Faith-based healthcare gaining political momentum (can I get a face-palm?)

[Pangloss]

Oh my. ABC News just ran a story on this and I'll post the link here later after the print version it appears on their web site. But Google News did produce one article from some local outlet that I've quoted and linked below.

 

Apparently tens of thousands of Christian evangelicals are participating in "alternate health care" plans that entail spending a fixed amount every month tailored to be viewed as cheaper than a real health care plan -- in order words you cancel your existing insurance-based plan and go with this one instead.

 

The plan consists of sending your payment each month to those members of the plan who are currently in need of medical care, at the direction of the ministry running the plan. So if you're a family of four and your payment is $289, you mail it each month to the address given to you by the minister running the plan.

 

 

“We’re facilitating this matching process,” said Baldwin, of the links members make with each other. “The organization itself doesn’t take on that risk of paying your medical bills. ... We tend to say, in general, we’re here to share the burdens with one another, not the minor inconveniences.”

 

For example, Noble said members might get a form that “said ‘John Smith broke his arm. Please pray for his healing.’ And it gives his address and they write a check directly to him and send it.”

 

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10092&Itemid=53

 

The reason this has come up is that ministries are concerned that they won't be allowed to continue their practice if health care reform has passed. But experts caution that this is exactly the sort of thing that should be STOPPED by health care reform.

 

But insurance commissioners offer cautions—and outright warnings—about the sharing arrangements.

 

“At the end of the day, you just have a promise that they’ll cover you,” said Maine Bureau of Insurance Superintendent Mila Kofman, who did research on faith-based health sharing ministries several years ago while she was on the faculty of Georgetown University.

 

In other words, there’s no guaranteed coverage.

 

“This is why we really need reform. ... People are really desperate and what’s out there right now is not really meeting their need, and then they’re forced to look at these alternatives that may or may not pay for them when they’re sick.”

 

Um. Wow.

[JillSwift]

*facepalm*

[iNow]

can I get a face-palm?

Amen!

 

 

I wonder if you heard about this one roughly a month ago:

 

Flying rabbis fight swine flu

About 50 religious leaders circled over the country on Monday, chanting prayers and blowing horns, called shofars.

 

The flight's aim was "to stop the pandemic so people will stop dying from it", Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri was quoted as saying in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

 

The flu is often called simply "H1N1" in Israel, as pigs are seen as unclean.

 

<...>

 

"We are certain that, thanks to the prayer, the danger is already behind us," added Mr Batzri was quoted as saying.

 

 

I call your facepalm, and raise you a WTF!

[ydoaPs]

can I get a face-palm?

That depends on which faith healer you see.

[padren]

People have always had the right to play "faith based chicken" with the laws of physics in this country. At least within certain limits - you still have to pay your taxes to support your fire department even if you'd prefer to pray the flames away should your house catch on fire.

 

I had a much larger post written but I really can't talk about this topic without potentially crossing the line with regards to religious discussions on these forums. It really bothers me that we can look at this topic and proceed as far as "facepalm" but any further thought on the topic runs the risk of being read as "religion bashing" which I honestly don't want to do - but this is a genuine phenomena that is impacting our very real political environment in this country and I have no idea how to explore the topic within the rules.

 

Could we get clarifications on this topic's boundaries from a moderator, so we can better keep it on an acceptable track? It strikes me as having a high probability of jumping the tracks.

[Saryctos]

I'm confused as to how any of the subsequent post are relevant to the topic other than ydoaPs'. I'm also apparently just not understanding the facepalm worthiness either. Can someone please elaborate? (All I can see is a community based non-profit insurance system hidden under the guise of a thread about faith healing.)

[iNow]

I'm also apparently just not understanding the facepalm worthiness either. Can someone please elaborate?

 

It's facepalm worthy (IMO) since they are AGAINST providing healthcare for ALL citizens at LOWER prices because they'd prefer to continue with their 2000 year old idea of sending money to the church and letting them decide how it gets doled out to their small handful of congregants. They are using a system which does NOT guarantee coverage, has NO legal ramifications, and which can be so easily abused that it makes ponzi schemes look good ("Oh... you need money to help fix that cancer? You should have stopped smoking like Jesus told you... You get nothing, despite having paid us half of every paycheck you've earned for the last 20 years! Btw... we'll be building a new church with that money, so you can come pray that your cancer will go away. Bless you, my son.")

 

Pangloss shared the most relevant bit in his final quote within the OP.

 

 

As for subsequent posts, you're right. My response above was based on a misreading my first time through.

[bascule]

can I get a face-palm?

 

Just one?

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The plan consists of sending your payment each month to those members of the plan who are currently in need of medical care, at the direction of the ministry running the plan. So if you're a family of four and your payment is $289, you mail it each month to the address given to you by the minister running the plan.

 

Generally speaking, members of health-sharing groups—all of whom are professing Christians—pay a monthly fee that can range from $285 to $450 a month for a two-parent family. That fee is either sent to the ministry, which in turn passes it on to other members with certain medical bills, or sent directly to members in need.

 

It's facepalm worthy (IMO) since they are AGAINST providing healthcare for ALL citizens at LOWER prices because they'd prefer to continue with their 2000 year old idea of sending money to the church and letting them decide how it gets doled out to their small handful of congregants. They are using a system which does NOT guarantee coverage, has NO legal ramifications, and which can be so easily abused that it makes ponzi schemes look good ("Oh... you need money to help fix that cancer? You should have stopped smoking like Jesus told you... You get nothing, despite having paid us half of every paycheck you've earned for the last 20 years! Btw... we'll be building a new church with that money, so you can come pray that your cancer will go away. Bless you, my son.")

That's not necessarily true, as the quotes above point out. Some of the systems have you sending money directly to those who need it, rather than to the church. The question is instead whether the church officials will be any better than insurance agencies at making sure the money gets to the people who need it most.

[iNow]

Also from the article:

 

“At the end of the day, you just have a promise that they’ll cover you,” said Maine Bureau of Insurance Superintendent Mila Kofman, who did research on faith-based health sharing ministries several years ago while she was on the faculty of Georgetown University.

 

In other words, there’s no guaranteed coverage.

 

“This is why we really need reform. ... People are really desperate and what’s out there right now is not really meeting their need, and then they’re forced to look at these alternatives that may or may not pay for them when they’re sick.”

[JohnB]

I have to agree with Saryctos. I don't see what's face palm worthy here.

It's facepalm worthy (IMO) since they are AGAINST providing healthcare for ALL citizens at LOWER prices because they'd prefer to continue with their 2000 year old idea of sending money to the church and letting them decide how it gets doled out to their small handful of congregants.

Where does i say that? All I got was that participents were concerned that their program might be left out. I saw nothing to say that they were against health care for everybody.

 

Baldwin is working with another organization, Illinois-based Samaritan Ministries, in the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries to inform legislators about the more than 100,000 members of organizations who have chosen their alternative to health insurance.

 

Also, 100,000 members is hardly a "handful of congregants".

 

("Oh... you need money to help fix that cancer? You should have stopped smoking like Jesus told you... You get nothing, despite having paid us half of every paycheck you've earned for the last 20 years! Btw... we'll be building a new church with that money, so you can come pray that your cancer will go away. Bless you, my son.")

 

Aside from being generally slanderous, do you have any evidence at all that such behaviour is actually happening?

 

This is a program that developed because of your current system. The current system is rediculously expensive and does not in any way guarantee coverage at all. It's a bit unfair to compare a system that evolved due to the needs of the community to one that will one day, sometime in the future, after spending more money than that community has ever seen might give universal coverage.

 

It would not appear that the scheme is new. If there is no legal recourse, that is not the fault of the program. Look to your legislators for missing the boat. If it can be easily abused (and it almost certainly can) again that is not the fault of the program, make the politicians get off the pot.

 

As for;

“At the end of the day, you just have a promise that they’ll cover you,” said Maine Bureau of Insurance Superintendent Mila Kofman, who did research on faith-based health sharing ministries several years ago while she was on the faculty of Georgetown University.

 

In other words, there’s no guaranteed coverage.

 

“This is why we really need reform. ... People are really desperate and what’s out there right now is not really meeting their need, and then they’re forced to look at these alternatives that may or may not pay for them when they’re sick.”

From the outside, that is a howler. Isn't the big problem with the current system of insurance companies that "There is no guaranteed coverage" and they "may or may not pay for them when they're sick"? How many times has it been demonstrated that these are the two major problems with the current system?

 

Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.

 

These programs didn't evolve to compete with Obamacare, but in response to the failings of the current system. To argue that they are perhaps unneccessary would be to argue that the current system adequately serviced the needs of the community. Good luck to anybody defending that idea.

 

As to building churches with the money, where do people think Insurance companies get the cash to build those huge multi storied office blocks they use as headquarters? Where does the money come from to pay multi million dollar salaries? That's right, from the premiums they charge members.

 

Next time you're in town, or see a headquarters on the news, remember this.

 

They didn't get the money from the people whos bills they paid.

[JillSwift]

It would not appear that the scheme is new. If there is no legal recourse, that is not the fault of the program. Look to your legislators for missing the boat. If it can be easily abused (and it almost certainly can) again that is not the fault of the program, make the politicians get off the pot.

This is why I find the resistance to "ObamaCare" in favor of these "faith based" programs to be facepalm worthy.

 

It's not the faith... well, it might be, but not directly.

 

One of the facets of my old career put me in direct contact with these sorts of programs. So far as i could tell, none were being abused, but they were run horribly enough that they may as well have been.

 

Promises were made and then reneged on because the books were a mess. Folks were persued for bills the program was supposed to handle, but made some error in the paperwork. Accidental over-payments made a mess of every following case.

 

Icky.

 

What kills me is how well these programs could adapt to become a really fabulous addition to the proposed national system. Community "cafeteria fund" style resource with far simpler bookkeeping and pay grants that would cover all the little things that can pile up on folks dealing with illness and injury.

 

Why anyone would resist a positive move in favor of such a mess, I can only guess.

[JohnB]

Where is the resistence? All I saw in the article was that people in these programs were worried about how changes to the laws would effect them.

 

This is not resistence, just sensible enquiry.

 

They have a program that works and just want to make sure that they don't get left out under the new system. I cannot see anything that even hints that they are resisting in any way whatsoever.

 

It appears to me that they are more saying "Let us be a part of the new system" rather than opposing it.

 

As to bookkeeping. Sorry, but if the laws don't require adequate accounting methods from these groups, that is not the fault of the group.

 

It would be reasonable (if you're going to include them) to have stringent accounting guidelines under the new system. Charities get audited and keep clean books, so can these guys. Not that hard really.

[JillSwift]

Where is the resistence? All I saw in the article was that people in these programs were worried about how changes to the laws would effect them.

 

This is not resistence, just sensible enquiry.

 

They have a program that works and just want to make sure that they don't get left out under the new system. I cannot see anything that even hints that they are resisting in any way whatsoever.

*shrug* It's just how I see it. It's a quibble.

 

As to bookkeeping. Sorry, but if the laws don't require adequate accounting methods from these groups, that is not the fault of the group.

=o.0=

Do you really think that they are absolved of responsibility for their crummy bookkeeping and the effect that had on folks just because there was no law about it?

[JohnB]

*shrug* It's just how I see it.

I would like to know why you see it that way. Is it something from your previous experience?

 

Jill, I'm an Aussie. (We already have a Universal system and personally I'm in favour of the US finally getting a civilised system.) Consequently we miss some of the nuances of the arguments over there. Let's face it, we only get the Headlines from the US. So it's nice to find out why someone holds the opinion they do.

 

Do you really think that they are absolved of responsibility for their crummy bookkeeping and the effect that had on folks just because there was no law about it?

No, I don't. However people who believe that they are doing "good" work sometimes (often) let standards lapse. As they prioritise tasks, doing the good work moves higher and paperwork moves lower in the list. Even governments have this problem.

 

It's a case of "Let's get the job done and worry about the paperwork later." This occurs in all industries and quite frankly, unless there is a legal requirement, often the paperwork never gets done. There is always something that "crops up" and prevents it.

 

So while they are not absolved of responsibility, it is difficult to chastise them for not diverting time, effort and money to meet accountings standards they were not required to meet. (If you get what I mean.)

 

I dare say that there are administrators of those programs who would love to be able to say "But we have to do it, it's the law", and gain some measure of control over financial movements.

[padren]

1) They make this rickety patch-work solution to address the current calamitous state of health care.

2) Health care legislation is proposed that not only closes the gaps their system was invented to help alleviate, but closes many of the gaps their system can't address.

 

Now, they are worried they'll be left out because there won't be room for such shoddy programs as theirs. They could be looking forward to meeting the coverage requirements the legislation will call for (which only exist to benefit the participants) but instead they are worried they will not be able to exist in their current format.

 

That would be like a bunch of people getting together in the neighborhood to be alert and put out fires as best they can here and there since there is no fire department in the community - only to get all worked up when plans to actually build a fire station comes before the city.

 

 

On a whole other aside - I am personally unsettled by the whole idea of faith-based health care because health is a life and death issue and to introduce more faith into that critical thought process makes about as much sense as going to your pastor for advice on how to manage your real estate investments. For all the places where prayer can play a role in people's lives, it shouldn't apply to praying that their medical bills get paid on nothing but faith in a promise.

 

Right now insurance companies do fail to comply with their promises too often through legal loopholes, but these guys don't even have to jump through loopholes.

 

While the decision is up to the individual and their own faith of course - I feel a lot better when people make health care decisions based on the facts and the numbers they have without the idea of divine intervention. A lot of people have no conflict with their religion and the advice of their doctors. Now we have ministries creating these programs that essentially require you to have faith that God would not allow too many sick people to overtax the pool. Combined with forcing the potential applicant into the situation of choosing a health care "provider" not only based on the brain taxing task of crunching of the numbers on various companies - but to extend that with the issue of faith and whether your faith in your church is strong enough to trust the health of your entire family to it... that bothers me. I guess I can't really think about it too rationally since it goes into an area that isn't entirely dominated by rational thought - but I can say I am concerned with the effects of that as a trend, and I do think it opens up a lot of room for abuses of trust.

 

The irony is that universal coverage will allow non-profit insurance in the spirit of these programs since they do want to cover everyone but the current cherry picking poisons the pool for anyone that doesn't want to cherry pick.

 

The only difference is their promises would have to be legal, and they'd have to conform to the other regulations.

[JillSwift]

I would like to know why you see it that way. Is it something from your previous experience?

 

Jill, I'm an Aussie. (We already have a Universal system and personally I'm in favour of the US finally getting a civilised system.) Consequently we miss some of the nuances of the arguments over there. Let's face it, we only get the Headlines from the US. So it's nice to find out why someone holds the opinion they do.

Okies. It's prior experience in conversing with folks in these situations. "Worry about how the laws will effect them" when pressed becomes "I don't want to change". It's their system, and they want to keep it theirs blemishes and failings be damned.

 

 

No, I don't.

Well thank goodness.

However people who believe that they are doing "good" work sometimes (often) let standards lapse. As they prioritise tasks, doing the good work moves higher and paperwork moves lower in the list. Even governments have this problem.

 

It's a case of "Let's get the job done and worry about the paperwork later." This occurs in all industries and quite frankly, unless there is a legal requirement, often the paperwork never gets done. There is always something that "crops up" and prevents it.

 

So while they are not absolved of responsibility, it is difficult to chastise them for not diverting time, effort and money to meet accountings standards they were not required to meet. (If you get what I mean.)

 

I dare say that there are administrators of those programs who would love to be able to say "But we have to do it, it's the law", and gain some measure of control over financial movements.

I cant' argue that it happens - I was usually the one everyone hated because I'd prod them about their paperwork, so I'm familiar with the phenomenon.

 

But, given the fact that being required to keep books in a proper, functional way would vastly improve their ability to do "the good work", I still boggle at the resistance to actually having such rules imposed. More so that the organizations regularly fail to impose those rules on themselves.

[SH3RL0CK]

 

These programs didn't evolve to compete with Obamacare, but in response to the failings of the current system. To argue that they are perhaps unneccessary would be to argue that the current system adequately serviced the needs of the community. Good luck to anybody defending that idea.

 

To be fair, I did hear about this program several years ago - long before Obamacare. And for the most part the criticisms of this plan can be said of our current system (i.e. coverage being dropped, paperwork regarding claims being a horrible mess to deal with, etc.). Not that I would put my money into one of these plans... however you've got to admit there is no evidence (at least I couldn't find any) that these are any worse than the current system.

 

I agree with JohnB, and additionally I think the facepalm should really be towards the current (broken) system, not to people who are proactively pursuing alternatives. Were the system working, this "patch" as Padren states wouldn't exist.

Edited September 29, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[Pangloss]

Sorry I haven't followed up on this, but work is absolutely killing me this week. Good thing I don't have to pray for my health care!

 

I did find the link to the ABC News story:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/faith-based-health-care-evangelical-christians/story?id=8696127

[Kyrisch]

"We have a community of people. We're taking care of one another."

