Why aren't more using a Christian Plan?

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stlguy57 My husband and I are on ACA with a subsidy. Trying to get onto a "Christian Plan" would be problematic I'm sure.

I'm Christian, and your situation is why I don't like these plans. I was looking at Medishare's exceptions, and they go quoting a bunch of 1 Corinthians. But as usual, it is pick and choose.

Stlguy, you and your husband would be welcome at our church.

[athena53]

I'm on traditional Medicare but I'd love to have supplement/prescription plans with the discounts for "healthy" members that I see in the Christian healthcare plans (based on BMI, BP and other measures). I work at staying healthy and in the four years between ER and Medicare I paid over $20K in premiums. The insurers paid for nothing except a few routine tests. Yes, I KNOW I was also paying for protection against the catastrophic stuff over which I have no control- that's why I never would gamble and go without insurance.

I still wish I could get a break on premiums because of my reduced risks.

[redduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheehs1 I looked into Medi-Share. In addition to the no drinking and no tobacco, they listed "no sex outside of marriage".

Suppose a married couple got involved in the threesome, would that be considered as "sex outside of marriage?"

[sheehs1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redduck Suppose a married couple got involved in the threesome, would that be considered as "sex outside of marriage?"

Definitely redduck.

But again, how would they know? !

Except that as a Christian, one would not stoop to deception. In a perfect world that is.

[OldShooter]

I had never heard of these plans until I saw them mentioned in threads here, but IMO there is a reason that insurance companies are regulated. Individual buyers are unable to, by themselves, evaluate the risk and reliability of an insurance company. There is also a reason that there are state insurance guarantee programs to bail out customers of failed companies. The lack of these protections would keep me away for something as critical as health insurance.

[copyright1997reloaded]

A lot of negativity and snide remarks in this thread. I find it interesting that those who think it is good that government 'socializes' medical coverage (e.g. ACA) find it bad when a certain group does so.

Look, I don't have one of these plans, but fundamentally the idea of cost sharing isn't necessarily a bad one.

How about this hypothetical: We establish a FIRE "Catastrophic only" health care umbrella policy. Each member is responsible for the first $x (e.g. $200K) and the pool cost shares on overages (subject to some overall limit of funding of the pool). Then the contributors could self insure for routine and non super catastrophic care, but have the ability to pull from the pool for events that might otherwise wipe out their entire net worth.

[ivinsfan]

Not really hearing snide, and in some cases posters trying to be witty (you know who you are) the negativity comes because it's different, doesn't have a really long track record and in some cases the price seems to good to be true.

Regulation leads to increased cost in everything.

[Amethyst]

So, you're saying, if "Lust" and its consequences are sanctioned, then "Gluttony" and "Sloth" should be too?

That said, I wonder how they would get after sinners who specialize in Wrath (no injuries from fistfights), Vanity (no cosmetic surgery), Envy, or Greed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena53 Oops. Dealbreaker. I know they accept only people who are serious about healthy lifestyles but I gotta have one vice! Isn't a BMI of 19.6 and 23% body fat good enough? .

[Dtail]

Quote:

Originally Posted by copyright1997reloaded A lot of negativity and snide remarks in this thread. I find it interesting that those who think it is good that government 'socializes' medical coverage (e.g. ACA) find it bad when a certain group does so. Look, I don't have one of these plans, but fundamentally the idea of cost sharing isn't necessarily a bad one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by copyright1997reloaded How about this hypothetical: We establish a FIRE "Catastrophic only" health care umbrella policy. Each member is responsible for the first $x (e.g. $200K) and the pool cost shares on overages (subject to some overall limit of funding of the pool). Then the contributors could self insure for routine and non super catastrophic care, but have the ability to pull from the pool for events that might otherwise wipe out their entire net worth.

+1
I manage my income for ACA purposes. I shielded some of my parents' assets for potential Medicare purposes.
My basic philosophy is unless rules and laws are changed, everything is in play.

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by copyright1997reloaded ... How about this hypothetical: We establish a FIRE "Catastrophic only" health care umbrella policy. Each member is responsible for the first $x (e.g. $200K) and the pool cost shares on overages (subject to some overall limit of funding of the pool). Then the contributors could self insure for routine and non super catastrophic care, but have the ability to pull from the pool for events that might otherwise wipe out their entire net worth.

So far, so good. Is the entity legally obligated to the contributor/members? Are the contributor/members legally obligated to each other without financial or time limits? What and where is this "pool" and how is it established and managed? Are members legally obligated to pay up when the pool drops below a certain level or can everyone just bail out without penalty? How is the pool protected against adverse selection where it disproportionately attracts people with near-zero net worth? The devil is in the details.

[Sunset]

With these Christian plans I see a really big opportunity for someone to "help themselves" to the $$$. Someday we may hear of the embezzlement of $$ as how would anyone ever know what is done by the insiders ?

What happens when a person gets a serious illness, can they be suddenly accused of being not Christian enough to qualify, how could you possibly fight that while being sick, sort of like being accused of being a witch in Salem, no real defense.

