Like the Amish - Medical Expense Sharing

I learned that the new ObamaCare bill has a loophole that should be utilized to the point of collapsing the whole charade of "government" mandated health care insurance.

There is a religious exemption in the bill based on the Amish (and other Christian sects) belief it is the religious duty of communities is to provide for one another when they are sick. There has been a long-standing historical tradition to grant exemptions based on religious beliefs. The bill uses the same religious exemption that was used for Medicare, which exempts certain groups if they have religious objections and they belong to a recognized religion. The existence of the exemption, would release an Amish person or Old Order Mennonite from the individual mandate.

To qualify for the exemption, a person will have to prove he is a member of a qualifying religious group that has been in existence continuously since 1950. The details of the bill, such as how to apply for such an exemption, have yet to be determined.

The interesting thing is that it would be unconstitutional for the government to reject, let's say, a mainline Christian medical sharing organization the same exemption.

Largely unknown to the general public and surely not examined during the "health care" debate is the fact that there exists serious alternatives to standard health insurance that have been around since the 90's when health care costs started rising into the stratosphere. One is a medical sharing plan. In short, the participants in the plans assume responsibility for paying the medical expenses of the program members. This is done by averaging the cost of health care and dividing that into a monthly premium or pledge that each participant is required to make. Instead of pooling the money, the participants send their monthly pledge directly to another participant who has a current medical expense. Participants pledge that they are church-going Christians and that they abstain from alcohol and tobacco. This helps keep the health costs lower than those of the general population.

As many as five Christian-based medical sharing programs have been successfully administered for over a decade. Almost all participants are generally satisfied and find the medical sharing programs equal or superior to standard health insurance policies.

There are some downsides to any of these programs, not the least of which is the problem of dealing with health care providers without standard insurance. Most of these plans have indicated that this is not a serious problem. As it happens many hospitals and doctors already have experience with one or more of the medical sharing plans. Additionally it is not uncommon for hospitals and doctors to give very decent discounts because they are being paid in cash rather than having to deal with insurance companies.

One serious problem has been if expensive health care is needed the hospital and doctors have not wanted to perform costly procedures without a substantial down payment. It seems to me that this could be worked out by creating a reserve in advance. Also, in some of these plans there is little in the way of maternity care. If there are complications for mother or child in childbirth, or within the first six months of the child's life one could be stuck with a bill of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, with no way to pay it.

Obviously someone gaming the system and the good will of the "Plan" could sour the whole concept. It is a voluntary system and it is my understanding that no contracts are signed. Looking at the Samaritan Ministries program: (PLEASE NOTE, THIS INFO FOUND ON THE INTERNET...) the cost is $85 per month for single, $170 for married, and $195 for a family with three or more children. There is also a $150 per year fee that goes to the operation of Samaritan Ministries. The subscriber pays for the first three medical incidents per year under $300, and the program shares the cost of treatments over $300 (up to $100,000). Simply put, based on what I pay for health care through my employer this is comparable. My guess is that if this practice of medical sharing became larger these costs would come down simply because no one is trying to make a profit. Since the hospitals an doctors get paid as a fee for service the free market system would be preserved. There would be more cooperation between the patient and the provider to keep the costs down and the need for the government to control every aspect of the delivery of medical care would disappear.

In my mind this sort thing is closer to what we should be doing than a Canadian style government owned health care system. Doctors, nurses and hospital workers all across this country do not want to be federal employees - and nothing good will come if they are.



CW

Health Makes Me Sick: II

Health care in America is a difficult subject to discuss. Everyone has a medical horror story and everyone has seen a medical miracle. We are fortunate to live at a time when so many of the ailments and afflictions that can befall a human body can be fixed, controlled or cured.

We hear the politicians claiming the 10's of millions of Americans that don't have health insurance are entitled to it. I don't know about "entitled" but access really is an issue that should be dealt with.

Here's the deal...

There are government programs that offer health insurance to those who can't afford it. Oddly there are huge piles of unused cash sitting in government bank accounts set aside for these programs. In my state it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is that, you just might be inclined to ask???

The truth is they make it so difficult for the potential applicants to comply with the paperwork requirements that they are as likely to say f@%k it as they are to say "where do I sign".

Case in point: my daughter. A 22 year old that is still "thinking" about where she wants to go to college after taking a year off after high school (this is year 3). She can't be on my policy unless she is a full time student. She doesn't make enough at her job and no health care insurance is available anyway. So the government option seemed like a good idea.

It is was an extremely intrusive process and I can guarantee you if it wasn't for my wife dotting all the i's and crossing all t's it would have never went through. My daughter and 90% of people of her age and life experience could not see the daunting process all the way through. We literally submitted the same material 3 times. When the letter came looking for the one piece of paper we had submitted at least 3 times, but this time with a deadline of yesterday, well, we nearly lost it. Simply put it was ridiculous.

