You know all the money the Senate and House health care bills are projected to cost?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Why not use the entire amount to

1. Set up community health clinics in sufficient quantities so that every American has one nearby?

2. Pay the full tuition costs of students who will become doctors or nurse practitioners on the condition that they work in one of these clinics for ten years?

3. Fund the county and municipal hospitals that are reeling under the burden of uncompensated costs?

If every American has the option of going to the public clinic, that WILL drive costs down.

[rfranklin]

1. Because there is not enough profit in it...

for the health insurers, the doctors, the hospitals and lawyers. And not enough political contribution money getting back to D.C.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Unfortunately (for purposes of the OP) they were projected to cost negative 150 billion

Since they were deficit-positive there was no money saved by not passing them.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. There is simply not enough money there. National health care will be expensive.

In the 2009 budget, Medicare was estimated to cost between 417 billion and 480 billion. In 2008, there were 45 million Americans enrolled. IN order to expand Medicare to cover all Americans, we jump to cover everyone, that number would be around 310 million. That would put an estimated cost of 2.7 trillion to cover the entire population. Of course, we would see considerable savings due to economies of scale. Most of that money would go to the Health care insurance companies and HMO's because they are the people who actually provide the service to medicare recipients.

But even if we save half of the costs of health care by going to some expanded system of neighborhood clinics, that would still be 1.35 trillion dollars. That money isn't there.

[valerief]

4. But we have PAHLENTY of money for THREE WARS. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

5. That was not your premise...

I think we should create a national health care system. The cost estimated in the Health Care bill won't cover it.

Please correct me if I am incorrect. The 2009 defense budget was 651 billion. Abolishing the entire Defense budget, which would require dismantling the armed forces, closing down all military bases, putting both active duty and contract personnel on unemployment, and ending the current list of wars would not pay for expanding Medicare or neighborhood clinics to serve the entire population.

In Iraq in 2009, we spent about 7.3 billion a month. That won't put a dent in the cost.
The Afghan war cost about 3.7 billion a month. Add that to Iraq, and it still won't put a dent in the cost of Health Care for all. These costs were included in the defense budget, from everything I could find. But even if you add them to that 651 billion, it still will not cover health care for all.

We should create a real heath care system in America. But we should not be so naive as to think that simply by ending the wars, or getting rid of the military will pay for it. We won't pay for it simply by taxing the rich. Everyone must pay more taxes in order to fund it. It is the right thing to do, but it will never be free.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. So it's better to spend the same money on subsidies for the insurance companies?

I think not.