What are your views on health insurance?

[JohnH]

So basically, behavior you’d condemn as “dependency” in others becomes “stewardship” when it’s you. It’s the exact same thing, you’re just rebranding it. I call that moral laundering.

When have I done that?

I would like to remind you that nearly everyone I have helped with benefits, SNAP, Medicaid, WIC, and so on isn't a plain person or even an Anabaptist. I don't know why you're so fixed on this. Most Anabaptists are net contributors to healthcare systems and seem nearly obsessed with making sure they pay the cash price owed and aren't the recipients of any sort of government help (it's not a position I agree with, but that's the position most of them have).

[Szdfan]

So basically, behavior you’d condemn as “dependency” in others becomes “stewardship” when it’s you. It’s the exact same thing, you’re just rebranding it. I call that moral laundering.

When have I done that?

I would like to remind you that nearly everyone I have helped with benefits, SNAP, Medicaid, WIC, and so on isn't a plain person or even an Anabaptist. I don't know why you're so fixed on this. Most Anabaptists are net contributors to healthcare systems and seem nearly obsessed with making sure they pay the cash price owed and aren't the recipients of any sort of government help (it's not a position I agree with, but that's the position most of them have).

Do you really not see how limiting your income in order to receive government benefits conflicts with your idea of self-sufficiency?

There’s a real contradiction running through many of your posts in this thread:

1. The moral image of self-reliance and independence.

2. The practical reality of depending on public assistance like Medicaid.

That’s cognitive dissonance. Your ethics and the economics don’t line up. I’m not saying that makes you a hypocrite or a bad person, but it does show how fragile the idea of self-sufficiency is.

[JohnH]

Do you really not see how limiting your income in order to receive government benefits conflicts with your idea of self-sufficiency?

I don't consider acquiring as many Federal Reserve Notes as possible to be "self-sufficiency".

To the contrary, I have spoken against acquiring money and defining wealth in terms of money for a long time - including back when I held a position of avoiding using government aid as much as possible.

There’s a real contradiction running through many of your posts in this thread:

1. The moral image of self-reliance and independence.

I have never promoted this. Where are you getting this idea?

I do believe the Bible teaches principles such as "If someone will not work, the neither should he eat", and "He who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever".

2. The practical reality of depending on public assistance like Medicaid.

That’s cognitive dissonance. Your ethics and the economics don’t line up. I’m not saying that makes you a hypocrite or a bad person, but it does show how fragile the idea of self-sufficiency is.

I have held for a long time that being rich is incompatible with being a Christian, because Jesus taught that it is essentially impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Eventually I met a group of people who lived in a communal fashion. They decided to fix their incomes for each person at the Federal Poverty Level, out of a desire to be able to relate effectively to their neighbors. (If their communally held business made more than that, they gave it away to another 501(c)3.) They decided to participate in state aid they were eligible for also out of a desire to be able to relate to their neighbors, who tended to rely on government assistance as well. Their view, however, was to accept a "vow of poverty" and accept having inferior "free" government aid instead of the more comfortable / secure mutual aid they had been accustomed to when growing up as German Baptists.

I found this inspiring and decided to take steps to apply it to my own life as well.

After taking those steps, I spoke to people in my church and learned we didn't have a stance against state aid, and so I looked into moving away from an expensive but gold-plated health insurance plan, the kind I had been accustomed to having, and to instead subsisting at the federal poverty line. We also established our community where we equalized our incomes, both as part of our founding principles but also as a matter of the law that governs religious communities. I found it inspiring that the Shakers were so committed to religious community and equality in terms of money that they left a legacy of a law that actually enshrined such a structure.

I expected government state aid to be significantly worse in terms of medical care but felt it was best to move in that direction, anyway - in fact, I encouraged one of our members to try to get as many medical appointments out of the way before our old insurance plan expired. The result - a routine screening showed cancer. I was distressed and worried about having coverage to treat the cancer effectively but also felt we should trust God.

Well, a year later, I learned that the state aid plans are really good and actually provided much better coverage than the old insurance plan would have. However, the basis for moving in this direction was that I feel that Christians should establish a lifestyle that doesn't exceed their neighbors in terms of income, and that those who find they have excess wealth should give it away, not hoard it. I feel we should try to live a lifestyle where we depend on our neighbors as well. An Amishman once described why he feels he shouldn't move in the direction of buying a car: he feels it is better to need to rely on his neighbors if he needs to quickly be transported some distance. He prefers the interdependence of relying on them for a car, instead of the superficial feeling of independence of owning one's own car, and being able to travel wherever you want, whenever you want. If he calls lots of drivers and can't find one free to give him a ride, he allows that to be the Lord's will that he doesn't need to take that trip right then.

With that said, I am not opposed to mutual-aid plans, but they are not plans designed to create "independence". They are, rather, crafted to avoid participating in insurance. State aid, interestingly, isn't really insurance, either. You are not contributing dollars to a shared risk pool to cover the potential of a large personal risk to yourself in the future. Instead, just like mutual aid, you contribute money to others who have needs right now, without guarantees your own needs will be met in the future. (There can be a separate political debate about the solvency of such programs.)

So, yes, I think Christians would do well to align their lifestyle with that of their neighbors, and was in inspired by meeting a group of believers who did such. It was a leap of faith to trust God would meet my needs without relying on traditional insurance.

