ACA Calculator

Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$7,601 per year
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$3,490 per year
(which covers 46% of the overall premium)
Amount you pay for the premium:$4,111 per year

I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy.

I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate.

In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.

Sorry I wasn't more concise. I know the calculator has the info but when you stated your cost you did not indicate in the original post if that did or did not include a subsidy. I hope that helps.

I'd pay just over $300 a month for my wife and I combined. That's way more than we pay now. Good thing I have a good job and work at a company that offers good benefits. We are not eligible for subsidies. People who don't get free or relatively inexpensive health insurance should just go get a better job.

Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?

Yes the taxpayers pay for that as well. My issue is not with people having insurance, it is with the dishonest characterization of the entire ACA endeavor. Let me illustrate:

1) Everyone talks about 'free' services like preventative care. Unless the doctor is not getting paid, they are not free. The cost is being covered by the high premiums.

2) Costs of these plans across all age spectrums are NOT cheaper than existing plans. Paying less in premium because there is a subside is not the same as a premium that is actually lower cost.

3) ACA is NOT going to solve the uninsured problem. According to the CBO there will still be $30 Million uninsured in 2022.

4) The subsidies are intended to get uninsured coverage is missing the mark. Most people getting subsidies currently have coverage. Moreover, many small businesses with lower wage employees are dropping coverage because they can push their employees to an exchange where the cost will shift from the employer to the taxpayer.

5) These are NOT better plans than the high deductible plans the president so vehemently attacked during the process. The lowest premium plans in CA have a higher deductible and max out of pocket than any HDHP available in the state today.

6) There are two big issues that are not being discussed.
(a) First, the cost of drug copays will be much higher. Here in CA on all Bronze and Silver plans the cost of generic drugs is a $19.00 co-pay. I pay on average $4.00 for my generic drugs today.
(b) The networks will decidedly smaller than current networks. Based on my clients, the average PPO network for an Anthem obamacare plan has only 60% of the providers as compared to the network today.

My bottom line is this. ACA will not deliver on its promises because that is not the bill we got. It will become yet another govt entitlement program the will further us down the road to bankruptcy. I don't care if you like ACA or not, but let's at least be honest about it.

Since you dislike those 'pompous jerks' so much you will be pleased to know they are disappearing in the US. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So most Americans who lost jobs classified the middle third — occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13 and higher-wage occupations — those with a median wage of $21.14 to $54.55 are now working at Wal-Mart. As real wages continue to tumble pretty soon there will be an insufficient number of 'pompous jerks' to feed the growing avarice of the federal govt and then they will have no choice to come knocking on your door and reaching into your pocket.

Tony I wish I could get that deal for my clients, only $11,351/year. For just my wife and I (mid 50s) the cheapest plan is over $14,000/year. Luckily my plan is grandfathered so I will only be paying $7000/year. Now in the interest of full disclosure my plan is one of those awful high deductible plans the obama attacked during the campaign. By definition, this high deductible plan has a LOWER deductible and LOWER max out of pocket than the obamacare plan. Than G_d the ACA was passed to protect me!

Just wait until 2014, you too could be affected. Hopefully not, but millions with that "better job" will.

I think 2015 is when big business will be impacted by ACA since obama gave them a pass for a year. But that is just half of the problem. As I posted above, those 'better jobs' are disappearing.

According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So while it easy to say " just go get a better job", those better jobs are disappearing. At those wages the people holding those jobs will qualify for subsidies. Can you say 'More Taxes!'?

This opens a whole new can of worms -- why isn't the unemployment rate falling and why are manufacturers and construction companies not hiring right now?

To be fair, the reported unemployment rate has been falling. Unfortunately that is counted by people collecting unemployment benefits. So the reported rate is declining a bit because of (1) people running out of two years of benefits and drop off the rolls without ever finding a job, (2) people taking survival jobs at 7-Elelven instead of the engineering job they had (3) people taking part-time jobs because no full-time jobs are available and (4) people just giving up and going on the public assistance rolls.

I have a client with 49 employees. He needs more help but will only hire contractors for two reasons. First he can have them work 40 hours or 10 hours depending on what he needs and only pay them for when they work. Second he does not want to cross the line to 50+ employees and be forced to provide healthcare. He does now but wants the right to drop it if costs continue to spiral out of control without penalty. Very very sad.

Just butting in here. But I work for a manufacturing company and we ARE hiring (in three states - all of our US sites). 

Edited by lisac957 2013-12-05 11:53 AM

Lisa that is great. Unfortunately yours is the exception and not the rule. Every study done in the past few years has yielded the same results; higher paying jobs are being replaced with lower paying jobs.

Hopefully the rebound in the housing market will stimulate some new construction jobs as well.

Nice to hear some positive news though!

So your client is afraid to grow because the cost of doing business is too high. Got it.

