Affordable Care Act (ACA) - Obamacare

Christians Can Opt Out of ObamaCare. This Outrages Lefties. Tough.
By Gary North
February 4, 2015

My wife is a member of Christian Health Care Ministries. At age 64, she pays $1,000 a year. What are you paying? You are probably younger, yet you pay more.

You are forced to do this by ObamaCare. My wife is exempt from ObamaCare. Maybe you can be, too.

If you are a Christian, you can cut your health insurance costs by half — maybe more. You can stay out of ObamaCare’s clutches. It’s all legal. These programs got onto the “need not comply” list in 2010. It’s the law. It’s a done deal. The Republicans in Congress are not about to put their constituents back into the “skin them for other people’s health care” pot. The horses are out of Obama’s barn.

This has the Left in a tizzy fit. The thought of it! Bible-believing Christians get a free pass. The atheists must pay full scale. But ObamaCare is a wealth redistribution scheme, as voters know now. So, atheists pay for ObamaCare’s welfare clients, too. Christians don’t pay this if they don’t want to.

My wife does not want to.

Tough providence, atheists! You got Obama. Then he got you. You deserve each other. Warm fuzzies to you all.

Read a cry of Leftist moral outrage in The New York Times. The author is an untenured assistant professor on the public payroll at the University of North Carolina. If she gets tenure, she will be in fat city for the rest of her career. But if she doesn’t, she faces this prospect: teaching at a community college as an untenured adjunct instructor who makes $20/hour, with no health insurance or retirement program, by teaching 150 mediocre (or worse) students each term. You can read about this here. Grim.

She needs published articles to get tenure. She needs them in respected journals — not The Journal of Comparative Obscurity. Maybe she hopes that an op-ed piece in The New York Times will count. This assumes that her department’s tenure evaluation committee has adopted this principle: “screeds = scholarship.” She writes this:

The four main cost-sharing ministries in the United States have about 340,000 members. Regulators in several states have raised concerns that these ministries offer the illusion of insurance while sidestepping the Affordable Care Act’s baseline standards of coverage and skirting requirements that apply to conventional insurance companies, like minimum cash reserves. Nonetheless, membership in the ministries has been growing, particularly since the act granted them an exemption as one of the only ways to avoid the law’s mandate to buy insurance without paying a fine.

But the debate over consumer protections may disguise a more interesting question: Could this model scale up? These ministries seem to achieve a remarkable level of member satisfaction, even if they sometimes must portion out reimbursements when the bills outstrip monthly contributions.

The ministries’ appeal lies partly in their low fees, but also in their ideological boundaries. “This isn’t something that’s for everyone,” said Tony Meggs, the C.E.O. of the Florida-based Christian Care Ministry, which runs a health care sharing program called Medi-Share.

Theological liberals and atheists need not apply.

Christian cost-sharing ministries have been around for about 30 years. They claim that their true origins lie in the Book of Acts, the biblical account of how the first Christians “had everything in common” and “gave to anyone as he had need.” The ministries “show the world something that works, and works well, and is a reflection of the commandments of Christ,” Mr. Meggs said.

For thirty years, these ministries have beaten the insurance industry in terms of price. Now that they are legal under ObamaCare, they have a huge price edge.

Today, Medi-Share requires members to “live by biblical standards:” no tobacco or illegal drugs and no sex “outside of traditional Christian marriage.” Samaritan Ministries, with headquarters in Peoria, Ill., requires a pastor’s approval of medical expenses (and refuses to cover treatment for S.T.D.s unless “contracted innocently”). Liberty HealthShare, based in Independence, Ohio, is the only Affordable Care Act-exempt ministry open to people of many faiths. It asks them to affirm that “it is my spiritual duty to God and my ethical duty to others to maintain a healthy lifestyle.”

Fornicators need not apply.

The great insight of the New Deal reformers was that fetishizing a romantic idea of community is as perilous as making a false idol of the free market. Cost-sharing ministries nurture one kind of community, but only by opting out of the broader obligations of society. To make the Affordable Care Act stick, and to make it work, means convincing more Americans that they are not just their brother’s keeper.

To use the language of John Calvin: there is no chance.

If you are theologically eligible, and you want out of ObamaCare’s high-premium health care options, click here.

So, here’s the deal. First, avoid ObamaCare’s fines. Second, cut your health care premiums in half (or more), permanently. Third, force liberals and atheists to pick up your share of ObamaCare’s wealth redistribution burden. What could be better?

Don’t just sit there. Start shopping.

If you know someone else who may be eligible, email a link to this article. It may save that person a bundle of money.

Continue Reading on www.nytimes.com
 
I wonder if they will drug test and or polygraph to check my drug free christian status.
 
Samaritan Ministries, with headquarters in Peoria, Ill., requires a pastor’s approval of medical expenses (and refuses to cover treatment for S.T.D.s unless “contracted innocently”).


