Author Topic: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare  (Read 10134 times)

rocketman48097

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 200
Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« on: December 03, 2013, 10:05:28 AM »
I am a little hesitant to start this thread because of the political discussion that is certain to follow.  However, Christian health sharing ministries have an exemption written into the ACA.  Therefore, if you participate in one of these, you do NOT pay the individual mandate tax.  There are requirements, but since most of us follow these anyways, this is a great option and much cheaper and more comprehensive than the policies listed on the ACA websites.

You get the best of both worlds, great coverage along with very affordable costs and no individual mandate tax penalty.  I am not suggesting you join one of your beliefs don't follow these.  They do contain requirements such as no tobacco, no abuse of alcohol, and some charge more for a higher wait and there are waiting periods on pre existing conditions.  However, I do believe that most on this website would qualify to share. 

I do not belong to one of these because my family insurance through my employer is cheaper than these "share" amounts.  However, I think for small business owners and early retirees, this coverage is ideal. 

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2013, 10:25:03 AM »
How can anyone be sure that these schemes will actually pay?

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2013, 11:21:22 AM »
How can anyone be sure that these schemes will actually pay?

You can say the same thing about actual insurance.  These schemes have always paid in the past.  The one caveat is if you sign up for them, and make that one-time mistake of driving drunk, they can deny your medical bills when you get in an accident.  But that is all part of the statement you sign to join.

In short, yes these are Christian things and you have to certify that you are Christian.  They are also the closest thing to true insurance that will exist starting Jan. 1.  One thing I really like about them is they give discounts for having healthy body weight and other numbers (with exceptions for certain types of athletes and military members, pregnant women, etc.).

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2013, 12:04:08 PM »
How can anyone be sure that these schemes will actually pay?

You can say the same thing about actual insurance.  These schemes have always paid in the past.  The one caveat is if you sign up for them, and make that one-time mistake of driving drunk, they can deny your medical bills when you get in an accident.  But that is all part of the statement you sign to join.

In short, yes these are Christian things and you have to certify that you are Christian.  They are also the closest thing to true insurance that will exist starting Jan. 1.  One thing I really like about them is they give discounts for having healthy body weight and other numbers (with exceptions for certain types of athletes and military members, pregnant women, etc.).

Health insurance hgas lots of warts, but it is regulated by the states who have as a cardinal principal the requirement to protect policyholders and ensure that insurers abide by the consumer protection laws in place.  That is not the case with these christian mumbo-jumbo schemes.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2013, 01:15:44 PM »
How can anyone be sure that these schemes will actually pay?

You can say the same thing about actual insurance.  These schemes have always paid in the past.  The one caveat is if you sign up for them, and make that one-time mistake of driving drunk, they can deny your medical bills when you get in an accident.  But that is all part of the statement you sign to join.

In short, yes these are Christian things and you have to certify that you are Christian.  They are also the closest thing to true insurance that will exist starting Jan. 1.  One thing I really like about them is they give discounts for having healthy body weight and other numbers (with exceptions for certain types of athletes and military members, pregnant women, etc.).

Health insurance hgas lots of warts, but it is regulated by the states who have as a cardinal principal the requirement to protect policyholders and ensure that insurers abide by the consumer protection laws in place.  That is not the case with these christian mumbo-jumbo schemes.

Except the Christian "mumbo-jumbo" schemes are supported and regulated by the thousands of members.  I'm not a member of one of these schemes, but the argument that there's nothing to force them to pay out is nonsense.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2013, 02:25:04 PM »
Except the Christian "mumbo-jumbo" schemes are supported and regulated by the thousands of members.  I'm not a member of one of these schemes, but the argument that there's nothing to force them to pay out is nonsense.

It's 100% accurate to say there is nothing to force them to pay out, because in addition to not being regulated by any government, there are no contracts between the members or between the members and the health-sharing ministry. It is entirely voluntary. True, most members' consciences will probably keep them paying their donations (equivalent of premiums), but whether that will provide enough money to pay for--say--a couple of $2 million extreme-preemie babies is an open question. And it's also an open question what they'll cover or won't cover, since--again--there are no contracts.

