Hawaii ObamaCare Spent $32,750 Per Enrollee

531x224xbmw-sedan.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6cG44430B8

They could have gotten a whole lot of health care for $32,750 a person, but it was never about that. It never is.

Obama’s home state of Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange spent $35,749 per enrollee, a sum greater than the price of a new 2014 BMW 320i sedan (MSRP $32,750).

“Just obscene amounts of money have disappeared into these state exchanges for very little actual performance,” said American Commitment President Phil Kerpen. “You just have this huge duplication and waste in places like Hawaii and Oregon.”

A CNBC analysis ranking taxpayer-funded federal expenditures on Obamacare found that Hawaii enrolled just 5,744 people through its Obamacare exchange at a cost to taxpayers of $205,342,270. The second-worst performer was the District of Columbia which spent $20,499.37 per enrollee. DC bagged $133,573,927 to sign up just 6,518 people.

CNBC says that the national average cost per enrollee is $6,894.05.

That’s a little less than what the US spends per capita per person anyway on health care costs… spent just for enrollment.

  • trickyblain

    This is a bit like saying that the new SF Bay Bridge, one hour after opening, cost $250,000 per driver. That is, most of the cost is invested in the initial infrastructure.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That works when your initial infrastructure is a bridge, not a website

      • trickyblain

        Like a bridge, the most expensive part of a website is building it (design and development/testing/fixing). True even for such a poorly planned project like the ACA site. Both bridges and websites need continuous maintenance; and as a PM who works tech projects, I’d bet that the maintenance for the ACA site is in the contract (thus attached to the numbers you provided).

        • objectivefactsmatter

          And like a bridge, you have to do a full accounting to find the costs and weigh those costs against benefits (if any). I know what a bridge does. Few bridges actually fail functionally the way the ACA has failed.

          The ACA is a huge failure that will only get worse.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The web site is not “a bridge.” This web site designed to sign up new clients. The web site will not provide continuous service to new users, or at least the same kind of “service” needed for initial sign-up. Your analogy fails for more reasons as well because bridges are expected to last for many years with relatively low maintenance costs and an income stream from toll payers.

      Any way you slice it, we’re talking about finance. Spending that kind of money to get people to sign up for medical insurance (a financial product) is insane.

      The ACA is supposed to save money. If it does not save money, it is a complete failure. Wealth redistribution can happen any number of ways. The ACA does not contribute technology or provide services. It limits services and limits options so that we supposedly make smarter medical decisions which will save money and redistribute some of that “saved” money to subsidize “the poor” who didn’t have insurance before. So far all the ACA has done is burn through money, wasted people’s time and led to all kinds of chaos from the top to the bottom of all medical service and product providers.

      How many years will we have to wait while “saving” all of that money from “smart decisions” before the $30 grand is recovered? When will we reap the benefits of all of these “smart” decisions that the elites (Marxists) worked out for us?

  • Duane Morgan

    In Oregon, it is as if they spent $300M on the bridge that could not carry a single auto then paying people to row you across the bay.