So I ask... Why would we want to hand our health care system to the government? What we have isn't perfect, but there are some excellent ideas out there short of socializing the whole thing.

In my own personal experience having educated myself and landing one good job after another I have always been offered a health insurance plan and have had nothing but excellent health care.

If Hillary or Obama get their grubbies on the health care system it will be worse for everyone not better, of this I am convinced.



CW

Is the Stem Cell Debate Over?

In a remarkable turn of events one of the most contentious political issues of our time became a moot point overnight. This happy news was published online Tuesday (Nov. 20th 2007) in two journals simultaneously, Cell and Science. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University reported this breakthrough in Cell; the paper published in Science was headed up by Junying Yu. Yu's team was working in the lab of stem-cell pioneer James A. Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The reprogrammed cells behaved like just stem cells in a series of lab tests.

President Bush, who had vetoed bills that allow for federal funding of controversial embryonic stem-cell research, was described as "very pleased." The President had taken the slings and arrows from what seemed the entire Hollywood establishment and now stands vindicated.

"The president believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life," his press secretary said.

Charles Krauthammer writing for RealClearPolitics.com declares:

the "embryonic stem cell debate over". He continues: The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as (James A. )Thomson puts it, Bush was made "a little bit uncomfortable" by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

This is a good point that can't be emphasized enough. Sure, one can make the case that most of these embryos probably faced destruction whether or not they are used for research. It's that it represents the slippery slope that uses any argument necessary to justify ethically questionable practices. Isn't the President now under fire for his administration's "ethically challenged" view of torture? Waterboarding enemy combatants under the guise that the information devulged has averted attacks and saved innocent lives. It so easy to judge something when it's your Ox being gored...

Lost in all debate and self righteous rhetoric from all the President's detractors is the fact nothing useful had come from embryonic stem cell research. Not one therapy or treatment was ever applied to a dying child. However, real treatments and therapies developed out of Adult Stem Cell research were relegated to page A11 in the newspapers. With each of these stories in the main stream media we were treated to regular diatribes against the President when the story had nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. The imprecise language conveniently let the reader believe that Bush had banned stem cell research altogether. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I doubt that the debate is really over. Ultimately my gut tells me that this breakthrough is so revolutionary that the money will follow this path and cloning guys and the embryo guys will fade quietly away.

Still, don't expect anyone in the main stream press to to tip their hat toward the President anytime soon...


CW

Diabetes and (Adult) Stem Cell Therapy

Incredible news comes our way regarding a new therapy for diabetics. Using stem cell transplants from the patients own body a study group of newly diagnosed diabetics have ended the need for insulin injections. While the therapy is potentially dangerous none of the group died and only one failed to be helped at all. The danger is due to the suppressing of the immune system prior to the treatment, much in the same way leukemia patients are prepared for bone marrow transplants.

The study group was comprised of young people, ages 14 to 31 and had newly diagnosed type I diabetes. People with type I diabetes have to give themselves regular insulin injections to control their blood-sugar levels, they become unable to create the hormone naturally.

Though never mentioned specifically in this TimeOnline (UK) article the therapy is another in a growing list of ADULT stem cell therapy successes. In fact the author goes off on a tangent that skewers President Bush for his role in halting Federal dollars for EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Unfortunately this story, this therapy has nothing at all to do with embryonic stem cells. This jab is truly out of place in this article and is another obvious attempt to fool the reader.

CNN also ran a story and to their credit did not stoop to belittling this great accomplishment with rhetoric citing the "most promising" type of research - embryonic stem cell research.

While this is great news for those newly diagnosed it is still questionable if this type of therapy will help those who have had type I diabetes for years. People like myself with type II diabetes will not benefit from this potential breakthrough.

Type II diabetes, generally affects people later in life, is also referred to as "adult onset diabetes" is linked to lifestyle factors such as obesity and sedentary behaviors. Type II sufferers control their blood-sugar levels with pills, or through diet and exercise and sometimes insulin.

From the article:

The new study, by a joint team of Brazilian and American scientists, found that one of the first patients to undergo the procedure has not used any supplemental synthetic insulin for three years. “Very encouraging results were obtained in a small number of patients with early-onset disease,” the authors, led by Julio Voltarelli, from the University of São Paulo in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. write. “Ninety-three per cent of patients achieved different periods of insulin independence and treatment-related toxicity was low, with no mortality.”

Type 1 diabetes occurs when the body’s own immune system malfunctions and destroys the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas, causing a shortage in the hormone. By the time most patients receive a clinical diagnosis, 60 to 80 per cent of their beta cells have been wiped out. The disease progresses from this point very quickly, and can result in serious long-term complications including blindness, kidney failure, heart disease and stroke.

The bottom line is that we should all be encouraged by this as another potential victory for medical science. It should not be used to fool people and obscure the fact that Adult Stem Cell therapy is real as opposed to the "promise" of embryonic stem cell therapy.


CW