70/30 actuarial coverage is always going to have a high copay or high deductible.
The reason the employer plans are being changed so much is cost, the extended benefits required, plus the "Cadillac tax" provision.
For families with low incomes (200% of FPL or less), you get significant cost-sharing so an exchange plan might be better, but in any case you don't qualify for the subsidies unless the employer doesn't offer qualifying coverage.
So, for example, in my home county in GA, a couple aged 48 and 50 with an income of $42,000 can get a Silver plan for $302 (that's the second-lowest on which the subsidy is figured). But except for the three free visits, free mammogram, etc., your deductible is $5,000, and your out of pocket maximum is $12,700. So once you meet your deductible (everything that isn't free goes toward your deductible), then you get into the copays and coinsurance until you hit the OOP Max. So primary care is $40 + 10%, hospital is $500 + 10%, and so forth.
It's not particularly attractive for moderate income people, because if they get sick they are faced with a difficult situation. As you say, you have to save up to actually get treated.
I've noticed that some people in metro options have better choices, but in ruralish areas it seems to be very similar, and most of the complaints seem to be coming from the rural areas. But there's no way to cut costs by limiting the network as there is in metro areas, so I think that's why.
Now if that same couple had an income of $31,000, their premium would only be $162 a month, plus the deductible would be $1,500, the OOP Max would be $3,000, and it goes on from there. Their primary care copay would be $25 +10%, etc. So a couple like that would do better on the exchange, but the way the rules are written many can't get the subsidies.