Christian-based alternative to Obamacare making gains in Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • care4usa Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 24, 2016 10:54 a.m.

    Having lived long enough to remember having the ability to contract directly with doctors for services rendered. I'll admit that it was important to have a medical care reserve account (savings) that I personally maintained, however I also price shopped and negotiated healthcare for my children and myself directly with the healthcare provider. This meant I didn't need to get third party permission from the insurance company or government to determine how our medical needs were met.

    I met directly with medical practice managers and negotiated a payment plan if for some reason I could not pay cash at the time of service.I could monitor the cost of medical procedures, establish a working relationship with a doctor and his staff and pay lower amounts for service by avoiding the cost of medical care services, and at times, receive pro bono or reduced rate services to deal with the exceptional injury or illness should it come up. I miss those days even though we dealt with broken bones, infections that required in patient care and child birth which were all affordable.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 24, 2016 7:09 a.m.

    ACA is a mess. After qualifying for a Marketplace subsidy in 2015, my taxes went up by $7,500 because I have to pay it back. They knew my income and all the birthdays in the family. I did NOT get a raise. The calculations were based on my 2014 W-2, and they still got in wrong.
    In September they notified me that I made too much money for the 2016 subsidy. (How did they know? I didn't notify them.)
    Then on January 16, 2016 I got another letter from Marketplace telling me I DID qualify for a subsidy in 2016.
    But I'm not buying it. I don't want the IRS to take it all back next year.
    Try sorting it out with Marketplace. Their 20 minute wait time is actually 35 minutes and You still have to escalate it to a manager since the agents can't make decisions.
    I do hope the ACA advocate who posts here has an answer for me.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:28 p.m.

    Vanceone, I hate to tell you this, but the VA healthcare system is NOT Single Payer. The doctors are salaried and work for the VA. Medicare is Single Payer. And I am more than happy with it.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 5:07 p.m.

    @RedShirt "To "marxist" but this is capitalism, even by your definition. The people who pay into do not own it, but use the company as a means to execute an idea. It is owned by Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan, Inc, not the people who pay into it."

    OK, here is the decisive test. Does the medical aid plan exist to make a profit? If not, this is a cooperative and socialism. If on the other hand the goal, or at least one of the goals, is to make a profit then it is capitalism, which makes a profit exploiting its hired labor.

    So, is the goal of these organizations to make a profit? From what the article says, the answer is no. Does anyone know differently? I am eager to know.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 5:01 p.m.

    UHPP-
    a tax credit is just another way of saying someone else is going to step up to the plate to pay for your health care- by force.
    Pre-existing conditions in health care? Does anyone ask their auto insurance company to cover damage to a vehicle prior to buying the policy? Solution? get coverage from birth.
    @Misty Mountain- there is a growing number of healthcare providers that are swearing off insurance companies and prefer to negotiate with clients directly. These are the agencies willing to talk to health share organizations.

  • Hugo West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 4:52 p.m.

    Marxist - Socialism is a system whereby the government owns or controls the means of producing and distributing goods and services. Socialism has been the most destructive form of government in the history of the world, causing hundreds of millions of deaths in just the last century. Anyone who disputes this please just spend a few minutes googling "socialisms death toll" to find overwhelming evidence from respected historians.

    The premise of socialism is that free people can't be trusted to make the decisions that an elite few deem to be right. Therefore, those free people must be forced by any means necessary (including starvation, beatings, imprisonment, execution) to make the "right" choices. This story played out over and over again throughout the prior century.

    Insurance, cooperatives, risk pools etc. are the free-market means of preserving the dignity of men and women. Free people voluntarily entering into an agreement to spread financial risk is capitalism - not socialism.

  • kranny utah, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 4:40 p.m.

    Again, as a healthcare provider, people in general are healthy because of healthy lifestyle choices, and not because of medical care. If demands went down, so would costs.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 3:39 p.m.

    It sounds like Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan, Inc. and others of its ilk are basically mutual insurance companies that are structured to exploit loopholes for bypassing the state's insurance regulations. I suspect that libertarians love them, because they are unregulated and have "caveat emptor" written all over them.

