Christian medical plans exempted from health law

[Evo]

I guess their way to wriggle out of the law is by claiming that they are a "health cost sharing" plan instead of calling themselves "insurance".

The brain tumor came back. An ugly mass growing in plain view threatened Karen Niles' remaining eye. She needed more surgery.

This time, however, her medical plan wouldn't pay.

It sounds like one of those insurance "horror stories" that President Barack Obama hammered home during the fierce debate to pass his health care overhaul. Except Niles' plan ended up as the beneficiary of a rare exemption to the new law — a waiver highlighted in the plan's promotional materials.

The plan didn't come from an insurer, but from a religious "health care sharing ministry." Consumer advocates call them a gamble.

These plans successfully lobbied Democratic lawmakers to free their members from the requirement that everyone in the country have health insurance.

The downside? They don't have to pay if you need medical help.

"There is no promise or certainty this sharing program will pay for health care expenses," he said.

If Medi-Share is an insurance alternative, its guidelines carry an eye-catching disclaimer:

"The payment of your medical bills through Medi-Share or otherwise is not guaranteed in any fashion." Members remain solely responsible for payment.

Interesting read.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110226/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_exemption;_ylt=AtSLFiKbT0Km.6dTRNCKnoZH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNjczZrYm5qBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjI2L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX2V4ZW1wdGlvbgRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDNARwb3MDNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2NocmlzdGlhbm1lZA--

 

[Al68]

I guess their way to wriggle out of the law by claiming that they are a "health cost sharing" plan instead of calling themselves "insurance".

Does this mean if my current medical insurance policy just stops using the word "insurance", it won't be outlawed? And I won't have to pay the tax penalty after all?

Yippee!

 

[nismaratwork]

I guess Christians really are different. "J-Date"... "Christian Mingle". Heh... this is such a bad idea... the IRS is going to hound them forever.

 

[Evo]

Does this mean if my current medical insurance policy just stops using the word "insurance", it won't be outlawed? And I won't have to pay the tax penalty after all?

Yippee!

Apparently. Since they allow it for Christians, they have to allow any group to do this, they are not regulated either.

 

[nismaratwork]

Apparently, that and you buy off a few key politicians. If they allow it for Chrisitians, they have to allow any group to do this, they are not regulated either.

Well... I guess it's time to get baptized... errrr... are these the baptizing types?

 

[Containment]

Is there a max to how much coverage or what not?

 

[nismaratwork]

Is there a max to how much coverage or what not?

God Only Really Knows. [URL]http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/innocent/innocent0002.gif[/URL]

 

[Al68]

Seriously, the law exempts any "recognized" religious group that opposes it. How is this any different from the Amish, etc. being exempted?

As far as this group offering a (non-Obamacare approved) health plan with no promise to pay, they can't legally offer a promise to pay in exchange for a premium, since that would be insurance. Duh!

My beef with it that those of us that don't want to join such a group are penalized. Doubly so, since in addition to the penalty, basic medical insurance will be illegal.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is there a max to how much coverage or what not?

Seriously, the law exempts any "recognized" religious group that opposes it. How is this any different from the Amish, etc. being exempted?

As far as this group offering a (non-Obamacare approved) health plan with no promise to pay, they can't legally offer a promise to pay in exchange for a premium, since that would be insurance. Duh!

My beef with it that those of us that don't want to join such a group are penalized. Doubly so, since in addition to the penalty, basic medical insurance will be illegal.

I'd say, that which is not a nail, the Amish, and anyone else using religion in this fashion. If you want to live in your own little world, move to your own little world in a country that gives a rat's behind.

 

[Al68]

I'd say, that which is not a nail, the Amish, and anyone else using religion in this fashion. If you want to live in your own little world, move to your own little world in a country that gives a rat's behind.

What in the world does that mean? What is "not a nail"?

If you're referring to the "if you don't like it, just leave" mentality, I would suggest it applies more appropriately in the U.S. to those who "don't like" liberty, instead of those who do.

It especially applies to those who refuse to peacefully co-exist with others, not those of us who demand nothing more.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'd say, that which is not a nail, the Amish, and anyone else using religion in this fashion. If you want to live in your own little world, move to your own little world in a country that gives a rat's behind.

why do you think the amish, mennonites, et al. came here in the first place?

 

[Al68]

why do you think the amish, mennonites, et al. came here in the first place?

