(11-04-2014 12:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:16 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 07:40 PM)G-Man Wrote:  WRONG. They don't "just have to choose another plan". They ALSO have to pay a TON more money.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Now you're just being illogical to say "maybe yes and maybe no". Can you think a little more, and then tell me why? It's a pretty simple answer, actually.

Some folks who lost their plan will likely qualify for subsidies on the exchanges and therefore get a cheaper rate. Some won't. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand. Is it?

Nope. If they could have saved money they would have saved money a year ago. Why would they have kept a more expensive policy for a year and then switch? Obviously the concept is hard for you to understand, that if some people will save money by switching it would have already happened.

They didn't have the subsidies before dude!

(11-04-2014 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some folks who lost their plan will likely qualify for subsidies on the exchanges and therefore get a cheaper rate. Some won't. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand. Is it?

If somebody gets in to see a doctor who wouldn't have been able to do so before, then s/he is simply taking a slot away from the person who would have used it before--one winner, one loser, zero sum.

bull****.

You would had to have every doctor, hospital, medical facility, etc. at full capacity before the ACA for this to be even remotely true.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hos...today.html

Quote:Barriers and concerns

The majority of physicians — 81 percent — report being either overextended or at full capacity, up from 75 percent in 2012.
Just 19 percent of physicians said they have time to see more patients.
Forty-four percent of physicians plan to reduce patient access to their services by any number of steps, such as reducing the number of patients they see, not accepting new patients, working part-time or moving to a non-clinical job.
Nearly 39 percent of physicians said they will accelerate their retirement plans given the way medicine and healthcare are changing, compared to nearly 43 percent of physicians who said they would not change their plans and nearly 19 percent who said they will defer their retirement plans.
Nearly three-fourths of physicians believe there is a physician shortage and that Congress should lift the cap on federal funding and increase residency slots.

While not 100%, 81% of doctors feel like they are at or over capacity. When you are over capacity quality of care decreases because the doctor then spend less time with each patient.

My guess is the 81% are located in urban environments where Obama care will enroll the highest number of people increasing capacity where they are already full.

(11-04-2014 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  bull****.
You would had to have every doctor, hospital, medical facility, etc. at full capacity before the ACA for this to be even remotely true.

No, not at all. There are lots that are operating at full capacity, and as providers withdraw because of economics, more will be. And it's obviously zero sum at any facility that is operating at full capacity, and virtually zero sum at any facility that is operating at near capacity.

Obviously a facility which is vastly oversized and working at a fraction of capacity can accommodate some additional services. But economics say such facilities can't work and won't last.

And hyperinflation is just around the corner too I presume...and the market will crash...and the second amendment will be repealed.

You guys are really bad at predicting stuff...sorry If I don't buy the hype.

(11-04-2014 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:16 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 09:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Maybe yes, maybe no.

Now you're just being illogical to say "maybe yes and maybe no". Can you think a little more, and then tell me why? It's a pretty simple answer, actually.

Some folks who lost their plan will likely qualify for subsidies on the exchanges and therefore get a cheaper rate. Some won't. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand. Is it?

Nope. If they could have saved money they would have saved money a year ago. Why would they have kept a more expensive policy for a year and then switch? Obviously the concept is hard for you to understand, that if some people will save money by switching it would have already happened.

They didn't have the subsidies before dude!

This one statement more than any others you've made prove beyond doubt that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, they DID have the subsidies last year, and they CHOSE to keep a lesser priced Anthem plan outside of the exchange.

What about this do you still not understand?

(11-04-2014 04:37 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:16 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Now you're just being illogical to say "maybe yes and maybe no". Can you think a little more, and then tell me why? It's a pretty simple answer, actually.

Some folks who lost their plan will likely qualify for subsidies on the exchanges and therefore get a cheaper rate. Some won't. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand. Is it?

Nope. If they could have saved money they would have saved money a year ago. Why would they have kept a more expensive policy for a year and then switch? Obviously the concept is hard for you to understand, that if some people will save money by switching it would have already happened.

They didn't have the subsidies before dude!

This one statement more than any others you've made prove beyond doubt that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, they DID have the subsidies last year, and they CHOSE to keep a lesser priced Anthem plan outside of the exchange.

What about this do you still not understand?

Then please post another link about this story then, cause the video in the OP says nothing about these being plans that they bought last year on the exchange. Sorry.

Here ya go...this explains it:

Quote:For the past few months, the Indianapolis-based health insurer has been sending out notices to holders of individual insurance policies who renewed their coverage before Dec. 31, 2013. Such early renewals allowed Anthem customers to continue coverage under pre-Obamacare rules.

The Obama administration has said these so-called transitional policies can continue until as late as 2016. But an Anthem spokesman said the insurer chose to end them now due to what it perceived as modest demand.

Anthem canceling 30,000 individual health policies for Hoosiers

(11-04-2014 04:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 04:37 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:34 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Some folks who lost their plan will likely qualify for subsidies on the exchanges and therefore get a cheaper rate. Some won't. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand. Is it?

Nope. If they could have saved money they would have saved money a year ago. Why would they have kept a more expensive policy for a year and then switch? Obviously the concept is hard for you to understand, that if some people will save money by switching it would have already happened.

They didn't have the subsidies before dude!

This one statement more than any others you've made prove beyond doubt that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, they DID have the subsidies last year, and they CHOSE to keep a lesser priced Anthem plan outside of the exchange.

What about this do you still not understand?

Then please post another link about this story then, cause the video in the OP says nothing about these being plans that they bought last year on the exchange. Sorry.

I'll post that link as soon as I find another one that proves Santa Claus is a Martian.

YOUR point was that the exchange policies pay subsidies so it makes these exchange Obamacare policies cheaper for people to buy after Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC), than to keep their Anthem policies.

MY point was that if your point were valid, it already would have happened that they'd have canned their Anthem plans "in exchange" for the policies you say are cheaper for them to purchase. That's because they COULD have gotten the APTC for Obamacare plans LAST YEAR, but instead chose to keep their Anthem policies.

Therefore, if the Anthem policies (which were NOT bought last year on the exchange, as you seem to be confused about) were MORE expensive compared to ACA plans on the exchange, because of APTC, then why didn't these 30,000 people rush to buy cheaper policies LAST YEAR, when the APTC was first available to them?

And the answer is that it's because, OBVIOUSLY, the non-exchange Anthem policies were less expensive then as they still are now.

Anthem saying there isn't as much "demand" for these policies is code for "we aren't making as much money on these cheaper priced plans, so we'll can them, and people are screwed as a result, because then they'll have to buy more expensive plans through us, ON the exchange, which we can make MORE money on".

No offense, but your arguments are to the contrary are absolutely absurd.