Here are a few links:
http://www.charismanews.com/us/41654-some-health-care-sharing-ministries-meet-obamacare-requirements  ("Health care sharing ministries differ from health insurance in that there is no assignment of risk. There are no contracts. Members agree to voluntarily share in meeting each other’s eligible medical bills.")

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/a-christian-alternative-to-health-insurance/260112/ ("Christian health sharing ministries are largely unregulated, except by themselves. This means members cannot go to an insurance commissioner with a complaint, rates aren't reviewed by an independent regulator, and there is no way to ensure they are following anti-discrimination laws.... Christian health sharing ministries aren't for everyone. Members have to follow biblical principles of behavior, including abstaining from drugs or tobacco products, staying away from alcohol abuse and keeping sex within the confines of marriage. They must make a profession of their faith and attend a church regularly. In the cases of families, if a teenager were to become pregnant or get a sexually transmitted infection, the associated medical costs would not be shared.")

For some people, these apparently work great. But just bear in mind that one of the reasons it's cheaper than insurance is that it doesn't come with any of the safeguards of insurance--such as contracts that spell out what will be covered and what your maximum costs will be; the ability to appeal decisions; the ability to get the state's insurance commissioner involved... and probably also the ability to sue (I don't see how you could sue a health-sharing ministry for failing to cover X when there was never a contract stating that they would cover X).

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2013, 02:32:52 PM »
Except the Christian "mumbo-jumbo" schemes are supported and regulated by the thousands of members.  I'm not a member of one of these schemes, but the argument that there's nothing to force them to pay out is nonsense.

It's 100% accurate to say there is nothing to force them to pay out, because in addition to not being regulated by any government, there are no contracts between the members or between the members and the health-sharing ministry. It is entirely voluntary. True, most members' consciences will probably keep them paying their donations (equivalent of premiums), but whether that will provide enough money to pay for--say--a couple of $2 million extreme-preemie babies is an open question. And it's also an open question what they'll cover or won't cover, since--again--there are no contracts.

Here are a few links:
http://www.charismanews.com/us/41654-some-health-care-sharing-ministries-meet-obamacare-requirements  ("Health care sharing ministries differ from health insurance in that there is no assignment of risk. There are no contracts. Members agree to voluntarily share in meeting each other’s eligible medical bills.")

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/a-christian-alternative-to-health-insurance/260112/ ("Christian health sharing ministries are largely unregulated, except by themselves. This means members cannot go to an insurance commissioner with a complaint, rates aren't reviewed by an independent regulator, and there is no way to ensure they are following anti-discrimination laws.... Christian health sharing ministries aren't for everyone. Members have to follow biblical principles of behavior, including abstaining from drugs or tobacco products, staying away from alcohol abuse and keeping sex within the confines of marriage. They must make a profession of their faith and attend a church regularly. In the cases of families, if a teenager were to become pregnant or get a sexually transmitted infection, the associated medical costs would not be shared.")

For some people, these apparently work great. But just bear in mind that one of the reasons it's cheaper than insurance is that it doesn't come with any of the safeguards of insurance--such as contracts that spell out what will be covered and what your maximum costs will be; the ability to appeal decisions; the ability to get the state's insurance commissioner involved... and probably also the ability to sue (I don't see how you could sue a health-sharing ministry for failing to cover X when there was never a contract stating that they would cover X).

But it DOES cover all those things, and the avoidance of unnecessary (if you trust people) contracts means the coverage is cheaper.  They do have actuaries that fill roles similar to a normal insurance company.  The adherence to a 'biblical lifestyle' in addition to the discounts for healthy members makes it much cheaper than other insurance too.

So yes, if you aren't Christian, or you like to have sex with anyone random person you meet in a bar, or you like to drive while intoxicated, then this form of insurance probably isn't for you.  But if you fit those categories, it's much cheaper than the shitty offers on the exchanges, and yes I can say that because I've done my research and have found the exchanges to be several times higher

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2013, 03:20:44 PM »
Except the Christian "mumbo-jumbo" schemes are supported and regulated by the thousands of members.  I'm not a member of one of these schemes, but the argument that there's nothing to force them to pay out is nonsense.

