New Report: For 95% Of Americans, Obamacare Will Cost Much Less Than Expected

[Triana]

When uninsured Americans begin enrolling in Obamacare’s new health care exchanges on Oct. 1, the overwhelming majority — 95 percent — will face health care premiums that are 16 percent lower, on average, than the government had previously projected, according to a new report released on Wednesday by the Obama administration.

In the 36 states where the federal government supports or fully runs the Health Insurance Marketplace, a 27-year old who does not qualify for tax credits will pay, on average, $163 for a plan that covers approximately 60 percent of health care expenses (a so-called bronze-level plan), while a 27-year-old with an income of $25,000 could pay $83 dollars per-month after subsidies. Individuals up to 30 years old will also have the option of buying cheaper catastrophic coverage outside of the marketplaces, though they will not qualify for subsidies. A family of four in Texas with an income of $50,000 would pay as little as “$57 per month for the lowest bronze plan after tax credits,” the report finds.



Under the law, individuals and families with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) could qualify for premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office projected in May that out of the seven million who are expected to enroll in the exchanges in 2014, six million will qualify for subsidies.

Ninety-five percent of the eligible uninsured will have the choice of at least two insurers carriers, which will offer health care plans at various levels of coverage: bronze, silver, gold or platinum. In the 36 states surveyed by the report, the uninsured will have a choice of 53 different plans, on average, and 1 in 4 insurance companies offering insurance will be doing so for the very first time in 2014.

THE REST:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/25/2675821/95-of-uninsured-will-pay-less-than-expected-for-obamacare-coverage/

[dkf]

1. That's not saying much, that the cost will be less than they estimated.

So their earlier cost estimates were off, quite a bit overstated. That's not a confidence builder frankly.

If they know what they are doing shouldn't the true cost be right on?

[Gore1FL]

2. There is a reason they are called estimates. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

23. Read 56% of the 41 million uninsured could pay $100 or less because of the subsidies

That's very good news.

Most people using the marketplaces will have incomes low enough to qualify for a government subsidy. A recent administration report found that 56 percent of the roughly 41 million uninsured people eligible for the marketplaces could pay monthly premiums of $100 or less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/how-much-will-obamacare-premiums-cost-depends-on-where-you-live/

[SheilaT]

4. And better that the estimates were a bit high.

This way, people are pleasantly surprised at the actual cost.

[Zynx]

11. The estimates were originally constructed in 2010 based off of probably 2008 data.

There's never been a reform of this scale attempted in this country before. The data available were relatively scarce. Estimation error on this sort of thing is pretty common.

[pnwmom]

40. It's a sign that the ACA is working to keep costs down, not to raise them as the opponents insist.

[jtuck004]

3. Not 95% of Americans. 95% of uninsured Americans. That's a much smaller pool.

Not dissing the thing, but the story above is talking about much less than a quarter of the population, and at one point even mentions 6 or 7 million out of our 313 million.

For the relatively small number, it's a good thing, but that leaves a lot out.

[nxylas]

5. Why are you trying to hurt Obama with your facts?

You never really loved him

(Just in case: )

[joshcryer]

6. In theory getting everyone covered will lower costs.

In theory the healthy people who aren't covered have been costing the system more because they don't pay into it when they're healthy but when they're sick they go on the whole ER-as-health-care route.

[zipplewrath]

15. I'm a bit worried

If these initial rates are low just because the estimates were overly conservative, well then good.

If they are low because the insurers are making sure to "buy in" until the actual costs are known, we could have the unfortunate situation where prices go up quickly in the first few years because the real costs were higher and they are adjusting accordingly. Then you'll see huge stories about the costs "spiraling out of control" because of rapid rises in the first couple of years, when in fact it is merely a short term correction back to the original rates.

If they are low because the insurers have been convinced that the young/healthy markets will buy into them, and the administration can't make that be true in the first year, again you'll see rapid rises with the associated over reaction on the part of the media. The problem with this third scenario is that it will be also true, if the trend continues, that the overall system won't work fiscally. It is dependent upon those healthy folks ultimately signing up (although not in the first year). This will make it harder to control the panic in the first year.

