STUDY: Average Obamacare Plans Are Cheaper Than Employer-Sponsored Ones

[ProSense]

STUDY: Average Obamacare Plans Are Cheaper Than Employer-Sponsored Ones

By Sy Mukherjee

Premiums for most health plans sold through Obamacare’s state and federal marketplaces are lower than those for the average employer-sponsored plan, according to a new analysis by consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

“In 2014 health insurance plans offered on the ACA’s 51 new exchanges are on average, comparable to, or lower priced than, similar employer-based plans,” wrote PwC. “In addition, most exchange shoppers have a wider variety of plans than the typical employer-based offering.”



Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that Obamacare premiums would be 18 percent lower than originally expected. The PwC analysis puts that figure in concrete terms, finding that the median Silver, Gold, and Platinum plans sold through the marketplaces are anywhere from $61 to $1377 cheaper than the average employer plan. The cheapest mid-level Silver plan — the most popular option for Americans buying new policies — could be almost $2500 cheaper than an employer sponsored plan.

The main reason that Obamacare plans are more affordable on a month-to-month basis is that the health law extends tax credits to Americans who have incomes between the poverty level and four times the poverty level. Early numbers indicate that over 80 percent of Americans buying plans qualify for some sort of subsidy, with the poorest Americans paying less than $100 per month in premiums.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/30/3226271/obamacare-premiums-employer-plans/

[okaawhatever]

1. Big Fat K & R Now, if the main stream media would only publish this.............nt

[underpants]

2. They have one-off fake anecdotal stories to sell

We live in a bubble

[ProSense]

3. More Sads For the Obamacare Dead-Enders

More Sads For the Obamacare Dead-Enders

Top insurer reports more Obamacare signups than expected.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/more-sads-for-the-obamacare-deadenders

That'll cause a RW meltdown.

[okaawhatever]

4. Meltdown, you mean like the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz? nt

[ProSense]

6. May I just say

"glitches"?

[TrollBuster9090]

12. Yeah, that's pretty much why Fox News is back to blathering about Benghazi these days.

[Jamaal510]

33. Not a peep

from them about Bridge-gate, I see.

[TrollBuster9090]

36. Or 'Bridge-ghazi' as they call it (when they actually DO talk about it). nt

[riqster]

5. Friggin' Kick and Rec!

[Erose999]

7. I looked into it and the "bronze" coverage offered to me was shitty high-deductible non-insurance &

I get no subsidy because my employer offers one of those rip-off "health savings account" scams that are also considered "coverage" under the ACA. So I signed up for real insurance for only $50 more than the ACA "bronze" plan. So my total bill is about $150 for insurance which is more than I can afford but thats the fuckin' way she goes I guess.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

8. As some practical advice...

...you might talk to your employer about putting you in a position where you do not receive a "health savings account" from them. If you can get it removed from your list of benefits then you'll qualify for the deduction, and it can save your employer money too, depending on how it's structured.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[SHRED]

9. However

They are not as comprehensive.

My employer based Anthem POS plan beats all in the exchange regarding network size and doctor choice.

[TrollBuster9090]

10. Yeah, but maybe they're cheaper because they don't cover the same things! Maybe they're JUNK PLANS

that only charge you $50/month because they only cover asperins and bandages!~

....oh wait....they DO cover the same things. That was the whole point of the federal minimum standards......

CURSES! Can't obfuscate THIS good news....

[dsc]

11. I would take some issue with the notion that the plan is cheaper if the only reason it is cheaper

is due to government subsidies.

[Orsino]

13. I'm reading up on an old concept called "regulation."

Apparently, it was once pretty effective.

[Thav]

14. It's true for me

I have pretty expensive coverage from my employer and looked into a similar plan under the ACA, and found one that was WAYYYY better, for $200/month less than my EMPLOYER was paying for my entire coverage.

Unfortunately, there isn't a way for me to get private insurance, but have my employer pay for it (which is what he wants to do). Well, there is, but i'd take a pretty big hit on income taxes.

[sheshe2]

15. K&R

[ProSense]

16. Kick! n/t

[freshwest]

17. K&R

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Ummmm......

My ACA choices were limited to offerings by 4 insurers. No platinum plan offerings to me. Only one plan (with bronze, silver anf gold level offerings) had in network providers outside my state - something important to me since I spend a considerable amount of time away from my home caring for an elderly parent.

My monthly premium increased from about $330 per month to about $515 per month. Yes, the coverage is better.

Because I spend my time as a sole caregiver, I expect my earnings this year to be less than $6,000. My state opted not to expand their Medicaid program. Tax credits are worthless to me - although a carryforward tax credit against future earnngs would have some value.

ACA has done NOTHING to make access to healthcare more affordable to me.

ACA is federal law with expansion of state Medicaid programs largely funded by federal tax dollars. I should have the same access to that program as any other citizen in any other state. Faulting my idiotic state ignores my rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Still, I feel like I won the lottery. Even if it just a small scratch off ticket. Why? Because my covrrage can't be cancelled and I can't be priced out of the market if I am diagnosed with a major illness or chronic condition. It is beyond me why this nation could not address this particular issue long ago.

[ProSense]

19. That maybe, but

"ACA has done NOTHING to make access to healthcare more affordable to me. ACA is federal law with expansion of state Medicaid programs largely funded by federal tax dollars. I should have the same access to that program as any other citizen in any other state. Faulting my idiotic state ignores my rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

...it's still the fault of the "idiotic" Governor of your state, supported by the SCOTUS decision.

Study: Thousands Of People Will Die In States That Don't Expand Medicaid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024420170

[Coyote_Bandit]

20. Constitutional law issues

ought not be ignored.

Where have all the principled activists gone?

Far more expedient to blame the politics than to fight for equal rights under the law.

Though I suspect the response might be different if we were talking about disparities in treatment based on race. And there is plenty of organized activism to suggest that disparities based on sexual orientation are not acceptable.

Appears that disparities based on poverty are both largely ignored and tolerated when recognized.

The view from my window suggests that I am a second class citizen because, well quite frankly, everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on. Too often that is the weakest and poorest among us.

How very progressive. And, yes, that is a sarcastic observation.

[ProSense]

21. It was a SCOTUS decision that gave them cover to opt out. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. But there have not been cases

brought before he SCOTUS with individual agrieved plaintiffs using an Equal Protection argument and referencing the federally funded nature of the Mdicaide expansion.

[ProSense]

26. You could

"But there have not been cases brought before he SCOTUS with individual agrieved plaintiffs using an Equal Protection argument and referencing the federally funded nature of the Mdicaide expansion."

...be one of those "plaintiffs." You're right individuals and organizations could bring cases on behalf of those denied access by Republicans Governors.

[LynnTTT]

37. Well, actually

The ACA as passed in 2010 did include the expansion of Medicaid. But the Supreme Court overturned that since it was too onerous for the states.
But if your state didn't accept, you may be out of luck.
But if your income is only $ 6,00 per year, how can you pay $ 6,000 in premium?

[B Calm]

22. Could employers be jacking up the cost to employees and blaming it on Obama?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were!

[Whisp]

23. soul sickening, isn't it? K&R

[Jamaal510]

34. +1

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Whoopie.

I pay $300.00 a month for insurance I'll never be able to use. Additionally, since I now have "insurance," I can no longer get my medication free/reduced price so I'll be going without. Again.

Sorry if I'm not jumping for joy. I know it doesn't match the Schadenfreude on DU but that's the reality.

[ProSense]

27. If you're

"I pay $300.00 a month for insurance I'll never be able to use. Additionally, since I now have "insurance," I can no longer get my medication free/reduced price so I'll be going without. Again.

Sorry if I'm not jumping for joy. I know it doesn't match the Schadenfreude on DU but that's the reality."

...never going to be able to use it, go for the lowest plan (there is a castatrophic plan) or pay the penality to preserve your medication at "free/reduced prices."

The study is an overall look at cost. Individual cases will likely vary.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. And I offered you the exception.

There are MILLIONS of us.

Sorry it doesn't fit into the narrative.

[ProSense]

30. I'm not

"There are MILLIONS of us. Sorry it doesn't fit into the narrative."

...going to debate your situation, but the law is helping millions of people. That's not a "narrative," it's a fact. It's also a fact that some people, including those in states that rejected the Medicaid expansion, are caught in a gap.

Still, the law is helping millions of people, and with cooperation and improvement that number will climb.

[stevenleser]

32. So true. There is a combination of three devices used here by those criticizing ACA.

The first is that the law as passed is the be all end all and that is how it should be judged. No. Like any law, this is a first pass, it will be modified but it is a good starting point. Most laws like this not just here but abroad as well start out extremely flawed and then are fixed and modified.

The second device being used is not unlike the weather vs climate argument used by Republicans. Individual exceptions are being used to try to suggest that the overall belief/program is wrong. It's cold in the US (a small percentage of the globe) for one season (1/4 of the year) so that means global climate change (which measures average temperature change for the entire globe over years and decades) is fake. An individual person having an issue with ACA does not mean the program is 'bad'. As the study in the OP points out, the experience is overwhelmingly a positive change.

The third device being used is a deliberate attempt to ignore even the benefits one receives with their plans if they are not satisfied with it in general. Everyone gets free checkups with their plans. Saying "I am never going to be able to use this plan" is an obvious attempt to make it sound worse than it is.

[ProSense]

35. When it comes to

"The first is that the law as passed is the be all end all and that is how it should be judged. No. Like any law, this is a first pass, it will be modified but it is a good starting point. Most laws like this not just here but abroad as well start out extremely flawed and then are fixed and modified. "

...the Medicaid expansion, I like to point out that some states took years to sign up when Medicaid was first enacted. In the case of Arizona, it took 16 years.

<...>

Medicaid got a chilly reception when it launched in January 1966. It was up to the states to decide whether to participate and only six initially signed up: Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Twenty-seven followed suit later that year. Across the country, governors weighed the boon of new federal dollars — Washington would foot half of Medicaid’s bill — against the drawback of putting state money into a new program.

Nascent Medicaid programs quickly faced threats: Republican legislators in the New York introduced a bill in 1967 calling for the state to “live within its means” and repeal its Medicaid program.

<...>

Over time, however, the lure of federal dollars proved strong enough to win over resistant states. Eleven joined the program in 1967. Another wave of eight, largely Southern states came on board in 1970. Arizona proved the last holdout, not joining Medicaid until 1982.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/six-governors-say-they-will-opt-out-of-medicaid-how-long-will-they-hold-out/

For reasons, including the structure of the law and the single-payer waiver, I expect things to move more rapidly.

[stevenleser]

29. You won't use the free checkups you now get with ACA insurance? I strongly suggest you reconsider.

Also, your plan doesn't cover prescription drugs?

[tridim]

31. My employer-based plan is twice as expensive as an equivalent private individual policy.

The employer contribution is 50%. Genius!

It is a benefit I was promised at hiring, and will not get. It seems just a bit unfair.

[CTyankee]

38. I have this strong sense that the employer based plans are going the way of the dinosaur

very quickly. Employers are looking at having their cake and eating it with Obamacare. But it will take some synching of the ACA with the business community to fine-tune the ACA to becoming "almost single payer." I still want to hope for REAL single payer but this might be the ticket to ride...

[cynzke]

40. From what I have researched and read....

on the net, employer based health insurance has been evolving for some time before the introduction of ACA. Employers and insurance companies have been exploring new alternatives to the traditional insurance plans. Some of these alternatives are similar to the ACA public exchanges, but they are private exchanges that employers can subscribe to. Employers contribute to the premiums and the employee get to pick a insurance carrier and plan that suits them. Employers are trying to relieve themselves the burden of having to administer health insurance programs internally. This is a process that is taking place despite the ACA.

[CTyankee]

41. I guess my larger point is that a strong case can be made to republicans that the ACA

actually "frees up" small businesses to expand and thrive. It brings full circle to the notion that a huge risk pool saves money, frees up capital that can be now used to expand one's business and attracts a larger pool of potential employees. Oddly enough, it is a rather capitalist-friendly notion. It has often been pointed out that entrepreneurs flourish in Germany for that very reason. Employees can move about more freely in the workplace without worrying about health care insurance and even strike out on their own with their own start-up businesses.

It puts to rest this idea of "socialized medicine" that has been hanging around our necks for a long time.

[greymattermom]

39. Most jobs around here no benefits

My daughter is looking for a job in the Atlanta area. All of the jobs she's applied for are contract,hourly W2. None have any sick leave, paid vacation, retirement or health care. And, these are big companies like Newell Rubbermaid. She has private insurance and will have ACA when her income increases some (she's in the gap). I think this may not be so bad. Work a contract, take off a couple of months, then find another contract. Employees will have absolutely no loyalty, and employers will have to adjust wages often depending on market conditions. Eventually the economy will improve around here, but job loyalty is gone for good.