    For those who have had a good experience with these cooperative health care cost sharing plans, I think that is fantastic - good for you. However, as others have said, they seem to serve a relatively small niche, and I don't think they would scale well into a broad-based program.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 3:31 p.m.

    I always think the progressives here really are just masking their deep desire to be our rulers. Why do they push so hard for single payer, when the system we have that is single payer, the VA, is a disaster beyond recognition?

    Perhaps that is why they want single payer: for the VA system is riddled with cronyism, fraud, waste, and where the honest veteran is likely to be killed by it. Expanding Single Payer to all Americans is a great way to show governmental favoritism and "slow walk" health care for the politically undesirable, i.e. all of us who don't chant our "Hail Mao's!" every morning or worship Obama.

    Note that "Single Payer" means that you go to jail if you try to see a doctor without going through the red tape of government, or if you disagree with the "we won't pay for this service" determination of the government drone and try to pay for the service yourself: jail time for you, buddy. The government, run by the same people who run college campuses, in charge of your health. Makes the Zombie apocalypse seem appealing, doesn't it?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 2:36 p.m.

    To "marxist" but this is capitalism, even by your definition. The people who pay into do not own it, but use the company as a means to execute an idea. It is owned by Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan, Inc, not the people who pay into it. The workers are the people who process the claims and maintain the actuarial information to determine costs and risks for the group. Again, this is a great example of capitalism, apparently by the Mennonites.

    Actually, the accumulation of wealth at the top has not been at the expense of everybody else. It is a simple fact that the wealthy are becoming more protective of what they have worked to earn. The effects on the middle class and the poor that you see are a result of government policy and taxation, it has nothing to do with the rich.

  • lvcougie Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 23, 2016 2:33 p.m.

    Please also note most of those leaving comments above have obviously not done their research.

  • lvcougie Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 23, 2016 2:30 p.m.

    The more reputable Christian health sharing plans have been around for decades and work very well for those who fit the profile (ie most active members of the LDS faith). Check out Christian Healthcare Ministries, I believe it is one of the largest if not THE largest. No requirement to sign a statement of faith other than that you live a healthy lifestyle and attend church. Cut my monthly payment from an Obamacare plan by two-thirds.

  • tinvuladil Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 2:09 p.m.

    @USAlover

    Mother Teresa let others die in agony. (Google about "mother teresa leper colony") I imagine instead of shelling out for $200,000 cancer treatments, the faith based "insurance company" will probably do something similar. ("God doesn't want you to have this treatment")

  • tinvuladil Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 2:01 p.m.

    Hrm... so let me get this straight. They want to look like an insurance company (taking in insurance payments) and smell like an insurance company, yet they don't want to follow the law that other insurance companies have to follow? (For instance, honoring pre-existing conditions and allowing coverage for women's healthcare.)

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 1:54 p.m.

    @Hugo “The arrangement described is a perfect example of capitalism at work. This is a group of free citizens that are exploring an alternative funding arrangement for healthcare in order to try to control costs. That is capitalism, not socialism.”

    No, capitalism exists when the owners are distinct from the workers. The workers survive by selling their labor to capital (Business). This is only still capitalism in that medical services are being purchased by the cooperative. The cooperative itself is socialism. Any cooperative consisting of people on the same plane or level is socialism. We call such little "s" socialism. Now something like Bolshevism is big "S" socialism. Note: we may yet need big "S" socialism - big problems tend to need big solutions. But it good to see people experimenting.

    @RedShirt “To "marxist" I hate to be the first to tell you this, but there is not a set amount of wealth in the US. The wealthy can remain wealthy and everybody else can grow their wealth at the same time.”

    Only true in part; the accumulation at the top has been at the expense of the many below.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 1:46 p.m.

    Hugo,
    I don't have any problem with wait times. I have two CT scans coming up; only had to wait a few weeks. Both in Canada. Available to me as a dual citizen, resident and taxpayer in both nations. The extreme hardship and misery to me is travelling, although I have to do it for my employer anyway. The extreme hardship and misery for many Americans is the fact that, should they need such diagnostics, they could not get it at all. That's not christian to me, knowing we could help people but choose not to.

  • hilary nottingham, 00
    Feb. 23, 2016 1:25 p.m.

