Abortion/Medical Insurance Paradox

[Rence]

There are altenatives.

There are at least 3 Christian oriented medi-share plans out there. I investigated three and asked if they pay for abortions. All 3 said “Absolutely Not”

You do have a choice.

I investigated the following:

mychristiancare.org
chministries.org
medi-share.org

YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE!

The Catholic Church has a choice as well. They could start they own Medi-Share Insurance Company.

There are choices and solutions to pursue.

Just how narrow is the gate to heaven?

Seriously, I don’t know anyone who would reject affordable, comprehensive insurance that comes with the benefits package from work, and choose something more expensive privately and independently. There is no private medical insurance policy that can compare in cost and availability of services as group insurance. Their contracting ability makes them the better choice. Yes, we all have choices: I choose the benefits package that comes with my employment. You can go ahead and get private insurance if that’s what you want to do Thankfully, the choices aren’t all that limited

 

[Rence]

If you think these are alternatives to medical insurance, you are very wrong. As explained on the mychristiancare.org website, this is not insurance. It does not promise any payment for medical bills. It is entirely voluntary. It is like throwing yourself on the mercy of a charity. Not very many people would find this course of action giving them peace of mind.

If it’s not even insurance, there is no point in even considering it.

 

[Corki]

If this is an employer sponsored insurance plan, and you are an employee and not the owner of the company, then you don’t have to do anything.

If this is insurance you secured and are paying for entirely yourself, I think you have an obligation to make a reasonable attempt to find a plan that does not include those services.

 

[Nate13]

Seriously, I don’t know anyone who would reject affordable, comprehensive insurance that comes with the benefits package from work, and choose something more expensive privately and independently. There is no private medical insurance policy that can compare in cost and availability of services as group insurance. Their contracting ability makes them the better choice. Yes, we all have choices: I choose the benefits package that comes with my employment. You can go ahead and get private insurance if that’s what you want to do Thankfully, the choices aren’t all that limited

Actually finding insurance elsewhere would be very viable if you got the money that would have been spent on healthcare by your company as part of your normal income instead. Then you find a group of like minded individuals such as the people at your church or the churches in town and choose a provider together to get the group discount. It seems incredibly doable assuming there was some compulsion or some way in which you could demand flexibility in choosing the plan you want from your employer.

Employer’s are usually covering 75% of the cost of healthcare for their employees and if you can’t get that money out as part of your normal income if you don’t like the policy they have chosen, most will not have the option of finding another policy though.

 

[Quarles47]

Is Purgatory enough to get you to the pearly gates, especially since you perform this sin Willingly each month.

Bub, no where I know can anyone elect not to pay for medicaid/medicare:hey_bud:

 

[Rence]

Actually finding insurance elsewhere would be very viable if you got the money that would have been spent on healthcare by your company as part of your normal income instead. Then you find a group of like minded individuals such as the people at your church or the churches in town and choose a provider together to get the group discount. It seems incredibly doable assuming there was some compulsion or some way in which you could demand flexibility in choosing the plan you want from your employer.

Employer’s are usually covering 75% of the cost of healthcare for their employees and if you can’t get that money out as part of your normal income if you don’t like the policy they have chosen, most will not have the option of finding another policy though.

Yeah, getting the money in income instead of health benefits was never an option in any place I’ve ever worked at.

 

[Nate13]

Yeah, getting the money in income instead of health benefits was never an option in any place I’ve ever worked at.

I feel like having that option would fix a lot of problems and allow people the most flexibility. They could have some kind of rule that made it so you couldn’t choose that option unless you showed proof that you were buying another form of insurance with the money if that made them feel better about doing it. That would keep the incentive to buy health insurance that is already there in place.

 

[Corki]

Actually finding insurance elsewhere would be very viable if you got the money that would have been spent on healthcare by your company as part of your normal income instead. Then you find a group of like minded individuals such as the people at your church or the churches in town and choose a provider together to get the group discount. It seems incredibly doable assuming there was some compulsion or some way in which you could demand flexibility in choosing the plan you want from your employer.

Employer’s are usually covering 75% of the cost of healthcare for their employees and if you can’t get that money out as part of your normal income if you don’t like the policy they have chosen, most will not have the option of finding another policy though.

