A rough analysis of the affordability measures in the House and Senate conducted by Sonia Sekhar at the Center for American Progress Action Fund demonstrates that the House health bill provides more affordable coverage than the latest available version of the Senate legislation. While the chart below does not provide a perfect comparison between the amount an average family of four would spend on coverage within the exchange, it’s the first actual representation of the premium differences under the two bills.

Both measures provide subsidies on a sliding scale. Under the Senate bill, families between 133-300%FPL have to spend between 2 and 12% of their income on premiums, while families between 300-400%FPL, spend 12% on premiums. In the House legislation families between 150 – 400% of the federal poverty line would spend between 1.5 and 12% of income on premiums. Cost sharing amounts also vary.

The chart below estimates what families will pay for coverage (premiums and cost sharing) in the Exchange in year one, 2013:

The chart relies on the language in the Chairman’s Amendment to the Senate Finance Committee bill and the the text of the House bill (H.R. 3962). It comes with several caveats. First, we took the projected premiums and average out-of-pocket costs of a “silver” plan from the CBO’s analysis of the Baucus bill and deflated both amounts (using the CBO’s CPI projections for premiums and cost sharing) to 2013 dollars. Note that the actuarial value of the silver plan in the Senate Finance bill is 70%, while it’s 75% in the House bill, a difference we did not control for. The premiums and cost-sharing amounts will be slightly different for each bill, though not significantly so.

Read the rough affordability tables HERE.

GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz has penned another self-aggrandizing memo advising Republicans how to talk about health care reform. The new memo is the same as the old memo: admit the health care system is in crisis but remind Americans that the Democratic proposals would lead to a government-takeover of health care. “Suggestion: So far, most of the ads featuring concerned patients have been women. It’s time to include men in these ads, too. Treatment of prostate cancer can be delayed just as much as for breast cancer when the government takes over care – and American men deserve to know about that,” he writes.

Luntz points to poll numbers that demonstrate unease with the Democrats’ proposals:

Public anger is REAL (note to certain media outlets & bloggers who will eventually savage this memo: the town hall phenomenon is NOT manufactured). A majority of Americans (55%) agree that “When it comes to the healthcare reform debate in Washington, I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” Only 26% disagree (leaving 19%). Nearly one in five Americans strongly agree.

But it’s not that Americans are scared of exchanges, subsidies, insurance regulations or the public plan. They’re frightened by the alleged death panels, rationing and the government interference. They’re frightened by Luntz, not Obama.

Since the election, Republicans have tapped into a paranoid corner of the American electorate that sees the President as a communist intent on redistributing the wealth and outsourcing our national defense to Bill Ayers. Now, the party hopes to convince Americans that Obama will turn over the health care system to Dr. Kevorkian. That strategy lost the election and it will fail to stop health care reform.