banner
Health Team

Premiums under health care law depend on where you live

Posted October 29, 2013

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— As with real estate, location, location, location plays a key role in how much people will pay for health coverage obtained through the Affordable Care Act's online marketplace.

Federal officials are working to fix the technical problems that have plagued the HealthCare.gov website since the beginning of the month, but people can still go on the site to see the insurance plans available in their area. The estimated premiums listed don't include any government subsidies, which are available based on someone's annual income and the size of his or her family.

For a "silver" plan, which is the second-cheapest of four tiers in the system, monthly premiums for a 27-year-old in Wake County range from $222 to $289. In Cumberland County, plans for that same individual start at $278 a month.

For a 50-year-old individual, premiums would be $378 to $453 a month in Wake County and $445 and up in Cumberland County.

A Wake County family of four is looking at premiums of $749 to $899 a month, compared with the $882 starting price for a similar family in Cumberland County.

"You may see it's cheaper here in the Triangle, as we have much more competition in the way of hospitals than if you go out east, for example," said Liz Gallops, an independent insurance agent who has gone through training to be certified to handle plans offered on the online exchange.

The counties where premiums on the health exchange are most expensive are in and around Charlotte: Mecklenburg, Anson, Cabarrus, Rowan, Stanly and Union counties.

Healthcare.gov Troubled health website details range of premiums

North Carolinians who will enjoy the lowest premiums are west of the Triangle: Alamance, Caswell, Chatham, Durham, Lee and Orange counties.

“We are seeing overall price increases, which we had anticipated," Gallops said. "What’s different from what we had originally expected is that it’s not the young and healthy that received the biggest price impact. It’s actually those a bit older – the 50 to 60 demographic, especially those previously purchasing higher deductible health plans – that are facing the biggest price increase."

She attributes the higher costs to the new taxes and fees built into the plans and the fact that plans are "richer," offering more basic services.

"If you have access to subsidies, these plans on the marketplace certainly can be affordable. For some folks, they could even be zero dollars a month," she said. "Now, if you make too little or too much to qualify for subsidies, then you get into the area of is it going to be affordable. For some folks, it won’t be.”

198 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • junkmail5 Oct 31, 2013

    So again, no huge tax increase? or were you lying here?
    68_dodge_polara

    How could I be lying when I never said that in the first place?

    let me try to explain for a 5th time. I'll use specific numbers (these are not accurate- they're simplified for your understanding, but the RATIOS are about right).

    TODAY:

    An average person in the US spends $10,000 on health care in a year. That includes EVERYTHING- Taxes, premiums, co-pays, etc.

    Do you understand this? They spend 10k TOTAL on healthcare.

    Under a universal coverage system, they would pay $5000. TOTAL. That includes ALL costs- taxes, premiums, co-pays, etc.

    They pay LESS under the universal system.

    You seem to be fixated on the name of each individual charge... rather than the FACT that the TOTAL cost is MUCH lower under the universal coverage plan.

    We haven't gotten into the specifics of the plan so we can't even SAY what the names are- just that it's cheaper.

    Understand YET?

  • 68_dodge_polara Oct 31, 2013

    That math doesn't make since with out huge tax increases- 68_dodge-Polara

    "Except, it does." -junkmail5

    So again, no huge tax increase? or were you lying here?

  • junkmail5 Oct 31, 2013

    However junkmail5 has seen it fit to twist around everything I posted- westernwake

    No, I haven't.

    I've quoted your EXACT words to show they're untrue.

    You claimed they wanted a model like the US.

    You outright SAID that.

    Your own source shows that's a lie- they want a model NOTHING like ours because they want to KEEP universal coverage.

    What they want is a mixed UNIVERSAL model like Australia and some european nations use.

    And if they want to do that in the US rather than the ACA- awesome.

    But in short the story didn't support your own claim at all- just the opposite.

    The proper model is to establish a public plan.- westernwake1

    Awesome.

    Except that is what Obama ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED.

    You remember the PUBLIC OPTION don't you?

    And it was rejected by congress, because nobody wanted "government" healthcare or "socialism"

    And if you ask most people today, they STILL don't want those things despite them DEMONSTRABLY making the system better and cheaper.

