It’s official: The feds will run most ObamaCare exchanges.
New York to turn to for-profit firms to run its non-profit hospitals. One more reason to get rid of the distinction.
Feds spend $7 on elderly for every $1 on kids.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more great content just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Even though states make up part of this gap, the difference is still $14,000 per child. Seems silly not to spend more on children. It should be easy to see that child expenses relate to our ability to compete, drive economic growth and pay for our elderly.
Early on we used to advise states to operate their own exchanges as leverage with the feds to maximize flexibility. However, as the months drug on, it became clear there is really no advantage — and plenty of disadvantages — for states to run their own exchanges.
Is this because seniors vote in large numbers, while kids cannot vote (and their parents are often apathetic)?
“Feds spend $7 on elderly for every $1 on kids.”
Not exactly sure what the point of the article was. It seemed more of a report than anything. However, the issue with child-related legislation is grossly ignored in mainstream politics and media in this country.
-Feds spend $7 on elderly for every $1 on kids.
You’d think they would be spending more money on the future, instead of on the past.
Comparing dollar amounts spent on different categories of recipient is unproductive. Different categories have different needs that looking soley at dollars spent may not reflect.
The questions should be: what value are we getting for those dollars and are they being spent in the most effective and efficient way?
It’s true, the elderly are more likely to participate in the economy. But they’re also working longer and later. Just playing devil’s advocate.
“Most of the spending for children happens at the state and local level, while most of the spending for the elderly happens at the federal level.”
This is most likely one of the main reasons for income inequality across states. The state funds the school, and poorer states have worse education. This reduces the child’s earning potential – which keeps the state poor.
What New York needs to do is to just close the inefficient hospitals. Putting a for-profit entity in charge of a failing hospital isn’t going to turn an inefficient facility into one that’s a model of productivity. Non-profit entities have tons of advantages: no income taxes, no property taxes, no sales taxes on supplies and charitable contributions. If a hospital isn’t profitable under those conditions, it’s not likely to be a viable concern if run by a for-profit entity.
Non-profit hospitals are a dying breed. That said, if for-profit hospitals are running non-profit, then, I don’t think they are working towards non-profit causes.
Get Health Alerts by Email: