United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:02 am

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30528
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="BigDave"][quote="ip_law-hokie"]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]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]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.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9542
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
[quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="BigDave"][quote="ip_law-hokie"]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]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]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.[/quote]

I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30528
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="BigDave"][quote="ip_law-hokie"]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]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]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.[/quote]

I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]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.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9542
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
[quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="BigDave"][quote="ip_law-hokie"]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]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]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.[/quote]

I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]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.[/quote]

I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30528
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
[quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="BigDave"][quote="ip_law-hokie"]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]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]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.[/quote]

I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]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.[/quote]

I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.


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

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9542
Location: New York, NY
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
[quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="awesome guy"][quote="ip_law-hokie"][quote="BigDave"][quote="ip_law-hokie"]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]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]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.[/quote]

I️ hope your day improves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]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.[/quote]

I have no desire to spend time discussing anything with someone of your disposition.


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

OK. You win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 5392
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican
ip_law-hokie wrote:
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


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.

_________________
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9326
Or people signing up with the intent of letting it lapse?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8453
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


Last edited by cwtcr hokie on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9542
Location: New York, NY
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

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:05 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 8453
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5672
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!