<p>Actually that’s an over-simplification. RI (before ACA), required one type of plan, called guaranteed issue, to be made available to everyone without regard to prior existing condition, but only if they either had 12 months of continuous coverage with another insurer prior to that time, or during a one-month annual enrollment period. Also there was only one insurer required to offer guaranteed issue policies (Blue Cross Blue Shield) See: [Rhode</a> Island Health Insurance | Rhode Island Health Insurance Quotes](<a href=“http://echealthinsurance.com/states/rhode-island-health-insurance/]Rhode”>http://echealthinsurance.com/states/rhode-island-health-insurance/)</p>
<p>As I am not in RI, I do not know how the guaranteed issue premium rates might have compared to the rates available on the private market for similar or better plans sold to qualifying individuals. </p>
<p>In any case, that is one state, and a very small one at that. Historically, health insurance has not been very portable across state lines, so a person living in one state with a certain set of laws could be in for very unpleasant consequences if they relocated to another state.</p>
<p>What do you get for living a healthy lifestyle…thanks, PAY MORE</p>
<p>From RI Health Insurance Commissioner’s Office</p>
<p>“The ACA required Blue Cross to change much of its rating structure. For example, Blue Cross can no longer use two ratings pools in direct pay. Historically, Blue Cross used a guaranteed issue pool with annual open enrollment with age rating (Pool 1) and an age/gender rated pool for those who passed medical underwriting requirements(Pool 2). The pool 2 subscribers have a lower morbidity rate and traditionally have subsidized the rates for pool 1 subscribers. The ACA eliminates such subsidies and prohibits such medical underwriting requirements.”</p>
<p>Here is the part that really sucks…by by family plan. The “new” family plan will just be the individual rates of each family member added together. Who thought of such bull? Anyone read this?.</p>
<p>“Historically, Blue Cross has charged either a single rate or a family rate with the family rate based upon the subscriber’s age and gender, independent of the actual age, gender or number of dependents. Under the ACA, the family rate will be the sum of the premium for all of the family members based upon the age of the family members with the only limitation being that a maximum of three family members under the age of 21 will be included.”</p>
<p>…and the healthy get screwed:</p>
<p>It is anticipated that the rate increases may increase significantly for soome current subscribers. For example, those persons who currently qualify for the lower premiums under Pool 2 may see premium increases as high as 55%."</p>
<p>If you think the healthy get screwed you have no idea what happens to the people unlucky enough to be born with or be inflicted with chronic illnesses. Believe me they would trade places with you in a minute and gladly pay higher rates than bear the burden they face.</p>
<p>…and how does this effect the economy?..as a small business owner, I have to raise my prices to cover the increase in premiums, so my customers lose.</p>
<p>mini, while I a big fan of community clinics, usually you have much better (and credible) sources…</p>
<p>In the local newspaper, the director of the program clearly states: “…it’s too early to determine whether the center has saved the state money or improved employee health…”</p>
<p>It is blanket statements like this that annoy me. The majority of Americans get employer-based coverage. In my experience (and I have been covered by probably 7+ different company plans in my lifetime so far), pre-existing conditions were always covered. I already posted information about the availability of state high risk pools and coverage for pre-existing conditions in 45 states. What is the percentage of those with chronic conditions who cannot get coverage at all? I’ll bet it is pretty small. If I am right, I ask people to stop exaggerating the problem. If I am wrong, I will retract my rant.</p>
<p>In the midwest, where I am from, where people just are not wealthy, many are losing their jobs due to this. The whole thing is a disaster. It is only going to get worse. I read that soon, spouses will be kept off the insurance.</p>
<p>Also, deductibles and copays have gone up. Things that used to be covered are not covered anymore. And many providers are going to cash only in our area. My child who used to get speech, ot, and pt no longer can.</p>
<p>Until employers are barred as providers, I don’t think you can really call it subsidized, dstark. ‘Compensated’, yeah, but that’s a whole 'nother thing compared to the cost-shifting model that’s the new law of the land.</p>
<p>Portability would have been a nice step in the right direction. That would have been an easy sell to people who couldn’t understand why they couldn’t keep their cell numbers when they switched providers. A slam-dunk, even.</p>
<p>lmkh, I live in the Midwest too and haven’t heard of any of the things you are saying. You might try to read some other news sources than the gloom-and-doom ones you are looking at now. Many people are seeing benefits already.</p>
<p>“The ACA required Blue Cross to change much of its rating structure. For example, Blue Cross can no longer use two ratings pools in direct pay. The “new” family plan will just be the individual rates of each family member added together.”</p>
<p>“Historically, Blue Cross has charged either a single rate or a family rate with the family rate based upon the subscriber’s age and gender, independent of the actual age, gender or number of dependents. Under the ACA, the family rate will be the sum of the premium for all of the family members based upon the age of the family members with the only limitation being that a maximum of three family members under the age of 21 will be included.”</p>
<p>WHAT?? Do I understand this right? The ACA is forcing insurance companies to charge a family an individual rate for each person? Do you have any idea how much that can raise someone’s premium?</p>
<p>So if this is true, the only reason I can think of for this is to raise families insurance rates so high that the employers either drop the plan and pay the fee (or never hire someone with a family), or if individuals are paying it, they have to move to the exchange.</p>
<p>Does the ends really justify the means? To make people’s insurance so costly for them or their companies that they have to go to the government directed exchanges? Or did I misunderstand this?</p>
<p>“In the local newspaper, the director of the program clearly states: “…it’s too early to determine whether the center has saved the state money or improved employee health…””</p>
<p>" division manager Russ Hill says it’s actually costing the state $1,500,000 less for healthcare than before the clinic opened.</p>
<p>“Because there’s no markup, our cost per visit is lower than in a private fee-for-service environment,” Hill says."</p>