I'm disappointed this analysis from the Commonwealth Funddid not include the Conyers bill, H.R. 676. However, it still is a useful analysis and does heap praise on Pete Stark's "AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2007"
I won't put too much of my own commentary. Here are the raw numbers. For Stark's plan, which would cover every American by using a 'pay or play model' with a public health plan system:
Estimates of Coverage and Costs in 2010 (Rep. Stark's bill)
Number of uninsured covered 48.9 million
Remaining uninsured 0
Total health spending ($58.1 billion)
Federal $188.5 billion
State and local ($83.6 billion)
Employers $61.5 billion
Household ($224.5 billion)
Notice that total health spending decreases by $58 billion.
Another plan to watch is that proposed by Senator Ron Wyden. Unfortunately, even according to Commonwealth Fund, it does not provide universal coverage. However it does have support of some Republicans;
Estimates of Coverage and Costs in 2010
Number of uninsured covered 46.0 million
Remaining uninsured 2.9 million
Total health spending $13.7 billion
Federal ($39.6 billion)
State and local ($29.0 billion)
Employers $98.4 billion
Household ($16.2 billion)
Notice total health spending goes increases by
What does all this mean? Universal health care won't break the bank. In fact it saves money. Extrapolating from this analysis, how much would single payer save?