Bunny Trails

[Bootstrap]

Robert, if you fail to respond to one of my posts, is that a sign that you are ignoring it because it does not fit into your paradigm? Does that imply something negative about you?

I ignore you when you just keep chanting the same lines and show no growth.

Robert, I don't think I had shown those three graphs before. You don't have to respond to them. If you choose to, I would love it if you would respond to the content of what I posted. I did not refer to you or insult you in my posts. Looking back at those posts, I really can't see anything objectionable in what I wrote. If something is objectionable, could you please be specific about what it is?

I also have noticed through the years that you never respond when there are hard facts the that contradict your positions on things. You just go silent and wait for a while then come back with your same original lines.

Your post did not mention me or ask me anything. Nobody else responded to the post either, but my failure to respond to it has a special significance that nobody else's silence has.

Are you sure you are being fair here?

Ironically, I am now the only person who has responded to that particular post. I asked if you could pick one of the three graphs that you most want to discuss, point to an article that explains the data, and explain what it means to you. I think it's hard to discuss without this information, the kind of information I provided in my post. If your graphs contain "hard facts that contradict my position on things", I would like your help understanding what those hard facts are.

It's just possible that the three graphs I posted contain hard facts that contradict your position on things. Feel free to discuss them if you want to. To me, at least, they seem to show that the IPCC has accurately predicted the last 20 years. If I'm missing something, a discussion about the data is probably the best way to show me that.

[MaxPC]

Yes. For someone like me, that is the case. There are a few limited exceptions, but they don’t apply to anyone with a full time job at a large company. We had a fairly intensive go round with HR at my last job. My last employer tried to actually pay people to switch off of the company plan. Got cited by the state government. Had to withdraw the offer, and send around a notice detailing what our options actually were, and it ran to a full page. Maryland has some at rather complex rules even down to which member of the family carries the insurance. But no is not an option unless you can show coverage elsewhere. If you make less than a certain amount, or are less than full time, or are working for a small employer, yes. But in general most of us working regular full time jobs, if you say no, HR will require evidence of coverage before you can do this. You cannot switch from one spouse to another without a “qualifying event.”

File a religious objection with your employer and insurer. Your employer might still end up paying into the plan, but they can always let you opt out of being covered. I did this with my current employer for their "free" life insurance. (They ended up keeping the policy but simply named my employer as the sole beneficiary.)

Never tried it with a “mutual aid” plan though. Never tried objecting due to religious reasons, as we have no such reasons. There may be some way of doing it, but that option was never on the table.

So, yes, I was likely over generalized.

J.M.

A "mutual aid" plan typically counts as other coverage. Again, I did this with my current employer, who meets regulations in California, which is a very regulated state for insurance. The mutual aid plan has a certificate describing that they do cover your medical needs.

The Affordable Care Act recognises mutual aid plans as well, as I was quite eager to tell my fellow plain brethren who liked to complain about how "Obamacare is forcing us to pay a penalty for not having insurance". At plainer churches such as in Pilgrim Conference or Hope, there would be stack of exemption forms in the narthex. At the less-plain churches, conversation instead drifted to talk of politics and repeating Fox News talking points about the evils of Obamacare.

Just now spotting this, Josh. Shall begin another thread if you prefer but as it seems you have an understanding of “mutual aid” insurance I wonder if you would provide some guidelines as to determining the solvency or financial health of a mutual aid program?

[ohio jones]

In the simplest form of mutual aid plan, the solvency of the plan is not a concern, it's the financial health of the members that matters.

[MaxPC]

In the simplest form of mutual aid plan, the solvency of the plan is not a concern, it's the financial health of the members that matters.

Would you have some guidelines as to what constitutes the financial health? For clarity, I am using the standard definition of solvency i.e. the ability of a company to meet its long-term debts and other financial obligations

My reasons for asking is that I am seeing a number of faith-based mutual aid plans emerging.

[ohio jones]

In the simplest form of mutual aid plan, the solvency of the plan is not a concern, it's the financial health of the members that matters.

