United We Stand - uwsboard.com

It seemed that Obamacare did well on Tuesday too.

Obamacare enrollments are way up in Trump's first sign-up season - CNBC
https://apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd ... tlyJQcd_yg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fake news.

awesome guy wrote:Fake news.

Better luck next time.

FYI, I have noticed that a lot of the Apple.news links you post don't work because they contain the url twice ... e.g. the link you just posted was:

https : // apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd_yghttps : // apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd_yg

This link will work: https://apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd_yg

Or here is a direct link to the CNBC article: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/09/obamaca ... eason.html

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:Fake news.

Better luck next time.

I sure hope that I'll get some real news and a working link next time.

BigDave wrote:FYI, I have noticed that a lot of the Apple.news links you post don't work because they contain the url twice ... e.g. the link you just posted was:

https : // apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd_yghttps : // apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd_yg

This link will work: https://apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd_yg

Or here is a direct link to the CNBC article: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/09/obamaca ... eason.html

Interesting. I️ use the copy link function on my phone. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting. I wonder how many of the new signups are actual real new peoplee, vs just existing people signing up faster (e.g. in fear that it will go away).

In my area (the 757), there is only going to be one insurer for 2018 on the individual market - Optima - and they are cutting just about all of their best plans. The coverage they are offering is just awful. If you have any substantial health needs and don't make a lot of money, I don't know how you afford it.

Probably the most cost-efficient plan for someone my age is $555/month. It has a $2200 deductible (meaning you have to cough up $2200 before it pays anything) and $6500 out-of-pocket max. So that means that I'm paying at least $6660 (just for the insurance) and then another $2200 on top of that before insurance pays for anything.

If you earn $50K - a pretty respectable salary and certainly enough that you don't qualify for any assistance - your take home is what?, say, $3000/month? And you are probably spending 25-30% of that on health care now? Good grief.

BigDave wrote:Interesting. I wonder how many of the new signups are actual real new peoplee, vs just existing people signing up faster (e.g. in fear that it will go away).

In my area (the 757), there is only going to be one insurer for 2018 on the individual market - Optima - and they are cutting just about all of their best plans. The coverage they are offering is just awful. If you have any substantial health needs and don't make a lot of money, I don't know how you afford it.

Probably the most cost-efficient plan for someone my age is $555/month. It has a $2200 deductible (meaning you have to cough up $2200 before it pays anything) and $6500 out-of-pocket max. So that means that I'm paying at least $6660 (just for the insurance) and then another $2200 on top of that before insurance pays for anything.

If you earn $50K - a pretty respectable salary and certainly enough that you don't qualify for any assistance - your take home is what?, say, $3000/month? And you are probably spending 25-30% of that on health care now? Good grief.

I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't really mean anything so early in the process. Likely just a timing issue. We'll see where the numbers are when the enrollment period ends.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:Interesting. I wonder how many of the new signups are actual real new peoplee, vs just existing people signing up faster (e.g. in fear that it will go away).

In my area (the 757), there is only going to be one insurer for 2018 on the individual market - Optima - and they are cutting just about all of their best plans. The coverage they are offering is just awful. If you have any substantial health needs and don't make a lot of money, I don't know how you afford it.

Probably the most cost-efficient plan for someone my age is $555/month. It has a $2200 deductible (meaning you have to cough up $2200 before it pays anything) and $6500 out-of-pocket max. So that means that I'm paying at least $6660 (just for the insurance) and then another $2200 on top of that before insurance pays for anything.

If you earn $50K - a pretty respectable salary and certainly enough that you don't qualify for any assistance - your take home is what?, say, $3000/month? And you are probably spending 25-30% of that on health care now? Good grief.

I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How? You libs keep focused on the payer end of the equation and ignore costs. You just want to socialize the bill while keeping outrageous cost structures. Giving the bill to white males doesn't make it cheaper, it just bankrupts the white males financing it.

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

133743Hokie wrote:Doesn't really mean anything so early in the process. Likely just a timing issue. We'll see where the numbers are when the enrollment period ends.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if enrollment is up as taxes and fees for not enrolling increase.

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

That just means we'll have less of it, it'll have the same unit cost.

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

Health insurance doesn't mean health care.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

It's not "negotiating" - it's "dictating".

When the choice presented is "do you want to stay in business or go out of business", that's not negotiation.

You're a doctor and your two choices are you can accept whatever the government is willing to pay you or you can go teach science classes because nobody else is going to pay you to be a doctor.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

That's not an economy of scale, you're just giving white people the bill.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote: Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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.

ip_law-hokie wrote:It seemed that Obamacare did well on Tuesday too.

Obamacare enrollments are way up in Trump's first sign-up season - CNBC
https://apple.news/AlBSPwJCMRZKUtlyJQcd ... tlyJQcd_yg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you do realize that the tax for not having health insurance is increasing rapidly, remember, it started low and then shot up. The point was to nudge people to get health insurance so of course it failed miserably as tons still do not have it. So shockingly now that the tax is increasing alot the sign ups grow even tho the rates are going up double digits due to the very large losses all insurers took in the early years of obummercare. Better yet the in many markets all insurers have pulled out or only one remains which means no competition and sky high premiums

yep working great

Gov. healthcare works great? Have you checked out the VA system or medicare or medicaid..... and you keep pushing single payer.... try and figure out how dumb you look

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:I️ sincerely believe that single payer can provide healthcare for less than what we are paying insurance companies.

Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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[/quote]

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

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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

cwtcr hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

BigDave wrote: Of course it can because it will be rationed. You can call it a different term if you don't like the word, but it's unavoidable.

Health care is already rationed. And to AG's point, we are already paying for a large percentage of our populations' health care. A single payer system will provide better economy of scale, and will allow the government to better negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.

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

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