Christian medical plans exempted from health law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the implications of health care sharing ministries, which are often classified as "health cost sharing" plans rather than traditional insurance. This classification allows them to circumvent certain legal requirements under health care laws, such as the Affordable Care Act. A case is highlighted involving Karen Niles, whose health care sharing plan refused to cover her medical expenses due to a brain tumor, illustrating the risks associated with these plans. Critics argue that these ministries exploit legal loopholes, providing no guarantees for medical payments while still benefiting from exemptions that traditional insurance plans do not receive. The conversation also touches on broader issues of religious exemptions in law, suggesting that such privileges should not be granted based solely on religious affiliation. Participants express concerns about fairness and the potential for exploitation of religious freedoms, questioning whether similar exemptions could apply to non-religious groups. The debate raises fundamental questions about the intersection of religion, law, and health care, emphasizing the need for clarity and equality in legal protections.
  • #51
Proton Soup said:
i don't know. maybe there is no motivation to form one. i would certainly have no objections and support their right to do so.

a little more surprising to me is that other faiths are not doing it.


the bigger problem is whether all this forced insurance will prove to be constitutional on any level. i suspect it is not, and all this will have to be scrapped. better to deal with it sooner than later. the more proper way would be to just have a national health service like britain and Canada, paying for the whole thing out of the tax pool.
It's H3590, but so far haven't found the loophole, but I am tired. I'll look more tomorrow.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #52
Proton Soup said:
yes, and I'm ignoring you, since i know that is what you most hate. :-p

No, I most hate Scotch, and authority which is misused and abused. You've neither! :wink: Besides, we're not allowed to take jabs at religion, a rule that I usually see Evo enforcing by the by.



Proton Soup said:
i don't know. maybe there is no motivation to form one. i would certainly have no objections and support their right to do so.

No motivation?... novel take, if unlikely. You have at least a thread-ful of interest, and objections.

Proton Soup said:
a little more surprising to me is that other faiths are not doing it.

Chrisitanity has always had a singular view of itself in this country.

Proton Soup said:
the bigger problem is whether all this forced insurance will prove to be constitutional on any level. i suspect it is not, and all this will have to be scrapped. better to deal with it sooner than later. the more proper way would be to just have a national health service like britain and Canada, paying for the whole thing out of the tax pool.
 
  • #53
nismaratwork said:
Al... I just don't speak your specialized vocabulary of "Uber-Patriotic" and right-wing. I'm not politically aligned across the board, so I find your position a little baffling. You seem to come from a real, "god and country" view, but utterly inflexible. I don't see how that can be managed, unless it's ingenuine, in which case I'm going to be more than a little pissed off.
I used no "specialized vocabulary". You apparently keep confusing my being tolerant of other people with advocating their actions. Tolerance does not equal advocation. Nothing specialized about it.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
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?

The White House has issued over 1,000 (1099) waivers and counting - lot's of unions too. Now this:

http://politifi.com/news/Health-care-reform-waiver-granted-to-Maine-1712857.html

"The Federal Government is waiving a key provision of President Barack Obama's Health Care law to protect Maine's fragile market for individual Health Insurance."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
WhoWee said:
The White House has issued over 1,000 (1099) waivers and counting - lot's of unions too. Now this:

http://politifi.com/news/Health-care-reform-waiver-granted-to-Maine-1712857.html

"The Federal Government is waiving a key provision of President Barack Obama's Health Care law to protect Maine's fragile market for individual Health Insurance."
Obama should grow a pair. He let Maine's Olympia Snowe strip the public option from ACA before it ever got out of committee, and still signed the crippled bill. Now, insurance companies can threaten to bolt critical markets as a form of blackmail, since there is no public option.

Snowe is a traitor to her state. We have a very high percentage of seasonal and part-time jobs, here, and those (mostly) small employers would have benefited greatly from a public option. Instead, she did the bidding of the insurance companies and the Chamber of Commerce and gutted ACA.

Maybe all uninsured Mainers should become card-carrying Christians whose "faith" requires them to pool their resources to provide health care coverage, and avoid any government intervention (until they default). :devil:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
turbo-1 said:
Obama should grow a pair. He let Maine's Olympia Snowe strip the public option from ACA before it ever got out of committee, and still signed the crippled bill. Now, insurance companies can threaten to bolt critical markets as a form of blackmail, since there is no public option.

Snowe is a traitor to her state. We have a very high percentage of seasonal and part-time jobs, here, and those (mostly) small employers would have benefited greatly from a public option. Instead, she did the bidding of the insurance companies and the Chamber of Commerce and gutted ACA.

Maybe all uninsured Mainers should become card-carrying Christians whose "faith" requires them to pool their resources to provide health care coverage, and avoid any government intervention (until they default). :devil:


I understand your frustration turbo. However, I think Maine would be much better served by allowing more carriers to offer plans - give a variety of choices and price ranges including some short term products for seasonal workers if necessary. If only three carriers are licensed in your State - the problem might start at the state regulatory level?
 
  • #57
WhoWee said:
I understand your frustration turbo. However, I think Maine would be much better served by allowing more carriers to offer plans - give a variety of choices and price ranges including some short term products for seasonal workers if necessary. If only three carriers are licensed in your State - the problem might start at the state regulatory level?
Maine is a tiny market with mostly poor people. This is not a place that the big insurance companies will fight for and offer competitive plans.

One of my neighbors guides rafting trips all summer long and either works as a groomer/snow-maker/lift-operator at a ski resort, or picks us some other seasonal job in the off-season. He's a hard worker, but he can't get health insurance through any of his jobs. He is typical of Maine's hardest-working people. I know a guy that crews on various boats as the season dictates, lobstering, shrimping, ground-fishing, dragging for scallops, etc. He is about my age and looks 20 years older. Snowe and Collins (Maine's two turn-coat Senators) should be pilloried for not supporting a public option that would allow these seasonal workers to have access to health-care. The small businesses that hire these seasonal employees value their work ethic and experience but they can't afford to insure them, and stand to lose them at any time to a company with health-care benefits or to lose them to illness left untreated due to lack of health-insurance.

If Obama is going to exempt anybody from any provision of the health-care law, he should also come out publicly and shame the creeps that killed the public option, so their re-elections will be all uphill next year. Rural states with lots of part-time or seasonal workers should not re-elect anybody to Congress that opposed the public option. Small businesses are our backbone of our economy, and the high cost of health-care is a millstone around their necks.
 
  • #58
turbo-1 said:
Maine is a tiny market with mostly poor people. This is not a place that the big insurance companies will fight for and offer competitive plans.

This is part of the problem. If a major carrier has to spend the same amount of money on compliance in Maine as in Texas, they will focus resources on the larger market. If the insurance regulations were the same everywhere (I'm stipulating the highest common standards and Government backed high risk pools for pre-existing conditions)- and plans could be sold across state lines - everyone would have equal access.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top