It turns out the 1 trillion cost over 10 years was a bit of an overestimation. The bill, including a public option, only costs $600 billion over 10 years AND covers 97% of our population. (My question is who is the 3% not covered?) Some wavering senators were apprehensive because of the cost. Can't use that one anymore. (On another point. So what if it cost 1 trillion over 10 years. That is only 100 billion a year to make sure everyone has medical insurance. Small price to pay for such a developed country.)
Why does it cost less? From Huffpo:
"The letter indicated the cost and coverage improvements resulted from two changes. The first calls for a government-run health insurance option to compete with private coverage plans, an option that has drawn intense opposition from Republicans.
'We must not settle for legislation that merely gestures at reform,' the two Democrats wrote. 'We must deliver on the promise of true change.'
Additionally, the revised proposal calls for a $750 annual fee on employers for each full-time worker not offered coverage through their job. The fee would be set at $375 for part-time workers. Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt. The fee was forecast to generate $52 billion over 10 years, money the government would use to help provide subsidies to those who cannot afford insurance."
The images of everyone having insurance and no one going into bankruptcy due to medical bills are dancing through my head.