Obamacare Gold Plans: What to Expect

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has given millions of Americans new insurance options to consider, and most people know about the new bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers that are available. But until now, it's been hard to know exactly what Obamacare gold plans would look like in real life.

In the following video, Dan Caplinger, The Motley Fool's director of investment planning, looks at Obamacare gold plans and what kind of coverage you can expect from them. Dan notes that the idea behind the gold tier is that insurance companies pay 80% of expected costs while you pay 20%, but that doesn't mean all your expenses are split 80/20. In looking at various plans offered in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, Dan observes that from state to state and even from plan to plan within given states, policies can vary widely. For instance, in Connecticut, gold plans come with $1,000 deductibles, $20 copays for doctor visits, and a $3,000 out-of-pocket maximum. Massachusetts has a broader range of policies, with deductibles running from $500 to $2,000, doctor visits from $20 to $30, and out-of-pocket maximums from $3,000 to $5,000. Dan concludes that you have to pick based on your own health experience and finances to find the best choice for you.

You really can figure out Obamacare
Figuring out the difference between Obamacare gold plans and other coverage levels might make the Affordable Care Act sound complicated, but it doesn't have to be. In only minutes, you can learn the critical facts you need to know in a special free report called "Everything You Need to Know About Obamacare." But don't hesitate, because it's not often that we release a free guide containing this much information and moneymaking advice. Please click here to access your free copy.


Read/Post Comments (22) | Recommend This Article (8)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:02 AM, normgarry wrote:

    Rich people will always have better healthcare because they will love in segregated areas with hospitals and doctors far out of reach to those in poorer areas. Here in NYC, the best hospitals are such a long drive away that in a pinch, you can't reach em.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:13 AM, rdmcdonald48 wrote:

    What is has not been addressed here is what the premium difference is between the Bronze, Silver and Gold plans.

    IF you have deep pockets and can afford the "gold" plan, that is good for you. However, what income level can afford the "gold" plan in direct comparison to the costs across the board?

    If you have a "bronze" plan, and your premium is in the mid $ 400 range or higher, you have to look at the costs of the deductibles and co-pays. A $10,000 deductible equates to a person having to set aside an additional $ 833.33 per month to meet the deductible needs in the event of an illness or injury that requires the deductible be paid.

    The question is, how does a person who is making $ 8.50 per hour and working 29 hours a week, set that money aside in addition to all of their other obligations?

    The 29 hour work week is, what some phrase as, an "unintended consequence" of Obamacare. Is it not reasonable for the American people to re-think how this form of government is progressing, or not, and seek its complete reform?

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Mfriscia1 wrote:

    As an insurance broker in New York. The premiums are less than in the past. But the benefits are not as good. The plans expect ally in the bronz and silver have high deductibles. But what else is lacking is that no exchange plan offers an out of network benefit. Let's say you go in for bypass surgery and the heart surgeon is on the plan. But the Anesthesiolgist is not on the network... The patient will get a huge bill plus the deductible and coin surname max. This is why I see when the president states a good quality plan. This it is not. I don't care about pediatric dental since I do not have children. Or some of the additional essential benefits that are being rammed to every citizen by this administration

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Paulson545 wrote:

    Republicans should force everyone who supported obamacare to have to accept it, meaning no exceptions for the powerful unions to op out like they are doing.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:36 AM, ron2cu wrote:

    LOL! Obamacare is a joke. Dismantle and repeal it. They should have clamped down on the insurance companies dropping people or not insuring for pre existing and the costs of care...$3000 for an MRI or more? That is the scan of choice and you get bent over if you need one.

