Why aren't more using a Christian Plan?

[michelek]

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.

You are required to have a letter from your church vouching for your character and tithing before the Christian plan will accept you. I know a couple who firmly believes in the program. They pray together about each request for medical bills that comes in and send money to that family directly. Then again, we are in the south and people are nicer here I think.

 

[Dash man]

Then again, we are in the south and people are nicer here I think.

Hey! Nobody is nicer than people from Philly! You got a problem with dat??

 

[brewer12345]

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.

In the 19th century this is kind of the way a lot of benefits were provided. People of like mind formed "mutual benefit societies" or "fraternal benefit societies" and agreed to provide certain benefits to members who got sick, died, became disabled, etc. A lot of times these organizations were formed by groups who were economically disadvantaged, discriminated against, deemed a bad risk by insurance companies, etc. For example, I am familiar with a mutual insurer that was originally chartered by Congress to be a mutual benefit society for the widows and orphans of master masons. They historically had varying levels of formality and success. Over time, the ones that are still around became more formalized and subject to regulation. Today these are the mutual insurers and fraternal societies that we would be familiar with (Thrivent, USAA, etc.). These organizations are regulated like any other insurer.

Therein lies my issue with the faith-based plans: they are in the business of insurance, but have none of the regulation, transparency and consumer protections that come with a policy from a regulated insurer.

 

[zinger1457]

Personally, I am far more concerned about these things being sold to the muppets. They will have no idea what they are buying until they have to use it, whereupon it will be too late.

Maybe instead of throwing insults you can back up your claims with facts and educate us by citing examples of members who have had their legit medical claims denied or not paid in the +35 years the ministries have been around.

 

[ivinsfan]

These plans do not call themselves insurance. They are not insurance. When you call them insurance you are misspeaking.


They are a group of like minded people banding together and practicing the age old concept of "do unto others". IMO one of the biggest risks here is running into a conman who will take the money and run because you find them everywhere.

Consumers are confusing them with insurance because they are included in a list of acceptable alternatives to mandated HI, and that requirement will soon be eliminated. You will find certain religious group who don't purchase any kind of insurance at all, except car insurance as required by law, because their faith really believes God will provide. The genesis of this HI concept probably sprung from one of those churches. It's worked for people of faith for centuries, since way before we had modern insurance companies to cover our risks.

 

[athena53]

You are required to have a letter from your church vouching for your character and tithing before the Christian plan will accept you.

Tithing? I can see a church verifying that you're a regular contributor, especially if you signed a pledge form- but I define a "tithe" as one-tenth of your income. I can't see a church treasurer being able to verify that you're actually giving one-tenth of your income, except by guesswork based on what you do for a living.

Consumers are confusing them with insurance because they are included in a list of acceptable alternatives to mandated HI, and that requirement will soon be eliminated. You will find certain religious group who don't purchase any kind of insurance at all, except car insurance as required by law, because their faith really believes God will provide. The genesis of this HI concept probably sprung from one of those churches. It's worked for people of faith for centuries, since way before we had modern insurance companies to cover our risks.

Generations ago, we didn't have major organ transplants, chemotherapy or prescription drugs that cost $3,000/month. Not sure how well the concept works in this century. I'd like to see actual stories about how well this worked for, say, a member who needed a liver transplant, or a baby such as my great-niece who was born with one side of her heart under-developed and is now thriving at age 5- after 3 open-heart surgeries. Forty years ago she would have died shortly after birth and the defect would have been found during the autopsy.

Also curious about "retroactive underwriting"- let's say I fall off my bike and rack up some expensive bills for a few fractures and then they find that my Significant Other is living with me. The injury is unrelated to sex outside of marriage (unlike STDs, which they would not cover)- but will they deny the claim?

 

[LARS]

Well my experience in life is if it seems to good to be true it usually ain't. Personally I wouldn’t touch this approach for healthcare insurance with a ten foot pole. Nope. Nada. Never.

But much like choice of religion: to each their own.

 

[MBSC]

You are required to have a letter from your church vouching for your character and tithing before the Christian plan will accept you.

Not all HCSMs require church attendance.

The one that is closest to being a Secular Health Sharing Plan (Non-Religious) is AlieraCare.

AlieraCare fits the bill because of their lenient statement of faith. There is no need for membership to a church or any other organization of faith.

They are even open to unmarried and same sex couples and there are no requirement for “family types.”

