So... now let's be clear...
Your premium (what a private insurer receives) is $600 a month, of which you pay only $30, and the state of Oregon picks up $570. You have a annual deductible of $500. You don't mention a co-pay so maybe there isn't one. So the max YOU have to pay for your insurance in a year is $860 ($30 X 12 plus the $500). The state pays $6,840 out of (probably) general income fund of tax receipts.
That's a fantastic deal.
And you indicated that there is no test for or premium or deductible difference for pre-existing conditions.
You didn't mention prescriptions, but lets say you have something like a $8 or $10 co-pay for that.
Guess I should be moving to Oregon!!! I always liked the Grants Pass region, and I have old friends living in Eugene.
Anyway, my analysis on the current state of the bill (kids are covered from day 1 - pre-existing or not) AND Adults have to wait for exchanges to be up and running (2014) and that in the meantime, uninsured would be place into a high risk pool and subsidized to the SAME extent as if the exchanges were running is directly from both the manager's amendment and an analysis from a pro-bill author on HuffPo. But even though it was from someone wanting the bill to pass, I went and looked up everything in the .pdf file here:
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdfSo I'm pretty sure my analysis is fairly accurate.
You didn't mention your income level, but from the fact that the state of Oregon is subsidizing you to the tune of $6,840 annually, I'm going to guess that you aren't in a high income bracket. The federal program is likely going to be close to your Oregon program for people earning less than, say, $18,000 to $22,000 a year. For those earning more like $40,000 a year, the federal program probably isn't as generous as your state program, but that's a guess because I don't know much about your Oregon subsidy program, who qualifies and what the amounts are, etc. Anyway, despite the CBO estimate of cost savings, the Senate program would blow a hole through the federal deficit if they heavily subsidized middle income Americans. And, according to the CBO, it not only doesn't, but it could save over $100 B in 10 years. I am highly suspicious of the CBO estimate in that I believe that the insurance companies are not "fair partners" but "evil bastards", right up there with Halliburton and Blackwater. I believe that the insurance companies will use their monopoly powers (the only industry outside of major league sports to have such) to collude and "game the system" to increase their profits. That will drive down the CBO estimate of the cost savings. What I'd love to see is a range of CBO estimates based on 3 different behavior scenarios. Insurance companies behaving like non-profits (or the Public Option), Insurance companies behaving as they do now, and Insurance companies behaving like Lockheed Martin with a Cost Plus military procurement contract (those infamous $150 hammers type contracts).