Politically speaking, I find I don't fully align with those who take a "right wing" or "Republican" view on things. On a personal level, I have not found much blessing in people who hold to such views, move to a state that doesn't have Medicaid expansion and doesn't have providers participating fully in HCAP, ending up unemployed or disabled, and then holding endless fundraisers to pay their medical bills. I feel there is a spirit of arrogance and pride when people don't participate in state aid, even though they are eligible for it and their church allows it. I feel it is good for a Christian to participate in things like food banks and WIC. You may touch the life of someone else in the waiting room that you would have never met otherwise.

[Szdfan]

Do you really not see how limiting your income in order to receive government benefits conflicts with your idea of self-sufficiency?

I don't consider acquiring as many Federal Reserve Notes as possible to be "self-sufficiency".

To the contrary, I have spoken against acquiring money and defining wealth in terms of money for a long time - including back when I held a position of avoiding using government aid as much as possible.

There’s a real contradiction running through many of your posts in this thread:

1. The moral image of self-reliance and independence.

I have never promoted this. Where are you getting this idea?

I do believe the Bible teaches principles such as "If someone will not work, the neither should he eat", and "He who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever".

2. The practical reality of depending on public assistance like Medicaid.

That’s cognitive dissonance. Your ethics and the economics don’t line up. I’m not saying that makes you a hypocrite or a bad person, but it does show how fragile the idea of self-sufficiency is.

I have held for a long time that being rich is incompatible with being a Christian, because Jesus taught that it is essentially impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Eventually I met a group of people who lived in a communal fashion. They decided to fix their incomes for each person at the Federal Poverty Level, out of a desire to be able to relate effectively to their neighbors. (If their communally held business made more than that, they gave it away to another 501(c)3.) They decided to participate in state aid they were eligible for also out of a desire to be able to relate to their neighbors, who tended to rely on government assistance as well. Their view, however, was to accept a "vow of poverty" and accept having inferior "free" government aid instead of the more comfortable / secure mutual aid they had been accustomed to when growing up as German Baptists.

I found this inspiring and decided to take steps to apply it to my own life as well.

After taking those steps, I spoke to people in my church and learned we didn't have a stance against state aid, and so I looked into moving away from an expensive but gold-plated health insurance plan, the kind I had been accustomed to having, and to instead subsisting at the federal poverty line. We also established our community where we equalized our incomes, both as part of our founding principles but also as a matter of the law that governs religious communities. I found it inspiring that the Shakers were so committed to religious community and equality in terms of money that they left a legacy of a law that actually enshrined such a structure.

I expected government state aid to be significantly worse in terms of medical care but felt it was best to move in that direction, anyway - in fact, I encouraged one of our members to try to get as many medical appointments out of the way before our old insurance plan expired. The result - a routine screening showed cancer. I was distressed and worried about having coverage to treat the cancer effectively but also felt we should trust God.

Well, a year later, I learned that the state aid plans are really good and actually provided much better coverage than the old insurance plan would have. However, the basis for moving in this direction was that I feel that Christians should establish a lifestyle that doesn't exceed their neighbors in terms of income, and that those who find they have excess wealth should give it away, not hoard it. I feel we should try to live a lifestyle where we depend on our neighbors as well. An Amishman once described why he feels he shouldn't move in the direction of buying a car: he feels it is better to need to rely on his neighbors if he needs to quickly be transported some distance. He prefers the interdependence of relying on them for a car, instead of the superficial feeling of independence of owning one's own car, and being able to travel wherever you want, whenever you want. If he calls lots of drivers and can't find one free to give him a ride, he allows that to be the Lord's will that he doesn't need to take that trip right then.

With that said, I am not opposed to mutual-aid plans, but they are not plans designed to create "independence". They are, rather, crafted to avoid participating in insurance. State aid, interestingly, isn't really insurance, either. You are not contributing dollars to a shared risk pool to cover the potential of a large personal risk to yourself in the future. Instead, just like mutual aid, you contribute money to others who have needs right now, without guarantees your own needs will be met in the future. (There can be a separate political debate about the solvency of such programs.)

So, yes, I think Christians would do well to align their lifestyle with that of their neighbors, and was in inspired by meeting a group of believers who did such. It was a leap of faith to trust God would meet my needs without relying on traditional insurance.

Politically speaking, I find I don't fully align with those who take a "right wing" or "Republican" view on things. On a personal level, I have not found much blessing in people who hold to such views, move to a state that doesn't have Medicaid expansion and doesn't have providers participating fully in HCAP, ending up unemployed or disabled, and then holding endless fundraisers to pay their medical bills. I feel there is a spirit of arrogance and pride when people don't participate in state aid, even though they are eligible for it and their church allows it. I feel it is good for a Christian to participate in things like food banks and WIC. You may touch the life of someone else in the waiting room that you would have never met otherwise.

Thanks for sharing a bit about your story. I appreciate it. One of the things that stands out for me is how central interdependence is to your story. The question I have is why "dependency" in others is considered religious piety when it comes to you. Functionally and economically, there's no difference between you and anyone else who receives government services and aid. That's my point. Nobody is completely self-sufficient, even in communities that define themselves that way.

[the-real-steve]

When my employer offered insurance, we took it.

There were times we didn't have that option and we participated in a sharing program. There were times I just paid cash for some bigger bills, but I was still dabbling in real estate and had the cash to do so.

We had a local midwife we used that was paid in cash, but of her doctor signed off, we could get reimbursed down the road by our insurance.

My employer convinced me to enroll in a HSA. We shall see how that pans out in the new year.