[jtuck004]

16. That's worth watching. I have never seen a company whose model didn't include revenue growth,

and while the companies are mandated to spend X amount on actual health care delivery, the one thing that hasn't been capped is how much they can charge. It has been throttled somewhat by the fact that they cannot raise the price more than 10% in a year without getting approval, but there is no upper limit. None. Adding additional customers means more expense, so the best way to raise revenue is to raise prices, and find ways to move what would otherwise be called "profit" into the "dxpense" column.

[joshcryer]

29. Almost half of the uninsured are young and healthy.

And they refuse to pay into the system (outside of taxes for Medicare). So it is a big deal and it will no doubt have an impact, all the studies on mandates made it clear, that incentives might work but a mandate is necessary to get them to truly act.

I said in theory it lowers the prices because there's no telling how the insurers will react. Logically they would do their best not to allow prices to go up because if that happens they'll be put out of business real quick. New laws would be made to take them out of the picture and single payer will come a lot quicker (this sounds counter intuitive but once the benefits of near universal health care are felt the people won't want to lose it). But it's possible the insurance companies know what their fate is and they'll want to cash out quick, raising costs over 3-4 years until another election cycle and then they get pushed out of the picture.

[riverbendviewgal]

31. like my beloved son

Who 4 months after getting engaged, one month into a new job he had seizures at work. Never had any seizures before. Did not have any signs to indicate he was sick. He was taken to hospital by ambulance. He was 2 weeks short of his 25th birthday. 3 days after his seizure he was getting brain surgery. Next were 2 more operations , radiation therapy, chemotherapy, blood transfusions, psychotherapy. He had health insurance. Young people can get very sick.

[magical thyme]

18. actually, when I was seriously ill I paid out of pocket.

With or without health insurance, I never had coverage. I could have died I was so sick, but the HMO doctor told me it was all in my head and wouldn't run a single test. My dentist saved my life.

I have been to the ER a few times from accidents. In every instance, I paid on my credit card. I never sucked up a dime for health care from the government.

Frankly I'm sick to death of people telling me how I'm costing the healthcare system money. The insurance companies robbed me before and I expect they'll do it again.

The jury is out on ACA, but my expectations are that I will continue to be robbed. If I get cancer, some insurance weasel doesn't refuse to pay and the bronze plan pays 60% of my costs, I'll be just as bankrupt.

[DallasNE]

34. The Purpose Of The Affordable Care Act Is To Provide Affordable Health Insurance Options

To those that do not currently have health insurance so by design "that leaves a lot out". Keep in mind that today there is a lot of health care for which the providers are not paid so they are allowed to overcharge insurance companies and Medicare to make up for that loss. With a lot of people now having insurance for the first time the amount of this free care will drop and that means the providers will be lowering prices as a result and that means that insurance companies will also be lowering what they charge and that will impact all of those that already have insurance so the "leaves a lot out" is only partially true. Think not, even with the limited portion of ACA that has been implemented some insurance companies have been issuing refund checks for overcharging on premiums and that is a win-win situation.

[jtuck004]

35. Wtf does that have to do with a dishonest headline? I don't have a problem with the ACA - I take

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2013, 05:30 AM - Edit history (1)

issue with people who think it is so weak that it needs lying propaganda to sell it.

For example, in the first paragraph of the posted article it says:

"When uninsured Americans begin enrolling..."

It doesn't say "For 95% Of Americans" which is what the headline of the OP states. That is a untrue and not even close to factual. I can't even find such claims on the healthcare web sites or from any credible source.

Is it a good thing to cover the uninsured? Of course. But it ain't a free lunch, and that money is going to come from people's pockets. Subsidies will help, but that money could have been spent on education, food, infrastructure repair/jobs, lots of things instead of a guaranteed 20% profit to insurance companies (average savings account holder getting about .5% today, so that's a hell of a deal for insurance company stockholders, and their market performance is reflecting it. Go look at their stocks, if you care about honesty).

I acknowledge the fact that some people have gotten some rebates. But, conveniently, you seem to ignore that for millions of others their rates have gone up...

"... The average annual premium for a family rose 4 percent in 2013, to $16,351, according to the survey results released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Annual premiums for individual policies purchased through an employer rose 5 percent, to $5,884.

