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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (36661)	5/9/2014 9:07:33 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

Via the Post's Wonkbook under the headline Wonkbook's Number of the Day: $922. That's how much the federal government spent on average to sign up a person for Obamacare in the exchanges' first year of open enrollment. Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange cost nearly $24,000 per enrollee Updated by German Lopez on May 8, 2014, 2:50 p.m. ET @germanrlopez german@vox.com Obamacare's state-run exchanges were better at enrolling people than the federal exchanges — and that success came with a higher price tag. The exchanges cost $7.4 billion in federal dollars to set up. About $3.9 billion of that went to 15 marketplaces run by states and the District of Columbia, which all spent a lot more on outreach per enrollee than HealthCare.gov. Now, an analysis of federal data from former Obama administration official Jay Angoff, now with law firm Mehri and Skalet, shows state-based exchanges spent more than twice as much per enrollee than the federal exchanges. Price per enrollee varied dramatically from state to state. California, for instance, operated the cheapest state-run exchange at $758 per enrollee, which is still higher than the average for federal exchanges. Hawaii's state-run exchange, meanwhile, cost $23,899 per enrollee — well above the price for a full year of health insurance. It's worth noting, however, that this analysis only counts federal funding to federal and state-run exchanges, which misses private outreach groups that, in general, spent much more on states with federal exchanges than states with state-run exchanges. In some cases, the high price tag is a sign of a poorly run exchange. Hawaii's exchange, for example, both ran up costs and missed enrollment projections. So part of the problem was Hawaii had few enrollees relative to its large budget. But even if the state had hit its enrollment projections, its cost per enrollee would still be in the thousands. Angoff's findings suggest that states like Hawaii, then, would be better off switching to the federal exchanges, if they can't get their costs under control. Hat tip to Kaiser Health News for the analysis.

To: Lane3 who wrote (36661)	5/9/2014 9:57:26 AM
From: gamesmistress	1 Recommendation Recommended By Lane3 Respond to of 42652

Absolutely agree. Think of the difference between East and West Germans after reunification. And it doesn't take long - just a generation or two. It's frightening. I have come to the conclusion, after watching adolescence become more and more extended and the devaluation of what used to be a desirable condition, maturity, is that that people don't grow up unless they have to. If someone (parents) or something (government) will take care of you and protect you, why bother? Then, as you say, you become a barnyard animal waiting for your daily feed. And when the rug gets pulled out from under you, you don't have the wherewithal to take care of yourself. If you know you can depend on yourself, you can survive a crisis. If not, well....

To: Lane3 who wrote (36661)	5/9/2014 1:09:50 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

That's the post of the year on this thread.

To: Lane3 who wrote (36661)	5/9/2014 4:02:17 PM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>>... never to know the joy of accomplishment beyond the occasional good bowling score. In your world all the targets of "tax and spend" policies are bowlers? Interesting. As I understand it, a lot of the tax and spend money goes to government employees, and government employee pensioners. I would be surprised to hear that none of them ever manages to know the joy of accomplishment beyond the occasional good bowling score. While one might argue about how much they accomplish in their government jobs, and about how much should be paid for that, I think that your view of what they may be able to accomplish in life is rather limited. A lot of the money also goes to pay farm subsidies. While some are paid not to farm, I was not aware that the subsidies were tied specifically to bowling. And, a lot of the money goes to funding the military. I could see spending a whole lot less on that. Still, I don't imagine that that the soldiers and civilian employees in our military never know the joy of accomplishment beyond the occasional good bowling score. All the money that has been shovelled out the door for "green" subsidies? Okay, no accomplishment whatsoever there. Maybe those big Obama donors who got all that money are spending their time at the bowling alley these days, trying to improve their scores. But I doubt it. Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. It's the first time I've ever heard this mentioned as a drawback of "tax and spend".