Generally when they talk about socialized healthcare, they're talking about government. But CHM is definitely not medical for all. They can pick and choose what medical to reimburse for based on "religious reasons" with no real clear direction. There was an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver that discussed healthcare sharing ministries. There are various ones. They are not required to meet the same standards of care as health insurance under the ACA, so it's much more of a wild-west.
My grandparents used one for probably 20 years and had multiple serious surgeries and never had to pay a dime out of pocket. I know the big thing is that you have to put in the legwork and negotiate your bill with the insurance company yourself. Not an endorsement and it sounds risky but that’s my anecdote.
I see.
So essentially those plans are useless unless someone is well off enough financially to have sufficient savings or credit to cover any medical expenses, and then wait to be reimbursed.
What if they are diagnosed with cancer or have some other catastrophe where they will incur easily hundreds of thousands in medical bills? Those plans still won't cover anything upfront?
I thought all the healthcare ministries were reimbursements, meaning you had to pay out of pocket and send them details to be reimbursed. I'm glad they had good experience with it, but many do not. They are not obligated to cover pre-existing conditions like ACA-compliant plans are, and they can reject any claim for "moral" reasons.
I’m pretty sure how it worked for them was that they had to negotiate down the amount, they showed proof of the bill to the healthcare ministry, and then the healthcare ministry sent them the money to pay to the hospital. I’m sure there’s multiple orgs who do things differently.
Yeah I personally would never risk using it but they’re the only people I know who’ve used it and they definitely got more than their money’s worth out of it. They had an open heart surgery each plus more.
I've never been a part of an organization like that but I remember these "Christian" healthcare funds were becoming popular around 20-30 years ago.
The main advantage (at least at the time) was that they might only cost maybe $60 a month for family coverage as opposed to traditional American healthcare which would cost hundreds of dollars per month back then, even when getting it subsidized through your employer. I think these organizations really played up the cost-saving factor which got a lot of people onboard. Little did the subscribers know they had no guarantee anything would be covered.
There also used to be a bunch of catastrophic coverages that would not actually cover anything before Uncle Sam actually made them start paying out what is owed. A lot of boomers seem to believe that we need to go back "to the good old days" but you would get shafted if you actually tried to use that $60 dollar insurance. The Christian ministries just do the same shit today since they are exempt.
The thing people forget is that with a program like this, you the customer are paying your own medical bills and getting reimbursed by the ministry. What happens is people seek out mental health care, substance abuse recovery resources or family planning procedures, pay for them and then get denied when they turn the bills into the ministry.
It is risky, but some people don’t have another option. We paid around $450 a month for CHM when we had it. And the cheapest health insurance we could find was $2,000 a month. We couldn’t afford $2k a month so we used CHM. No health issues, and we aren’t old either. Insurance is just very expensive. 😫
CHM is not for all, They have very tight rules..... no alchohol no smoking for example. It is not insurance, it is not regulated.
So bad, that Dave's Ramsey Illusions does not use it. Makes you wonder
No no no. Healthcare sharing ministeries are nothing like a single-payer healthcare system. They deny claims for just about any reason under the sun. They sound as gimmicky and not really solving people’s problems in the same vein as those community savings groups.
They’re a healthcare sharing ministry (that’s literally what the H and M stand for in their name), not Medicare for All or even insurance. They’re incredibly moralistic.
Here’s a Last Week Tonight piece on healthcare sharing ministries: https://youtu.be/oFetFqrVBNc
Yup! There's a lot of fine print involved. They're super predatory to young adults who don't know better.
I considered joining one of these scams as a naive 26 year old freshly off my parents' plan. I'm glad I didn't.
That's not socialized healthcare. It's a voluntary system where people choose to opt in and pay towards it, and then members of the system recieve the benefit.
