The exchanges provide far better coverage than the "lowest cost for individuals" so they're not actually comparing plans, they're comparing the lowest cost (and less good) plans vs those in the exchanges.

Invariably, costs will be higher, because individual plans (ie, individuals not currently covered by their employers) don't meet the higher quality care that exchange plans have.

Of course, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but this would be an argument for single payer, and not against the ACA. If we had single payer costs would be, on average, lower across the board. But even under single payer costs would be, on average, higher for those who didn't have coverage before its implementation.

The key factor that they're using here is that they're adding in states that don't have expanded Medicare, those states are really fudging the numbers, enormously. In states without expanded Medicare the costs jump significantly because those people in the lower brackets aren't covered and will have much higher out of pocket expenses (though those individuals would be exempted from the fine; sadly that means no coverage if they opt to take that route). However, let's be clear, that was because of the SCOTUS ruling, and those states' governors who didn't opt in.

It's of extreme note that Kentucky, one of the highest Obamacare enrollment states, is absent from their statistics. And that the statistics are compiled by Romney campaign adviser, Avik Roy.

Methodology

The Heritage Health Insurance Microsimulation Model (HHIMM), in concordance with insurer data compiled by Mark Farrah and Associates, is used to create a snapshot of what it looks like to shop for insurance prior to exchange implementation. This data is used to build weighted average premiums within the rating areas, similar to the process described in the most recent release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Results

Individuals in most states will end up spending more on the exchanges. It is true that in some states, the experience could be the opposite. This is because those states had already over-regulated insurance markets that led to sharply higher premiums through adverse selection, as is the case of New York. Many states, however, double or nearly triple premiums for young adults. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, and Vermont see some of the largest increases in premiums.

Heritage pulled similar BS in Maine about failing schools, but not healthcare, but the newspapers soon picked up the story and started debunking their skewed and weighted data. That was then this is now.
How can anyone trust the heritage org to be fair about anything? if this is true we'll know soon enough. If it is just a scare tactic, which it appears to be, where does one go to find the facts? I went to media matters website to see the falsehoods about ACA that are being spread, are we know seeing them being used as facts?

The exchanges have better plans than the cut rate plans the same individuals could get outside of the exchanges. Plans with huge deductibles, for instance. Sure, I might be able to get a $50 a month plan with a $20,000 deductible, that would be super "cheap" for me. But if an exchange has a $100 a month plan with a $2,000 deductible, I would be better off getting the exchange plan. I wind up breaking a leg, and a few other bones, spend a night or two in the hospital. I wind up with a $18,000 hospital bill. The $2,000 deductible under the exchange means I only pay $2,000. The $20,000 deductible means I pay $18,000!

Does this make sense? They're not exactly saying what the plans rates are nor are the saying what the long term benefits of said "cheaper plans" are. They're just talking, directly, about your out of pocket expenses. They don't even compare what one might pay if they got a sudden illness or had an accident or whatever.

It's likely their lowest cost plans don't even compare to the exchanges.

with impunity and I don't, as of yet, see any major media outlets calling out their BS. Within their echo chamber this is making the rounds and it's being believed. Sad but I guess we will have to wait for someone else to call them out.

I would think income would be a major factor on what one would pay. There chart breakdown is by age[27, 50 and then family of four(no ages)] and that appears to be it.

It doesn't play into the rate if you're not able to get the subsidy.

In states that didn't expand Medicare you don't get a subsidy. You're fucked.

Most of the dark red states in their chart don't provide the Medicare expansion subsidy (even though the damn federal government backs it, it's ridiculous; the constituents in those states need to fight back).

opted out?

Or the fine would be meager at best (probably taken out of their tax return).

The damn teabaggers / super conservative governors aren't allowing the poorest to get the subsidy, for obvious reasons. I've seen, quite literally, cases where people on this forum would pay $5 a month for super amazing insurance because the federal government subsidizes them (this is after the tax subsidy, so they'd pay into it, and get the tax refund at the end of the year; they'd probably pay $55 a month, but they'd get back an extra $600 on their refund; that all depends on how they set up their taxes, of course; self-employed, who make up the lions share of the uninsured, would just pay $5 a month from their point of view).

Avoiding paying the fine sucks for those people though because they, by right, should get the subsidy, and be able to be covered. But the states in question are refusing to expand Medicare for them to be covered.

the web site I provided vs theirs? I live in a red state that opted out and I can get insurance much cheaper with ACA than if I was on Cobra.

I have my employers insurance, soon to be on medicare, and I'm a veteran so I don't plan on signing up with ACA. All I want to know is if their chart is in the ballpark for some that may have signed up for ACA.

You can't find "their" rates because it's based on pre-exchange rates that they trumped up. They don't even say what the deductible is on the plans (likely far higher than the exchanges). "They" likely just looked up the cheapest plans possible and decided they were "equal" to the exchange plans.

nor other important improvements in coverage. Typical right wing BS.