Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gopher

Faith based healthcare?

Recommended Posts

Has anyone tried using one of the Christian healthcare cost sharing options in the US?  Groups like Samaritan, Medishare, Christian healthcare ministries, Liberty healthshare.  The groups expect you to not smoke, use drugs, or get gay married, but their costs are much lower than the marketplace.  Apparently they will accept Mormons too.  I'm curious to find out if any LDS had good experiences with one of these groups.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

We've heard really good things about CHM from members.

Share this post


Link to post

I have never heard of this before...very interesting.  A JS question...with out faith in any church...where would I sign up??  Which is the true health care??  I am just teasing here...very concerned nowadays as the government might take away medicare/medicaid just as I reach the age where I will need it. :(

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have never heard of this before...very interesting.  A JS question...with out faith in any church...where would I sign up??  Which is the true health care??  I am just teasing here...very concerned nowadays as the government might take away medicare/medicaid just as I reach the age where I will need it. :(

Or you could move to a civilized country like Canada, England, or Germany

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Be very careful. This is not insurance and is not regulated like insurance and does not have the legal protections of insurance. If the cost sharing group denies a claim you have little recourse. They typically do not cover preexisting conditions, do not cover many services, and do discriminate against people likely to cost more.

I see it as insurance without the protections of the law. Probably works okay until you need six figure treatments for some catastrophic injury or illness and then you either cannot get in or get dumped.

Also do not even get me started on the irony of one of your founding principles being that no money will be used for an abortion and then turning around and denying coverage for adopted children (a real practical anti-abortion choice in action).

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2017 at 10:18 AM, gopher said:

Has anyone tried using one of the Christian healthcare cost sharing options in the US?  Groups like Samaritan, Medishare, Christian healthcare ministries, Liberty healthshare.  The groups expect you to not smoke, use drugs, or get gay married, but their costs are much lower than the marketplace.  Apparently they will accept Mormons too.  I'm curious to find out if any LDS had good experiences with one of these groups.

 

 

 

They offer insurance but not to gay marriages? Sue them...sue them NOW! ;)

There’s Medishare commercials I frequently hear. They seem really good.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Be very careful. This is not insurance and is not regulated like insurance and does not have the legal protections of insurance. If the cost sharing group denies a claim you have little recourse. They typically do not cover preexisting conditions, do not cover many services, and do discriminate against people likely to cost more.

I see it as insurance without the protections of the law. Probably works okay until you need six figure treatments for some catastrophic injury or illness and then you either cannot get in or get dumped.

Also do not even get me started on the irony of one of your founding principles being that no money will be used for an abortion and then turning around and denying coverage for adopted children (a real practical anti-abortion choice in action).

Terminating the life of an unborn child vs. providing healthcare coverage? It seems to me that the irony should be reversed. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Be very careful. This is not insurance and is not regulated like insurance and does not have the legal protections of insurance. If the cost sharing group denies a claim you have little recourse. They typically do not cover preexisting conditions, do not cover many services, and do discriminate against people likely to cost more.

I see it as insurance without the protections of the law. Probably works okay until you need six figure treatments for some catastrophic injury or illness and then you either cannot get in or get dumped.

Also do not even get me started on the irony of one of your founding principles being that no money will be used for an abortion and then turning around and denying coverage for adopted children (a real practical anti-abortion choice in action).

I’ve known people who have used these type of things for serious surgeries and medical stays and they’ve had no problems and couldn’t praise them enough. 

I agree though that care should be taken. The reason most people turn to these though is because they cannot afford health insurance otherwise. Most would rather use traditional insurance, it’s just not an option. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Be very careful. This is not insurance and is not regulated like insurance and does not have the legal protections of insurance. If the cost sharing group denies a claim you have little recourse. They typically do not cover preexisting conditions, do not cover many services, and do discriminate against people likely to cost more.

I see it as insurance without the protections of the law. Probably works okay until you need six figure treatments for some catastrophic injury or illness and then you either cannot get in or get dumped.

Also do not even get me started on the irony of one of your founding principles being that no money will be used for an abortion and then turning around and denying coverage for adopted children (a real practical anti-abortion choice in action).

Yes, they are definitely not for everyone.  They are careful to state they are not health insurance so they aren't licensed and regulated by an insurance board.  But they also claim to cover all the eligible cost sharing submissions.  You just have to read the fine print.  Some may not cover you if you are injured riding a motorcycle.  But they state all that up front - you just have go over all the conditions carefully.  Some have lifetime limits for payouts so they aren't a good solution for those with serious, life long health problems.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’ve known people who have used these type of things for serious surgeries and medical stays and they’ve had no problems and couldn’t praise them enough. 

I agree though that care should be taken. The reason most people turn to these though is because they cannot afford health insurance otherwise. Most would rather use traditional insurance, it’s just not an option. 

Some people also report  they like that those who help cover your costs are also encouraged to pray for you as well.  They like the feeling of joining with like minded believers to help pay each other's medical costs.