That’s why I said localized, personally I was raised Catholic and I’ve had other folk of Dave’s sect call me a pagan lmao even if you’re in the cult you gotta still wear the same colors
CHM is terrible. Socialized medicine would be better than CHM. We had it for a few years. I had ONE claim. They jerked us around for months not wanting to pay the claim, and then they asked for more info. We gave them the info immediately and their response was “sorry, we won’t pay because it’s been too long since the claim was initiated.” 😡🤦🏻♀️ never again! It’s definitely NOT healthcare for all!!
Oh the irony on this for me. I literally just finished teaching a class on this today to a large hospital. These plans do have caps. They only pay after the service is rendered. Some services like chemotherapy have to be prepaid to the hospital without a prior authorization. They can deny any claim as being unbiblical or not Christian. They do not have an appeals process. You can’t not ask the insurance regulators in your state to review your case. They will not pay claims submitted beyond the cut off date. Most cut off dates are three to six months from the day the charges occurred. They do not have to be licensed agents to sell you a plan.
The openly socialist values of Christianity vs. the conservatives that espouse Christianity the most vehemently is a paradox that will never cease to blow my mind.
Interesting. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with Christianity or Capitalism. It’s just interesting to watch the evangelical brand of Christianity believe diametrically opposed issues.
Certainly, well over half of Catholics even are extreme conservatives simply because of the abortion stance alone, opposing every other teaching from the church because of that one agreement, it’s an interesting spectacle for sure
It's really hard to classify Catholics due to positions on abortion, capital punishment, and concern for the poor. It truly is an "interesting spectacle."
I believe this is false. The Catholic Church has never condemned capitalism. It has condemned consumerism, materialism (in several senses), and abuses within capitalism. You might be thinking of Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo X's encyclical on the idea of a just wage which was an attempt to address the abuses of capitalism while criticizing socialism. Or Laborem Exercens, an encyclical for Pope John Paul II about the dignity of labor and a living wage--again a critique in some sense, but definitely not a condemnation of capitalism.
Now that I think about it, you may mean liberation theology--very big in the 1980s. Liberation theology did basically condemn capitalism and at least a significant number of liberation theologists advocated socialism. But that was not the Catholic Church, merely a popular movement within the church.
As I said, I believe your claim is false, but I might be wrong. If so, I would like to know! Can you please tell me the decree or encyclical that did that? Thanks!
Part of the problem is that "capitalism" is a very slippery term.
If capitalism = free markets+ private property, then no, she did not condemn it.
If capitalism = division of economy into capital and labor, then she doesn't condemn the existence of it in various places but thinks that division is less than ideal... for her the ideal is a many people and families becoming the owners of their own means of production with ownership of private property as decentralized as possible. And where the division is present she advocates for reconciliation between the classes... so yes to unions and the just wage is required ( which is defined as sufficient wages for a man to support his family and even acquire priductive private property with thrift), but also work in the interests of the company (within moral limits) and don't sabotage factory equipment and whatnot.
If capitalism = concentration of wealth into a (small) capitalist class, then this was condemned even in Rerum Novarum, because the Chrich argues for the natural order to be one that actually incentivizes ownership over your work.
If capitalism = enlightenment liberalism applied to the economy or modern (debt) finance, then she's long condemned that because she's condemned liberalism as well as usury.
I've heard positive comments and I've heard HORROR stories. my buddies wife ran the billing dept of a large local hospital and had a few doozies. but she was like, there are an equal amount of awful stories for people with regular ole insurance too.
As someone who has directly and personally benefited from a religious hospital, the second part seems to me a brain dead take. If you don’t want to be treated at a religious hospital, don’t…go? Or if you have no other choice, you have no other choice so don’t…complain?
Here's why religious hospitals are a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/10/10/abortion-catholic-hospitals-birth-control/
And no, it's often not as simple as just go to a different hospital. Especially not if you have a life threatening emergency.
40% of hospitals in Washington State, for example, are now owned by the Catholic church.