    That is NOT affordable healthcare.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:44 AM, LamaDave wrote:

    But Dan. Massachusetts has had compulsory health insurance for 7 years. Why would Obamacare mean any change? Now that the website is down completely what will happen? Every day that goes by, even with a functioning website, this idiocy is 40,000 subscribers short of viability. Meanwhile more and more people are forced off their plans at the whim of the jerks In D.C. Soon the sunshine will diminish and we will all be wearing Mao suits in blue or green....see there is choice even in a moribund communist system. Funny you mentioned differences across state line, if only the administration morons had allowed consumers to shop across state lines, alas, they didn't and won't because "compromise" is not in their vernacular. Otherwise, really valuable and informative.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 10:08 AM, OZZ wrote:

    Like immigration there was never a healthcare crisis it is an invention of Obama & Co. It is a subterfuge that was never intended to work but to lay waste to the existing (best in the world) system. Once that is accomplished it will be replaced by violently expensive, low quality, mandatory single payer system. Canada and the UK have already experienced the horrific effects of this pipe dream, we are only just beginning our own nightmare. Of course the rest of the thousands of pages of extortion contained in the ACA will remain. If you know someone who voted for Obama who complains that they didn't vote for this, please remind them that they did.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 10:22 AM, okjerryds wrote:

    Can we say Screw you Obama, build more prisons because We The People didn't approve this B---S---. It's not in our best interest so you might as well withdraw your Hitler Propaganda, and let the next intelligent President introduce a correct version of public health care...

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 10:29 AM, TMFGalagan wrote:

    @LamaDave - The difference in Massachusetts is that the new rules under the President's health-care law in determining plan tiers are different than they were under Gov. Romney's plan. Here's an interesting look at comparisons of Mass. Health Connector plans before and after Obamacare: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/01/1243095/-Romneycare...

    best,

    dan

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 10:35 AM, mperiod wrote:

    @LamaDave

    Do you really think 44,000 people who wanted insurance (and are required by the law to carry it) won't simply sign up a month from now if they can't today? Big picture the website working or not working in Novemeber will have little to no impact on the sign up numbers come next year

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    What is the basis for the statement "and most people know about the new bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers that are available" ?

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 11:47 AM, peckbill wrote:

    Let us take a look at something that is very close to the heart of every individual that donates money to help get his/her favorite member of the United States Congress elected. Some peoples, Companies, lobbyists, or organized groups of people donate millions of dollars to their favorite election campaign. The biggest surprise is that hardly any of those who donate money have the slightest clue on how the money is used. An even bigger surprise is that hardly none of the money is used for the election campaign that the donation is intended.

    There is a federal law that prohibits members of Congress from using campaign donations for personal needs (Ethics Reform Act of 1989); but, the same Congress then invented something that says contributions are technically not campaign funds and can be put into a Leadership PAC (slush fund); there, the money can be spent for anything the individual receiving the donation desires, baby sitting, girlfriend(s), lunches, lobbyists, automobiles, trips for friends, sports events, vacations, high interest loans to their own campaign, etc.. You name it and your donation money can and is used to pay for the event. During their own campaign, the individual running for office can even lend his campaign money from the Leadership PAC and charge very high interest which is paid back from the Party Headquarters to which it was loaned; when the individual leaves office he/she takes the money with them and spends it for what they want; upon the politicians death, the money goes with his money to things and places no one knows about. In federal government the elected official cannot hire those relatives that are under the term “nepotism” ; however, the politician can use the donation money (Leadership PAC) to hire any family member, i.e., wife, children, grandparents, grandchildren, anyone and pay them whatever he/she determines a suitable earning.

    Does any of this interest you? Do you even care when you donate to the campaign of a politician? Some people are really dumb, but the people of the United States of America tolerate this sort of money manipulation and use of donation money. No wonder the United States of America is in such terrible trouble moneywise.

    We can solve this by not making any donations to political campaigns and by insisting our members of Congress fix the problem and keep our donation money sacred and protected. There is currently two bills pending in Congress, one in the House and one in the Senate, to correct this problem; but these bills will never be considered because the individual(s) sponsoring the bills cannot get anyone to join the sponsorship.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 12:46 PM, TSP1973 wrote:

    After all this time I finally heard some good news about Obamacare. NBC, the people that have been pushing the Obamacare crap have had their premiums raised go through the roof! Don't know about you, but I don't feel the least bit sorry for the bastards at NBC.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 1:06 PM, grumpf52 wrote:

    I expect the majority of younger healthy people to opt out for simple logical reasons. If you don't make a lot of money even the bronze plan is too much to pay for insurance with high deductibles and out of pocket expense limits. They are not likely to reach their deductible so they will pay 100% of their medical costs plus pay out a lot of money for insurance premiums to buy something that basically does nothing for them. Depending on these people to float the whole program is a mistake until the fines reach the levels of the bronze plans and people figure they might as well get something for their money however bad it is. Because there are millions of people having their coverage cancelled we should expect to have the number of uninsured increase simply because they can no longer afford it.