But the biggest reason to consider them is still the cost.  Also this page also says they do accept Mormons - Cost comparisons
I've used an HSA plan with a high deductible for many years now.  Pre-ACA it was $400/month with a $12,000 deductible.  Same plan is now $1800/month.  There is a $1600/month available, but isn't an HSA and still has a high deductible.  All but 2 insurers have dropped out of the Marketplace in my state, so the options are very limited.  I started a new job and can get insurance there, but it's $1950/month (that money is paid out to me if I decline it).  Since I've never hit my deductible, I've always paid for eye exams ($220), broken arm ($3500), etc on top of my premiums.

But I'm less worried about me - I have friends who are hit harder with the high cost of health insurance.  They are LDS so I was curious to find out if these faith based groups would reject them if they don't consider them Christian.  This old Blog  discusses it.  It seems all the groups will accept Mormons, but may require you to sign a statement of belief.  Also, they may require you attend church regularly - and who attends church more than the LDS? :)

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Terminating the life of an unborn child vs. providing healthcare coverage? It seems to me that the irony should be reversed. 

The reading comprehension is weak in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, gopher said:

Some people also report  they like that those who help cover your costs are also encouraged to pray for you as well.  They like the feeling of joining with like minded believers to help pay each other's medical costs.

But the biggest reason to consider them is still the cost.  Also this page also says they do accept Mormons - Cost comparisons
I've used an HSA plan with a high deductible for many years now.  Pre-ACA it was $400/month with a $12,000 deductible.  Same plan is now $1800/month.  There is a $1600/month available, but isn't an HSA and still has a high deductible.  All but 2 insurers have dropped out of the Marketplace in my state, so the options are very limited.  I started a new job and can get insurance there, but it's $1950/month (that money is paid out to me if I decline it).  Since I've never hit my deductible, I've always paid for eye exams ($220), broken arm ($3500), etc on top of my premiums.

But I'm less worried about me - I have friends who are hit harder with the high cost of health insurance.  They are LDS so I was curious to find out if these faith based groups would reject them if they don't consider them Christian.  This old Blog  discusses it.  It seems all the groups will accept Mormons, but may require you to sign a statement of belief.  Also, they may require you attend church regularly - and who attends church more than the LDS? :)

 

We have friends in the Midwest and their health care costs for 2018 just went up to $41,000 for a family of four (that's monthly premiums and their deductible).  They are solid middle class and that's just not possible for them so they are looking into this sort of thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We have friends in the Midwest and their health care costs for 2018 just went up to $41,000 for a family of four (that's monthly premiums and their deductible).  They are solid middle class and that's just not possible for them so they are looking into this sort of thing.

Wow...I just can't imagine having to decide if one should pay health care...or make house payment...I hope they can find something more affordable. I am just amazed at the costs.for families.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Wow...I just can't imagine having to decide if one should pay health care...or make house payment...I hope they can find something more affordable. I am just amazed at the costs.for families.

I agree, it's insane.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The reading comprehension is weak in this one.

Referencing Star Wars is always a positive. 

Virtually nobody opposes abortion for certain reasons such as rape, incest, and serious health concerns but abortion rights in our country are so strong that abortions can and are used as birth control for those who simply do not want the baby. A lot of the same people who defend a woman's right for abortion, even for simply not wanting a baby, are those who insist of healthcare rights for children. A grave irony I'd say. 

My in laws bought me and my family Episode VIII tickets for opening day. Whoohoo!!! 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Wow...I just can't imagine having to decide if one should pay health care...or make house payment...I hope they can find something more affordable. I am just amazed at the costs.for families.

It's out of control but if you ask me the best solution is to return freedom to the consumer. If the consumer can shop for prices than many doctors will offer their services for less. Our current system, which started decades ago by requiring employers to offer healthcare insurance, has been horrible. 

Edited by Darren10
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

It's out if cintrol but if you ask me the best solution is to return freedom to the consumer. If the consumer can shop for prices than many doctors will offer their services for less. Our current system, which started decades ago by requiring employers to offer healthcare insurance, has been horrible. 

The reliance on insurance, much like society's reliance on credit, does tend to make things cost much more than they do with out them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

The reliance on insurance, much like society's reliance on credit, does tend to make things cost much more than they do with out them.

Our credit system is an ugly beast in and of itself to tackle. 

Edited by Darren10
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/7/2017 at 8:23 PM, Darren10 said:

They offer insurance but not to gay marriages? Sue them...sue them NOW! ;)

There’s Medishare commercials I frequently hear. They seem really good.

Their commercials make them sound good? Well I'm sold then.

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Virtually nobody opposes abortion for certain reasons such as rape, incest, and serious health concerns but abortion rights in our country are so strong that abortions can and are used as birth control for those who simply do not want the baby. A lot of the same people who defend a woman's right for abortion, even for simply not wanting a baby, are those who insist of healthcare rights for children. A grave irony I'd say. 

Most anti-abortion people do not agree with the LDS exceptions. Saying virtually no one disagrees with us is a bit nuts. Last I checked about 20% of the US population believes abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances.