They came here to escape oppression, because the U.S. was the last bastion of freedom. They came here to live in peace.

The U.S. is historically the place to go to, not run from, to avoid having to live according to government decree.

That's what bothers me about people trying to use force against others to get their way. They are the ones using force to prevent peaceful co-existence. They are the ones destroying the last bastion of freedom, in order to make the U.S. more like the countries they wish they lived, but won't trouble themselves to go to.

They are the ones who should be leaving if they oppose peaceful co-existence.

 

[nismaratwork]

why do you think the amish, mennonites, et al. came here in the first place?

Times change.

edit: Oh yes, and a country has been born, had a civil war, and evolved... to be more specific. I wouldn't take kindly to Puritans either... as their children apparently did not.

 

[nismaratwork]

What in the world does that mean? What is "not a nail"?

If you're referring to the "if you don't like it, just leave" mentality, I would suggest it applies more appropriately in the U.S. to those who "don't like" liberty, instead of those who do.

It especially applies to those who refuse to peacefully co-exist with others, not those of us who demand nothing more.

I would say that this abuse of law is more than peaceful co-existance. I'd also look past the pastries, and look at rates of abuse and other lovely aspects of Amish life for example.

I'd add... what makes a plan Christian to begin with?

 

[Al68]

I would say that this abuse of law is more than peaceful co-existance.

And you'd be factually wrong. Unless you can explain how being exempted from this law not only constitutes an "abuse of law", but is not peaceful.

Even claiming that a direct violation of this law is not peaceful would be objectively false.

Claiming something is "more than peaceful co-existence" doesn't make it true, or change reality.

 

[nismaratwork]

And you'd be factually wrong. Unless you can explain how being exempted from this law not only constitutes an "abuse of law", but is not peaceful.

Even claiming that a direct violation of this law is not peaceful would be objectively false.

Claiming something is "more than peaceful co-existence" doesn't make it true, or change reality.

We need to get into how "white collar" crime effects people at a distance, in very tangible ways? These are people living in a fantasy, and we're helping to maintain that bubble. It may not be firing a gun, but when you subvert the law in this country, it's an assault.

I'll ask again, what makes a Christian Medical plan Christian? I'd add, again, that the Amish have a rich history of being left alone, and the result are disproportionate rates of abuse and more.

 

[Al68]

We need to get into how "white collar" crime effects people at a distance, in very tangible ways? These are people living in a fantasy, and we're helping to maintain that bubble. It may not be firing a gun, but when you subvert the law in this country, it's an assault.

I'll ask again, what makes a Christian Medical plan Christian? I'd add, again, that the Amish have a rich history of being left alone, and the result are disproportionate rates of abuse and more.

You can get into all that all you want, but it doesn't make peaceful acts not peaceful. It certainly doesn't make declining to participate in Obamacare a non-peaceful act.

And nothing in this thread has anything to do with any crime, "white collar" or not. Do you now want to refer to legal acts as crimes? "Subverting the law"?

And using the word "assault" to refer to the act of literally doing nothing is just silly.

Sounds like this attempt to justify government oppression is not only logically flawed, full of red herrings, absurd assertions, and misused words, but getting very desperate.

 

[nismaratwork]

You can get into all that all you want, but it doesn't make peaceful acts not peaceful. It certainly doesn't make declining to participate in Obamacare a non-peaceful act.

And nothing in this thread has anything to do with any crime, "white collar" or not. Do you now want to refer to legal acts as crimes? "Subverting the law"?

And using the word "assault" to refer to the act of literally doing nothing is just silly.

Sounds like this attempt to justify government oppression is not only logically flawed, full of red herrings, absurd assertions, and misused words, but getting very desperate.

So you're saying that I sound like you in the left-wing threads?

I get it Al, we see the world very differently, but you're ignoring substance and a question I've asked twice in favor of posturing. For a third time:

What makes a Christian Medical plan Christian?

How do you justify insular communities, or theocracies like Utah under the US constitution that you seem to love so dearly? I can think of little that is LESS American.

edit: Here is a tangible example of what you get when you create such communities, and pretend that you're doing them a favor: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.msp
You think we're doing ourselves any favors by creating religious and cultural rifts down to health insurance?... why?! Because you don't like the bill, and you support any "win" against it you see?