Rottenecards_70618260_8czbns5k7k.png
 
This is a good effort. It's been around for a long time in one form or another. Some of them seem to have problems with enough money put in the kitty to cover enough people.
 
The Supreme Court at Stake
Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/o...d-change-the-nature-of-the-supreme-court.html

I have no doubt that the justices who cast the necessary votes to add King v. Burwell to the court’s docket were happy to help themselves to a second chance to do what they couldn’t quite pull off three years ago. To those justices, I offer the same advice I give my despairing friends: Read the briefs. If you do, and you proceed to destroy the Affordable Care Act nonetheless, you will have a great deal of explaining to do — not to me, but to history.

 
This is a good effort. It's been around for a long time in one form or another. Some of them seem to have problems with enough money put in the kitty to cover enough people.
Right, like any private entity they can't just pass a law and demand more money at gun point.
 
Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare
http://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2015/jun/25/supreme-court-rules-obamacare-healthcare-law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the president.

The court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the 2010 Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, did not restrict the subsidies to states that establish their own online healthcare exchanges. It marked the second time in threeyears that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it.

Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court’s liberal members in the majority.

Antonin Scalia is one of the three justices who dissents – he writes that the majority opinion is “absurd” and overreaches into the lawmaking authority of Congress. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
 
Obamacare Sticker Shock Arrives: Insurance Premiums To Soar 20-40%

Tyler Durden on 07/06/2015

Two months ago, we outlined why the CPI-boosting Affordable Care Act is on the verge of bankrupting that all important driver of the US economic growth engine — the American consumer.

Put simply, inflation in medical care services costs hadn’t yet reared its ugly head because many insurers were as yet unable to gauge the full base-effect impact of Obamacare on their P&L. That, we said, was about to change: “After finally digesting the true cost of Obamacare, any recent insurance prime hikes will seem like a walk in the park compared to what is coming.

Medical%20Care%20Services%20Inflation.jpg


Sure enough, insurers have now taken a close look at exactly how much socialized medicine is costing them.


Not surprisingly, the picture isn’t pretty.

In some cases, forecasters grossly underestimated the number of claims they would likely receive, and indeed, even a PhD economist can tell you that when the amount going out for claims is greater than the amount coming in via premiums, there’s a problem with the model and because staunching the outflow is effectively now forbidden, something has to give on the receivables side of the equation which means dramatically higher premiums.

NY Times has the story:


Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.


Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.


Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

The Oregon insurance commissioner, Laura N. Cali, has just approved 2016 rate increases for companies that cover more than 220,000 people.
Moda Health Plan, which has the largest enrollment in the state, received a 25 percent increase, and the second-largest plan, LifeWise, received a 33 percent increase.


Jesse Ellis O’Brien, a health advocate at the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, said: “Rate increases will be bigger in 2016 than they have been for years and years and will have a profound effect on consumers here. Some may start wondering if insurance is affordable or if it’s worth the money.”


The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.


Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico has requested rate increases averaging 51 percent for its 33,000 members. The proposal elicited tart online comments from consumers.


“This rate increase is ridiculous,” one subscriber wrote on the website of the New Mexico insurance superintendent.


In their submissions to federal and state regulators, insurers cite several reasons for big rate increases. These include the needs of consumers, some of whom were previously uninsured; the high cost of specialty drugs; and a policy adopted by the Obama administration in late 2013 that allowed some people to keep insurance that did not meet new federal standards.


“Our enrollees generated 24 percent more claims than we thought they would when we set our 2014 rates,” said Nathan T. Johns, the chief financial officer of Arches Health Plan, which covers about one-fourth of the people who bought insurance through the federal exchange in Utah. As a result, the company said, it collected premiums of $39.7 million and had claims of $56.3 million in 2014. It has requested rate increases averaging 45 percent for 2016.


The rate requests are the first to reflect a full year of experience with the new insurance exchanges and federal standards that require insurers to accept all applicants, without charging higher prices because of a person’s illness or disability.
There you go. Precisely as we said, the ACA and of course the ballooning cost of new drugs proxied by Janet Yellen's "stretched" biotech sector mean manidtorily insured Americans will now be charged more. Much more.

But do not despair because where there's an Obama there's always "hope". And on that note, we'll leave you with the following, from the President:

If insurance regulators “do their job, my expectation is that [rates hikes] will come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”








 
I have an actual rate increase sheet showing the rate hikes, I'll search for it...
 
I have an actual rate increase sheet showing the rate hikes, I'll search for it...
I know my rates have been going up around 10%-15% per year since before ACA was passed. The rates on that chart look low to me.
 
Two years into Obamacare, only one state still has more than 20% uninsured
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-states-20150810-story.html

When the Affordable Care Act took effect in October 2013, there were 14 states in which more than 1 in 5 adults lacked health insurance; today only Texas remains, according to data released Monday.

At the other end of the scale, only five states' populations were so well-insured in 2013 that fewer than 1 in 10 adult residents lacked insurance. Today, more than half the states have achieved that goal.
 

Sponsors

Back
Top