Re:Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about s...
by r00fus on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @08:45PM
(#13826067)
That's GDP per capita. CA is the largest state in terms of overall GDP.
Overall population/economy size matters, not just per-capita.
Re:Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about s...
by CalChris on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @08:55PM
(#13826138)
Per capita GDP matters more in determining whether Vermont or California can better afford this. In fact, CA can better afford this than Vermont.
By comparison, Mississippi cannot afford this. They're basically supported by states like California; their economy is trivial and they're propped up by defense spending.
Re:Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about s...
by r00fus on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @09:10PM
(#13826261)
Why? Disagree with your reasoning, it's not about per-capita, it's about absolute numbers in the risk pool and ability for a large actor like CA to better negotiate prices down.
Why do you think Apple gets better prices than, e.g. Logitech for component parts? Because they order massively more, up-front, and with strict timetables for delivery.
Re:Healthy California Act: proposal to make findings about s...
by CalChris on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @09:38PM
(#13826442)
Costs are still per capita. We will only be able to negotiate so much and we'd be negotiating with providers rather the insurance companies.
To be very clear, I think CA can afford this and I think we should do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...
One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.