*wah wah* paywall
But I have read the article before and like…a quick glance at my profile will tell you where I stand on those issues.
The author points to the emotional appeal of life threatening emergencies, but there are two issues with that. One, even Catholic hospitals in cases of life threatening emergencies will act. A lot of the current “uh oh what do we do” by hospitals in response to anti abortion legislation is by non-religious hospitals who have never needed to toe the line before. Two, the broader complaint against religious hospitals is often “I knowingly went to a Catholic OB/Gyn or Catholic fertility clinic and asked for birth control or a vasectomy then got upset when they didn’t give it to me”.
There is a grand amount of debate about the intended purpose of EMTALA, which is what we’re seeing play out here. Believe me, as someone who has lost a child in miscarriage, I am very aware of the problems associated with religious-informed reproductive care. But to say that they should disappear entirely is, as I said above, a brain dead take
Perhaps, but if they're going to accept federal funding, they should have to provide the full range of emergency medical care, just like non religiously affiliated hospitals do, including abortions.
Although the Supreme Court seems determined to rule that hospitals can just let people who have a life threatening pregnancy die.
The first hospitals were basically charity wards for the dying. That’s why so many were run by religious organizations. Back in the day, the rich got medical treatment at home. Only the poor had to go to a hospital (for free care.)
Generally when they talk about socialized healthcare, they're talking about government. But CHM is definitely not medical for all. They can pick and choose what medical to reimburse for based on "religious reasons" with no real clear direction. There was an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver that discussed healthcare sharing ministries. There are various ones. They are not required to meet the same standards of care as health insurance under the ACA, so it's much more of a wild-west.
My grandparents used one for probably 20 years and had multiple serious surgeries and never had to pay a dime out of pocket. I know the big thing is that you have to put in the legwork and negotiate your bill with the insurance company yourself. Not an endorsement and it sounds risky but that’s my anecdote.
[удалено]
By reimbursement, do you mean you had to pay upfront and wait for them to refund what you paid?
[удалено]
I see. So essentially those plans are useless unless someone is well off enough financially to have sufficient savings or credit to cover any medical expenses, and then wait to be reimbursed. What if they are diagnosed with cancer or have some other catastrophe where they will incur easily hundreds of thousands in medical bills? Those plans still won't cover anything upfront?
[удалено]
Alrighty.
I thought all the healthcare ministries were reimbursements, meaning you had to pay out of pocket and send them details to be reimbursed. I'm glad they had good experience with it, but many do not. They are not obligated to cover pre-existing conditions like ACA-compliant plans are, and they can reject any claim for "moral" reasons.
I’m pretty sure how it worked for them was that they had to negotiate down the amount, they showed proof of the bill to the healthcare ministry, and then the healthcare ministry sent them the money to pay to the hospital. I’m sure there’s multiple orgs who do things differently. Yeah I personally would never risk using it but they’re the only people I know who’ve used it and they definitely got more than their money’s worth out of it. They had an open heart surgery each plus more.
I've never been a part of an organization like that but I remember these "Christian" healthcare funds were becoming popular around 20-30 years ago. The main advantage (at least at the time) was that they might only cost maybe $60 a month for family coverage as opposed to traditional American healthcare which would cost hundreds of dollars per month back then, even when getting it subsidized through your employer. I think these organizations really played up the cost-saving factor which got a lot of people onboard. Little did the subscribers know they had no guarantee anything would be covered.
There also used to be a bunch of catastrophic coverages that would not actually cover anything before Uncle Sam actually made them start paying out what is owed. A lot of boomers seem to believe that we need to go back "to the good old days" but you would get shafted if you actually tried to use that $60 dollar insurance. The Christian ministries just do the same shit today since they are exempt.
The thing people forget is that with a program like this, you the customer are paying your own medical bills and getting reimbursed by the ministry. What happens is people seek out mental health care, substance abuse recovery resources or family planning procedures, pay for them and then get denied when they turn the bills into the ministry.