 

Does anyone else see the ridiculous amount of irony in this statement? -facepalm-

[Mr Skeptic]

can I get a face-palm?

 

Facepalm! I can understand the media completely misreporting stuff, but us scientific folk should be above that sort of thing.

 

How is this different from an insurance company? They send a prayer along with the check? What makes you think that if they had an insurance company they wouldn't be praying in addition to it anyhow? Maybe because people can feel good about helping a particular person, and having some idea of a lower bound for the efficiency of the system?

 

Oh, there is no guarantee that they will pay for the bill? Well, I've got news for you, the traditional insurance companies are just as faith-based in this respect, perhaps more so. Not only can they all go bankrupt, traditional ones have this profit motive thing where they will go for "pre-existing condition" thing if they can. I'd trust this system to have better intentions and lower profit motive, but probably also lower competence in assessing risk.

 

If you study a little church history and regular history, you will realize that the first form of health insurance was membership in a tight-knit community such as a church, extended family, small village, etc. -- the more tight-knit the better -- and they are simply carrying on this ancient tradition minus the free rider problem. Just like any other insurance company.

 

"You can do more good with a kind word and material aid than you can with a kind word alone." -- paraphrase of James 2:16

[Dudde]

I'm kinda leaning with Mr. Skeptic on this one. Even if the church were accepting all funds and funneling some under for a new wing on the church or something, the people paying into the fund are accountable for knowing what goes on. If I understand, is it just a group of people in the same faith who think they're helping each other out? If so, they may be better or worse than an insurance company but the people it's affecting seem to be happy with it.

 

I agree that they should be more informed on the books to make sure unforunate incidences don't occur, but it's really on them as a private group to make sure that's what happens. It kinda looks like an insurance company without the company. Doesn't seem so bad.

[A Tripolation]

I agree that they should be more informed on the books to make sure unforunate incidences don't occur, but it's really on them as a private group to make sure that's what happens. It kinda looks like an insurance company without the company. Doesn't seem so bad.

 

I agree with Mr. Skeptic and Dudde...I really don't see what the problem is. True, there needs to be more accountability (as is quoted above), but really, at least the church won't hire trial lawyers that have no emotion whatsoever, to legally "prove" that there's some way that the insurance company has the right to deny you.

 

This seems to be like a good-willed, if slightly primitive, move to make an alternative to health care.

[padren]

I agree with Mr. Skeptic and Dudde...I really don't see what the problem is. True, there needs to be more accountability (as is quoted above), but really, at least the church won't hire trial lawyers that have no emotion whatsoever, to legally "prove" that there's some way that the insurance company has the right to deny you.

 

This seems to be like a good-willed, if slightly primitive, move to make an alternative to health care.

 

I respect your opinion and there is validity. One of the real questions is are we discussing "health care coops" or "faith based health care" because you can have a secular coop with all the same strengths and caveats as any church run one.

 

 

However, my concern is they are not trying to just bring a secular coop around the church mailing list - they are bringing the benefits of their faith into this system to do it better. Unless I read too deeply into the article of course, but I don't think I did.

The problem is I only see one way it can play out: the benefits of faith brought to health care are no different than bringing the benefits of faith to a casino. Combine that with the fact they can loose money at a gross rate as long as they focus on improving recruitment and you have all the makings of a ponzai scheme. If they find themselves in that dangerous situation - what is the cause? Is it financial, or is it divine? Do they hold on to their faith and weather the storm, or bring in accountants to fix the mess? Or is it punishment for not adhering to the righteous path - are they supporting people in their system that have already turned their back on God?

 

It's fine to run a church by faith - worst case people have to go somewhere else on Sundays if it shuts down. It's unsettling when faith starts to direct decisions in health care or emergency landing procedures in airplanes.

[A Tripolation]

If they find themselves in that dangerous situation - what is the cause? Is it financial, or is it divine? Do they hold on to their faith and weather the storm, or bring in accountants to fix the mess? Or is it punishment for not adhering to the righteous path - are they supporting people in their system that have already turned their back on God?

 

I respect your opinion also, but I think your concerns are misplaced. No rational Christian is going to sit there and wait for "divine intervention" on a financial crisis, or think that he would punish people for such a small transgression (or even have the desire to do so). And as it goes, we Christians are becoming more rational every day.

 

I think this could work if we get the right people to set the infrastructure up.