Sources: Secular Health Share Plan » Healthshareguide.com
https://www.calhealth.net/Secular-non-religious-health-sharing-plan.htm

 

[Amethyst]

Based on this interesting thread, I surmise that the CP's can be equated to "common charity," (where "Common" means "shared," not "found everywhere.") Much as my mother's family, and both my husband's grandmothers, were able to survive outright disasters in the early 20th century (father dies in his 40's, leaving mother with no paying skills and 5 young kids) without any social safety net besides the church. In that sense, Mr. A. and I are here because of "common charity."
But the charity, in those cases, was bare-bones; memories were passed down of hunger, wearing worn-out, ill-fitting shoes, and 13-year-old eldest siblings lying about their age to get after-school jobs. I only hope the CPs can provide somewhat better responses than that.

 

[ivinsfan]

Based on this interesting thread, I surmise that the CP's can be equated to "common charity," (where "Common" means "shared," not "found everywhere.") Much as my mother's family, and both my husband's grandmothers, were able to survive outright disasters in the early 20th century (father dies in his 40's, leaving mother with no paying skills and 5 young kids) without any social safety net besides the church. In that sense, Mr. A. and I are here because of "common charity."
But the charity, in those cases, was bare-bones; memories were passed down of hunger, wearing worn-out, ill-fitting shoes, and 13-year-old eldest siblings lying about their age to get after-school jobs. I only hope the CPs can provide somewhat better responses than that.

That's a neat story not really apples to apples. In the early 20th, the idea of someone having over a dozen pairs of shoes and more then a few changes of clothing would put them in the "rich" category. Even at 65 growing up as an Army brat I had 2 pairs of shoes at a time, an everyday pair and a good pair. We had enough food in the house to last until payday and were conscious of how much we ate heading toward the end of the month.


My English uncle was killed in WW2 leaving behind a pregnant wife and a toddler, my Aunt got nothing from the government and had an incredibly difficult couple of decades because war time conditions meant no one in the family had anything extra to share. CP's might have their challenges but the fundamental premise is long standing and the way people took care of each other before the proliferation of government programs.

 

[brewer12345]

These plans do not call themselves insurance. They are not insurance. When you call them insurance you are misspeaking.


They are a group of like minded people banding together and practicing the age old concept of "do unto others". IMO one of the biggest risks here is running into a conman who will take the money and run because you find them everywhere.

Consumers are confusing them with insurance because they are included in a list of acceptable alternatives to mandated HI, and that requirement will soon be eliminated. You will find certain religious group who don't purchase any kind of insurance at all, except car insurance as required by law, because their faith really believes God will provide. The genesis of this HI concept probably sprung from one of those churches. It's worked for people of faith for centuries, since way before we had modern insurance companies to cover our risks.

They are perceived as insurance and provide the function of insurance, therefore they are in the business of insurance. Just without any of the usual safeguards.

As for their history, I suspect it is not relevant now that these schemes have grown hugely. By way of analogy, there was a niche mortgage product that used to be offered to a select group of people. These were highly compensated folks who had the majority of their income paid infrequently as a bonus or commission rather than as regular salary. Obliging lenders created a product that would let them go interest only or even pay less than the full interest owed. The occasional lower payment didn't matter because these were highly income people with lots of equity and when the huge checks came in they would typically use a portion to pay down the mortgage. Because this product was only offered to the right kind of customer, results were very good. Then lenders decided to offer this product to everyone in pursuit of massive growth. After that, I think we all know how option ARMs turned out.

 

[CoolRich59]

We have been using Samaritan for over 2 years now.

There was a blog recently that compared the pros and cons of the different medical sharing programs recently. I don't recall if the link was posted in here or not. If not, I can try to find it.

 

[ivinsfan]

They are perceived as insurance and provide the function of insurance, therefore they are in the business of insurance. Just without any of the usual safeguards.

As for their history, I suspect it is not relevant now that these schemes have grown hugely. By way of analogy, there was a niche mortgage product that used to be offered to a select group of people. These were highly compensated folks who had the majority of their income paid infrequently as a bonus or commission rather than as regular salary. Obliging lenders created a product that would let them go interest only or even pay less than the full interest owed. The occasional lower payment didn't matter because these were highly income people with lots of equity and when the huge checks came in they would typically use a portion to pay down the mortgage. Because this product was only offered to the right kind of customer, results were very good. Then lenders decided to offer this product to everyone in pursuit of massive growth. After that, I think we all know how option ARMs turned out.

They are perceived by you as insurance, they do not represent themselves as insurance. They do not deal directly with providers, which is made clear to everyone that signs up. Their history is relevant and comparing them to option ARMs is a real stretch. I understand you have a real bias against them, but people need to make their own decisions about what works for them. I have conventional insurance so I have no dog in the fight. I will grant you that many entities like this have trouble with huge growth and time will tell.

 

[brewer12345]

They are perceived by you as insurance, they do not represent themselves as insurance. They do not deal directly with providers, which is made clear to everyone that signs up. Their history is relevant and comparing them to option ARMs is a real stretch. I understand you have a real bias against them, but people need to make their own decisions about what works for them. I have conventional insurance so I have no dog in the fight. I will grant you that many entities like this have trouble with huge growth and time will tell.