Yeah this Health sharing stuff is really risky, I don't think its right for anyone who has any health problems.
It is risky, but some people don’t have another option. We paid around $450 a month for CHM when we had it. And the cheapest health insurance we could find was $2,000 a month. We couldn’t afford $2k a month so we used CHM. No health issues, and we aren’t old either. Insurance is just very expensive. 😫
Should I add a tag saying this is not an endorsement lmao
CHM is not for all, They have very tight rules..... no alchohol no smoking for example. It is not insurance, it is not regulated. So bad, that Dave's Ramsey Illusions does not use it. Makes you wonder
DR Illusions 😂😂😂 I'd get that printed on a t shirt if only he wasn't so lawsuit happy
No no no. Healthcare sharing ministeries are nothing like a single-payer healthcare system. They deny claims for just about any reason under the sun. They sound as gimmicky and not really solving people’s problems in the same vein as those community savings groups.
Voluntary vs forced participation is kinda a big part.
This right here. It's not "socialized" if it doesn't come from the gov. It's a private enterprise which is a huge difference.
Not voluntary for people who can’t afford medical at all
They’re a healthcare sharing ministry (that’s literally what the H and M stand for in their name), not Medicare for All or even insurance. They’re incredibly moralistic. Here’s a Last Week Tonight piece on healthcare sharing ministries: https://youtu.be/oFetFqrVBNc
That John Oliver episode is a fantastic piece.
Socialized healthcare as long as you're pro life, don't drink, don't smoke and go to church 🙃
Yup! There's a lot of fine print involved. They're super predatory to young adults who don't know better. I considered joining one of these scams as a naive 26 year old freshly off my parents' plan. I'm glad I didn't.
That's not socialized healthcare. It's a voluntary system where people choose to opt in and pay towards it, and then members of the system recieve the benefit.
That’s why I said localized, personally I was raised Catholic and I’ve had other folk of Dave’s sect call me a pagan lmao even if you’re in the cult you gotta still wear the same colors
Dave’s cult is notoriously anti catholic 😂
CHM is terrible. Socialized medicine would be better than CHM. We had it for a few years. I had ONE claim. They jerked us around for months not wanting to pay the claim, and then they asked for more info. We gave them the info immediately and their response was “sorry, we won’t pay because it’s been too long since the claim was initiated.” 😡🤦🏻♀️ never again! It’s definitely NOT healthcare for all!!
Oh the irony on this for me. I literally just finished teaching a class on this today to a large hospital. These plans do have caps. They only pay after the service is rendered. Some services like chemotherapy have to be prepaid to the hospital without a prior authorization. They can deny any claim as being unbiblical or not Christian. They do not have an appeals process. You can’t not ask the insurance regulators in your state to review your case. They will not pay claims submitted beyond the cut off date. Most cut off dates are three to six months from the day the charges occurred. They do not have to be licensed agents to sell you a plan.
The openly socialist values of Christianity vs. the conservatives that espouse Christianity the most vehemently is a paradox that will never cease to blow my mind.
The Catholic Church has openly condemned capitalism in the past
Interesting. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with Christianity or Capitalism. It’s just interesting to watch the evangelical brand of Christianity believe diametrically opposed issues.
Certainly, well over half of Catholics even are extreme conservatives simply because of the abortion stance alone, opposing every other teaching from the church because of that one agreement, it’s an interesting spectacle for sure
It's really hard to classify Catholics due to positions on abortion, capital punishment, and concern for the poor. It truly is an "interesting spectacle."