[samclem]

General comment: It will be helpful if this discussion concentrates on the health care attributes of these still novel plans and avoids comments about religion, sin, etc. Such comments threaten to cause a useful discussion to become acrimonious for no good reason.

[flintnational]

Does anyone know how these plans handle fee and Rx negotiations? One of the items you purchase with an insured health plan is negotiated (hopefully discounted) fee schedules.

[MichaelB]

Those wanting to know how this program works should visit the website and read the info and brochures. Here’s one example https://www.chministries.org/programs.aspx

From what I can tell, the coverage is related to “incidents”, the amounts reimbursed are based on typical insurer reimbursement rates, there are upside limits, pharmacy and lab are included. This looks in some ways like short term heath insurance. Not good for long term chronic illnesses, and also not good for expensive out of network providers, but for simpler day to day needs it seems like a fair option.

[ncbill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flintnational Does anyone know how these plans handle fee and Rx negotiations? One of the items you purchase with an insured health plan is negotiated (hopefully discounted) fee schedules.

That's another thing.

Many health ministry sharing plans put the onus on you to negotiate cash discounts with the healthcare provider.

Only a few will handle the above just like a regular insurer.

[copyright1997reloaded]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter So far, so good. Is the entity legally obligated to the contributor/members? Are the contributor/members legally obligated to each other without financial or time limits? What and where is this "pool" and how is it established and managed? Are members legally obligated to pay up when the pool drops below a certain level or can everyone just bail out without penalty? How is the pool protected against adverse selection where it disproportionately attracts people with near-zero net worth? The devil is in the details.

Yes, lot's of details that would need to be worked out. However, I am a believer (no pun intended) that the solution to ever escalating health care costs is a model that decreases demand and increases supply. For example, a system that perhaps:
1) Provides 'free' (bundled into the cost) annual well care services and perhaps relatively inexpensive health care screening.
2) Provides 'catastrophic' care, i.e. provides INSURANCE for an event that can't reasonable be handled.
3) Removes/reduces reimbursement (and therefore lessons demand) for other things.
The above is on the demand side. We also need to provide for the supply side in terms of competition among medical personal, reduce those factors that prevent more doctors, PA's, etc., and provide for competition to lower middle man (e.g. insurance company) costs. The reimbursement systems are way too complicated.

Ask yourself why things that are subsidized, for example health care, college tuition, have had the greatest increases in cost over the last twenty to thirty years. Even someone taking Econ 101 learns what happens when demand for a good is subsidized and the result on the supply/demand curve intersection. [Well, at least in the old old days when I was an econ major - who knows about what is taught today.]

[athena53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Not really hearing snide, and in some cases posters trying to be witty (you know who you are) the negativity comes because it's different, doesn't have a really long track record and in some cases the price seems to good to be true. Regulation leads to increased cost in everything.

While I agree with the latter, my biggest concern with these ministries is that there's no guarantee they could come through with the money for, God forbid, a stem cell transplant or other high-ticket item if I needed it. Regulation of insurance companies provides at least some assurance that they're financially solvent and that they keep their promises.

[sheehs1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Not really hearing snide, and in some cases posters trying to be witty (you know who you are) the negativity comes because it's different, doesn't have a really long track record and in some cases the price seems to good to be true. Regulation leads to increased cost in everything.

Some of the comments that may have been "witty" are actually very real and were said for those investigating these policies to consider taking a broad view of the things that could happen. And to read the very fine print carefully.

1) Gosh forbid, you loose your spouse, never plan to marry again but would like a significant other.

2) You and your significant other go for a casual, scenic drive. You as the passenger decide to have a glass or two of wine along the way. You get in an accident, end up in the ER, they take blood and discover a bit of alcohol in your system.

If I could remember all the details, I could come up with others. The question is, have they denied coverage for the stipulations they have if you were accepted as a member?

What they deny is as important as what they cover.

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheehs1 Some of the comments that may have been "witty" are actually very real and were said for those investigating these policies to consider taking a broad view of the things that could happen. And to read the very fine print carefully. 1) Gosh forbid, you loose your spouse, never plan to marry again but would like a significant other. 2) You and your significant other go for a casual, scenic drive. You as the passenger decide to have a glass or two of wine along the way. You get in an accident, end up in the ER, they take blood and discover a bit of alcohol in your system. If I could remember all the details, I could come up with others. The question is, have they denied coverage for the stipulations they have if you were accepted as a member? What they deny is as important as what they cover.

Agree and It's up to each individual to do their due diligence and risk assessments. What is ok for some may not be for others. If you don't think it's workable for you don't take it, but if you take accept it the rules are the rules. The witty comment was actually about the threesome...

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset You have a heart attack, or are diagnosed with lung cancer tomorrow, no problem you say and start treatment, spending $80K, knowing you will get help with the bills. But the Christian plan goes belly up before paying any of your bills. You are liable for your bills. New commercial plan won't pay for treatments in the past when you were not with them, so signing with a real insurance company won't help pay the bills.

This.... and 80K could be a drop in the bucket for those 2 conditions. The second concern is trying to get a negotiated rates if the plan goes belly up. Kind of a double whammy and too rich for my blood.