 

[Evo]

Enough, let's get back to the topic, how are certain groups allowed to circumvent the law? Could any group of people claim they will share medical expenses, with no promise to pay, and be exempt? If their bills don't get paid, do the rest of us pay for them when they use the public health plan?

 

[russ_watters]

this is such a bad idea... the IRS is going to hound them forever.

Unlikely. An exemption is an exemption. I have coworkers who are exempt from Social Security on religious grounds. Their biggest fear isn't the IRS, but the police and social services. I can only assume they are also exempt from the company health plan and Obamacare (they don't believe in insurance of any kind or medical care of any kind).

I'll ask again, what makes a Christian Medical plan Christian?

It should be obvious: it is by and for christians only (and likely only specific groups of christians).

 

[Evo]

According to the article, these people don't profess any specific beliefs. It's just that this Insurance company was afraid of being put out of business if the new health bill went into place, so they lobbied to be exempted, they're actually hoping to get more people to sign up if the law goes into effect.

 

[JaredJames]

This is simply an insurance plan with a better "get out of paying" clause. Completely ridiculous.

This is purely another example of how a religious organisation is effectively favoured in the eyes of the government. Why do we keep allowing religion to have so much freedom?

 

[Evo]

This is simply an insurance plan with a better "get out of paying" clause. Completely ridiculous.

This is purely another example of how a religious organisation is effectively favoured in the eyes of the government. Why do we keep allowing religion to have so much freedom?

That's my question. We've crossed the line from not prohibiting someone from practicing whatever they believe to giving them special privileges and exemptions. In order to be fair, if a private group is given special privileges, those privileges should be available to everyone, it's really unfair. That doesn't mean that anyone should be allowed to join that group, but anyone can take advantage of the same priveleges and religion should have nothing to do with it. Why should so called religions be tax exempt when they use services paid for by taxes?

 

[JaredJames]

This is where the law has become twisted.

It was decided that people can believe and practice whatever religion they like - fair enough, I think that's acceptable.

However, people have then looked at this and thought "hang on a minute, if we make it so that our religion involves / is against something then we can use it to our advantage".

It is a human trait to exploit loopholes - this is why the law needs to be perfectly clear, something along the lines of: "you can practice and believe anything you like but no religion will be granted special permissions based on these beliefs and is subject to the law like all other persons".

Religions only get away with it because they can claim it impedes their ability to practice their religion. I say tough.

 

[Evo]

This is where the law has become twisted.

It was decided that people can believe and practice whatever religion they like - fair enough, I think that's acceptable.

However, people have then looked at this and thought "hang on a minute, if we make it so that our religion involves / is against something then we can use it to our advantage".

It is a human trait to exploit loopholes - this is why the law needs to be perfectly clear, something along the lines of: "you can practice and believe anything you like but no religion will be granted special permissions based on these beliefs and is subject to the law like all other persons".

Religions only get away with it because they can claim it impedes their ability to practice their religion. I say tough.

It's really unfair, there should be no laws or exemption to laws for private groups. It's placing them above the law because they have supernatural beliefs. I don't get it. Can atheists form a social group and be tax exempt? After all, there is the Church of Body Modification.

 

[JaredJames]

It's really unfair, there should be no laws or exemption to laws for private groups. It's placing them above the law because they have supernatural beliefs. I don't get it. Can atheists form a social group and be tax exempt? After all, there is the Church of Body Modification.

I'm tempted to join the Church of the FSM - if there are benefits.

 

[nismaratwork]

Unlikely. An exemption is an exemption. I have coworkers who are exempt from Social Security on religious grounds. Their biggest fear isn't the IRS, but the police and social services. I can only assume they are also exempt from the company health plan and Obamacare (they don't believe in insurance of any kind or medical care of any kind). It should be obvious: it is by and for christians only (and likely only specific groups of christians).

An exemption on religious grounds requires that there be what the state recognizes as religion... it's not often discussed, but it's how "cults" are kept out of this particular game. Well... most cults.

Anyway, beyond that, if the insurance is the same... tough luck, the IRS will crush you. If, "Christian Medical Care" is essentially, "I ain't payin' for no aborshuns!"... also settled law, and in some cases a subject of ongoing litigation.

Still, by all means you should join one of these groups, and report your experiences to us.

 

[Jack21222]

So, to recap, Christians have more rights than atheists, because giving them equal rights would be a violation of their freedom of religion.