    I still feel if everyone working in the country paid a little or more, of course, according to their wages, based on how much they earned, and it would not be exorbitant, you would all benefit from a free and fair National Health Service. National Insurance. Actually it is not free, it is paid for, but my, what stress would be alleviated if you just knew it was there immediately, particularly if you were very poor and in pain or distress for yourself or family members.

  • kurt11 Smithfield, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 1:19 p.m.

    Why should I be forced to be in the same insurance pool as smokers and overweight people when I have maintained a healthy lifestyle? I am happy to help those in need charitably but am not happy to be forced to subsidize the general population of unhealthy Americans who don't look out for their own health.
    Thats the beauty of this concept to me, now that ObamaCAre has taken away this lower premium for healthier lifestyle choices otherwise.

  • Stringer Bell Henderson, NV
    Feb. 23, 2016 1:07 p.m.

    This has a lot of MLM-like aspects to it. Should go over like gangbusters in Utah County.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 12:42 p.m.

    This might work for smaller groups, but is no solution to the provision of health care in the U.S. The group cherry picks by excluding those with pre-existing conditions and smokers. When these groups leave out those who are already sick or are more likely to become sick, the rest of us bear additional costs. We pay for the care of the at-risk population without spreading it over the larger healthier population.

    I don't object to bearing that additional cost, but these groups don't solve the problem. They just remove themselves from the solution.

  • kurt11 Smithfield, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 12:42 p.m.

    I joined Liberty Health Share for our family with 7 kids this year after losing my transitional policy and finding that even a high deductible obama care plan. would cost $1,200 a month with our income. I have been happy with their customer service so far. Though liberty is fairly new, a few of these ministries have been around for several years sustaining themselves and paying claims. Liberty has a provisional membership for those with correctable health issues. Provisional members work with a health coach to see if they can correct their weight, etc and then are accepted as a full member. Time will tell but seems like the best health health coverage for us based on our lifestyle. With Liberty the pre-existing condition are not covered for a year and then part coverage for the 2nd and third year and full coverage after 3 years.. We are much more likely to get some yearly use out of our premiums with a $1,500 deductable as opposed to $10,000 ded. we had before that we never used in 20 years of coverage.

  • Midway Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 12:25 p.m.

    @TheAtheist

    "Sounds like socialism, the irony."
    --------------

    Except for the part where everybody who has an income is forced into it. Which would be socialism. This Christian-based healthcare idea (whether good or not), is definitely NOT socialism, because the people contributing to it have a choice.

    Why do the words "force" and "choice" not register with people who support Socialism?

  • Rationaldeas st. george, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 12:12 p.m.

    Some of the comments are astounding. I thought the goal was to get as many people with access to health care as possible. Here is a means of protecting against un-expected expenses that seems to work for a small niche of consumers, while not being profit driven. We should be celebrating that.

    But instead, several are making very negative comments. Why?

    Is it that some hate religion more than they love seeing their fellow men be able to pay for medical care?

    Or is it that some care a lot more about controlling others--dictating exactly what they buy, and who pays for what--than about whether people can actually afford healthcare?

    It is one thing if a religious-based health care ministry isn't your cup of tea. No foul in choosing not to participate. But to attack those for who it does work? Something is really wrong with those who hate religion or personal freedom more than they love others getting access to medical care.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 11:56 a.m.

    They had better hire a health care lawyer and competent actuarial to spell out the realities of risk pool and demographics. It appears that now they are surviving on concept and good intentions, which doesn't always carry the day.

  • Hugo West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 11:55 a.m.

    The comment from Utah Health Policy Project in here is mis-leading and a very poor example to boot.

    If the family had one claim of $5500 for the year, here's how the costs would work out under each plan described.

    1-Under the public exchange (using UHPP's numbers) the family would pay premiums of approximately $5000 and out of pocket costs of $3900 (due to 50% coinsurance after the $2300 deductible) for a total of $8900. Additionally, tax payers would pay about $6600 to the insurer. So the insurer would collect about $11600 in premiums and pay only $1600 in benefits. A lousy deal for everyone but the insurer.

