Obamacare prices roll in lower than forecast
In California, the premiums submitted by insurance companies are surprisingly competitive.
All of those things could be true, in some states more than others. But in one key state, the costs are coming in surprisingly low.
California has announced the premiums for its residents under what it calls Covered California, a health benefit exchange that is developing the state's insurance marketplace. Covered California has picked 13 health insurance plans to start with next year and has put together a booklet (.pdf form) summarizing them.
There are four categories of coverage -- which the state has named bronze, silver, gold and platinum -- and the rates for each vary by region and residents' ages. For silver, the second-cheapest plan, the average monthly premium ranges from $304 to $335. The booklet has more detailed information.
These costs aren't for Californians who already get health insurance from their employers or Medicare or Medicaid. Rather, they would be for residents who don't have insurance or who buy it on their own.
And while they still must get final approval, many observers who have looked over them say they aren't bad. They are certainly less than what people would pay today for the same level of coverage, Jonathan Cohn writes at the New Republic. Someone making $29,000 a year would pay about $2,400 a year in premiums, Cohn writes. Someone making $17,000 a year would pay about $700 a year.
A huge unanswered question here is what happens to the premiums in subsequent years. Companies are most likely low-balling prices to grab market share. What happens in the future?
Another question is what will happen in other states that weren't so willing to embrace Obamacare. How will their premiums stack up? Some states are rushing to meet early deadlines set by the law and "are barely going to make it," the former director of the Massachusetts exchange told Businessweek.
There will be plenty of horror stories ahead. But for now, the Obama administration can look at California's numbers as one bright spot in a deluge of negativity about the law. A year from now, we'll have a much clearer sense of costs and what may or may not be working.
- Should cities sell off heirlooms to pay the bills?
- Space flight with DiCaprio auctioned for $1.5M
- Ripley's LA museum gets a little less macabre
More dependency, more entitlement programs, more wealth redistribution and more class warfare is NOT the answer!
Good Grief that is an outrageous amount to pay only earning $29,000 a year and living in California. Poverty level for cost of living in CA. Great job California! You voted Obama in twice. That is why your state is bankrupt!
$2,400/year for an earner of $29,000? That's 8.275% of their yearly pay: pre tax. Take out the 20% in federal taxes and the 6% in California income taxes and you are forcing them to pay 11.2% of their take home pay . I'm glad that it'll be so cheap for them.
... but the poor will pay nothing, you know it and i know it. So what the hell has changed. I work with a lot of people who think it will be free to them, and they are probably right. I had a group tell me the other day that "universal" means "free". They really beleive that. Just how are all these folks setting around on the curb going to pay when they don't have a job. Answer that one mr democrat. The good ole middle class will, thats who.
I guess - You get what you pay for.......Errrrrrrrrr, unless you can get someone else to pay for it for you! (as was so eloquently exhibited in this literary work of democratic propoganda)
13,000 a year net in Colorado qualifies a person for Medicaid. What does this law really do in the long run but make it all more of a mess.
What are they gonna do with people that won't pay? Garnish their wages or their income tax returns? Oops there goes the Flat Screen TV and Cellular phone purchases at tax time
I also thought the law said the cap the individual would have to pay was 8% of their net income.
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages finished the session on a lower note as the S&P 500 lost 0.4% while the Nasdaq shed 0.1%. The Russell 2000, which paced the retreat on Tuesday and Wednesday, added 0.2%, trimming its December loss to 3.5%.
After spending the first half of the session in a steady retreat, the S&P 500 found technical support in the 1772 area. Upon reaching that level, the index reversed sharply, and marched back to its flat line. There was no particular catalyst ... More
More Market News
With the universe of this category in its seasonal sweet spot, these picks have tailwinds propelling them into the new year.