Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (145148)	10/31/2005 9:57:06 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793955

"Burden Bearing: ”Church Plans” and the Need for Biblically-based Healthcare How should Christians respond to the medical needs of the community? What paradigms are believers adopting for the delivery of healthcare? Throughout the history of the church, Christians have been actively involved in the provision and funding of healthcare. But for the past fifty years, these questions have been treated as if they were political issues reserved for the state rather than matters to be handled by the church. Some members of the evangelical community, though, are beginning to reassert this Biblically-mandated role and are the subject of a recent Washington Post article on “faith-based alternatives to health insurance.” These "church plans," as they are known in the insurance industry, attempt to fulfill the Biblical admonition to “bear one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2) by bringing Christians together to share the cost of their medical bills. Although the plans differ in details, their basic premise is similar to health insurance programs. Members send a monthly check -- a "share" rather than a “premium”-- ranging from $100 to $400, either to the plan or directly to those the plan designates with "needs." The members also agree to send cards and letters or to pray for those members who are sick or injured. The plans also require a degree of accountability and impose strict limits on treatment, restrictions that, the WP notes, “would be illegal under regulations that apply to conventional insurance.” Tobacco use, immoderate drinking, homosexuality and extramarital sex are strictly forbidden, and anyone caught violating these proscriptions can be expelled. The plans don't pay for abortion, or treatment of sexually transmitted diseases or HIV that was not, as Samaritan puts it, "contracted innocently." While each plan's rules differ, most exclude coverage of preexisting conditions, as well as treatment related to cancer recurrence, serious heart disease, obesity, psychiatric disorders or vision problems. Unlike traditional health insurance companies which undertake a contractual transfer of risk in exchange for payment, these “non-profit sharing ministries” are not guaranteed in any way and are exempt from government regulation. Some critics contend that because of this church plans are “essentially unlicensed health insurers operating without regulation, protection for unsuspecting consumers or public accountability.” "These plans function just like health insurance, but they operate in a regulatory black hole," said Mila Kofman, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "There is no accountability, no oversight, and the people who participate have no protection." It is no surprise that the political left is appalled at the idea that people could make voluntary economic arrangements that are unregulated by the government. But I suspect that many on the right are equally as leery of such plans, although for different reasons. Underneath the exterior coat of American conservatism lies a skin of rust-eaten libertarianism that can be traced back at least as far as Herbert Hoover’s speech on “rugged individualism.” Being told to put away the stogies and scotch and go easy on the Twinkies may appeal to a Southern Baptist health-nut. But for most conservatives, even “conservative Christians”, it smacks of “Safety Nazi” legalism. They’d rather pay a higher premium than be held to a higher standard. This rigid adherence to political thinking poses a stumbling block to the search for Biblical-based solutions to social problems. Liberal evangelicals believe the primary agent in issues of “social justice” is the state and that church’s role is merely to baptize the conscious of government. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the “private sector” (i.e., corporations) is the responsible agent and that the church's contribution is to provide a “safety net.” Neither side of the spectrum, however, appears to believe that “bearing one another’s burdens” transcends socio-economic lines or is applicable to all Christians in the church. Healthcare sharing ministries are certainly not the only possible solution for meeting the health needs of believers. And while the plans appear to provide a partial solution, they still require the ability to the individual to fund their “share” of the burden. Still, these ministries offer fresh ways of looking at the issue and raise important questions about why we do not start with Biblical rather than political presuppositions when addressing these questions. Perhaps someday evangelicals will realize that healthcare issues are best addressed by the community of believers rather than by political parties." evangelicaloutpost.com washingtonpost.com