    2-Under the Christian coop, the family would pay $6000 (using the high estimate in the article) in premiums and would have no out-of-pocket costs. They would be exposed to all of the legal risks inherent in this contract but would pay a lot less than the $8900 above.

    3-Under their current plan, the family paid out-of-pocket costs of $5500 but we don't know the premium level. I'd wager it is far less than the public exchange even after subsidy. It's mis-leading for UHPP to claim otherwise.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 11:45 a.m.

    To "marxist" I hate to be the first to tell you this, but there is not a set amount of wealth in the US. The wealthy can remain wealthy and everybody else can grow their wealth at the same time.

    To "ECR" Obama push and campaigned for the ACA. It is his "signature" legislation, that is why it is called Obamacare. Just like your ilk like to refer to Bush Tax cuts. It associates the effects of the law to the President that signed them into law.

    I doubt what you say about insurance 30 years ago. My father had the exact same situation and was able to get insurance despite having a child with diabetes.

    To "Utah Health Policy Project" and tell us how much their premiums would be if the father was making $100,000/yr.

    To "Instereo" in this case the one where they say they will take care of their own is more Christian. The one where they want to take care of everybody is done by force and coercion. Force and coercion are NOT christian values.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 11:44 a.m.

    @Hutterite,
    You are correct. Just ask Canada. It's working very well there. Lived there and had NO problems ever.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 23, 2016 10:47 a.m.

    @ECR - so many people love to tell us that Obamacare (aka the affordable, er, unaffordable care act) is the "law of the land." But many who use the "law of the land" phrase support "sanctuary cities" which expressly and openly break immigration laws, which are also the "law of the land." You might not be in that category, but many are.

  • Hugo West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 10:14 a.m.

    Hutterite - Single payer would result in extreme wait times, denial of care and significant hardship and misery. There is nothing Christian about that.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:56 a.m.

    The most 'christian' health care delivery model is the one we'll never go for. Single payer.

  • humbug Syracuse/Davis, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:47 a.m.

    @Utah Health Policy Project:

    Thanks. Very insightful comments. Thanks for posting.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:29 a.m.

    IE, if there is an earthquake in Utah, causing 10's or 100's of millions or even billions in medical expenses, your medical insurance company has reinsurance coverage that keeps them from not being able to pay claims. I doubt these people have it. Not to mention that they pretty much can cover whatever they feel like, and don't have to give you legally binding documents(plan guidelines) that protect you from getting unfairly denied coverage. There is no recourse if you are treated unfairly by one of these plans.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:29 a.m.

    I know people don't like medical insurance. And even though I work for a company that(I think) does a pretty good job not denying claims frivolously, and not trying to treat people poorly, I realize that I most Utahn's don't have insurance through my company, and that some of your big companies(Aetna, UHC, BXBS) have poor reputations, that frankly, they deserve. However, I would have serious concerns with joining a "christian based health share" because I know how much the government regulates insurance, purely so people aren't taken advantage of. For example, do these plans have minimum funding levels? Do they re-insure in case of horribly expensive claims? (continued)

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:24 a.m.

    When is a scam not a scam? When it’s a scam of the government for the people, by the people.

    Facts:

    All organized groups of human beings are “for profit” groups. There is no such thing as a nonprofit group.

    All insurance is gamboling. You make your bet when you think the odds are in your favor. Fact is, the odds are always in the favor of the house, the people who structure the wager.

    The use of business to force people to believe a certain way is un-American.

  • Hugo West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:16 a.m.

    Marxist - This type of arrangemnt is in no way, shape or form a type of socialism. The arrangement described here would be outlawed under any socialist government.

    The arrangement described is a perfect example of capitalism at work. This is a group of free citizens that are exploring an alternative funding arrangement for healthcare in order to try to control costs. That is capitalism, not socialism.

    I applaud them for trying something different but am dubious this will solve the cost problem. Like all of the other cost containing experiments happening right now (CDHPs, Value Based Care, ACOs, etc) this will likely have some marginal effect but not be the silver bullet.

    What everyone needs to realize is that medical trend has finally decreased to just a couple of percentage points above inflation. The free market solutions being tried are having a positive effect. Unfortunately, Rx trend is blowing up now because of specialty medications. This is diminishing the positive gains we've achieved in controlling medical costs.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:14 a.m.