That says to me one of three things: He's not ambitious or confident enough in his business' ability to increase revenue enough to offset the costs of providing insurance, he doesn't want to treat the people who are working hard to make him money right by giving them benefits, or he simply doesn't need one or two or 10 more people and will continue to be a small business. If he's making enough money and is happy with his station in life, then good for him.

The fact is the law isn't going away so he better get used to being a company that employs no more than 49 people or find a way to increase revenue enough that it makes sense to expand.

mr2Tony he actually doesn't have to get used to being a small employer. I have had two clients over the past two years break up their companies by division into distinct legal entities to get under 50 Employees each. Both are growing and both provide benefits. They are just not going to subject themselves to the large group penalties.

We certainly agree this law is not going away. But please don't underestimate the American people in finding ways to avoid, evade or game govt regs. Not saying it is right, just a reality.

Moreover, as people begin to realize the impact this is going to have on their pocketbooks, expect more to game. Most people are focused on premiums and deductibles etc. Many are not looking into the details. Generic drugs on the cheaper bronze & silver plans for instance are going to be $19.00, not the $4.00 - $10.00 they pay now. Most networks from the same insurance company you may have now will have much smaller networks with the obamacare plans. So much for keeping your doctors.

Right you're referring to the people who already have insurance -- that they're going to pay more. While SOME will pay more, SOME will pay less and people who previously didn't have insurance will now have the option to buy insurance. Now, it's up to them to actually go out and buy the insurance. Instead of telling people to NOT sign up for insurance under Obamacare for political gain, people should be encouraging those who didn't have insurance before to go sign up if for no other reason than it's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Having insurance isn't a bad thing, and while it's easy for us who have good insurance and have always had good insurance to and moan and complain that it raises our rates, or in your case HYPOTHETICALLY raise your rates, people who've had zero option for health insurance in the past now have that peace of mind.

Also, people who have pre-existing conditions including cancer can't be denied coverage. I know I'm a `bleeding heart' over here but I honestly can't see how that's a bad thing. You call it redistribution of wealth, but even if I paid for my healthcare under the ACA out of my pocket, it'd total less than 4% of my income, and that's without subsides. I wouldn't be too upset considering that would keep me from havnig to declare bankruptcy if I get knocked off my bike by a drunk or texting driver while hopefully providing healthcare that will keep someone else from having to declare bankruptcy if they get knocked off their bike by a drunk or texting driver.

So for a silver plan for my situation, the US average is $2,756/yr

but...

I live in Mississippi, so my cost would actually be $4,180/yr (65% higher than the average).  That sounds fair...

Edit: I pay far less than either figure currently for insurance.  I guess I fall in that "good job" category.

 

Edited by msteiner 2013-12-05 2:53 PM

First you seem to be confused. I never said I was against anyone having insurance. I don't consider you a bleeding heart for wanting those people denied coverage in the past to be able to purchase it. Second, let's clear up any confusion between hypothetical and reality. I have had a large number of clients lose their coverage, cancelled due to ACA mandates. So far I have had exactly 1 person who will be paying a lower premium (0.9% to be exact) but for a higher deductible and higher out of pocket max so when she gets hit by that car, the small premium savings is wiped out by the $2350 higher out of pocket. FYI, over a sample of several hundred the average premium increase is running 40% and that 1 person with a lower premium leaves 99.5% paying more.

Second, it is very nice that your premium driven by age or location is such a small percentage of you salary which may be a good one. However all is not so good with the rest of the world,

Here are some numbers for a couple that are not so fortunate. Both age 60 living in San Jose. He makes $70k/year, she can't work due to advancing RA. At that wage he does not qualify for a subsidy. They are being forced off their old plan because of the ACA mandates. They have been paying just over $8000/year for insurance. The cheapest ACA plan for them is $12,948/year with a higher deductible and higher out of pocket.

Doing some quick math that works out to a premium equal to 18.5% of their PRE-TAX income, not exactly 4%. Now if he gets hit by that car and has to pay the $12,700 out of pocket as well that totals $25,648 or almost 37% of their PRE-TAX income. Given that CA has the highest state income tax rates in the country along with the federal income tax rates that number is easily 40-45% of their take home pay.

That is the reality my clients are dealing with. No subsidy, much higher rates, higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses, higher drug costs and fewer doctors.

My problem is I am not finding anyone here in CA that is better off on the new ACA plans then they were before. That includes my 29 year old daughter. It is not an issue of 'some' paying more and some paying less. It's people who pay for their own coverage overwhelmingly paying more, people getting subsidies causing all taxpayers (the 52% that actually pay taxes) to pay still more and govt getting a shiny new entitlement program to manage badly. And before you tell me healthcare is more important than money please accept the economic reality that money is not an inexhaustible resource. People paying thousands of dollars more for healthcare premiums, even if they never go to the doctor, is money not spent on something else, slowing down our economy. The subsidies and millions moving to Medicaid are costing the govt billions. In the event you don't remember, the govt makes no money. All its 'revenue' is that it takes from its citizens.