The 4 percent increase for a family is relatively tame, at least compared with the roughly 10 percent annual increases experienced a decade ago. But it is still a far bigger rise than 1.8 percent increase in wages and the 1.1 percent rate of inflation in the last year, the foundation said... "

The Kaiser Foundation seems fairly non-partisan. They go on in the article to say that while the ACA isn't the cause of the rise the firemongers have been spouting about, neither is it moderating much.

Again, this is no free lunch. It is a fact that there are going to be tens of millions of people (some of them have posted in the answers to this OP) who find that their coverage is higher, or will cost less only because they are getting less as this is implemented. Which is partly why the wealthy and politically well-connected, i.e. "businesses" were given a year reprieve while everyone else is mandated to join.

And that gives the insurance cos a net win, and the consumer pays more without any increase in what they got for their money. The real beneficiaries are the uninsured for whom everyone else pays the bill. (on edit) <-THAT'S NOT A BAD THING, we have been paying the bill all along. People should quit being ashamed of it and trying to sweep it under the rug.) All this hoopla to try and cover that up is ridiculous and only leads to lies on both sides.

If the plan is good and noble the people pushing it would do themselves a favor by being factual and a trustworthy source instead of appearing like shady used car lot salespersons, because people aren't as stupid as they seem to think. And when they are treated as such, one risks alienating them, whether the intentions were good or not.

[DallasNE]

36. DU Rules Dictate That Articles Used For Posting Must Use The Same Title As The Original Article

So your gripe would be with ThinkProgress. When I Googled for the report I found that headline was in widespread use and not just ThinkProgress but I did find this source with a more accurate title. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/25/new-report-a-boon-for-obamacare-exchanges-to-cost-less-than-expected/

The choice then was to either use the title they did with the ThinkProgress article or switch to another source, such as the link I found. Like you, I have griped about misleading titles and got this clarification from one of the DU administrators.

Ironically, you bolded my main point about how with only a small part of ACA implemented the rate increases have dropped from 10 to 4 percent and I expect it to drop even more over the next couple of years as a result of the newly insured, possibly even going negative for 2-3 years.

[jtuck004]

37. There is no evidence other than magical thinking which supports the idea that the ACA is in any way

responsible for the increases, as the Kaiser study and many others have pointed out. But people can believe what they want.

As to your other point, there is always a choice not to promulgate dishonesty.

cya

[azurnoir]

7. a question

what happens to families and individuals that do get HC insurance from their employers however the coverage is very spendy and actually pays for so little that they can not afford to use except in emergencies?

[jtuck004]

8. Those high-deductible plans, ones which, for example, you would be out of pocket $10K

before they kick in, are, in many cases I think, history. There are levels of coverage that have to be met, things that must be provided, and some of those those won't qualify. These will come at a higher cost out of someone's pocket, because they do more, and in some cases be offset by subsidies.

But the ACA for some employers has been delayed until 2015, so you probably have to check on the specific details with the various resources that are available.

[Travis_0004]

9. High dedictable plans will be gone

I was on a high deductible plan, which covered 0% of the first 6,000 a year, and 100% after that. (I also have over 6k in a HSA, so I was never worried about the deductible.) My plan is being eliminated, and the new plan just isn't affordable anymore. I think the fine is low enough in year one of ACA to just drop insurance and pay the fine. Maybe if I sign up again in December 2013, I can avoid the fine for the whole year, I'm not sure.

I don't get the desire to eliminate high deducible plans. For a lot of people they are a bad idea, but for healthy consumers, they can be a great way to save money. My medical expenses were less than 200 last year, and this year, I have paid 0 out of pocket. My annual checkup is still paid at 100%, and I went to see the doctor after an auto accident (but auto insurance paid that). I am worse off when the ACA kicks in. It doesn't mean the ACA is a bad idea, but I think the law should be amended to bring back high deductible plans for those who want them.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. "I also have over 6k in a HSA" that 6k ain't free money.

You're still out the 6k, minus the tax you didn't have to pay.

[Lars39]

12. And if ongoing care continues into next year,

he's out another $6,000.

