Page 2 of 2

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:30 pm
by awesome guy
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:That's not an economy of scale, you're just giving white people the bill.
We are already paying the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct. And it's more expensive, as it will be under single payer as you're just adjusting the payer while ignoring costs.
That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.

I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.

I'd remove you imbeciles from the process. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference between cost and payment yet are of high enough self-esteem to have an opinion anyway. That's the type of stupidity that got us here to begin with so I'd deregulate which lets the market and intelligent people return costs to fair value. Charity takes care of the poor with the proper strings attached to encourage the changes that will get them out of poverty.
OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will as soon as you can discuss it intelligently by incorporating my responses instead of being a robot that repeats the same addressed issues over and over.

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:30 pm
by ip_law-hokie
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: We are already paying the bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Correct. And it's more expensive, as it will be under single payer as you're just adjusting the payer while ignoring costs.
That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.

I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.

I'd remove you imbeciles from the process. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference between cost and payment yet are of high enough self-esteem to have an opinion anyway. That's the type of stupidity that got us here to begin with so I'd deregulate which lets the market and intelligent people return costs to fair value. Charity takes care of the poor with the proper strings attached to encourage the changes that will get them out of poverty.
OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will as soon as you can discuss it intelligently by incorporating my responses instead of being a robot that repeats the same addressed issues over and over.
I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:33 pm
by awesome guy
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:Correct. And it's more expensive, as it will be under single payer as you're just adjusting the payer while ignoring costs.
That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.

I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.

I'd remove you imbeciles from the process. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference between cost and payment yet are of high enough self-esteem to have an opinion anyway. That's the type of stupidity that got us here to begin with so I'd deregulate which lets the market and intelligent people return costs to fair value. Charity takes care of the poor with the proper strings attached to encourage the changes that will get them out of poverty.
OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will as soon as you can discuss it intelligently by incorporating my responses instead of being a robot that repeats the same addressed issues over and over.
I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My day is fine. Is there a reason that you ignore what I'm saying about costs? You're surely smart enough to understand the difference between payer.

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:40 pm
by ip_law-hokie
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.

I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.

I'd remove you imbeciles from the process. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference between cost and payment yet are of high enough self-esteem to have an opinion anyway. That's the type of stupidity that got us here to begin with so I'd deregulate which lets the market and intelligent people return costs to fair value. Charity takes care of the poor with the proper strings attached to encourage the changes that will get them out of poverty.
OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will as soon as you can discuss it intelligently by incorporating my responses instead of being a robot that repeats the same addressed issues over and over.
I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My day is fine. Is there a reason that you ignore what I'm saying about costs? You're surely smart enough to understand the difference between payer.
I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:43 pm
by awesome guy
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.

I'd remove you imbeciles from the process. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference between cost and payment yet are of high enough self-esteem to have an opinion anyway. That's the type of stupidity that got us here to begin with so I'd deregulate which lets the market and intelligent people return costs to fair value. Charity takes care of the poor with the proper strings attached to encourage the changes that will get them out of poverty.
OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will as soon as you can discuss it intelligently by incorporating my responses instead of being a robot that repeats the same addressed issues over and over.
I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My day is fine. Is there a reason that you ignore what I'm saying about costs? You're surely smart enough to understand the difference between payer.
I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course not, you lack the depth to discuss it any further than platitudes.

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:44 pm
by ip_law-hokie
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will as soon as you can discuss it intelligently by incorporating my responses instead of being a robot that repeats the same addressed issues over and over.
I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My day is fine. Is there a reason that you ignore what I'm saying about costs? You're surely smart enough to understand the difference between payer.
I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course not, you lack the depth to discuss it any further than platitudes.
OK. You win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:53 pm
by BigDave
ip_law-hokie wrote:
so who is taking in less revenue, the doctors, pharma or hospitals? And when has the gov been efficient at anything? Less costs for administrative operation.... $700 hammers ring a bell
All of the above.
Well, there you go. You're really only lowering costs by using the power of fiat. (I declare that costs be lowered!) It's not that anything is more efficient - it's that you're saying we're simply not going to spend as much.

If you declare that doctors are going to be paid less than a market rate for their services, then fewer people are going to want to be doctors. And that's not a great situation - instead of our best and brightest going to medical school, our best and brightest will be software engineers.

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:55 pm
by RiverguyVT
Or people signing up with the intent of letting it lapse?

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:00 pm
by cwtcr hokie
so who is taking in less revenue, the doctors, pharma or hospitals? And when has the gov been efficient at anything? Less costs for administrative operation.... $700 hammers ring a bell[/quote]

All of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

exactly how do you operate hospitals that are losing lots of money or pharma companies with large losses? Never mind that dictating what doctors make will not make for a large contingent of doctors to be available

what is hilarious is you bitch at AG for a discussion but you are a smart guy and know that just wishing for all the costs in the healthcare industry to be lower is not anything close to reality and is feasibly impossible. But your one line answer is there will be lower costs.....great discussion

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:02 pm
by ip_law-hokie
cwtcr hokie wrote:so who is taking in less revenue, the doctors, pharma or hospitals? And when has the gov been efficient at anything? Less costs for administrative operation.... $700 hammers ring a bell
All of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

exactly how do you operate hospitals that are losing lots of money or pharma companies with large losses? Never mind that dictating what doctors make will not make for a large contingent of doctors to be available[/quote]

The same way ever other industrialized nation of means does it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:05 pm
by cwtcr hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so who is taking in less revenue, the doctors, pharma or hospitals? And when has the gov been efficient at anything? Less costs for administrative operation.... $700 hammers ring a bell
All of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
exactly how do you operate hospitals that are losing lots of money or pharma companies with large losses? Never mind that dictating what doctors make will not make for a large contingent of doctors to be available[/quote]

The same way ever other industrialized nation of means does it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

so rationing and not servicing people, you want that I guess unless you are the person that needs medical help. I have health insurance same as I have car, house, LTD, Life, Long term care and they work just fine. I am not in favor of the UK model knowing people in that model, it sucks btw

or better yet, why do people from canada come to the usa for care?

Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:06 pm
by 133743Hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:so who is taking in less revenue, the doctors, pharma or hospitals? And when has the gov been efficient at anything? Less costs for administrative operation.... $700 hammers ring a bell
All of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
exactly how do you operate hospitals that are losing lots of money or pharma companies with large losses? Never mind that dictating what doctors make will not make for a large contingent of doctors to be available[/quote]

The same way ever other industrialized nation of means does it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
So by overtaxing their citizens and rationing care. Ok, but not the healthcare I want.