With the rising health care costs in the U.S. it's become difficult for churches to maintain quality health insurance. Is there a way out for pastors?
Total Comments: 12
Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 03:07 pm Post Subject:
And in other news (published on the Samaritan Ministries International Inc website, of all places):
Kentucky court decision won’t affect Samaritan Members
August 27th, 2010
Yesterday the Kentucky Supreme Court rendered a 5-2 split decision finding that Medi-Share, a health care sharing ministry, was insurance and did not qualify for a “Religious Publication Exemption.” (An exemption crafted for charities operating a health care sharing ministry.) The decision won’t affect Samaritan members. See the press release for more information.
Conveniently, the "press release" is not yet found on their website. A newspaper account of the Court's decision can be read (at least for now) at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/26/29-christian-insurance.html?sid=101
Samaritan Ministries believes they are immune from such legal entanglement. "Medi-Share 2.0" operates somewhat differently than Samaritan Ministries, and Samaritan Ministries may, indeed, be immune, since there is no "pool" of money there. But that should provoke the question, "Where does the money Samaritan members pay each month actually go, and what is it used for, since none of it goes to any of the other members?" Sounds a lot like a get-rich-quick scheme. I would like to think it's not, since it's being done in the name of Jesus.
What they are doing is taking money from folks who could be using it to provide actual health insurance for themselves and their families, leaving those same persons exposed to the very real risk of not being able to get the care they need when they need it.
That's not biblical.
In another article, located at http://online.worldmag.com/2010/08/27/medi-share-to-request-rehearing-of-ruling/
According to Christian Care Ministry President Robert Baldwin, this principle is what differentiates Medi-Share from insurance companies: Medi-Share members “have remained responsible for their own medical bills . . . [and] have voluntarily shared in the payment of all eligible medical expenses.”
Apparently Mr. Baldwin has never explored the concept of [health] insurance as a commercial enterprise. When people buy insurance, they remain responsible for their own medical bills. The insurance company creates a pool of "voluntary givers" (premium payers -- until Obamacare takes effect, no one in America is forced to buy health insurance, except perhaps in one state in the northeast) who share in the payment of all eligible expenses.
I, like the Kentucky Supreme Court, see no difference in Christian Care Ministry's Medi-Share 2.0 plan compared to honest-to-goodness commercial health insurance.
In this same article, an appeal is made to the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
“Medi-Share is a group of believers who say ‘we believe in this principle to help share one another’s medical bills under Medi-Share’s guidelines,’” said Christian Care general counsel Stephen Sullivan. “It’s an act of faith because there is no guarantee that their bills will be paid.”
On the Medi-Share website, they use the semantics of "sharing" as if it were something other than "paying bills" (emphasis added):
Only the cost of American Medical Association (AMA) approved testing, treatments, and up to six months of FDA approved prescription drugs per condition will be considered for sharing. They must be ordered by a Medical Doctor (M.D.), Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.), Nurse Practitioner (N.P.), Physicians Assistant (P.A.), or Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (D.P.M.) and be performed at a hospital, surgery center, clinic, doctor's office, approved lifestyle center, or diagnostic facility, with some limitations (see Sections VII. B. and VIII. E. and F.). To be considered for sharing, diagnosis and treatment must be performed in the U.S. except in cases of emergency or when missionaries are serving abroad.
Medical bills cannot be considered for sharing unless they are submitted by the provider on a CMS 1500 or a UB and IB form (healthcare industry standard).
They also describe their program as
Medi-Share is Christian Healthcare Sharing.
Medi-Share brings believers together to share each other’s healthcare costs. . . . And when you have a medical incident your fellow believers have committed to sharing with and praying for you! It’s that simple!
Well, when I have medical insurance, although I might not be praying for the needs of any of my fellow insureds (of whose needs I am unaware), I certainly am sharing in those needs through my contribution of premium dollars that the insurance company uses to pay their claims. In the meantime, I have peace of mind knowing that if I need healthcare services, and unlike Medi-Share or Samaritan Ministries, I have a guarantee that my covered expenses will be paid according to the contract I have received as I share in the pool of money collected by my insurer.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 06:02 pm Post Subject:
What? Did I frighten you all away with these last two posts?
Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 03:07 pm Post Subject:
And in other news (published on the Samaritan Ministries International Inc website, of all places):
Kentucky court decision won’t affect Samaritan Members
August 27th, 2010
Yesterday the Kentucky Supreme Court rendered a 5-2 split decision finding that Medi-Share, a health care sharing ministry, was insurance and did not qualify for a “Religious Publication Exemption.” (An exemption crafted for charities operating a health care sharing ministry.) The decision won’t affect Samaritan members. See the press release for more information.
Conveniently, the "press release" is not yet found on their website. A newspaper account of the Court's decision can be read (at least for now) at http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/08/26/29-christian-insurance.html?sid=101
Samaritan Ministries believes they are immune from such legal entanglement. "Medi-Share 2.0" operates somewhat differently than Samaritan Ministries, and Samaritan Ministries may, indeed, be immune, since there is no "pool" of money there. But that should provoke the question, "Where does the money Samaritan members pay each month actually go, and what is it used for, since none of it goes to any of the other members?" Sounds a lot like a get-rich-quick scheme. I would like to think it's not, since it's being done in the name of Jesus.
What they are doing is taking money from folks who could be using it to provide actual health insurance for themselves and their families, leaving those same persons exposed to the very real risk of not being able to get the care they need when they need it.
That's not biblical.
In another article, located at http://online.worldmag.com/2010/08/27/medi-share-to-request-rehearing-of-ruling/
According to Christian Care Ministry President Robert Baldwin, this principle is what differentiates Medi-Share from insurance companies: Medi-Share members “have remained responsible for their own medical bills . . . [and] have voluntarily shared in the payment of all eligible medical expenses.”
Apparently Mr. Baldwin has never explored the concept of [health] insurance as a commercial enterprise. When people buy insurance, they remain responsible for their own medical bills. The insurance company creates a pool of "voluntary givers" (premium payers -- until Obamacare takes effect, no one in America is forced to buy health insurance, except perhaps in one state in the northeast) who share in the payment of all eligible expenses.
I, like the Kentucky Supreme Court, see no difference in Christian Care Ministry's Medi-Share 2.0 plan compared to honest-to-goodness commercial health insurance.
In this same article, an appeal is made to the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
“Medi-Share is a group of believers who say ‘we believe in this principle to help share one another’s medical bills under Medi-Share’s guidelines,’” said Christian Care general counsel Stephen Sullivan. “It’s an act of faith because there is no guarantee that their bills will be paid.”
On the Medi-Share website, they use the semantics of "sharing" as if it were something other than "paying bills" (emphasis added):
Only the cost of American Medical Association (AMA) approved testing, treatments, and up to six months of FDA approved prescription drugs per condition will be considered for sharing. They must be ordered by a Medical Doctor (M.D.), Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.), Nurse Practitioner (N.P.), Physicians Assistant (P.A.), or Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (D.P.M.) and be performed at a hospital, surgery center, clinic, doctor's office, approved lifestyle center, or diagnostic facility, with some limitations (see Sections VII. B. and VIII. E. and F.). To be considered for sharing, diagnosis and treatment must be performed in the U.S. except in cases of emergency or when missionaries are serving abroad.
Medical bills cannot be considered for sharing unless they are submitted by the provider on a CMS 1500 or a UB and IB form (healthcare industry standard).
They also describe their program as
Medi-Share is Christian Healthcare Sharing.
Medi-Share brings believers together to share each other’s healthcare costs. . . . And when you have a medical incident your fellow believers have committed to sharing with and praying for you! It’s that simple!
Well, when I have medical insurance, although I might not be praying for the needs of any of my fellow insureds (of whose needs I am unaware), I certainly am sharing in those needs through my contribution of premium dollars that the insurance company uses to pay their claims. In the meantime, I have peace of mind knowing that if I need healthcare services, and unlike Medi-Share or Samaritan Ministries, I have a guarantee that my covered expenses will be paid according to the contract I have received as I share in the pool of money collected by my insurer.
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 06:02 pm Post Subject:
What? Did I frighten you all away with these last two posts?
Add your comment