It's 100% accurate to say there is nothing to force them to pay out, because in addition to not being regulated by any government, there are no contracts between the members or between the members and the health-sharing ministry. It is entirely voluntary. True, most members' consciences will probably keep them paying their donations (equivalent of premiums), but whether that will provide enough money to pay for--say--a couple of $2 million extreme-preemie babies is an open question. And it's also an open question what they'll cover or won't cover, since--again--there are no contracts.

Here are a few links:
http://www.charismanews.com/us/41654-some-health-care-sharing-ministries-meet-obamacare-requirements  ("Health care sharing ministries differ from health insurance in that there is no assignment of risk. There are no contracts. Members agree to voluntarily share in meeting each other’s eligible medical bills.")

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/a-christian-alternative-to-health-insurance/260112/ ("Christian health sharing ministries are largely unregulated, except by themselves. This means members cannot go to an insurance commissioner with a complaint, rates aren't reviewed by an independent regulator, and there is no way to ensure they are following anti-discrimination laws.... Christian health sharing ministries aren't for everyone. Members have to follow biblical principles of behavior, including abstaining from drugs or tobacco products, staying away from alcohol abuse and keeping sex within the confines of marriage. They must make a profession of their faith and attend a church regularly. In the cases of families, if a teenager were to become pregnant or get a sexually transmitted infection, the associated medical costs would not be shared.")

For some people, these apparently work great. But just bear in mind that one of the reasons it's cheaper than insurance is that it doesn't come with any of the safeguards of insurance--such as contracts that spell out what will be covered and what your maximum costs will be; the ability to appeal decisions; the ability to get the state's insurance commissioner involved... and probably also the ability to sue (I don't see how you could sue a health-sharing ministry for failing to cover X when there was never a contract stating that they would cover X).

But it DOES cover all those things, and the avoidance of unnecessary (if you trust people) contracts means the coverage is cheaper.  They do have actuaries that fill roles similar to a normal insurance company.  The adherence to a 'biblical lifestyle' in addition to the discounts for healthy members makes it much cheaper than other insurance too.

So yes, if you aren't Christian, or you like to have sex with anyone random person you meet in a bar, or you like to drive while intoxicated, then this form of insurance probably isn't for you.  But if you fit those categories, it's much cheaper than the shitty offers on the exchanges, and yes I can say that because I've done my research and have found the exchanges to be several times higher

Well... Good luck with that.  But I could not in good conscience tell anyone to do this ponzi scheme religious stuff rather than real insurance.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2013, 03:51:12 PM »
But it DOES cover all those things, and the avoidance of unnecessary (if you trust people) contracts means the coverage is cheaper. 

It covers what members vote to cover. That could change at any time. And I'm puzzled by your statement that having contracts somehow makes the coverage cheaper. How on earth does a contract spelling out "we'll cover this but not that, and here's how much we'll cover, and here's your annual out-of-pocket maximum" affect the price?

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2013, 04:16:30 PM »
But it DOES cover all those things, and the avoidance of unnecessary (if you trust people) contracts means the coverage is cheaper. 

It covers what members vote to cover. That could change at any time. And I'm puzzled by your statement that having contracts somehow makes the coverage cheaper. How on earth does a contract spelling out "we'll cover this but not that, and here's how much we'll cover, and here's your annual out-of-pocket maximum" affect the price?

Please provide one example of something legitimate not being covered.

Chuck

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2013, 04:55:39 PM »
Quote
But it DOES cover all those things, and the avoidance of unnecessary (if you trust people) contracts means the coverage is cheaper.
Um, maybe it's just because I used to date a Wills and Trusts attorney, but... nope.

Nope nope noooooope.

There is no reason, on this earth, that failing to sign a binding contract would make something cheaper... unless you are factoring in the "savings" of being able to fail to comply, in part or whole, with the financial agreement.




Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2013, 05:47:44 PM »
But it DOES cover all those things, and the avoidance of unnecessary (if you trust people) contracts means the coverage is cheaper. 

It covers what members vote to cover. That could change at any time. And I'm puzzled by your statement that having contracts somehow makes the coverage cheaper. How on earth does a contract spelling out "we'll cover this but not that, and here's how much we'll cover, and here's your annual out-of-pocket maximum" affect the price?

Please provide one example of something legitimate not being covered.