Am I missing anything in that argument? It sounds like hyperbole, but that's exactly how I interpret the issue.

 

[Proton Soup]

Times change.

edit: Oh yes, and a country has been born, had a civil war, and evolved... to be more specific. I wouldn't take kindly to Puritans either... as their children apparently did not.

no, not necessarily. we have a constitution, and we change it when the times require.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's really unfair, there should be no laws or exemption to laws for private groups. It's placing them above the law because they have supernatural beliefs. I don't get it. Can atheists form a social group and be tax exempt? After all, there is the Church of Body Modification.

you sound as though you are saying that it is OK to violate someone's religious beliefs, as long as you do it by making uniform laws. what other basic constitutional rights would you say it is OK to violate as long as you do it with uniform laws?

 

[JaredJames]

So, to recap, Christians have more rights than atheists, because giving them equal rights would be a violation of their freedom of religion.

Am I missing anything in that argument? It sounds like hyperbole, but that's exactly how I interpret the issue.

Bingo.

you sound as though you are saying that it is OK to violate someone's religious beliefs, as long as you do it by making uniform laws. what other basic constitutional rights would you say it is OK to violate as long as you do it with uniform laws?

No one has said that rights should be violated with uniform laws - we are talking about making sure that what is available to one person is available to someone else, regardless of religious beliefs (or lack of).

This religious "insurance" company are circumventing the law but if a non-religious group made identical claims they'd be laughed out of court. The fact of the matter is that people with religious beliefs are granted more rights than those without.

An example: In the UK every public school child must sit 1 hour a week of religious instruction (introduction to and teaching about different religious beliefs). A person whose religious beliefs say this is not acceptable are exempt from this law providing they bring materials regarding their religion to study. However, a person with no religious beliefs must participate in the class and cannot get out of it.

Nobodies religious beliefs are being violated by ensuring everyone is equal. You are free to believe and practice any religion you want, and you can still do so. It just means that if you get something tax free for your religion, I should get the same thing tax free too (or insert subject matter - doesn't have to be tax).

It is becoming a sad fact that people are exploiting the religious freedom laws and claiming that things violate their religion to gain some benefit from it (why are religions tax exempt again?).

 

[Evo]

you sound as though you are saying that it is OK to violate someone's religious beliefs, as long as you do it by making uniform laws. what other basic constitutional rights would you say it is OK to violate as long as you do it with uniform laws?

Please show me where I said that. What I did say was that if they make exemptions for one group, the same exemptions should be available to all. No preferential treatment. Now tell me how you got "violating someone's religious beliefs" from that?

That's my question. We've crossed the line from not prohibiting someone from practising whatever they believe to giving them special privileges and exemptions. In order to be fair, if a private group is given special privileges, those privileges should be available to everyone, it's really unfair. That doesn't mean that anyone should be allowed to join that group, but anyone can take advantage of the same priveleges and religion should have nothing to do with it. Why should so called religions be tax exempt when they use services paid for by taxes?

 

[nismaratwork]

no, not necessarily. we have a constitution, and we change it when the times require.

Riiiight... that's what "times change" can mean... times change, and so do we. I'd add, your choice is between the state making uniform laws, or choosing what is a religion... I'd prefer the former. So, while Evo might not support that, it works for me.

edit: I should note, in most cases I'm happy to violate someone's religious beliefs... it's healthy now and then. If your religion can't stand the odd "heathen" assault.. evolve. Don't get me wrong, religion is fine, just keep it out of government and visa versa.

 

[JaredJames]

Don't get me wrong, religion is fine, just keep it out of government and visa versa.

Completely agree.

Government and law should be an entity without any form of religion.

If the laws passed violate your religions requirement to kill a virgin every other Saturday then that's just too bad.

 

[lisab]

Riiiight... that's what "times change" can mean... times change, and so do we. I'd add, your choice is between the state making uniform laws, or choosing what is a religion... I'd prefer the former. So, while Evo might not support that, it works for me.

edit: I should note, in most cases I'm happy to violate someone's religious beliefs... it's healthy now and then. If your religion can't stand the odd "heathen" assault.. evolve. Don't get me wrong, religion is fine, just keep it out of government and visa versa.

I think people forget about it going the other way, too. Do people of faith really want government getting involved in their religion?