Unlike many of these tea-partiers and their supporters, I actually took on the Bush administration's big government tendencies, fiscal recklessness and massive expansion of executive power at the time (and was largely cast out of the conservative coalition as a result). I opposed the Medicare prescription drug benefit as unaffordable - and no one can argue that what looks like the current healthcare reform would cripple future finances as profoundly as that Bush entitlement.
Call me "no one" then: I don't see how you even could argue that this bill will cost less than Medicare Part D. I mean, we don't have a bill, so technically, who knows. We have a series of statements that Obama wants to do a bunch of stuff that does not really sum to the $900 billion he promised--his plan seems, from the vague description to be more generous on the benefit side, and less stringent on the revenue side, than the one put forward by Max Baucus at the same price.
But you want to add 20-30 million to the insurance rolls, many of whom require subsidy. A substantial portion of those will be going straight to Medicaid. Obama has pegged the 10 year cost at $900 billion, a figure that is not likely to be too
low high. The annual cost of Medicare Part D, even leaving premiums the retirees pay, is less than 50 billion according to the Medicare trustees.