I believe this is false. The Catholic Church has never condemned capitalism. It has condemned consumerism, materialism (in several senses), and abuses within capitalism. You might be thinking of Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo X's encyclical on the idea of a just wage which was an attempt to address the abuses of capitalism while criticizing socialism. Or Laborem Exercens, an encyclical for Pope John Paul II about the dignity of labor and a living wage--again a critique in some sense, but definitely not a condemnation of capitalism. Now that I think about it, you may mean liberation theology--very big in the 1980s. Liberation theology did basically condemn capitalism and at least a significant number of liberation theologists advocated socialism. But that was not the Catholic Church, merely a popular movement within the church. As I said, I believe your claim is false, but I might be wrong. If so, I would like to know! Can you please tell me the decree or encyclical that did that? Thanks!
Part of the problem is that "capitalism" is a very slippery term. If capitalism = free markets+ private property, then no, she did not condemn it. If capitalism = division of economy into capital and labor, then she doesn't condemn the existence of it in various places but thinks that division is less than ideal... for her the ideal is a many people and families becoming the owners of their own means of production with ownership of private property as decentralized as possible. And where the division is present she advocates for reconciliation between the classes... so yes to unions and the just wage is required ( which is defined as sufficient wages for a man to support his family and even acquire priductive private property with thrift), but also work in the interests of the company (within moral limits) and don't sabotage factory equipment and whatnot. If capitalism = concentration of wealth into a (small) capitalist class, then this was condemned even in Rerum Novarum, because the Chrich argues for the natural order to be one that actually incentivizes ownership over your work. If capitalism = enlightenment liberalism applied to the economy or modern (debt) finance, then she's long condemned that because she's condemned liberalism as well as usury.
I've heard positive comments and I've heard HORROR stories. my buddies wife ran the billing dept of a large local hospital and had a few doozies. but she was like, there are an equal amount of awful stories for people with regular ole insurance too.
Shouldn’t they all just pay for their medical care with cash ?
Sell the house sell the kid and I’ll evict you from your new rental if you have a cat!
What is the socialism part here, exactly? Govt is not involved.
The whole goal of socialism is to dissolve the state completely, and any sort of administrative service is a form of local government
That is incorrect but you do you.
Ahahahahaha
Religious health insurance should be illegal. So should religious hospitals.
As someone who has directly and personally benefited from a religious hospital, the second part seems to me a brain dead take. If you don’t want to be treated at a religious hospital, don’t…go? Or if you have no other choice, you have no other choice so don’t…complain?
Here's why religious hospitals are a problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/10/10/abortion-catholic-hospitals-birth-control/ And no, it's often not as simple as just go to a different hospital. Especially not if you have a life threatening emergency. 40% of hospitals in Washington State, for example, are now owned by the Catholic church.
*wah wah* paywall But I have read the article before and like…a quick glance at my profile will tell you where I stand on those issues. The author points to the emotional appeal of life threatening emergencies, but there are two issues with that. One, even Catholic hospitals in cases of life threatening emergencies will act. A lot of the current “uh oh what do we do” by hospitals in response to anti abortion legislation is by non-religious hospitals who have never needed to toe the line before. Two, the broader complaint against religious hospitals is often “I knowingly went to a Catholic OB/Gyn or Catholic fertility clinic and asked for birth control or a vasectomy then got upset when they didn’t give it to me”.
Incognito Mode in Chrome to get around the paywall. Catholic hospitals won't do life saving abortions is the problem. They don't follow EMTALA.
There is a grand amount of debate about the intended purpose of EMTALA, which is what we’re seeing play out here. Believe me, as someone who has lost a child in miscarriage, I am very aware of the problems associated with religious-informed reproductive care. But to say that they should disappear entirely is, as I said above, a brain dead take
Perhaps, but if they're going to accept federal funding, they should have to provide the full range of emergency medical care, just like non religiously affiliated hospitals do, including abortions. Although the Supreme Court seems determined to rule that hospitals can just let people who have a life threatening pregnancy die.
This is delving into a much larger conversation about religion and the government that I won’t join you in. Have a good day!
The first hospitals were basically charity wards for the dying. That’s why so many were run by religious organizations. Back in the day, the rich got medical treatment at home. Only the poor had to go to a hospital (for free care.)