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.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.awesome guy wrote:You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.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.ip_law-hokie wrote:We are already paying the bill.awesome guy wrote:That's not an economy of scale, you're just giving white people the bill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Obamacare enrollment “way up”
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
I️ hope your day improves.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.awesome guy wrote:You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.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.ip_law-hokie wrote: We are already paying the bill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
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.ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ hope your day improves.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.awesome guy wrote:You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.ip_law-hokie wrote:That’s a false premise. Single payer healthcare covers citizens for less money, per capita, than our system.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.
I️ support single payer because it is the best system to control costs. What is your plan?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ hope your day improves.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.awesome guy wrote:You're spewing nonsense. Changing the payer ignores costs thusly we still have higher costs.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
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
Of course not, you lack the depth to discuss it any further than platitudes.ip_law-hokie wrote:I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ hope your day improves.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:OK. Let me know when you are able to discuss the issue with some form of class or decorum.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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
OK. You win.awesome guy wrote:Of course not, you lack the depth to discuss it any further than platitudes.ip_law-hokie wrote:I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.awesome guy wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ hope your day improves.awesome guy wrote: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.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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
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.ip_law-hokie wrote:All of the above.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
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.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30315
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
Or people signing up with the intent of letting it lapse?
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
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
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
Last edited by cwtcr hokie on Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
All of the above.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
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
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
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]ip_law-hokie wrote:All of the above.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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: Obamacare enrollment “way up”
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]ip_law-hokie wrote:All of the above.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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.