Christian medical plans exempted from health law

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exemption of Christian medical plans from health care laws, particularly focusing on how these plans are categorized as "health cost sharing" rather than traditional insurance. Participants explore the implications of this classification, the potential for other groups to seek similar exemptions, and the broader societal impacts of such arrangements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the classification of these plans as "health cost sharing" allows them to circumvent health insurance regulations.
  • There are questions about whether simply changing terminology in existing insurance policies could exempt them from legal requirements.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of guarantees for payment of medical expenses under these plans, with some participants highlighting the risks involved.
  • Some argue that if exemptions are granted to Christian groups, it could set a precedent for other groups to seek similar exemptions, raising questions about regulation.
  • Participants express frustration over the penalties imposed on those who do not wish to join such plans, particularly in light of the perceived unfairness of the law.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of religious groups, like the Amish, and their exemptions from laws, with some questioning the implications of such exemptions on societal norms.
  • Some participants challenge the notion of what constitutes a "Christian" medical plan and express concerns about the potential for abuse of the law.
  • There are differing views on the peacefulness of these exemptions and the broader implications for coexistence in society.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the implications of the exemptions or the fairness of the laws governing them. Disagreements persist regarding the characterization of these plans and the societal consequences of their existence.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the lack of clarity regarding coverage limits and the legal definitions surrounding health cost sharing versus insurance. There are also references to historical and cultural contexts that may influence current perceptions and regulations.

Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,114
Reaction score
3,277
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--
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
Evo said:
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!
 
:smile:

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.
 
Al68 said:
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.
 
Evo said:
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? :wink:
 
Is there a max to how much coverage or what not?
 
Containment said:
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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Containment said:
Is there a max to how much coverage or what not?

Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #10
nismaratwork said:
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"? :confused:

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #12
Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #13
Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #14
Al68 said:
What in the world does that mean? What is "not a nail"? :confused:

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-existence. 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?
 
  • #15
nismaratwork said:
I would say that this abuse of law is more than peaceful co-existence.
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.
 
  • #16
Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #17
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Al68 said:
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? :smile:

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?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
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?
 
  • #20
nismaratwork said:
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).
 
  • #21
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.
 
  • #22
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?
 
  • #23
jarednjames said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #24
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.
 
  • #25
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #28
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.
 
  • #29
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #30
Evo said:
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?
 

Similar threads

News Mcain's plan will decimate employer based health coverage
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Is a Major Overhaul of the US Government Possible? Feedback Wanted!
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K