It’s not quite that simple. Most employer sponsored policies are offered at a much lower cost (employer and employee contribution combined) than any individual or group of individuals can get on the open market. Additionally, the employer and employee contributions to an employer sponsored plan are tax exempt. Not so with any premiums you pay on your own. So even if you could get your employer to give you an equivalent salary increase to what he was paying for insurance, you would see the money at a post-tax amount and have to spend it in an inflated market. For most people who are getting insurance for the security of their families, this isn’t a viable option.

 

[Nate13]

It’s not quite that simple. Most employer sponsored policies are offered at a much lower cost (employer and employee contribution combined) than any individual or group of individuals can get on the open market. Additionally, the employer and employee contributions to an employer sponsored plan are tax exempt. Not so with any premiums you pay on your own. So even if you could get your employer to give you an equivalent salary increase to what he was paying for insurance, you would see the money at a post-tax amount and have to spend it in an inflated market. For most people who are getting insurance for the security of their families, this isn’t a viable option.

That should be a relatively easy tax fix, just extend the tax break to individuals as well. I’m not sure I believe there isn’t already a tax break out there though. I don’t know the logistics behind why insurance companies offer higher rates for two groups of the same size because one is an employer and one is not, but I highly doubt that is an insurmountable problem.

I also bet the problem might solve itself if a vast majority of people were given the money to spend on the plan they want and the market of people who had the flexibility to buy into a pro-life plan opened up. Heck I can go out and find a pro-life cellphone company right now, I should have the flexibility to go out and find a pro-life healthcare plan.

 

[maryjk]

Yeah, getting the money in income instead of health benefits was never an option in any place I’ve ever worked at.

I once worked for a company, ADP, that paid me $$$ in my paycheck for opting out of their insurance. I did have to provide proof of insurance. I got my health insurance through my husband’s policy. It ended up being cheaper to add me as a dependent than it would have been to carry the insurance ADP offered.

But again, I had to provide, every year, proof of coverage through another policy.

 

[Corki]

That should be a relatively easy tax fix, just extend the tax break to individuals as well. I’m not sure I believe there isn’t already a tax break out there though. I don’t know the logistics behind why insurance companies offer higher rates for two groups of the same size because one is an employer and one is not, but I highly doubt that is an insurmountable problem.

I also bet the problem might solve itself if a vast majority of people were given the money to spend on the plan they want and the market of people who had the flexibility to buy into a pro-life plan opened up. Heck I can go out and find a pro-life cellphone company right now, I should have the flexibility to go out and find a pro-life healthcare plan.

There is a tax break but it’s “below the line” and subject to your expenses being more than a cetain percentage of your income (I think it’s 2%). With the deficit the country is facing, don’t hold your breath for more tax breaks.

The two groups would not likely be the same size, even if all of the employees opt out of employer insurance, they wouldn’t all go to the same insurer - they would group into smaller populations based on needs and wants. The rates would be higher because of the self-selection involved in the grouping.

 

[Rence]

I feel like having that option would fix a lot of problems and allow people the most flexibility. They could have some kind of rule that made it so you couldn’t choose that option unless you showed proof that you were buying another form of insurance with the money if that made them feel better about doing it. That would keep the incentive to buy health insurance that is already there in place.

I don’t think that option is popular because businesses get group discounts. The more members in the network, the less the premiums. So it’s in their best interest (as well as the members’ best interest) to not allow people to opt out with salary adjustment.

 

[Nate13]

There is a tax break but it’s “below the line” and subject to your expenses being more than a cetain percentage of your income (I think it’s 2%). With the deficit the country is facing, don’t hold your breath for more tax breaks.

The company would be able to claim less of a tax break and you would be able to claim more of one. It should be manageable.

The two groups would not likely be the same size, even if all of the employees opt out of employer insurance, they wouldn’t all go to the same insurer - they would group into smaller populations based on needs and wants. The rates would be higher because of the self-selection involved in the grouping.

Yes, but you wouldn’t form your groups only using people you were employed with. You would go and find like minded people both inside and outside your workplace and form a group with them. You could even have it so everyone one who was Catholic in your State has a designated plan that aligned with their views.

These really just don’t seem like insurmountable problems to me.

@Rence

I don’t think that option is popular because businesses get group discounts. The more members in the network, the less the premiums. So it’s in their best interest (as well as the members’ best interest) to not allow people to opt out with salary adjustment.

If enough people complain you could change things.

 

[Rence]

@Rence
If enough people complain you could change things.