    But but but...I thought redistribution of monies was evil!

  • ItNeverEnds West Valley City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:11 a.m.

    Those who have commented have valid points. With that being said, I have spent over 50 hours attempting to get affordable health care for my family with HealthCare.Gov and the Market Place. Somewhere in their system my account had a technical issue in 2015. As of today this issue still has not been resolved. It has been painful and costly.

    With the ACA because pre-existing conditions have been eliminated the compromise for the private insurers is that if you don't have the standard qualifying insurance event, i.e. birth, death, marriage, divorce, etc. you can only obtain insurance during the government open enrollment and they are limited to the offered plans which change through out the year.

    If your income or any other circumstances change and you follow the law and report it, you could very well find yourself with a new insurer, new premiums and a new deductible and co-pay.

    Following the law I reported my $3/hr pay increase with a new job. My premiums went to $1020/month with a 10K deductible from $300/month with 0 deductible. That is not affordable.

    I now have Liberty HealthShare and pay $414/month with a 1500 deductible for my family.

  • TheAtheist SLC, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 9:02 a.m.

    Sounds like socialism, the irony.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 8:50 a.m.

    My treatment for MS is several thousand a month, every month. I wonder if my local ward would all like to pool together with me.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 8:47 a.m.

    1/3 of us will die of cancer. I can't imagine such a money share would cover the $200,000, two week hospital stay for radiation/chemo/surgery that so many of us will ultimately need.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 23, 2016 8:40 a.m.

    How about a study breaking down the costs and profits around one common issue. - Childbirth

    Leaving partisan politics out of it, it would be interesting to see an honest study as to why the average, routine (non c section) childbirth in the US costs around $30,000. Easily double what other developed countries pay.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 8:22 a.m.

    A health care system where "We'll take care of our own" vs a system that makes an attempt to take care of all of us. I wonder which one is more Christian?

  • kranny utah, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 8:18 a.m.

    As a healthcare provider, I estimate that 90% of my patients don't follow a healthy lifestyle, which creates a heavy burden on the insurance and medical industries. The concept of co-op insurance is intriguing to me, and I think it would be to others who follow a strict, healthy lifestyle, because they take lifestyle choices into consideration to qualify for coverage.

    Also, I've found that there are basically two types of mindsets out there. One, people who want to be taken care of with little effort offered on their own. And, two, those who take charge of their own lives and only seek help that they can't do on their own, and they follow that counsel given by providers.

    I'd like to know how to become paneled in this niche industry, because IHC, which dominates the Utah healthcare market, limits their provider panels to mostly IHC employed providers. Plus, the larger insurers are very difficult to work with in receiving reimbursements.

  • my screen name Murray, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:51 a.m.

    I'm amazed at all the negative comments. People taking care of each other and taking on their own responsibility, and everyone but a Marxist is negative. What's wrong with DesNews readers?

  • Evets Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:43 a.m.

    I like the concept. I could see a group of people get together and self insure each other. Form a company that they as member own. This has worked in auto insurance. Health insurance has some large risks but if the rates were set to cover the risks but still be competitive it could work. A portion of the profits at the end of the year could be put into a risk pool and over time there would be enough to ensure any risk could be covered. The other portion of the profit could be returned to the members thus lowing their net health insurance cost.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:42 a.m.

    @ Lyn52

    I know people who have had real emergencies and a long hospital stay. Their health share paid with no problems.

  • cocosweet Sandy, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:41 a.m.

    Sounds too good to be true in some cases (i.e. scam). A couple of big claims and the entire group loses their insurance. Not to mention this type of "insurance" won't work for much of the populace (only 51% of Utah actually goes to church, Gallup poll 2014)

    How about the legislator actually implement a plan to deal with Obamacare instead of being obstructionistic.

  • Utah Health Policy Project Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:36 a.m.

