Why? You seem to be operating under an assumption that this bill is a solution to those costs, rather than a symptom of the practices and mindset that are inflating those costs. Just using terms like "health care" shows you are buying into the fallacies of the proponents of the bill. I do not need or want health care. I may need, from time to time, MEDICAL care. I may find useful isurance to cover medical expenses. Those three things, health care, health insurance and medical care are all very different items, but you and your ilk use them interchangably, preventing honest discussion of the matter.

So what? Also, how does one person not buying insurance raise the price of another's insurance? The costs of medical CARE raise the costs of insurance, along with the other expenses incurred by insurance providers. In no case is the costs of a person who wishes insurance the problem of anyone other than the potential insured. If I wanted a car, but the refusal of others to buy cars was inflating the price, that does not mean the government has the right or moral standing to force the purchase of cars in order to lower my prices (how the hell would that even work? Your misunderstanding of prices and insurance would seem to invalidate any opinions you might have on this topic)

This is a result of insurance and bureaucracy. A bill that will create more of the latter, and force a greater use of the former will only increase those costs.
What the hell is a unit of "gained health" and what "additional costs" come with it? In a free market system where people pay for their own medical care and have greater freedom to choose their providers, they can weigh the cost effectiveness for themselves. The criteria of which you speak is exactly what the so-called "death panels" refer to. People will decide for others and for groups, what constitutes a cost effective level of treatment, rather than deciding for themselves how much they wish to pay for the services they seek.

So the answer to this problem is INCREASE the dependency on those insurance companies? Individuals who failed to pay any sort of bills 30% of the time would be held liable in civil or criminal court. On the other hand, the companies leave no way for the providers to get recompense. Those physicians or practices which forgo insurance plans and deal on direct payment basis find they can charge much less and run a more remunerative practice. My father ran a couple of optician stores once, and he finally refused to take some form of insurance plan or Medicare or something, because it was too hard to get reimbursed, and the costs of keeping records and applying to the provider for reimbursement was prohibitive as well.

If you think this is a problem, you can bloody well drop dead, thank you very much. Quality of life is purely a patient's choice, and the default SHOULD be to save a life, absent the patient's specific and explicit wishes otherwise! Those bullshit euphemisms about palliative treatment simply mean "it is not cost-effective to try to aggressively save this patient's life, and with bureaucratic mandates in the name of cost-effectiveness dictating we expend resources on patients with anticipated higher quality of life, we'll write him or her off, spend less on them, and call it 'dying with dignity'."

Scrap the system. The system is the problem. Let people buy their own insurance (or choose to not buy it), stop forcing employers to provide it, stop restricting the market for insurance providers, stop requiring the approval of special interest groups for legitimizing treatments or care, institute tort reform to prevent a jury of ignoramuses from second-guessing medical decisions and raising the costs of medical practices, and make insurance providers compete for customers' business and doctors' acceptance, rather than interfering in the free transaction of a business service between the doctor and the patient.