As to your irony I find belief that women have the option of abortion but that children who are born should have access to healthcare to be less ironic than holding the position that you MUST have your child but if you cannot afford healthcare you and the child do not deserve access to it.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, bluebell said:

The reliance on insurance, much like society's reliance on credit, does tend to make things cost much more than they do with out them.

Insurance companies function as a kind of mini-union or maybe cartel is a better analogy that can collectively bargain with healthcare providers while those who do not belong to the system have to pay more. Tying affordable health insurance so heavily to employment is also dangerous. It gives employers power over their employees that they should not have.

I think we have two decent options.

1. Remove insurance and either go full free-market in health care. Competition has negative side effects as it can exacerbate the divide between good and inferior healthcare. On the plus side prices will fall some. Not sure how far though. Medical schools cap how many graduates they have to avoid flooding the market with more doctors than we need so not sure how well competition would work. Might be worth trying. In any case this system would need a safety net. If you spend over a certain percentage of your taxable income on medical care the government covers the rest? Otherwise people making $40k a year and needing $50k a year in medical care are left to die.

2. Go full socialized medicine. The decreased choice is a downside but there is something to be said for the peace of mind that comes from not being one major healthcare expense away from poverty and possible bankruptcy. For those who want superior health care we can go with the old British model where you can pay for health care privately or get private insurance. The care is superior in that system but it costs more but not too much as they are competing with the government's very cheap healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Their commercials make them sound good? Well I'm sold then.

Most anti-abortion people do not agree with the LDS exceptions. Saying virtually no one disagrees with us is a bit nuts. Last I checked about 20% of the US population believes abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances.

As to your irony I find belief that women have the option of abortion but that children who are born should have access to healthcare to be less ironic than holding the position that you MUST have your child but if you cannot afford healthcare you and the child do not deserve access to it.

80% in agreement is a huge percentage. Virtually no one you know oppose abortion under any circumstance. 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

80% in agreement is a huge percentage. Virtually no one you know oppose abortion under any circumstance. 

I know more than four people.

By this standard virtually no one in the US is black. Virtually no one is hispanic. Virtually no one has red hair. Virtually no one is vegetarian. Virtually no one is Mormon. Virtually no one is Muslim. Virtually no one is wealthy.

You sure you want to go with that standard? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I know more than four people.

By this standard virtually no one in the US is black. Virtually no one is hispanic. Virtually no one has red hair. Virtually no one is vegetarian. Virtually no one is Mormon. Virtually no one is Muslim. Virtually no one is wealthy.

You sure you want to go with that standard? 

Four people...out of how many? 

And we’re talking about an opinion, not physical traits, religion, or wealth. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Insurance companies function as a kind of mini-union or maybe cartel is a better analogy that can collectively bargain with healthcare providers while those who do not belong to the system have to pay more. Tying affordable health insurance so heavily to employment is also dangerous. It gives employers power over their employees that they should not have.

I think we have two decent options.

1. Remove insurance and either go full free-market in health care. Competition has negative side effects as it can exacerbate the divide between good and inferior healthcare. On the plus side prices will fall some. Not sure how far though. Medical schools cap how many graduates they have to avoid flooding the market with more doctors than we need so not sure how well competition would work. Might be worth trying. In any case this system would need a safety net. If you spend over a certain percentage of your taxable income on medical care the government covers the rest? Otherwise people making $40k a year and needing $50k a year in medical care are left to die.

2. Go full socialized medicine. The decreased choice is a downside but there is something to be said for the peace of mind that comes from not being one major healthcare expense away from poverty and possible bankruptcy. For those who want superior health care we can go with the old British model where you can pay for health care privately or get private insurance. The care is superior in that system but it costs more but not too much as they are competing with the government's very cheap healthcare.

My parents town (pop. 6,000) has a dr. group right now that does not take insurance.  Instead, they charge $40 a month (per person) for complete health care at the clinic level (no hospitals).  For that price they do house visits and you can call them anytime day or night and you pay nothing over that $35.  A lot of the companies in town who otherwise can't afford to offer their employers health benefits offer them this instead (with the company paying for the monthly due).  My mom works in the health care industry in that town and it's been a couple of years and so far she says it's working really well.  

It's not a perfect solution obviously (since there isn't coverage for anything you would need to go to a hospital for) but it does fill a need.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My parents town (pop. 6,000) has a dr. group right now that does not take insurance.  Instead, they charge $40 a month (per person) for complete health care at the clinic level (no hospitals).  For that price they do house visits and you can call them anytime day or night and you pay nothing over that $35.  A lot of the companies in town who otherwise can't afford to offer their employers health benefits offer them this instead (with the company paying for the monthly due).  My mom works in the health care industry in that town and it's been a couple of years and so far she says it's working really well.  

It's not a perfect solution obviously (since there isn't coverage for anything you would need to go to a hospital for) but it does fill a need.

I like it. Obviously hospital care could still be a problem but it is a good step.

I kind of Like the old model used in India and that part of the world in the past. You paid your doctor when you were well and nothing when you are unwell. A quality incentive system. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...