Conveniently, since there are no contracts involved, it's all but impossible to find examples of legitimate things not being covered because members can't sue, can't appeal coverage decisions and can't complain to the insurance commissioner. The only way I would ever hear about something not being covered is if a family was so upset about the noncoverage that they went to the media about it, and the media cared enough to publish an article, and I happened to find it in a google search or the story somehow went viral. That's literally the only way, since there are no other avenues for people denied coverage to complain--if you don't have a contract saying "X will be covered, Y will not," then you have no legal grounds to complain when X is not covered. But is a family really going to risk the other coverage they got, or their social relationships in the church, or--some people may see it this way--their relationship with god by complaining when something doesn't get covered, instead of just having faith that it's All Part of God's Plan (TM)?

But in any case, you're missing my point. The point is that you have no way of knowing what's going to be covered until it is or is not covered, because what's covered is decided by members' votes (and could thus change any time) and there is no law or contract requiring that if they covered X for this family, they also must cover X for your family. You just have to hope, pray, and take it on faith that what you need will be covered. Good luck with that!

I can't in good conscience advise anyone to pay hundreds of bucks a month for POSSIBLE coverage or even PROBABLE coverage. Obviously you're free to sign up for this, but does it really make sense for you to protest when people here point out the simple fact that:

- Under these programs, because there's no contract, NO coverage is guaranteed, you have no legal right to anything, and there's nothing you can do if they decide not to cover something or not to provide the coverage they need (e.g., you might have $10,000 in expenses, they mail you $500 and the other $9500 is just your problem to deal with); and

- The math doesn't work; there's a reason health insurance costs what it does--because health care costs a ton, way more in the US than in any other developed country. It also used to be because insurers skimmed off a very handsome profit, but under Obamacare, they are now required to spend 80% of the premiums they receive on health care. So if your monthly donation to the health sharing ministry costs less than 80% of what an insurance premium would've cost you, where's the extra money coming from to actually cover members' health costs? Either the ministry isn't providing as much coverage as an insurance plan (i.e., the covered health care costs are lower than they would be for an insurer), or a good number of people in your ministry are paying way MORE each month than insurance would cost them, in order to subsidize other members' costs.

So... those are just facts. You counter with your belief that it'll work fine because all the members are acting in good faith and share similar values. Go right ahead and act on that belief--but why fight the facts?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 05:56:37 PM by Daleth »

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2013, 06:05:54 PM »
One of the above links took me to: http://www.chministries.org/default.aspx

IMO, this isn't a great deal. According to the website it covers a: "maximum lifetime limit of $125,000 for each illness that qualifies according to CHM Guidelines". What guidelines are those? You can't find out unless you ask for information to be mailed. This plan is out if you get cancer or have a bad car accident or any serious illness. 125K isn't going to go far.

You can add "Brother's Keeper" (for $40 more per year) which at the gold level ($150 per month), covers unlimited costs.

But I can get a catastrophic plan on the exchange for $150 per month with no subsidy and it includes preventative visits at no extra charge.

Chuck

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 407
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2013, 06:18:57 PM »
One of the above links took me to: http://www.chministries.org/default.aspx

IMO, this isn't a great deal. According to the website it covers a: "maximum lifetime limit of $125,000 for each illness that qualifies according to CHM Guidelines". What guidelines are those? You can't find out unless you ask for information to be mailed. This plan is out if you get cancer or have a bad car accident or any serious illness. 125K isn't going to go far.

You can add "Brother's Keeper" (for $40 more per year) which at the gold level ($150 per month), covers unlimited costs.

But I can get a catastrophic plan on the exchange for $150 per month with no subsidy and it includes preventative visits at no extra charge.
Not to mention consumer protections and the force of contract.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2013, 09:02:14 PM »
One of the above links took me to: http://www.chministries.org/default.aspx

IMO, this isn't a great deal. According to the website it covers a: "maximum lifetime limit of $125,000 for each illness that qualifies according to CHM Guidelines". What guidelines are those? You can't find out unless you ask for information to be mailed. This plan is out if you get cancer or have a bad car accident or any serious illness. 125K isn't going to go far.

You can add "Brother's Keeper" (for $40 more per year) which at the gold level ($150 per month), covers unlimited costs.

But I can get a catastrophic plan on the exchange for $150 per month with no subsidy and it includes preventative visits at no extra charge.
Not to mention consumer protections and the force of contract.


OK sure, but this also purposely chooses the option with the highest cost and lowest coverage.

Medi-share is $61/month and has no lifetime or annual limit.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2013, 09:53:50 AM »
OK sure, but this also purposely chooses the option with the highest cost and lowest coverage.

Medi-share is $61/month and has no lifetime or annual limit.

This begs the question then of how these organizations are able to keep the cost so low.

Are the people who join these groups so ridiculously healthy that there are very few claims made? Does the group deny a high % of claims? Are certain members incredibly generous and donating large amounts?

Sidenote: I find Medi-share's moral compass points in a strange direction. Maternity care is covered if you're married or you were raped. It's not covered if you're unmarried having fun. I guess some fetuses are more deserving of members' love than others?

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2013, 12:46:06 PM »
OK sure, but this also purposely chooses the option with the highest cost and lowest coverage.

Medi-share is $61/month and has no lifetime or annual limit.

This begs the question then of how these organizations are able to keep the cost so low.

Are the people who join these groups so ridiculously healthy that there are very few claims made? Does the group deny a high % of claims? Are certain members incredibly generous and donating large amounts?

Sidenote: I find Medi-share's moral compass points in a strange direction. Maternity care is covered if you're married or you were raped. It's not covered if you're unmarried having fun. I guess some fetuses are more deserving of members' love than others?

They keep costs low because they are HDHPs.  They are about the same price as similar plans offered in 2013, which makes them much cheaper than obamacare plans.  Everyone pays their premium amount, this is no 'donation.'

With regard to your last comment, that's totally irrelevant to their 'moral compass.'  The point is that someone who knows their maternity won't be covered won't be participating in activity unapproved by the plan.

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2013, 01:52:25 PM »
My question is how do they regulate my church going? I do not attend or belong to a church, but pretty much lead a christian-like lifestyle that fit their requirements. Is this on the honor system?

Here's a good read that includes all 4 of the good Samaritan options.
http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/opt-obamacare/

This one does not require you to be a Christian
http://www.libertyhealthshare.org/

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2013, 02:05:36 PM »
OK sure, but this also purposely chooses the option with the highest cost and lowest coverage.

Medi-share is $61/month and has no lifetime or annual limit.

This begs the question then of how these organizations are able to keep the cost so low.

Are the people who join these groups so ridiculously healthy that there are very few claims made? Does the group deny a high % of claims? Are certain members incredibly generous and donating large amounts?

Sidenote: I find Medi-share's moral compass points in a strange direction. Maternity care is covered if you're married or you were raped. It's not covered if you're unmarried having fun. I guess some fetuses are more deserving of members' love than others?

They keep costs low because they are HDHPs.  They are about the same price as similar plans offered in 2013, which makes them much cheaper than obamacare plans.  Everyone pays their premium amount, this is no 'donation.'

With regard to your last comment, that's totally irrelevant to their 'moral compass.'  The point is that someone who knows their maternity won't be covered won't be participating in activity unapproved by the plan.

This is laughable.  How the hell do they know if a pregnancy was the result of adultery, for example?  How does a participant (I cannot even say policyholder) dispute anything handed down by the people running these scams?

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2013, 02:27:49 PM »
OK sure, but this also purposely chooses the option with the highest cost and lowest coverage.

Medi-share is $61/month and has no lifetime or annual limit.

This begs the question then of how these organizations are able to keep the cost so low.

Are the people who join these groups so ridiculously healthy that there are very few claims made? Does the group deny a high % of claims? Are certain members incredibly generous and donating large amounts?

Sidenote: I find Medi-share's moral compass points in a strange direction. Maternity care is covered if you're married or you were raped. It's not covered if you're unmarried having fun. I guess some fetuses are more deserving of members' love than others?

They keep costs low because they are HDHPs.  They are about the same price as similar plans offered in 2013, which makes them much cheaper than obamacare plans.  Everyone pays their premium amount, this is no 'donation.'

With regard to your last comment, that's totally irrelevant to their 'moral compass.'  The point is that someone who knows their maternity won't be covered won't be participating in activity unapproved by the plan.

