Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by iofj on Monday January 04, 2016 @08:49PM (#10840394)

> In my opinion the public option wouldn't have cost us much ...

If you look at the margins the insurers are using (the maximum a public option might be cheaper), they're not much. 10% is rare. Given government inefficiency, I'd expect a public option to have been at least as expensive, and probably more expensive.

So why would a public option be cheaper ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by lukeschlather on Monday January 04, 2016 @09:06PM (#10840477)

It varies significantly by state, but existing public options are similarly priced or cheaper in terms of cost per person than private healthcare.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by stvswn on Monday January 04, 2016 @09:46PM (#10840666)

Where in the link does it say that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health ... by lukeschlather on Monday January 04, 2016 @10:33PM (#10840938)

Not the clearest source, I'll admit.

These are better, and show Medicaid spending roughly $5000/enrollee vs. roughly $8000 per capita overall healthcare spending in the USA in 2011 :

http://kff.org/global-indicator/health-expenditure-per-capit... http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-spending-pe... http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP

[ Parent | on HN ]