Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (126604)	2/7/2008 9:30:49 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362992

Here are some strange numbers. I think there is a problem with the costs of services and products in the health care industry. I'm not sure that the demographics are as clear cut as they are in SS. SS is a pay-it-forward program where this generation is paying for the previous one. The number of workers compared to the number of retirees therefore matters a great deal. The baby boom is so huge it dwarfs everything but the baby bust will be fine. The boomers will be fine as well if the income cap for contributions were raised or eliminated as it should be. Insurance OTOH should be each individual (more or less) paying for their own risks and receiving their own benefits. I find these numbers astonishing frankly. The health care industry is seriously inefficient or overpriced in this country if these are per capita numbers. Who the heck is this sick? ==== "The lowest per person health care spending was $3,972 in Utah. Nationally, per capita health spending increased on average 6.3% per year from 1998 to 2004, the report said. Other findings included: • Two states that have actively worked to improve health care had widely different spending patterns. California's per capita spending level was 12% below the national average at $4,638 while Massachusetts was nearly 27% above the average. California had a below-average percentage of the population under age 65, an above-average share of the uninsured population, and a higher proportion of residents enrolled in health maintenance organizations in 2004, compared to Massachusetts. • States with generous Medicaid programs also tended to have the highest spending, such as Massachusetts, New York and Maine. • However, the number of people enrolled in Medicaid doesn't affect per capita spending levels. For example, New York and New Mexico have larger-than-average populations that receive Medicaid. New York was among the highest Medicaid spenders on health care while New Mexico was among the lowest. • Florida has the highest percentage of residents over age 65 and the Sunshine State's Medicare spending per enrollee was among the highest in the nation, $8,462, compared to the U.S. average of $7,439. While Maine also has a higher-than-average proportion of elderly people, its Medicare per enrollee spending was among the lowest, $6,015. • Per capita spending on prescription drugs grew faster in 1998-2004 than in 1991-1998 everywhere except Colorado and the District of Columbia. The reasons for the faster growth are expanded prescription drug coverage, lower copayments, development of new drugs and expanded Medicaid and state-sponsored coverage for drugs." usatoday.com