This is laughable.  How the hell do they know if a pregnancy was the result of adultery, for example?  How does a participant (I cannot even say policyholder) dispute anything handed down by the people running these scams?

I don't think they test for adultery.  I think that policy is more for a single woman who becomes pregnant ... obviously she's not adhering to the biblical standards the group requires (or she was raped, in which case there's an exception but it seems sorta obtrusive to have to 'prove' you've been raped).
If your claims are legitimate, chances are you won't need to dispute anything.

Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.  The members just decide whether it's worth paying for, and most normal healthcare is covered.  Your objections are laughable, if anything.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2013, 02:58:26 PM »
Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.

It must save them a lot of money on claims as well.  After all, there is no obligation to pay for anything.

I am really curious: you really think this sort of thing is a good idea?

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2013, 03:12:47 PM »
Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.

It must save them a lot of money on claims as well.  After all, there is no obligation to pay for anything.

I am really curious: you really think this sort of thing is a good idea?

Since it has worked well for everyone in it ... yea, if it made sense for me, I'd have no problem joining.  Sure, it does require a small level of trust, but since when is trust such a bad thing? 

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2013, 03:17:48 PM »
Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.

It must save them a lot of money on claims as well.  After all, there is no obligation to pay for anything.

I am really curious: you really think this sort of thing is a good idea?

Since it has worked well for everyone in it ... yea, if it made sense for me, I'd have no problem joining.  Sure, it does require a small level of trust, but since when is trust such a bad thing?

Always.  As someone who has spent a good part of his career as a credit analyst, trust is always a bad thing, IMO.  I want contractual language as tightly written as possible and collateral if I can get it.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2013, 05:14:37 PM »
Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.

It must save them a lot of money on claims as well.  After all, there is no obligation to pay for anything.

I am really curious: you really think this sort of thing is a good idea?

Since it has worked well for everyone in it ... yea, if it made sense for me, I'd have no problem joining.  Sure, it does require a small level of trust, but since when is trust such a bad thing?

Always.  As someone who has spent a good part of his career as a credit analyst, trust is always a bad thing, IMO.  I want contractual language as tightly written as possible and collateral if I can get it.

Except it's not always a bad thing.  Credit analysis is about individual trust of an individual person.  Medishare is about one person putting trust in a group of people.  Basically, you'd have to have thousands of people simultaneously break the trust for this not to work.  Sure it's possible, and I bet a fair amount of non-Christians who don't care about other people are signing up with Obamacare taking effect, but it's still unlikely.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2013, 07:07:47 PM »
Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.

It must save them a lot of money on claims as well.  After all, there is no obligation to pay for anything.

I am really curious: you really think this sort of thing is a good idea?

Since it has worked well for everyone in it ... yea, if it made sense for me, I'd have no problem joining.  Sure, it does require a small level of trust, but since when is trust such a bad thing?

Always.  As someone who has spent a good part of his career as a credit analyst, trust is always a bad thing, IMO.  I want contractual language as tightly written as possible and collateral if I can get it.

Except it's not always a bad thing.  Credit analysis is about individual trust of an individual person.  Medishare is about one person putting trust in a group of people.  Basically, you'd have to have thousands of people simultaneously break the trust for this not to work.  Sure it's possible, and I bet a fair amount of non-Christians who don't care about other people are signing up with Obamacare taking effect, but it's still unlikely.

Whatever you are smoking, it must be some really good shit.

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 07:28:23 PM »
Quote
Whatever you are smoking, it must be some really good shit.

No, no.  No smoking left handed cigarettes allowed, it violates the code.  I'm gonna guess the members would not vote to cover medical marijuana treatment either.

Undecided

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 09:03:34 PM »
Obviously there's no contractual obligation to pay, but that does save them quite a bit of money on things like lawyer fees.

It must save them a lot of money on claims as well.  After all, there is no obligation to pay for anything.

I am really curious: you really think this sort of thing is a good idea?

Since it has worked well for everyone in it ... yea, if it made sense for me, I'd have no problem joining.  Sure, it does require a small level of trust, but since when is trust such a bad thing?