Though I’m sure there’s always at least one in a crowd, I don’t know a single person who doesn’t appreciate the insurance coverage where I work and I don’t know anyone IRL who even knows about this mandate let alone is unhappy about it. There were a few at my previous employer who opted out of insurance (without compensation, they just opted out of the insurance) because they either didn’t need it, or didn’t want to pay for it.

 

[Nate13]

Though I’m sure there’s always at least one in a crowd, I don’t know a single person who doesn’t appreciate the insurance coverage where I work and I don’t know anyone IRL who even knows about this mandate let alone is unhappy about it. There were a few at my previous employer who opted out of insurance (without compensation, they just opted out of the insurance) because they either didn’t need it, or didn’t want to pay for it.

I assume something like 50% of the country would be pretty ticked if their employers had plans that provided coverage for abortions. Most plans do not currently or have very very limited coverage only when the life of the mother is truly in danger of dying. If this changes in the future I could see enough people being pissed to make something happen.

 

[Rence]

I assume something like 50% of the country would be pretty ticked if their employers had plans that provided coverage for abortions. Most plans do not currently or have very very limited coverage only when the life of the mother is truly in danger of dying. If this changes in the future I could see enough people being pissed to make something happen.

You’re right that most plans have limited coverage for abortion, for example, when the woman’s health is at risk. But most cover ABCs and I don’t know anyone IRL who is opposed to such coverage.

 

[ryecroft]

Don’t we all have enough sins on our head (I know I do) without going out and trying to figure more out? Isn’t that kind of the Church’s job?
God Bless
Rye

 

[vera_dicere]

Medical Insurance is a choice.
A choice to PAY BLOOD MONEY to an ENTITY that DIRECTLY PAYS FOR THE KILLING OF THE UNBORN.

The New Zealand govt. funds abortions. Fully funds them. Even pays for some women to head across the ditch to Aussie for LTA.

That funding comes from taxes.

I pay taxes.

Ergo my tax dollars could be funding abortions.

What do you suggest? I stop paying taxes?

What computer are you using? Search engine? You running any microsoft products? If you’re that worried about fiscally supporting abortion indirectly, make a donation that will exceed the indirect fiscal support of abortion to a pro-life charity.

 

[fpt]

I have a question that can seem weird: What happens if an indirect and involuntary contraception and / or an indirect and involuntary abortion, in the respect of catholic true teaching, must take place? Do you known, if an insurance company of health insurance, that respects the catholic teaching of roman catholic church, will take in charge, in very special situations, these types of treatments, pills, surgeries, exercices, therapies…etc??? By principle, is it yes or no??? How to know if the policy holder will be refunded by its insurer in these very limited cases?

 

[mytruepower2]

A. Abortion is a Mortal Sin.

B. Supporting Abortion in any form is a Vineal Sin if not a Mortal Sin.

C. You make payments to your Medical Insurance Company.

D. Your Medical Insurance Company pays for Abortions.

E. Therefore you are paying for abortions.

F. It is irrelvant that your individual policy does not cover/pay for Abortion. Because you are making payments to an institution that pays for Abortions.

G. What do you you now?

H. Is Purgatory enough to get you to the pearly gates, especially since you perform this sin Willingly each month.

Premise H rests on a false assumption; namely, that I make willing payments to an insurance provider.

Personally, I’d rather do without insurance, but where I live, the law prohibits this. It’s wrong, and it’s unfair, but that’s how it is. Because this is imposed on me contrary to my will, it doesn’t represent an act of my will.

All sins are acts of the will.

Therefore, this is no sin of mine.

Additionally, I would question Premise B. Nothing is ever a sin unless you do it willingly, and therefore, you need to add another word to premise B in order to make it correct.

Premise B. Willingly Supporting Abortion in any form is a Vineal Sin if not a Mortal Sin.

Because of this the equation is like this;

Premise A. Abortion is a Mortal Sin.

Premise B. Willingly Supporting Abortion in any form is a Vineal Sin if not a Mortal Sin.

Premise C. You make payments to your Medical Insurance Company.

Premise D. Your Medical Insurance Company pays for Abortions.

Premise E. Therefore you are paying for abortions.

Premise F. It is irrelvant that your individual policy does not cover/pay for Abortion. Because you are making payments to an institution that pays for Abortions.

Conclusion A. If you do this according to your will, this represents a sin.

Conclusion B. If you do this contrary to your will, this does not represent a sin.