  • westernwake1 Oct 30, 2013

    "UNLESS, you currently have employer sponsored healthcare. Heck, there are companies here in Raleigh that not only pay 100% for the employee, they cover the entire family, so yes... THOSE people would pay more." - misschris234

    All the people on high end corporate healthcare plans are about to learn a terrible lesson about Obamacare in the upcoming open enrollment period. Even though employers got a one year delay until 2015, many employers are cutting their 100% plans NOW to be compliant with ACA.

    Most employees will be forced to select the 80% plan that is compliant with ACA.

    I can understand discontinuing a plan if it did not meet the minimum requirements to comply with ACA -- But to eliminate the top plan because it is too good for ACA is absurd!

    Welcome to Obamacare - You are only allowed to have medicore insurance. No good insurance plans allowed.

  • westernwake1 Oct 30, 2013

    "westernwake1, actually, what they want is a mixed model.

    www.canada.com/health/Canadians+want+choice+they+access+health+care+poll/6850577/story.html" - misschris234

    This is exactly what I have been saying.

    However junkmail5 has seen it fit to twist around everything I posted to fit his personal political agenda.

    Now I will explain exactly what is wrong with Obamacare. There are many western nations that have excellent private/public universal healthcare systems that should be used for the U.S. model (assunming low cost universal coverage is the accepted objective). Obamacare is bacially a give-away to for-profit insurance companies.

    The proper model is to establish a public plan. Force the insurance companies to compete against it to keep costs low. Require non-small employers to provide private coverage (the employee can select public coverage or the company's plan).

    This model works well in many countries. The U.S. should use this, not Obamacare.

  • misschris234 Oct 30, 2013

    "In other words, YOU WOULD PAY LESS OVERALL.

    You'd stop paying, say, $5000 a year in health insurance premiums... and $1000 a year in deductibles... and $2000 a year in co-pays and co-insurance."

    UNLESS, you currently have employer sponsored healthcare. Heck, there are companies here in Raleigh that not only pay 100% for the employee, they cover the entire family, so yes... THOSE people would pay more. Total costs would go down yes, but you can't think that it won't impact many financially, unless all employers give a raise in lieu of coverage, since benefits are part of your salary, in that case, everyone would be happy happy happy.

  • misschris234 Oct 30, 2013

    junkmail "So why aren't you mad at the GOP for blocking that idea in 1993? (when they gave basically OBAMACARE as their alternative)"

    Obamacare is NOT single payer/universal healthcare (universal coverage is not universal healthcare). Obamacare is nowhere near universal/socialized/single payer healthcare. The HEART act was not single payer/universal healthcare.

    And how do you know WHO I'm mad at? I'm mad actually at quite a lot of people on both sides of the aisle for their attempts to run this country into the ground, so don't assume anything about me please :)

  • junkmail5 Oct 30, 2013

    you didn't answer the question: Would there be tax increases or not?- 68_dodge_polarsa

    You don't even understand what you're talking about.

    Total taxes would go up.

    Total COSTS would go down.

    In other words, YOU WOULD PAY LESS OVERALL.

    You'd stop paying, say, $5000 a year in health insurance premiums... and $1000 a year in deductibles... and $2000 a year in co-pays and co-insurance.

    And instead pay maybe $4000 more in taxes.

    Your NET COST would be MUCH LOWER.

    Which part are you STILL not understanding?

    Your not credible because you lied,- 68_dodge_polara

    Except, I didn't.

    You can tell, because you can't cite a single example of a lie I told, with any source showing it's not true.

    So you apparently fail at math AND english.

  • junkmail5 Oct 30, 2013

    You have been pushing that Canadians love their universal coverage system that 100% of the population must endure. The article shows this is not true- westernwake1

    No, it doesn't actually.

    it shows they'd like it IMPROVED.

    But again, your OWN SOURCE makes it CLEAR they want to KEEP the universal coverage... and then ADD to it like some OTHER European nations.

    NOT switch to a private non-universal system like the US as you originally claimed.

    You got caught misrepresenting what your own source said- and now you're trying to tap dance around admitting it.

    The part where most everyone's premium triples. - Bigbrokebill

    this doesn't even make sense.

    under a universal single payer system there ARE NO PREMIUMS.

    And we would have been WAY better off had we started down that path many years ago- Misschris234

    Sure!

    So why aren't you mad at the GOP for blocking that idea in 1993? (when they gave basically OBAMACARE as their alternative)?

  • misschris234 Oct 30, 2013

    westernwake1, actually, what they want is a mixed model.

    www.canada.com/health/Canadians+want+choice+they+access+health+care+poll/6850577/story.html

More...