HillaryCare CBO vs real cost increases and care deterioration, anyone know?

Okay, so I'm watching Face the Nation, and Woodward refers to the CBO and other reports that indicated that HillaryCare was killed because it was determined that costs would escalate for up to 16 years. . . .

Since we know that HillaryCare was not enacted, I'm wondering if anyone has ever gone back and compared the real escalation of costs under the Repubs DO NOTHING plan for those 16 years vs. what the CBO (or whomever) had estimated as the increase in costs if HillaryCare had been enacted. I mean they have been rising exponentially over the past to decades from anything I see. Wouldn't a comparative study such as what I'm asking likely show that leaving everything alone costs more than the estimates of having government involved, and why don't these "journalists" think to do this comparisons?

I my mind if they had the conversation would've been akin to "yep, back in HillaryCare days, the CBO reports showed we would be paying for the reforms for 16 years at a cost of $blahblah billions, but now that we've had a chance to really review what we've found is that doing nothing cost taxpayers through insurance hikes, denied medical access, and increased medical billing about $2(blahblah) billions."

Sorry, there's just so much BS surrounding the health care debate on the news programs brought about by only discussing half the stories. So many little comments that seem to have no indication of any actual reality based investigations of all sides of truth.

I wouldn't know how to do such a comparison, but if anyone here does; please undertake it, and if I can be of assistance with it let me know how I can help.