Christian medical plans exempted from health law

[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?

 

[nismaratwork]

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

They certainly seem not to, unless there's money or power on the line. One cult or corporation is much like another, with few exceptions.

 

[Evo]

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

When it gives them what they want, most certainly. And IMO, they usually seem to get what they want.

 

[nismaratwork]

When it gives them what they, want most certainly. And IMO, they usually seem to get what they want.

Yeah... it's hard to find fault with that statement.

 

[JaredJames]

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

Well the laws currently stop the government interfering - which is what they want.

But, at the same time they want their beliefs to rule and be imposed on all - defining the laws - something they are incredibly good at thanks to the loophole the above grants them.

They have the best of both worlds and it's time this hypocrisy stopped. What they have shown continuously is that they can and will impose their beliefs on others when it comes to rules and laws being made, but won't stand for anyone trying to do the same back on them.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well the laws currently stop the government interfering - which is what they want.

But, at the same time they want their beliefs to rule and be imposed on all - defining the laws - something they are incredibly good at thanks to the loophole the above grants them.

They have the best of both worlds and it's time this hypocrisy stopped. What they have shown continuously is that they can and will impose their beliefs on others when it comes to rules and laws being made, but won't stand for anyone trying to do the same back on them.

Amen!

 

[Al68]

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

Um, no.

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?

Why have you asked me this 3 times? How should I know?

How do you justify insular communities, or theocracies like Utah under the US constitution that you seem to love so dearly?

What are you talking about? Why would you think "insular communities" would require justification under the constitution? What constitutional section are you referring to? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

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?

Again, what are you talking about? I created no such community, nor have I advocated the creation of such a community. They organized themselves into such a community. Again, I just can't figure out what you're talking about here.

 

[nismaratwork]

Um, no.Why have you asked me this 3 times? How should I know?

Because without a material difference, it's a scam, and your support is simply an expression of your DISlike of a feared alternative.

What are you talking about? Why would you think "insular communities" would require justification under the constitution? What constitutional section are you referring to? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

OK... you can live in an insular community from Reservations, to Amish country, or Quakers... ignoring Reservations for now however. That said, you need to meet building codes, now you have to meet educational requirements, and oh yes, no exemption from the military in case of draft. These communities exist at the sufference of a majority BECAUSE of our constitution. I really would think that would painfully obvious.

Again, what are you talking about? I created no such community, nor have I advocated the creation of such a community. They organized themselves into such a community. Again, I just can't figure out what you're talking about here.

I'm arguing against the creation of "special groups" for religious reasons, and gave one example of how such insularity breeds really nasty problems. I was also supporting earlier assertions that had nothing to do with your post.

Your inability to immidiately grasp that these "special groups" are protected by, and given special dispensation by our government... including that welfare you hate so much, is telling. In a very real way, it's an example of precisely what JarednJames and others have said about the one-way street.

 

[Al68]

Because without a material difference, it's a scam, and your support is simply an expression of your DISlike of a feared alternative.

Still not making sense. What scam did I support? If you're referring to my support of liberty, it's not just a simple "dislike" of the alternative. When you prevent someone from doing what they choose, it takes a part of their life away from them. Thinking that should be reserved for cases where the actions prevented are violations of the liberty of others isn't just a "dislike".

OK... you can live in an insular community from Reservations, to Amish country, or Quakers... ignoring Reservations for now however.

No thanks. Why would you think I desire such a thing?

These communities exist at the sufference of a majority BECAUSE of our constitution. I really would think that would painfully obvious.

If that's so obvious, perhaps you could cite what part of the constitution you're referring to?

I'm arguing against the creation of "special groups" for religious reasons, and gave one example of how such insularity breeds really nasty problems.

Who is arguing in favor of creating such groups, or treating them special? Did you misconstrue my original point that people shouldn't have to join any religious group to protect their liberty from this law?

Your inability to immidiately grasp that these "special groups" are protected by, and given special dispensation by our government... including that welfare you hate so much, is telling.

I grasp that just fine. I have argued for no such special treatment, nor denied that it exists. Again, what are you talking about?

 

[Proton Soup]

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?

i think you just like taking jabs at religious groups, to be honest. can you show me where this exemption forbids an atheist-based health-care sharing ministry?

 

[Evo]

i think you just like taking jabs at religious groups, to be honest. can you show me where this exemption forbids an atheist-based health-care sharing ministry?

I think you just like to be contrary. This

"Christians are exempt from insurance mandates," Niles' old plan, Medi-Share, says on its website. Sharing ministries are "the only organized health care concept to receive a special exemption from the taxes, penalties and regulations" that the law imposes on insurers, the site says.

Here you go. http://healthcaresharing.org/

 

[Proton Soup]

I think you just like to be contrary. This

Here you go. http://healthcaresharing.org/

http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/MEDICAL_SHARING-FINAL_JAN2010.pdf

Health Care Sharing Ministries
Medical sharing groups are private non-profit Christian organizations designed to
help members pay for their health care expenses. They are also called health care sharing
ministries, as written in the Senate health insurance reform bill, H.R. 3590. There are no
laws forbiding other groups or faiths from medical sharing, but we found only Christian
groups.

 

[Evo]

http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/MEDICAL_SHARING-FINAL_JAN2010.pdf

Super, then I wonder why more groups haven't been approved. Maybe the word needs to get out. There is no criteria to be approved?

 

[nismaratwork]

Super, then I wonder why more groups haven't been approved. Maybe the word needs to get out. There is no criteria to be approved?

The IRS has them... and they're in the business of offering all the rope people can want to hang themselves with.

@Proton Soup: I love taking jabs at religion... I don't see that in Evo.

 

[nismaratwork]

Still not making sense. What scam did I support? If you're referring to my support of liberty, it's not just a simple "dislike" of the alternative. When you prevent someone from doing what they choose, it takes a part of their life away from them. Thinking that should be reserved for cases where the actions prevented are violations of the liberty of others isn't just a "dislike".No thanks. Why would you think I desire such a thing?If that's so obvious, perhaps you could cite what part of the constitution you're referring to?Who is arguing in favor of creating such groups, or treating them special? Did you misconstrue my original point that people shouldn't have to join any religious group to protect their liberty from this law?I grasp that just fine. I have argued for no such special treatment, nor denied that it exists. Again, what are you talking about?

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

The IRS has them... and they're in the business of offering all the rope people can want to hang themselves with.

@Proton Soup: I love taking jabs at religion... I don't see that in Evo.

yes, and I'm ignoring you, since i know that is what you most hate.

Super, then I wonder why more groups haven't been approved. Maybe the word needs to get out. There is no criteria to be approved?

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

yes, and I'm ignoring you, since i know that is what you most hate.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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."

 

[turbo]

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).

 

[WhoWee]

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).

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?

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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.