Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 08/07/2012 2:30:08 PM PDT by xzins
A judge will consider whether a Christians-only health care plan should be held in contempt of court more than a year after the Kentucky Supreme Court subjected it to stricter regulations that could have meant its demise in the state.
Franklin County Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate set a hearing for Aug. 30 in the case that pits the Kentucky Department of Insurance against Medi-Share, a Florida-based cost-sharing ministry that helps pay medical bills for churchgoers.
The legal battle involves how tightly the state can regulate Medi-Share, which serves nearly 40,000 people in 49 states, including more than 700 in Kentucky.
Justices found in 2010 that Medi-Share is insurance and should be subject to the same regulations as secular health care plans, a move that could have forced the organization to serve non-Christians and to provide costly coverage of pre-existing conditions. Medi-Share says its members aren't buying insurance,
Tea party activist David Adams, "The more they look at this issue the clearer it will become to Kentucky's two million active Christians that their rights to save money on one of their biggest bills is being unconstitutionally inhibited by their state government," Adams said.
Medi-Share members affirm a statement of Christian beliefs and pledge to follow a code that includes no tobacco or illegal drugs, no sex outside of marriage, and no abuse of alcohol or legal medications. Every month, members pay a fixed "share" to cover the medical expenses of members in need. The cost usually is less than private insurance.
The organization says it helps Christians pay medical bills based on a Bible verse that urges people to "carry each other's burdens.".
(Excerpt) Read more at money.msn.com ...
right after ramadan? :>)
Freedom of association in jeopardy too. Let’s just keep putting up with it though.
We had an earlier version where we sent our monthly payment to another member with medical bills. Different person each month for 11 months. 12th month went to the office to pay overhead.
My wife had a botched gall-bladder operation, ended up with $55,000 in medical bills. They assigned her bills to Singles, whose monthly rate was $50 back then. 6 weeks later we had received 1,100 checks from Singles, each for $50. Paid the entire bill, no problems.
Naturally, some tin-pot regulatory dictator will mess up anything that’s working and they don’t control.
I have no problem with any health care plan for muslims, Jews, Catholics, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus or Wiccans only. Why should any city, county, state or federal government give a damn? It’s none of their business...........
Just curious, why was it assigned to singles?
Yeah, but I kind of see the other side of this.
This is insurance. Except they may not have the same legal obligation to cover your bills as real insurance normally does.
And while Medi-Share has been around for a while and seems to be a good company, whose to say that fly by night operations won’t start emulating them.
Insurance companies that would promise the moon but never pay is why they started regulating insurance in the first place.
If you allow companies to say, I’m not real insurance because I don’t collect all the premiums directly, then how do you prevent a return to all the problems that we regulated insurance for in the first place?
Now I’m not saying all insurance regulations are in the people’s interests. Clearly insurance companies use regulations to their interests too. But it sure is nice to be able to call an insurance commissioner when a large insurance is trying to welch on a promise, instead of having to hire a lawyer each time.
Group plan. What’s the problem? Oh, it involves Christians. Never mind. /s
I’m getting ready to switch to MediShare and get off our rip-off Blue Cross policy. I hope this isn’t, somehow, the beginning of the end for MediShare, but I’ve wondered how the progs could let something like this continue in their crackdown on all individual freedoms.
I’m not surprised. Since the whole point of expanding gov’t is to destroy Christianity, there was no way they’d allow Christians to avoid the effects of Obamacare.
I considered the lead-in to be poorly written before the quote. The quote is what happened, so his filing was not against but on behalf of.
Tea party activist David Adams, who has filed complaints with the Department of Insurance about Medi-Share and similar ministries,...
Tea party activist David Adams, "The more they look at this issue the clearer it will become to Kentucky's two million active Christians that their rights to save money on one of their biggest bills is being unconstitutionally inhibited by their state government,"
So, did the reporter, here, totally botch the story, or is this Adams guy playing both ends against the middle??
Is this guy trying to help MediShare and its participants, or to wipe it from the Earth?
My IFF is confused, which always makes my trigger finger itchy.
I’d say the first section is poorly written and that the quote, since it is what the guy is actually saying, is the direction of his true position.
If the complaints are filed “about” medi-share, that doesn’t mean they aren’t complaints against the dept of insurance. Their topic is medi-share, so they are “about”.
In other words, poorly written.
Maybe he filed complaints about how the state was TREATING medi-share, not complaints ABOUT how medi-share was operating.
It’s like food coops. After a while the grocers realize business is going that direction, so they start complaining. The difference is that grocers don’t have their own government agency to crack down on their competition.
As with all combined efforts, someone will occasionally gum up the works and they’ll have to make rules to cover that.
And of course it’s Constitutional and voluntary. Can’t have that.
This is how the Amish community handles their health care costs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.