Would you have some guidelines as to what constitutes the financial health? For clarity, I am using the standard definition of solvency i.e. the ability of a company to meet its long-term debts and other financial obligations

My reasons for asking is that I am seeing a number of faith-based mutual aid plans emerging.

What long-term debts? Just total up the bills for the month or quarter, divide by the number of members, and let each one know how much to pay in. There needs to be enough cash on hand to pay the bills before receiving the contributions, and some plans may have a reserve to average out the amounts over a year or so to avoid wild fluctuations, but that's about it.

[MaxPC]

In the simplest form of mutual aid plan, the solvency of the plan is not a concern, it's the financial health of the members that matters.

Would you have some guidelines as to what constitutes the financial health? For clarity, I am using the standard definition of solvency i.e. the ability of a company to meet its long-term debts and other financial obligations

My reasons for asking is that I am seeing a number of faith-based mutual aid plans emerging.

What long-term debts? Just total up the bills for the month or quarter, divide by the number of members, and let each one know how much to pay in. There needs to be enough cash on hand to pay the bills before receiving the contributions, and some plans may have a reserve to average out the amounts over a year or so to avoid wild fluctuations, but that's about it.

Do all of the mutual aid plans function this way? What would be the pitfalls in reality? Have some of these plans failed through mismanagement or theft of funds?

[ohio jones]

Note that I was referencing the "simplest form" of mutual aid plan. There are other models. Some healthcare sharing ministries, especially the non-Anabaptist ones, have significant administrative expenses, do a lot of advertising, have multiple plan options, and other complications.

I'm not aware that any Anabaptist plans have failed through theft or mismanagement, though it's possible some have. A more common failure mode is that when costs go up, the sick stay in the plan and the healthy look for greener pastures elsewhere.

[RZehr]

Article that Tim Thomas wrote for Anabaptist Financial.
https://www.afweb.org/download/610

One evidence of faltering mutual aid plans is the number of loan applications we receive from people who are under financial strain due to past property or medical losses that have not been taken care of by their brotherhood mutual aid. The constituency which Anabaptist Financial serves has many different ways of structuring and administrating their mutual aid plans, but hopefully the premise of all of them is to “bear one another’s burdens.” At Anabaptist Financial, we speak to people every month who are struggling underneath financial burdens directly related to a mutual aid issue. If people within your brotherhood are sinking financially due to medical and other catastrophic events in their lives, your mutual aid plan is not working.

A second evidence of faltering mutual aid plans is coming from the increasing number of providers who are complaining that they are not getting paid. These complaints are mainly coming from healthcare providers such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors. The “noise” from these providers is growing as they seek out help from the larger Anabaptist community to get their bills paid. This should alarm all of us, including those whose mutual aid plans are working well.

A third evidence that our mutual aid plans are faltering comes from loan requests from churches to Anabaptist Financial to cover mutual aid bills they are unable to pay. For years, Anabaptist Financial has supported our constituency’s conscience for mutual aid by making short term loans that allow churches to take advantage of early pay discounts and give them time to raise funds for a catastrophic need. More recently we are seeing a trend toward larger requests, and requests for longer-term paybacks. In the past three months alone, Anabaptist Financial has evaluated loan requests for over $5 million for mutual aid needs that the church or mutual aid plan was unable to meet.

[Szdfan]

I don’t think that Biden was “promoting” divorce by saying that things get better after divorce — I don’t know what it means to “promote” divorce. I saw it as a statement of hope.

My divorce was one of the worst things I’ve gone through. I didn’t intend to get divorced when I married my ex, but divorce became an option when staying married to her was worse.

One of the hopeful things people told me as I was going through this is that things will get better afterwards. And they did get better...for all the ways divorce complicated my life, my life is better now than it was when I was married to my ex.

I wish there wasn’t so much judgement and condemnation of people who have had to go through this. I know I’m not the only one here.

[ken_sylvania]

Just because it feels better to have "put asunder" that which God had joined together doesn't make it right.
I can understand the wish to not have to suffer the stigma associated with wrongdoing, but we shouldn't suggest that divorce is OK just to make people feel good. I think this is a poor place to ask people to approve of that which Jesus forbids.