I don't understand what they're getting at. The insurance plans on the exchanges aren't meant to replace employer subsidized insurance plans. Comparing the two is a false dichotomy. It is meant to replace the plans that people were buying on their own when they did not have access to insurance offered by their employer, which has historically been astronomical. Comparing Obamacare against ANY employer subsidized insurance plan (after the emloyer subsidy and before factoring in the tax credits that most people qualify for with Obamacare which is what this article is doing) is going to make it look like a huge disparity, but that's just dishonest. Unless I'm missing something?
Having said that, I'm pleased to hear that Wal-Mart is offering comprehensive health care. I wonder how many of its employees qualify for it?
I'm also confused at what that article was comparing.
I have a family plan at work that I pay roughly 130.00 towards every other week. The total premium is much higher than that but my company pays that. It's a perk. It's a benefit.
If I had to pay it on my own, I would pay the whole premium just like in "obamacare" which again...is NOT a health plan. You would never have a card that says 'Obamacare" and you wouldn't go to the doctor's office and say I have "Obamacare" insurance.
(Average Individually Purchased Plan) vs (Average Exchange Plan minus Average Credit)
Instead, they seem to be comparing this:
(Employer Purchased Plan minus Employer Subsidy) vs (Average Obamacare Plan before subtracting out Average Credit)
That's not an honest assessment. Like, at all.
Again, unless I'm missing something here.
17 million of the 29 million eligible for Obamacare, or 59%, are expected to qualify for subsidies.
17 Million Americans Could Get Obamacare Subsidies: Report
If there are 313,914,040 (USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau) people in the US and 17 Million are eligible for tax credits that works out to be less than 19% I believe.