[Travis_0004]

24. I'm not out 6k at all

Its in an account in my name, so I have an asset worth over 6k.

If I spend 250 a month on premiums, and have no expenses, I am out 250. (I realized insurance does have value)

If I spend 150 a month on premiums, and put 100 into an HSA, then I have an asset worth 100.00

I agree for a lot of people high deductible plans don't make sense, but for some people they do, and I think banning them was a mistake.

At the end of the day, since my insurance cost is going up, and I can get coverage for preexisting conditions (I don't have any, but if I get one, I can still sign up for insurance), I'll probably drop insurance for a few years until the fine is fully phased in, so I will actually save some money next year, albeit with a bit of risk.

[jtuck004]

17. It's not about saving you money. It's about charging you to pay for insurance for

the uninsured and profits for the insurance companies, with all sorts of good intentions, excuses and rationalizations to follow.

If it was about saving money we would have single payer for all, without private companies getting a guaranteed profit.

[Coyote_Bandit]

33. I also have a high deductible plan

I have had it for many years. I am in generally good health. Although I could certainly benefit from some good optical and dental coverage.

I am of the opinion that permittng some to obtain high deductible policies while denying others that option based solely on age is a blatant and offensive form of age discrimination. If a consumer has a HSA or other liquid assets which are sufficint to cover the deductible then a high deductible coverage option should be made available to them.

Having a deductible defines the amount of risk exposure I have for health care - unlike a bronze plan that covers 60% of costs. Those kinds of percentages are only useful in defining risk exposure if one knows what future costs will be.

Based on my early inquiries I expect my premium to more than double.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Individuals up to 30 will also have option of buying cheaper catastrophic coverage outside exchanges

From the OP...

'Individuals up to 30 years old will also have the option of buying cheaper catastrophic coverage outside of the marketplaces, though they will not qualify for subsidies.'

[azurnoir]

21. Thanks that's one point but perhaps I should be more exacting

what happens to individuals and families who's employers are charging them platinum prices for bronze coverage, if they were eligible for exchanges, nothing that I've read so far prohibits that

[jtuck004]

28. There are some requirements for them, avoided by many until 2015, but

it does offer some hope for the above situation...

http://kff.org/infographic/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/

I think your best move would be to go here: https://www.healthcare.gov/ and see what the links tell you about whether the business-provided insurance you are talking about meets minimum standards.

It's not going to help some folks, and it's already clear that if you have enough money or political muscle you are more equal than others and will get special treatment, (aka "big business" and their year delay) so I would look at the link above and see what specifics you can find.

[ReverendDeuce]

14. Real world data is showing otherwise... even for me...

Rate going from 150 to 240 and my copay went from 0% to 50%. Shitty. Real shitty.

[Stuart G]

19. K and R thanks for posting nt

[PatrynXX]

20. love the avg number that came out around $300 per person

yeah avg only up there because of the rich. smh

[Rex]

22. And that just pisses some people off to no end!

How DARE we want affordable health care coverage!

[hopemountain]

25. if people are truly concerned

about the cost of healthcare - even with the aca

then real preventative healthcare at the legislative level must begin now. gopers need to put their actions to where their mouths are to prevent the increasing costs of future healthcare - if they "really" are worried about the costs to government:

support sustainable power

stop fracking & the xl pipeline for gas & oil

stop gmo's

stop allowing the murderous genocidal use of pesticides and chemicals contaminating our water and food supply - and clothing - in the air and in the water we drink

stop contaminating the air and water and food supply with radioactivity from leaking sources.

thank you for posting, triana.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Wyoming and Alaska are the two states where it will cost more,

according to a report I just read. We're on Medicare, so I guess we're not affected.

[gopiscrap]

27. Excellent

[grahamhgreen]

30. Reference::: 2011 Average was $183 with $3K deductible

Report Highlights -- Active Policies Surveyed in February 2011:

The average monthly premium paid for individual policies was $183, while the average premium paid for family policies was $414.

Between February 2010 and February 2011, the average premium increased 9.6% for individuals and 5.6% for families.

The average deductible for individual policies was $2,935, and the average deductible for family policies was $3,879.