Hilarious. So you are going to the mat for these faith based ponzi schemes, but even you will not put your money where your mouth is. Well, caveat emptor.

 

[Amethyst]

The "apples" refer to the concept of common charity stepping in, when families have nowhere else to turn. I don't mean to imply anything else. So I think we are in agreement.

That's a neat story not really apples to apples.

.

 

[ivinsfan]

Hilarious. So you are going to the mat for these faith based ponzi schemes, but even you will not put your money where your mouth is. Well, caveat emptor.

No just pointing out they are an option for people...and pointing out I'm neither for them or against them. I'm not going to judge people by what type of health coverage they knowledgably choose for their own families.

I assume everyone reading here will do their own due diligence. I see no reason to think otherwise. Blanket calling this a Ponzi scheme is casting undue aspersions where they are not warranted. Let's have a civilized discussion about this stuff.

 

[pb4uski]

Hilarious. So you are going to the mat for these faith based ponzi schemes, but even you will not put your money where your mouth is. Well, caveat emptor.

Whoa there! What evidence is there that any of these are a ponzi scheme?

I concede that the $57 million of surplus (32% of the $175 milion in benefit payments) is odd for a "cost-sharing" enterprise, but $57 million of surplus would make me more confident in doing that plan if I needed to do so.

It seems to me that it is just a modern-day form of the old fraternal benefit societies... and those worked pretty well.

I agree that they are not insurance and my concern would be how they would perform if a member had a large claim (say a $1 million illness) but IIRC they have limits on benefits.

 

[mpeirce]

It's fascinating to see how an alternative health coverage approach can be attacked without a real understanding of how they work (these are not Ponzi schemes).

I think it's great to see some innovative alternative approaches to health coverage.

 

[brewer12345]

Whoa there! What evidence is there that any of these are a ponzi scheme?

I concede that the $57 million of surplus (32% of the $175 milion in benefit payments) is odd for a "cost-sharing" enterprise, but $57 million of surplus would make me more confident in doing that plan if I needed to do so.

It seems to me that it is just a modern-day form of the old fraternal benefit societies... and those worked pretty well.

I agree that they are not insurance and my concern would be how they would perform if a member had a large claim (say a $1 million illness) but IIRC they have limits on benefits.

The reason fraternal benefit societies became regulated mutual and fraternal insurers is because problems cropped up with solvency and fraud. How do you think this iteration will work out?

 

[ivinsfan]

The reason fraternal benefit societies became regulated mutual and fraternal insurers is because problems cropped up with solvency and fraud. How do you think this iteration will work out?

We still use Farm Bureau..and in today's society regulation is inevitable no matter what.

 

[pb4uski]

The reason fraternal benefit societies became regulated mutual and fraternal insurers is because problems cropped up with solvency and fraud. How do you think this iteration will work out?

I dunno... but I'm still waiting for that ponzi scheme evididence.

 

[brewer12345]

We still use Farm Bureau..and in today's society regulation is inevitable no matter what.

Farm bureau is a regulated insurance company, not an unregulated fly by night.

 

[brewer12345]

I dunno... but I'm still waiting for that ponzi scheme evididence.

Just a matter of time, I imagine.

 

[ivinsfan]

We still use Farm Bureau..and in today's society regulation is inevitable no matter what.

Farm Bureau started as a fraternal benefit society and grew into todays successful entity...you completely missed my point.

 

[tfudtuckerpucker]

It's fascinating to see how an alternative health coverage approach can be attacked without a real understanding of how they work (these are not Ponzi schemes).

I think it's great to see some innovative alternative approaches to health coverage.

+++! I like the idea of behavior-based insurance rates in the health care system. Car insurance premiums have basis in behavior (think speeding tickets, DUI, too many accidents, etc). Home insurance also (pool, dogs, trampolines, etc.) Is it unethical to charge higher rates for these? Why should I be forced to pay more for health insurance for risky behaviors which are clearly correlated much higher health care costs, such as tobacco use, alcohol abuse, abortions, opioid addiction treatment, STD's, high risk sports activities, etc? Tobacco use costs the US $300 Billion/year, alcohol abuse >$250 Billion/year, opioid $500 Billion/year, etc. I resent having to pay for those. Let them have their own insurance pools, and pay rates that correlate to their behavior choices. In the meantime, I am using a healthshare provider, and pay a very reasonable amount, compared to "affordable" health care insurance options. No, this doesn't address the issue of pre-existing conditions, which also needs innovative approaches. But the health care system in the US is broken, kaput, unsustainable, and getting worse. We need to do something different, else the insanity will continue.