Health Care, again

Universal Health Care. Sounds like a noble undertaking, yes? Health care is a constitutionally mandated "right" for every American. Wonderful.
A Umiversity of Minnesota professor and expert on health care economics testified before the House subcommittee on health Tuesday, and here's the summary of his research:

To achieve a 30% net reduction of the uninsured, it will cost taxpayers about $1.3 Trillion over the next 10 years.
To achieve a 70% net reduction of the uninsured, it will cost taxpayers about $2.7 Trillion over the next 10 years.
To achieve a 100% net reduction of the uninsured, it will cost taxpayers about $4 Trillion over the next 10 years.

So, let's do a little bit of math here.
In 2010, there Census estimates there will be about 310.2 million people in the US. By 2020 (let's call that the end of the 10 year period), Census estimates about 341.4 million people.
According the Census data, the US averages about 2.6 people per household. I want to use Households as the relevant statistic, because most of us live in two income families, or at least the insurance we pay for covers a family and not just a single person.
So, extrapolating on the 2.6 people per household, let's say that in 2010 there will be somewhere north of 119.3 million households and in 2020 there will be about 131.3 million.

Let's take the $4 Trillion number, so we make sure and cover all of the presently uninsured, which is, of course, the goal of Universal Health Care.
We'll assume (simplistically, for the sake of the math) that the $4T will be spread evenly over the 10 year period. That equals $400B/yr.
Divide $400B by the number of households and you get this:
2010: $400B / 119.3M = $3352/household
2020: $400B / 131.3M = $3046/household

That number you're looking at is the amount of additional tax burden per household. The number obviously drops slightly each of the 10 years because the population grows but we're assuming the annual expenditure on health care remains constant. Note that in reality, this will not be the case. In actual fact, the initial (start-up) costs will be high for a few years, then presumably drop somewhat, but continue to rise indefinitely over time (via inflation, if nothing else, but there are many other factors that will cause cost increases).

But again for simplicity, let's stick with the numbers as figured. For comparison sake, I pay premiums to my company's HMO plan of $3480/yr. For an apples to apples comparison (tax increase vs. current premiums paid), it's a net decrease in my out of pocket cost since presumably my deductibles/coinsurance/etc would be comparable. Great!

Or...is it great? What benefit do I get from the $3352 increase in my tax bill?
That's a great questions, Chris, I'm glad you asked.

Again per the good Doctor from Minnesota:

That 4 trillion estimate over 10 years assumes a public option plan with Bronze, Silver and Gold levels in the proposed insurance exchange with a subsidy for premium support that is income-adjusted and calibrated for assistance at the Silver level. The Silver level is equivalent of PPO plan with medium levels of generosity, something with 15% coinsurance rate, manageable copays and average level of access to physicians and hospitals. We accounted for the public plan being reimbursed at 10% above Medicare reimbursement, which is also 10% below commercial insurance premiums.

So. "Medium levels of generosity" = no better than average health care provided. "Average level of access" to doctors. "Manageable copays". A 15% coinsurance rate (mine is 10%, btw). So essentially no better service than what I'm getting now, for roughly the same out of pocket. Yet the health providers are getting 10% less than they do now. If you were asked to do the same job you do now, but take a 10% pay cut, how long do you think you'd stick around in that job? Now do you see why Great Britain has a shortage of doctors (especially specialists)? Oh yeah, one more thing: the 10% above Medicare reimbursement amount? That's not set in stone - that's just the initial amount. Anyone else want to bet that as costs rise (and they will), the first thing Your Government Health Insurer will do is reduce payout rates to providers? Fewer doctors available means that "average level of access" becomes a "poor level of access" over time.

So if I personally am not getting a better deal with my shiny new Gov't Health Care Plan, surely the uninsured are getting help! Those poor people! That was a stated goal of Universal Health Care, was it not?
Assume each year for the 10 year period, 1/10 of those uninsured now are on the Gov't Plan. How many people is that? Well, the Hoover Institute says: 11% of the population are considered Long Term Uninsured (they don't get coverage for at least a full year). In 2010, that's just over 34 million folks. But wait, there's more! The Kaiser Foundation says: 19% of the uninsured can afford it but don't pay for it. 25% of the uninsured are eligible for some current program (employer provided, SCHIP, medicaid, etc) but don't enroll. So that leaves 56% of the uninsured for whom affordability is an issue. 56% of 34 million people is a little over 19 million. If you want to take out the illegal immigrants who are sucking up health care resources but can't pay for them, you drop from 19 million to 15 million or so. But we'll leave it at 19 million just for the sake of argument.
19 million people uninsured who can't afford to get insurance. 1/10 of that would be 1.9 million people that we can move each year onto the government teat. $400 Billion divided by 1.9 Million equals roughly $210,500 per uninsured.

Put it another way: We are proposing spending $400,000,000,000 per year for the next 10 years to move one-half of one percent of the American population per year from uninsured status onto a (marginally useful, massively wasteful) insurance plan. The rest of us that currently have insurance or can afford it also get put onto this insurance plan that provides a low-to-average level of care, massive governmental intrusion into our personal choices, and the inability to opt out into anything better.

Now does it seem like you're getting your (tax) money's worth? Is this really the best way to go, just so we can say "hey! everyone's covered now!"?