Between February 2010 and February 2011, the average deductible increased 11.5% for individual policies and 9.9% for families.

Half of all individual policyholders paid $149 or less per month in premiums, and half of all family policy holders paid $353 or less for monthly premiums.

The average plan lifetime limit per member was $4.2 million. This average applies only to policies with specified limits. Though provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will phase out lifetime limits for most covered medical services, this report surveys policies in effect as of February 2011.

The range of average monthly premiums paid for individual plans across the United States fell between $119 in Iowa and $382 in New York*.

The range of average monthly premiums paid for family plans across the United States fell between $261 in Iowa and $932 in New York*.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-Much-Does-Health-iw-1773357078.html

99% of emergency room covered. 90% for periodic exams.....

[Scurrilous]

32. K & R

[Javaman]

38. Just curious, who is the 5% whose rates will either stay the same or go up? nt

[davidthegnome]

39. Hmm

I have no idea what I'll have to pay, but at my income of roughly a thousand a month, I'm guessing it'll be somewhere around 100 bucks. So I have to decide what NOT to pay for. Car payments, gass, food, medication, phone... I'm going to have to sacrifice one of these things if I'm paying out another hundred a month. I guess the logical one would be the phone, the others are pretty much necessary for survival.

So I'm going to have to tell my boss, "Sorry, can't call me to come in, or call me with any questions or call me to yell at me or... call me period." I'll have to explain the same thing to my family and to my girlfriend, none of whom are going to be happy about it, hell, I work so much now that most of my relationship with my girlfriend IS via text message and phone call.

This isn't what I fought for. This isn't why I voted for Obama, it's not why I went to that miserable excuse for a convention in Augusta and stood in that 100+ degree room for hours when the computer system went on the fritz. It's not why I spent hours upon hours arguing with Clinton supporters, or trying to convince moderate republicans to join up.

I suppose, rather than giving up my phone, I could get a part time job in addition to my full time job. I mean, I've still got 10 to 2 open, and I could give up a couple hours of sleep, and all of my time with my family or girlfriend - not that I'd have a girlfriend anymore.

People like me do not have an extra 100 dollars, we are barely getting by with what we do have, and hanging on by the ends of our fingernails. This could very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back - and not just for me.

Maybe we didn't have the votes for single payer or a public option... but it has always seemed to me that we didn't fight hard enough for it. What we did get instead has several positive qualities - no more denial based on pre existing conditions being chief among them (IMO) but it's not enough, not nearly enough.

You can't put a bandaid on a severed limb and expect it to stop bleeding.

Forgive the rant, I'm just frustrated and exhausted and way too broke.

[thefool_wa]

41. I hate to say this

But I am one of those being technically screwed by this whole arrangement. After 2 years of working hard to get my wife finished with school she got a halfway decent job, and now we have to shop for new health insurance which is going to increase our monthly premiums by 93% regardless of the ACA, with a net decrease in coverage, drastic increases in deductible, and if someone in my family gets some horrible disease or is in a horrible accident, we will still end up destitute.

People don't like to talk about it, but there is this void in the middle of what most ACTUAL Americans can expect to make in this country where, if you started below, they take and take and take every time you improve your situation. INsuance companies THRIVE on being able to do this, and the ACA did nothing to stop it, in fact it seems to have exacerbated it.

Fortunately, we can now "afford" it because this new job effectively doubles our income, but it seems ludicrous that our "entitlements" create this void where the more you improve your situation the greater percent of that improvement is taken with no increase in service, and in fact, much of the time, with a DECREASE in services.

For example, right before she started school my wife got a job that increased our monthly income by about $55, but it was enough to make us NOT qualify for food stamps any longer, which took $130 out of our monthly food budget. Every time I or she have increased our income by 5-7%, something has decided that was enough to take 3-4 of those percents away and offer nothing in return.

The 95% of Americans that benefited from the ACA was supposed to include those of us NOT in the top 5% of income earners, but it is turning out that the 5% getting fucked come from all walks of life, most of them in the "under 60K per year for their family" tax bracket. I am not saying repeal it, but we need to do something about healthcare in this country that makes the insurance companies TERRIFIED that their reign is coming to an end, not something that makes them salivate.