    The Affordable Care Act (ie. Obamacare) capped deductibles at $12,500 for families. So the $20,000 deductible this family faced was caused by them keeping their pre-ACA, non-protected insurance plan. If they had shopped for health insurance on healthcare.gov like 175,000 other Utahns, they could have found a much more affordable plan. But since they didn't, the health care sharing ministries sounded like a good deal to them. But if they are a family of 5 in Utah County earning $65,000 a year, they could get a tax credit of $548 per month to purchase a Silver-level health insurance plan for $412 a month with a $2,300 deductible. That's a much better deal than their old insurance, and their new health care sharing ministry. Plus, their coverage cannot be denied because of outside evaluations of their behavior.
    -UHPP

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:31 a.m.

    Forcing anyone to purchase something is directly contrary to liberty, and the idea that "essential health coverage" should include abortive contraceptives and not dental care is without convincing defense.

    An optionally elected form of sharing funds is far more palatable. If I take care of myself and am forced to pay for coverage I don't desire, it's socialism and bears all of the social and economic pitfalls of such. In contrast, I can take care of myself and elect to enter an agreement to help pay for others' medical bills. I don't have to support anything I don't want to, my contributions aren't wasted by as many obviously-bad health decisions, and it's entirely voluntary. It is charity.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:18 a.m.

    A novel concept that I often thought abstractly about myself, during my son's battle with myriads of healthcare problems. Kudos to this group. It is not perfect, but is a start for possible better options for the masses.
    Maybe the LDS Church could pattern something similar in the near or distant future. After all, it is a service of compassion, much like the other welfare tributaries.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:14 a.m.

    It sounds good, but it is not sustainable.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Feb. 23, 2016 7:11 a.m.

    The problem with this is that the groups don't negotiate with providers, so they end up paying the posted price for services, which can easily be three times what an insurance provider pays. In some cases--lab work is one of the worst price gougers--the posted price can be more than ten times what the insurance company pays.

    And how "Christian" is it to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition? By the time most people turn fifty or sixty, they usually have one or another pre-existing condition--elevated blood pressure, minor arthritis, joint damage--and this is only going to get worse with more Americans being overweight.

    I don't recall Jesus asking only the young and able bodied to follow him. But perhaps the "Christian" insurance groups are reading from a different Bible.

  • Perry Newman Riverton, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 6:51 a.m.

    I believe......every religious person should place their health care needs in the hands of those who believe this Christian-based alternative is in their best interest and administered by God's chosen.....frightening!

  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 6:43 a.m.

    Won't they be in for a rude awaking when they have a real medical emergency and a long hospital stay.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 23, 2016 6:28 a.m.

    Sounds like a paid infomercial to me.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 23, 2016 6:18 a.m.

    Another Health Share company is Altrua. They started as a result of the "Christian" health share companies that required their members to sign a statement of faith that appeared to intentionally exclude the LDS people. They were force to leave the state of Utah by the state insurance commissioner and they had to agree not to do business in Utah again.

    Shameful.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 23, 2016 6:06 a.m.

    Note to Daphne - this is NOT "President Barack Obama's health care law", it is the law of the land, passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. It is our national health care law. And isn't it interesting that the folks from the Utah State Insurance Commissioner's office are finding so much fault with a system that bypasses the ACA, when they have so much disdain for the ACA.

    I remember over 30 years ago while starting a small business in Utah we tried to obtain group health insurance for our small office. Because my three-year-old son had been recently diagnosed with diabetes we found that no insurance company, not one of them, was willing to cover our small business because of his pre-existing condition. During that time I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the Utah State Insurance Commissioner's office and ask what were the alternatives for someone who had a child with such a disease. I was told, "Work for a larger company." So much for the spirit of entrepreneurship.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2016 11:18 p.m.

    Intersecting concept but I wonder what would happen if these faith based health ministries had a couple of really big claims. Would they pay or could they pay the claim?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 22, 2016 11:07 p.m.

    The religious requirements of these groups wouldn't satisfy many, but the concept of health care cooperatives is good. Voluntary cooperatives to pay for health care, worker self-directed enterprises, and a whole host of voluntary cooperatives are what socialists like myself call small "s" socialism. And as capitalism decays it could be a way out.

    But as wealth concentrates as the high end, there might not be enough wealth left farther down the economic ladder, to allow the creation of these cooperatives. Small "s" socialism is running a race against a voracious concentrated capitalism.