But isn't the claim that it has worked well for everyone just an assumption?

msilenus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 09:23:24 PM »
These options are interesting, but don't really look like a better deal to me.  Consider Liberty.

If you're under 30, you can get a million dollars in sorta-coverage for $150/mo. [1]  You don't get free preventative, or coverage above a million dollars.  They do pick up prescription drugs (but see below about 45 day windows) and things like PT.  They don't say anything about lab work or imaging.  I imagine they'd allow it, but it's something I'd want to check before signing up.

They have a $500 per-incident deductible, which resets after 45 days. [2]  For something like cancer, you could easily rack up thousands of dollars in costs per year.  It's difficult to reason about what it's comparable to in terms of deductibles an out-of-pocket maxima.  It depends wildly on how you get sick and how fast you get better.

They seem to stress that they share "medically diagnosed" conditions, which could leave you in a bit of a lurch.  Ie: if you have a problem that's difficult to diagnose.  If it takes more than 45 days to diagnose, any money you spent earlier than your diagnosis date minus 45 days is completely gone.  If you never get a diagnosis, you might wind up completely up shit creek.  (I know someone who went blind a few years ago, racked up huge medical bills trying to figure out why she was blind, never got a diagnosis, and then slowly started to get better on her own.  Still a mystery.   It's not clear if she'd have been eligible for cost sharing at liberty at all.)

Depending on where you live, you might be able to get an exchange plan for under $200, without the caveats, no lifetime cap, and free preventative --possibly subsidized.  In my area it's closer to $300, but it's a high COL area, and I wouldn't FIRE here.

- -

I've said before that before the ACA I would never have considered FIRE because of previously unmitigable medical risks like rescission and lifetime caps.  Now I think that's wrong.  Before the ACA, I think I could have FIRE'd if I had both Liberty, AND a high-deductible plan through an insurance company.  They seem to complement each other nicely: insurance companies have deep reserves, but might have fucked me via rescission.  Liberty has no reserves, but is essentially based on the spirit of charity.  They'd have hedged each other quite nicely.  I'd still have had lifetime and annual caps, but probably would have felt covered enough to risk it.  I'd have reservations, and I'd have worried, but I'd probably have done it.

With ACA, rescission is illegal and all exchange plans have no annual or lifetime caps for essential coverage, which is super important for someone who wants to live forever on their assets.  So you can get better than the best of both worlds, for not much more than the cost of either one, and for much less than both.

[1] https://www.libertyhealthshare.org/3-program-options
[2] https://www.libertyhealthshare.org/summary-of-sharing
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 09:34:47 PM by msilenus »

Mr.Macinstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #28 on: December 05, 2013, 12:39:01 PM »
Quote
Whatever you are smoking, it must be some really good shit.

No, no.  No smoking left handed cigarettes allowed, it violates the code.  I'm gonna guess the members would not vote to cover medical marijuana treatment either.

Hell, the state won't even allow medical marijuana, how could these groups elect to cover it anyways? And don't be so quick to judge. My in laws are more Christian than Jesus himself and they are all in favor of legalized pot. That's the thing about stereotypes, they're rooted in ignorance. Many Christians are pro-pot. They only ones who aren't are these authoritarians, the state and the drug dealers, all of which benefit from pot being illegal.

Can anyone dig up any dirt on these orgs? Certainly if they're a "scam" they there must be tons of stories of people getting ripped off. I haven't heard of one.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 12:49:31 PM by Mr.Macinstache »

Dr.Vibrissae

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2013, 01:20:49 PM »
Hell, the state won't even allow medical marijuana, how could these groups elect to cover it anyways? And don't be so quick to judge.
No judgement here, but the guidelines specifically say no smoking or illegal drug use.  You may be happy to know that I consider myself both Christian and pro-ganja.

Quote
...more Christian than Jesus himself
Not hard considering that Jesus was Jewish :)   

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4038
Re: Health Insurance alternatives under Obamacare
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2013, 03:27:59 PM »
I wonder if it's only Christian health-sharing plans that get the exemption?  And if it is, how long that'll stand up in court?

But I could see something similar being used to get around the more objectional parts of ACA, like the low deductibles, and forced coverage of things some of us believe are against our principles.  So if anyone knows of a group that welcomes pagans & agnostics, I'll have a look.