Faith-based Health Insurance kills pastor's retirement savings

In the states like Kansas that haven’t done the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, low income workers like the pastor don’t get the Obamacare tax subsides, but someone earning $10,000/yr more likely could get real, insurance commissioner regulated, health insurance for a low premium. The pastor couldn’t afford the full, unsubsidized price of the Obamacare plan and opted for the faith-based insurance scam at a lower premium.

A ‘medical cost-sharing’ plan left this minister to pay most of his $160,000 bill



Known for years. What happens when there is no money to pay? Bk.

1 Like

I would point out that nobody with income below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for their family size gets ACA subsidies in any state. In states with expanded Medicaid, those with income below the FPL are eligible for Medicaid - not ACA. Expanded Medicaid was implemented as a part of the ACA legislation to provide coverage for the working poor who, under non-expanded Medicaid, would generally not qualify because they don’t meet at least one of the state specific criteria in addition to the income limits, like:

  • caring for a child under 18 in their household;
  • having someone in their household who is disabled;
  • being 65 or over

I guess the states that won’t expand Medicaid have decided that it’s cheaper to pay 100% of the emergency room visits for the working poor than pay the 10% of Medicaid costs that the Federal government doesn’t reimburse them?



It’s “the principle of the thing,” if you know what I mean…



Tell the bureaucrats they are NOT getting paid “Due to the principle of ‘It’s MY money and YOU are not getting paid because I said so’”.

Then watch what happens…

On the old TMF I posted an article about these faith-based scams. I call them scams because they have a habit of denying claims, whether there is money or not. Since they aren’t insurance they don’t have the same rules as insurance, and are apparently even more reluctant to disperse funds than insurance companies.

I do find the irony of a minister experiencing this…amusing. As much as I hate insurance companies, it’s better to deal with them for important things (health, fire, auto). At least they have rules, and you have recourse (e.g. many states have insurance commissions).


I find the irony equally amusing (in a dark way) that, as AJ put it, certain states would rather all the costs be in-state v. nearly all federally subsidized just because it has to do with expanded Medicaid, even when their states’ residents are paying a portion of their tax dollars that go into Medicaid. Seems like a ‘cutting off the nose to spite the face’ sort of situation.



MateroPete: “Seems like a ‘cutting off the nose to spite the face’ sort of situation.”

More like cutting of the other guy’s nose to spite the D’s (or perhaps the federal government).

Regards, JAFO



Excellent article in Texas Tribune a couple of months ago. Bipartisan group of legislators tried to pass legislation allowing state health and insurance regulators to “maximize the amount of Federal revenue coming to the state” omitting the offensive Obamacare word in the legislative language.

Gov and Lt Gov said no. Ignorance and innumeracy trumps an extra $5 Billion/year coming to Texas residents.



It seems like neither the D’s nor the feds have the nasal incision by not claiming Medicaid expansion. The states’ (mostly R states) residents who need the insurance are the ones who truly suffer, an example of which the OP pointed out.