close the notorious doughnut hole, a coverage gap that leaves many Medicare patients paying the full cost of their medicines; extract bigger discounts from the manufacturers; and allow the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. The Senate should yield to the House on the drug makers, who will be making enormous profits from tens of millions of new customers and ought to contribute more to reform.

Should yield. Won't. The health bill is deeply flawed.

PUBLIC PLAN The House bill includes a relatively weak public plan that might end up charging higher premiums than competing private plans because it would attract the sickest customers. Even that modest plan has no chance in the Senate. If it has to be dropped in the interest of passing a bill, that is a price worth paying.

The one piece of MEANINGFUL reform in this bill should be jettisoned. will be jettisoned. what a joke.

Holding my nose does not even begin to describe how I feel about this bill.

Speaking for me only