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 4:15 PM, OZZ wrote:

    When Reagan was in office I paid twenty dollars a week for a family plan that provided full coverage for everything with no co-pay except for prescriptions. Incrementally and over time the cost of that plan rose until early 2013 when in advance of the ACA roll out my insurer instituted an incomprehensible tiered system that has a two thousand dollar deductible per family member in it's bronze option but depending on who one choses for a physician and hospital many items are completely excluded and will be out of pocket even after the deductible is met. That particular plan costs five thousand a year. If it's this bad now what will it be like when the government becomes our healthcare provider? This is not going to be the end of it. If this criminal enterprise that is this administration is allowed to foist this on America next will be a raid on our retirement savings and then what, our food?

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 9:10 PM, keng wrote:

    You can buy anything in Mexico! I drove from south San Diego to Tiajuana and bought cheap health insurance from a broker for 25.00/month. It even covers medical emergencies such as being run over by a donkey cart. Good luck

  • Report this Comment On November 03, 2013, at 11:31 PM, deb1958lee wrote:

    what happens to all the people that doesn't have a job ..that mr.Obama did nothing for..how are we suppose to get obamacare with no money..but yet we get fined if we don't get his obamacare which is a job..he's just trying to make a name for hisself before he leaves..

  • Report this Comment On November 04, 2013, at 8:00 AM, sagesdad wrote:

    I found a good plan and doctor in Tijuana, Mexico and will be sending my employees there for medical and dental work

  • Report this Comment On November 04, 2013, at 10:40 PM, davidzzz wrote:

    Hillary/Davis 2016 16 Years!! Yea!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2013, at 3:55 AM, TerryFlowers wrote:

    H.R. 676, a single payer government financed national healthcare insurance plan sometimes called Improved and Expanded Medicare for All, would be much better than any of the precious metal plans being offered by any of the private for-profit insurance carriers.

    The additional taxes that H.R. 676 would require would be less than the insurance premiums that the vast majority of us pay in insurance premiums now. We would actually end up with a larger pay check that we currently do.

    Everyone would receive comprehensive healthcare including optical and dental. Do your own research and look up H.R. 676 on the web. There are also many good web sites that explain much about it such as PNHP and Healthcare-NOW and mforall.

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2013, at 6:57 PM, OZZ wrote:

    Mr/Ms Flowers, regarding HR 676 might look good on paper but remember this is asking folks to trust our government with our healthcare. The same government that has for the last five years actively and systematically sought ways to subvert the Constitution and govern instead by decree. The very same government who has again and again lied to us and when finally questioned about these lies, lied about them. You would ask us to trust them? I don't know what you're drinking but I dare say you're no stranger to Kool Aid.

  • Report this Comment On November 07, 2013, at 6:59 AM, TerryFlowers wrote:

    OZZ... It's Mr. In regard to your comments about trusting government I understand. However there are some programs that work quite well. Medicare is one of them and without it millions of seniors would be destitute. The Medicare program runs with a 4% overhead cost in comparison to the 30% (now with ACA 20% maybe) that the for-profit healthcare insurance industry skims off the top of our premium dollars (our healthcare dollars) for CEO compensation packages/bonuses, shareholder returns, lobbying, political campaigns, marketing, advertising, etc. That's billions of dollars that could be used to provide healthcare financing for all of those who need medical care.

    I would encourage you to do your own research on H.R. 676 and find out how it would actually save money for the vast majority of Americans. The increase in taxes that it would require to fund it would be less than what most of us pay in insurance premiums now.

    Do a web search on H.R. 676 and find out for yourself.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2710775, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/31/2014 2:26:28 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement