The Kentucky Department of Insurance and Franklin Circuit Court this afternoon have broken their silence on a case that can usher in unprecedented health freedom for citizens of the Commonwealth. After quietly neglecting citizens in the state's bizarre battle against Christian health sharing organizations with no action since July 2011, DOI officials and Judge Thomas Wingate have announced a public hearing on the state's decade-long lawsuit against Christians seeking an exemption from ObamaCare.
Please make plans to attend the hearing in Frankfort on August 30 at 1:30 pm in the Franklin Circuit Court, 669 Chamberlain Avenue, Frankfort. The case number is 02-CI-837.
We are looking for a ruling against Christian Medi-Share to help mobilize support for changing Kentucky law to allow religious health sharing groups to operate without fear of prosecution in the state. Either way the fight will go on, though, as education about this case continues. Most of the people being hurt by this don't yet realize it.
Consumers don't have a lobbyist in this fight or an attorney in this case, though our standing in it is clear. The only thing holding Kentuckians back from taking full advantage of this exemption from ObamaCare is bad Kentucky law that must be changed.
Please support this effort to force Frankfort to get out from between Kentuckians and our natural right to health freedom. Click here and donate what you can.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Kentucky's Catch-22
Joseph Heller's Catch-22 satirically attacks arbitrary abuse of government power.
From Wikipedia:
"Other forms of Catch-22 are invoked throughout the novel to justify various bureaucratic actions. At one point, victims of harassment by military police quote the MPs' explanation of one of Catch-22's provisions: "Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating." Another character explains: "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.""
Kentucky utilizes Catch-22 reasoning in its continued assault on citizens attempting to escape ObamaCare. State law effectively forbids religious health sharing, an alternative to health insurance whose practitioners are actually exempt from mandates in the "Affordable Care Act."
Under Kentucky law this practice is not only illegal, it is a felony punishable by large fines and up to five years in prison. So if you are a Kentuckian who understands ObamaCare is an unworkable mess and want out, your state government could legally throw you in jail for trying. Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate, the state's Department of Insurance and the legislature have stopped even trying to clarify this situation, but all those people have one thing in common: they are state employees not subject to prosecution for seeking a health insurance alternative while regular citizens face ObamaCare taxes, fees and mandates on one side and the potential for imprisonment on the other.
It's about time to storm the gates. Here's one idea. And another.
From Wikipedia:
"Other forms of Catch-22 are invoked throughout the novel to justify various bureaucratic actions. At one point, victims of harassment by military police quote the MPs' explanation of one of Catch-22's provisions: "Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating." Another character explains: "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.""
Kentucky utilizes Catch-22 reasoning in its continued assault on citizens attempting to escape ObamaCare. State law effectively forbids religious health sharing, an alternative to health insurance whose practitioners are actually exempt from mandates in the "Affordable Care Act."
Under Kentucky law this practice is not only illegal, it is a felony punishable by large fines and up to five years in prison. So if you are a Kentuckian who understands ObamaCare is an unworkable mess and want out, your state government could legally throw you in jail for trying. Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate, the state's Department of Insurance and the legislature have stopped even trying to clarify this situation, but all those people have one thing in common: they are state employees not subject to prosecution for seeking a health insurance alternative while regular citizens face ObamaCare taxes, fees and mandates on one side and the potential for imprisonment on the other.
It's about time to storm the gates. Here's one idea. And another.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Wagging the Senator
Nothing seems to stir up political observers like a conversation about the Tea Party and the August 21 event in Frankfort featuring Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell promises to keep them going for a while.
The burning questions about the movement, as always, run anywhere from the causes of the death of the Tea Party to speculation about how it came to rule the world. That both of these questions are pondered just as seriously at the same time and so endlessly is a great feature of the movement. The first step of any campaign is to define your opponent and our opponents can't really get off that block.
Tea Party opinions of Senator McConnell tend to run from ambivalence to far worse. The fact that he will appear with Senator Paul at a Tea Party event creates a must-see-tv element of intrigue Hollywood couldn't dream up. Watching people try to interpret every aspect of this pairing will be half the fun.
But make no mistake, what they each say about the policy and politics of ObamaCare will be tremendously important. You won't want to miss it.
And while you wait, consider that only the Tea Party would even try to pull this off. Think about that for a while.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Eat more capitalism
I'm not big on fast food, but joining friends at Chick-fil-A tomorrow to make a statement seems like the right thing to do. Also, catching them in an advocating kind of mood provides a good chance to warn them about possibly being charged as felons, jailed and fined for following a pro-Christian right buried deep in the language of ObamaCare.
The federal healthcare law carves out a money-saving (and possibly life-saving) exemption to its mandates for members of religious health sharing ministries, but under Kentucky law such membership is a felony. As ObamaCare's 2014 implementation draws closer, a lot more Kentuckians will be looking for a way out. Encouraging state lawmakers to expand the Religious Publications Exemption by striking KRS 304.1-120(7)(d)(e)(f) eliminates the worst of this threat.
It's a guilt-free, low sodium solution to a problem we don't need to have. Please spread the word right away. And if you like getting heads up like this on issues no one else reports on, please consider contributing to the effort by clicking here and making your most generous contribution. No amount is too small, and anything you can do is greatly appreciated.
The federal healthcare law carves out a money-saving (and possibly life-saving) exemption to its mandates for members of religious health sharing ministries, but under Kentucky law such membership is a felony. As ObamaCare's 2014 implementation draws closer, a lot more Kentuckians will be looking for a way out. Encouraging state lawmakers to expand the Religious Publications Exemption by striking KRS 304.1-120(7)(d)(e)(f) eliminates the worst of this threat.
It's a guilt-free, low sodium solution to a problem we don't need to have. Please spread the word right away. And if you like getting heads up like this on issues no one else reports on, please consider contributing to the effort by clicking here and making your most generous contribution. No amount is too small, and anything you can do is greatly appreciated.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Medi-Share debacle endangering Christians
A three-ring circus in Frankfort is no laughing matter for hundreds of Kentucky Christians who could face felony insurance fraud charges for belonging to Christian Care Medi-Share's health sharing program, a viable alternative to mandated health insurance under ObamaCare but a decade-long target of state insurance regulators.
Kentucky's Insurance Code, KRS 304, defines insurance to include activities of not only health sharing groups like Medi-Share, but also their members.
In a March 1, 2011 permanent injunction ruling, a Franklin Circuit Judge prohibited Medi-Share and its members from operating their health sharing program in the Commonwealth, specifically mentioning KRS 304.11-030(2), which prohibits the health sharing activities of both the company Medi-Share and its members.
KRS 304.47-020(2)(b) provides for punishment of imprisonment between one and five years and fines of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Judge Thomas Wingate says he can't rule on a year-old contempt of court motion against Medi-Share and it's members until the state's Department of Insurance and Medi-Share agree on a hearing date. Despite either weeks or months of negotiating on a date, none has been scheduled as of Monday afternoon. While the judge, the state and Medi-Share play hot potato, innocent Kentuckians are put at risk. There is a simple fix for this, though it would surely be more satisfying at this point to run the whole bunch of them out of the state and force them to talk their way back in.
Kentucky's Insurance Code, KRS 304, defines insurance to include activities of not only health sharing groups like Medi-Share, but also their members.
In a March 1, 2011 permanent injunction ruling, a Franklin Circuit Judge prohibited Medi-Share and its members from operating their health sharing program in the Commonwealth, specifically mentioning KRS 304.11-030(2), which prohibits the health sharing activities of both the company Medi-Share and its members.
KRS 304.47-020(2)(b) provides for punishment of imprisonment between one and five years and fines of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Judge Thomas Wingate says he can't rule on a year-old contempt of court motion against Medi-Share and it's members until the state's Department of Insurance and Medi-Share agree on a hearing date. Despite either weeks or months of negotiating on a date, none has been scheduled as of Monday afternoon. While the judge, the state and Medi-Share play hot potato, innocent Kentuckians are put at risk. There is a simple fix for this, though it would surely be more satisfying at this point to run the whole bunch of them out of the state and force them to talk their way back in.
Is Kentucky moving toward marijuana?
The Democratic sponsor of a Kentucky state Senate bill to make Kentucky a medical marijuana state has a Republican opponent who also supports legalization of medical marijuana.
Sen. Perry Clark made headlines earlier this month when he admitted to recent marijuana use, a very poorly kept secret in Frankfort. His Republican opponent, Louisville businessman Chris Thieneman, condemns Sen. Clark for smoking on the job but said he supports changing state law to allow Kentuckians who gain relief from physical problems by smoking marijuana to do so.
A year ago, nervous state politicians called industrial hemp, a natural product with multiple uses and no hallucinogenic effects, a gateway drug to harder substance abuse until Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, a Republican, won election statewide on a platform including advocacy for industrial hemp cultivation.
It will be interesting to see how quickly other politicians' views toward medical marijuana evolve now that Thieneman has stepped up on this issue. President Barack Obama admitted smoking marijuana on many occasions and campaigned on leaving medical marijuana users alone. In office, he has instead aggressively prosecuted medical marijuana use, to the consternation of former supporters.
In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. will hear oral arguments in a case against the Department of Drug Enforcement's efforts against marijuana use.
Sen. Perry Clark made headlines earlier this month when he admitted to recent marijuana use, a very poorly kept secret in Frankfort. His Republican opponent, Louisville businessman Chris Thieneman, condemns Sen. Clark for smoking on the job but said he supports changing state law to allow Kentuckians who gain relief from physical problems by smoking marijuana to do so.
A year ago, nervous state politicians called industrial hemp, a natural product with multiple uses and no hallucinogenic effects, a gateway drug to harder substance abuse until Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, a Republican, won election statewide on a platform including advocacy for industrial hemp cultivation.
It will be interesting to see how quickly other politicians' views toward medical marijuana evolve now that Thieneman has stepped up on this issue. President Barack Obama admitted smoking marijuana on many occasions and campaigned on leaving medical marijuana users alone. In office, he has instead aggressively prosecuted medical marijuana use, to the consternation of former supporters.
In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. will hear oral arguments in a case against the Department of Drug Enforcement's efforts against marijuana use.
Catholics expand fight for health freedom
The Commonwealth of Kentucky's passive-aggressive war against (mostly Protestant) Christians is about to spread to Catholics.
Solidarity HealthShare, a new health-sharing organization, will help Catholics avoid ObamaCare health insurance mandates.
The Catholic Church has been outspoken in its opposition to government mandates for insurance coverage of abortion and this effort is clearly motivated by that. As more people of faith see the wisdom in fighting back against federal or state regulation of health insurance, we grow closer to gaining true health freedom for everyone.
With Catholics on board, health freedom gains a powerful new ally.
Solidarity HealthShare, a new health-sharing organization, will help Catholics avoid ObamaCare health insurance mandates.
The Catholic Church has been outspoken in its opposition to government mandates for insurance coverage of abortion and this effort is clearly motivated by that. As more people of faith see the wisdom in fighting back against federal or state regulation of health insurance, we grow closer to gaining true health freedom for everyone.
With Catholics on board, health freedom gains a powerful new ally.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Tea Party storms Frankfort over ObamaCare
The Louisville Tea Party is sponsoring an anti-ObamaCare rally at the Kentucky State Capitol in Frankfort on Tuesday, August 21 at 11:30 am. Featured speakers include U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell.
Winning the battle for health freedom has to be the top tea party issue until candidates in any party are terrified to run on any platform that does not include health freedom as one of its key planks.
Winning the battle for health freedom has to be the top tea party issue until candidates in any party are terrified to run on any platform that does not include health freedom as one of its key planks.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Kentucky's War on Christian Health going national
Kaiser Health News generates lots of talking points for politicians seeking control of your health care. Minutes ago, KSN distributed this:
"Christian health sharing ministries are largely unregulated, except by themselves. This means members cannot go to an insurance commissioner with a complaint, rates aren't reviewed by an independent regulator, and there is no way to ensure they are following anti-discrimination laws."
Just as some states are fighting back against ObamaCare from the right, others are pulling it faster to the left. One of their approaches is to effectively shut down Christian health sharing ministries' exemption in the federal law and Kentucky is way ahead of the curve on this.
It's simple: we fight back or we lose. I will be speaking in Louisville tonight about how we can fight back to win our health freedom in Kentucky. Join us at 6pm ET at Ernesto's, 10105 Dixie Highway if you can.
If you would like to help get the message out, please consider donating whatever you can here. Thanks for all you do.
"Christian health sharing ministries are largely unregulated, except by themselves. This means members cannot go to an insurance commissioner with a complaint, rates aren't reviewed by an independent regulator, and there is no way to ensure they are following anti-discrimination laws."
Just as some states are fighting back against ObamaCare from the right, others are pulling it faster to the left. One of their approaches is to effectively shut down Christian health sharing ministries' exemption in the federal law and Kentucky is way ahead of the curve on this.
It's simple: we fight back or we lose. I will be speaking in Louisville tonight about how we can fight back to win our health freedom in Kentucky. Join us at 6pm ET at Ernesto's, 10105 Dixie Highway if you can.
If you would like to help get the message out, please consider donating whatever you can here. Thanks for all you do.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
An ObamaCare amendment we all need
The more you know about Christian health sharing, the more you agree it offers a better deal for consumers than government-regulated health insurance. It doesn't take a very detailed analysis.
Kentucky is gaining increased national attention for its long-standing hostility toward Christian health sharers. While we pursue a legislative correction to that misguided animosity, federal representatives should also implement a small change to the ObamaCare law to improve the efficiency of health coverage alternatives not regulated by public employee bureaucrats.
ObamaCare bill H.R. 3590 exempts health sharing from federal mandates but also limits the market to religious organizations in operation since 1999. Simply eliminating this arbitrary limitation allows for new competitors in the market just as the rest of the federal law reduces choices in the government-controlled market.
The change involves striking out this part of the law:
While the benefits of a more competitive free market in health care coverage are obvious for Christians, less obvious is the opportunity for others who may, for political reasons, want to support the idea of ObamaCare but don't want to be stuck holding the bag when the government sector of the health market blows up.
I'm thinking a health care sharing ministry for the Church of the Left-Handed Bicycle Riders might come in handy at some point.
Kentucky is gaining increased national attention for its long-standing hostility toward Christian health sharers. While we pursue a legislative correction to that misguided animosity, federal representatives should also implement a small change to the ObamaCare law to improve the efficiency of health coverage alternatives not regulated by public employee bureaucrats.
ObamaCare bill H.R. 3590 exempts health sharing from federal mandates but also limits the market to religious organizations in operation since 1999. Simply eliminating this arbitrary limitation allows for new competitors in the market just as the rest of the federal law reduces choices in the government-controlled market.
The change involves striking out this part of the law:
I'm thinking a health care sharing ministry for the Church of the Left-Handed Bicycle Riders might come in handy at some point.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Kentucky tying up Christians for sharing, promising
Two national news articles in the last three days about Christian health sharing have mentioned Kentucky's battle against Christian Care Medi-Share. In one, Medi-Share CEO Tony Meggs suggests his company's legal problems will be wiped away when Judge Thomas Wingate sees Medi-Share has changed the way it handles it's members money.
That's not likely.
Medi-Share was found to be an unregistered health insurance company in 2010 by the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court ruled the company failed to meet all requirements of the Religious Publications Exemption in KRS 304.1-120 (7), specifically the one requiring health sharing members to pay each other's medical bills "directly from one (1) subscriber to another."
Whether that requirement is met under current operations is somewhat open to interpretation. Medi-Share members now send monthly funds to a credit union account the member and Medi-Share control jointly. The Kentucky Department of Insurance and the Supreme Court claim such an arrangement does not constitute direct subscriber-to-subscriber payment.
But even if the Department and the Court change their minds and decide that this method is direct enough, there is at least one more problem for Medi-Share. Gaining the exemption also requires that there can be "no assumption of risk or promise to pay either among the subscribers or between the subscribers and (Medi-Share)."
Medi-Share's many advertisements (like the one above) are full of eye-popping numbers like an average family month commitment of $282 and a claim of $625 million in savings. Also, anyone who has had to call around to find an agreeable doctor has to be impressed by the idea of having the freedom to "use any provider."
All this is suggestive of a "promise to pay," but the fact that is going to get them is that members who don't pay their monthly fees for two months will be dropped from the program and will not have outstanding medical needs presented for payment. That sounds obvious, but the fact of a requirement to pay in order to benefit is the legal definition of a "promise," which is prohibited under the law.
The ridiculous hoops we require these people to jump through to enjoy some measure of health freedom need to be eliminated. But they can't be wished away or shouted away. We need to change the law.
That's not likely.
Medi-Share was found to be an unregistered health insurance company in 2010 by the Kentucky Supreme Court. The Court ruled the company failed to meet all requirements of the Religious Publications Exemption in KRS 304.1-120 (7), specifically the one requiring health sharing members to pay each other's medical bills "directly from one (1) subscriber to another."
Whether that requirement is met under current operations is somewhat open to interpretation. Medi-Share members now send monthly funds to a credit union account the member and Medi-Share control jointly. The Kentucky Department of Insurance and the Supreme Court claim such an arrangement does not constitute direct subscriber-to-subscriber payment.
But even if the Department and the Court change their minds and decide that this method is direct enough, there is at least one more problem for Medi-Share. Gaining the exemption also requires that there can be "no assumption of risk or promise to pay either among the subscribers or between the subscribers and (Medi-Share)."
All this is suggestive of a "promise to pay," but the fact that is going to get them is that members who don't pay their monthly fees for two months will be dropped from the program and will not have outstanding medical needs presented for payment. That sounds obvious, but the fact of a requirement to pay in order to benefit is the legal definition of a "promise," which is prohibited under the law.
The ridiculous hoops we require these people to jump through to enjoy some measure of health freedom need to be eliminated. But they can't be wished away or shouted away. We need to change the law.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Kentucky dawdling wastes health money
Two months after promising to investigate their own arbitrary prosecution of Christian health sharing organizations, Kentucky's Department of Insurance has still failed to clear up confusion for citizens seeking to escape ObamaCare mandates.
Religious health sharing organizations in continuous operation since 1999 and their members are exempt from dictates of the Affordable Care Act. Kentucky's hostility toward this simple alternative to health insurance, however, predates federal health insurance reform.
The state's 2002 lawsuit against Christian Care Medi-Share is still not resolved, mainly due to Department of Insurance inaction. Failure to even begin addressing legal issues facing members and prospective members of the only two other federally exempt organizations -- Samaritan Ministries and Christian HealthCare Ministries -- until forced to do so six weeks ago, very poorly serves Kentucky's insurance consumers.
Hundreds of thousands of Kentucky Christians are overpaying for health coverage because of this legal mess, which could be cleared up easily.
Religious health sharing organizations in continuous operation since 1999 and their members are exempt from dictates of the Affordable Care Act. Kentucky's hostility toward this simple alternative to health insurance, however, predates federal health insurance reform.
The state's 2002 lawsuit against Christian Care Medi-Share is still not resolved, mainly due to Department of Insurance inaction. Failure to even begin addressing legal issues facing members and prospective members of the only two other federally exempt organizations -- Samaritan Ministries and Christian HealthCare Ministries -- until forced to do so six weeks ago, very poorly serves Kentucky's insurance consumers.
Hundreds of thousands of Kentucky Christians are overpaying for health coverage because of this legal mess, which could be cleared up easily.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Kentucky waffles again on Christian health
After repeatedly refusing to meet with Christian Care Medi-Share to discuss their legal status, the Kentucky Department of Insurance now seems to be coming around.
A Department spokesperson said a meeting may take place in August.
The state's newly found interest in openness on the issue of religious health sharing organizations and their superiority to government-regulated health insurance doesn't immediately address the organizations' real legal problems, but the response to tea party pressure is a welcome one.
Health freedom can be won in Kentucky and then spread to the other states. Stay tuned for updates.
A Department spokesperson said a meeting may take place in August.
The state's newly found interest in openness on the issue of religious health sharing organizations and their superiority to government-regulated health insurance doesn't immediately address the organizations' real legal problems, but the response to tea party pressure is a welcome one.
Health freedom can be won in Kentucky and then spread to the other states. Stay tuned for updates.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Frankfort should defund ObamaCare ads
Frankfort Republicans made a little noise this past week with an attempt to deny office space funding for Gov. Beshear's ObamaCare health insurance exchange bureaucracy. Beshear had no trouble going around them, but another opportunity has just presented itself.
Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services Secretary Audrey Haynes just appeared this morning on Bill Bryant's WKYT Newmakers program in Lexington touting the coming bureaucracy.
She also stated the 2014 roll out of the expensive program will be "heavily advertised."
Wasting money on advertising to promote this waste of money should be against the law, right? Looking for a way to do that in the 2013 General Assembly could be both fun and productive for the cause of Liberty.
The first place in statute that comes to mind as a vehicle for prohibiting government from spending our money to advertise the expansion of itself is KRS 121, campaign finance law.
I'm a little nervous about opening up campaign finance with the current legislature given than Senate Republicans have been at least as bad as House Democrats on the issue. Proposed legislation to prohibit the state from using any state resources to promote any element of the Affordable Care Act, though, could be worth the risk. A pre-filed bill with this objective this summer could be used as a campaign tool against House Democrats stuck between their party's damaging policies and their desire to win re-election in November.
Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services Secretary Audrey Haynes just appeared this morning on Bill Bryant's WKYT Newmakers program in Lexington touting the coming bureaucracy.
She also stated the 2014 roll out of the expensive program will be "heavily advertised."
Wasting money on advertising to promote this waste of money should be against the law, right? Looking for a way to do that in the 2013 General Assembly could be both fun and productive for the cause of Liberty.
The first place in statute that comes to mind as a vehicle for prohibiting government from spending our money to advertise the expansion of itself is KRS 121, campaign finance law.
I'm a little nervous about opening up campaign finance with the current legislature given than Senate Republicans have been at least as bad as House Democrats on the issue. Proposed legislation to prohibit the state from using any state resources to promote any element of the Affordable Care Act, though, could be worth the risk. A pre-filed bill with this objective this summer could be used as a campaign tool against House Democrats stuck between their party's damaging policies and their desire to win re-election in November.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Kentucky still abusing health consumers
Kentucky's quiet war on Christians has taken another odd twist.
A Consumer Protection Division official in the Department of Insurance confirmed today that no determination has been reached on the legality of Christian health sharing organizations Samaritan Ministries and Christian HealthCare Ministries. A Department of Insurance spokesperson has claimed repeatedly the organizations have been examined thoroughly for several years, so the latest delay in the current six week investigation is perplexing.
Given that another Christian health sharing organization, Christian Care Medi-Share, has been attacked by state insurance officials repeatedly throughout a lawsuit initiated in 2002, consumer confusion caused by arbitrary application of the state's Insurance Code leaves consumers at great risk.
Because of the structure of health sharing organizations, Kentucky law could cause members -- customers -- of the organizations to be defined as insurers and prosecuted as felons.
Kentucky officials should act immediately to clear up this confusion as citizens scramble to find viable healthcare solutions before ObamaCare hits them in 2014.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
This can't be good
Someone in Obama's office is reading Kentucky Progress right now:
I'm not going to go Alex Jones on you, but seeing this did kind of give me the willies.
I'm not going to go Alex Jones on you, but seeing this did kind of give me the willies.
Steve Beshear will be surprised in 2015
Governor Steve Beshear went on the Jack Pattie radio show on WVLK 590 in Lexington this morning to make his case for signing Kentucky up for ObamaCare yesterday. He either doesn't understand what he has just done or really hopes no one is paying attention.
Beshear flatly stated the ObamaCare health insurance exchange won't cost the state anything, that the exchange will pay for itself. This is absolutely false. Increased fees or taxes will be necessary to fund the new bureaucracy after federal funds run out at the end of 2014.
Beshear flatly stated the ObamaCare health insurance exchange won't cost the state anything, that the exchange will pay for itself. This is absolutely false. Increased fees or taxes will be necessary to fund the new bureaucracy after federal funds run out at the end of 2014.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Beshear takes the bait on ObamaCare
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear couldn't get through the first sentence of today's big press release without telling a lie.
From the release: "Governor Steve Beshear today issued an executive order establishing the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange, a requirement of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA)."
The ObamaCare exchanges are optional. Further, refusing to play along is the only way Kentucky could hope to survive the rapid tax, penalty and fee increases for Kentuckians in the federal law.
Federal funding for the Kentucky exchange will dry up at the end of 2014. At that point, Beshear claims the "Exchange will be wholly funded with revenues it generates."
That means either a new tax or some kind of fee increase on health insurance will be necessary. Governor Beshear should be made to explain exactly how much he anticipates the state will spend on the exchange annually and where precisely that money will come from.
From the release: "Governor Steve Beshear today issued an executive order establishing the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange, a requirement of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA)."
The ObamaCare exchanges are optional. Further, refusing to play along is the only way Kentucky could hope to survive the rapid tax, penalty and fee increases for Kentuckians in the federal law.
Federal funding for the Kentucky exchange will dry up at the end of 2014. At that point, Beshear claims the "Exchange will be wholly funded with revenues it generates."
That means either a new tax or some kind of fee increase on health insurance will be necessary. Governor Beshear should be made to explain exactly how much he anticipates the state will spend on the exchange annually and where precisely that money will come from.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Family Foundation of KY still wrong on health law
The Family Foundation of Kentucky is a leading protector of Christian values in Frankfort. I appreciate much of their work, but they are missing in action on health freedom.
At issue is an apparent unwillingness to accept reality of Kentucky's arbitrarily applied prohibition of an otherwise very viable Christian health insurance alternative called health sharing. This failure is preventing them from doing much good on a key front in the fight against ObamaCare.
The reality is that health sharing is against Kentucky law and it is no matter how much anyone repeats that it is not.
In 2007, the Family Foundation touted a court ruling they thought might put to rest the controversy over health sharing in Kentucky. It did not.
The problems health sharing organizations face in Kentucky will persist at least until the Religious Publications Exemption in the state's Insurance Code is greatly expanded.
The legislative fix is easy. We need to amend KRS 304.1-120(7) like this:
This change would allow all the Christian health sharing organizations currently exempt from ObamaCare to function in Kentucky without fear for themselves or their members of being shut down and possibly charged as unauthorized insurers and jailed as felons.
This should be a simple discussion and not an embarrassing mess full of personal attacks and missing the point. Failure to resolve this quickly and amicably only benefits those who want the government to control all of our health care.
At issue is an apparent unwillingness to accept reality of Kentucky's arbitrarily applied prohibition of an otherwise very viable Christian health insurance alternative called health sharing. This failure is preventing them from doing much good on a key front in the fight against ObamaCare.
The reality is that health sharing is against Kentucky law and it is no matter how much anyone repeats that it is not.
In 2007, the Family Foundation touted a court ruling they thought might put to rest the controversy over health sharing in Kentucky. It did not.
The problems health sharing organizations face in Kentucky will persist at least until the Religious Publications Exemption in the state's Insurance Code is greatly expanded.
The legislative fix is easy. We need to amend KRS 304.1-120(7) like this:
This change would allow all the Christian health sharing organizations currently exempt from ObamaCare to function in Kentucky without fear for themselves or their members of being shut down and possibly charged as unauthorized insurers and jailed as felons.
This should be a simple discussion and not an embarrassing mess full of personal attacks and missing the point. Failure to resolve this quickly and amicably only benefits those who want the government to control all of our health care.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Odd bedfellows can win health freedom fight
Kentucky can absolutely lead the way to health freedom in America, but first we have to break off the lock those who profit most from the status quo have on the debate.
And that means clarifying the value of a free economy for the Christian Right and Left to bring their powerful voices into the fight.
Lots of work to do, but if you look carefully for subtle progress here and here, you just might see where I'm going with this.
And that means clarifying the value of a free economy for the Christian Right and Left to bring their powerful voices into the fight.
Lots of work to do, but if you look carefully for subtle progress here and here, you just might see where I'm going with this.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Black market Christian health company puts Kentuckians at risk; illegal under federal law
Texas-based Christian health sharing organization Altrua is operating in Kentucky as an illegal insurance company. Its members are also not eligible for the mandate exemption under the Health Care Sharing Ministry section of ObamaCare.
According to the company, Altrua was formed in 2000, which means it can't help you under federal law. The Affordable Care Act doesn't specify penalties for operating as an illegal insurer under that statute, but under Kentucky law, the company and even its members could be charged as felons.
According to the company, Altrua was formed in 2000, which means it can't help you under federal law. The Affordable Care Act doesn't specify penalties for operating as an illegal insurer under that statute, but under Kentucky law, the company and even its members could be charged as felons.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Health reform for Rand Paul and John Yarmuth
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa inserted a religious-based health sharing exemption into ObamaCare before he voted against the entire bill. If we can't kill the whole bill, the current Congress should expand the exemption.
From the Affordable Care Act on page 128, we find the following passage:
What we need more than anything is more alternative forms of protection for Americans, rather than fewer or a fixed number. President Obama and congressional Democrats had to like this passage or they wouldn't have it in their bill, right? Surely they wouldn't mind making it better.
Limiting the exclusion to religious organization who started their health sharing activities on or before December 31, 1999 is discriminatory and arbitrary. If a group of gay left-handed communists want to set up a church and start their own health sharing organization, they should be allowed to under federal law. It is only fair.
Please encourage your member of Congress to amend the Affordable Care Act to strike both references to December 31, 1999 in the Health Care Sharing Ministry section of the bill so that they may do so.
From the Affordable Care Act on page 128, we find the following passage:
What we need more than anything is more alternative forms of protection for Americans, rather than fewer or a fixed number. President Obama and congressional Democrats had to like this passage or they wouldn't have it in their bill, right? Surely they wouldn't mind making it better.
Limiting the exclusion to religious organization who started their health sharing activities on or before December 31, 1999 is discriminatory and arbitrary. If a group of gay left-handed communists want to set up a church and start their own health sharing organization, they should be allowed to under federal law. It is only fair.
Please encourage your member of Congress to amend the Affordable Care Act to strike both references to December 31, 1999 in the Health Care Sharing Ministry section of the bill so that they may do so.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Might Medicaid migration hurt Kentucky?
If Republican governors in Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia reject ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion and they are joined by a hesitant Democrat in Missouri, then Kentucky's Steve Beshear could face significant in-migration of low income people seeking government health benefits they can't get in their home states.
Of the seven states surrounding Kentucky, only Illinois and West Virginia seem likely to go for the budget-busting entitlement expansion mandated by ObamaCare but made optional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Beshear's delay on Medicaid expansion is odd for someone who has supposedly been "studying" these issues for a long time.
Of the seven states surrounding Kentucky, only Illinois and West Virginia seem likely to go for the budget-busting entitlement expansion mandated by ObamaCare but made optional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Beshear's delay on Medicaid expansion is odd for someone who has supposedly been "studying" these issues for a long time.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Contempt for consumers in Frankfort
A decade-long legal battle between the Kentucky Department of Insurance and Christian Care Medi-Share took another weird turn today when a judge announced he would ignore a year-old contempt of court petition and expects the state to file another one.
Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate said through a spokesperson he now expects the state to re-file against Christian Care Medi-Share soon, after saying last week he was waiting for a meeting between the two parties.
The original contempt of court filing by the state was dated July 27, 2011 after Christian Care Medi-Share, a health sharing organization, was found to be continuing operations in the state despite a 2010 Kentucky Supreme Court ruling ordering them to stop.
Under ObamaCare, members of religious-based health sharing organizations are exempt from the federal insurance mandate. Kentucky’s official hostility to this free market activity has received very little media attention, but the uncertainty caused by this case keeps consumers locked into a health care financing system increasingly overrun by arbitrary and autocratic bureaucracy.
Fear the government
On Friday July 6, a
federal jury in Covington convicted a local lawyer on three counts of filing false
tax returns. The charge was that he had under-reporting
his income.
The convictions came after four
years of prosecution following an armed raid on the lawyer’s offices in April
2008. At that time agents of the IRS,
FBI and DEA along with other law enforcement officials, armed with machine
guns, burst into the attorney’s offices and while holding his staff at gunpoint
seized his records and computers.
At the same time other groups of
armed government agents raided his home and went to his bank seizing records
and several hundred thousand dollars in cash.
In
the last four years, the
government returned all of the cash to the lawyer. Why? Well, for starters it is no more illegal to
hold hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash than it is to hold one hundred
dollars in cash.
You might ask, “why would the
attorney have so much cash on hand”? His
explanation at trial was that his grandfather had lost everything he had during
the depression when his bank failed and he couldn’t withdraw his life savings
in time. The lawyer admitted that he kept
some of his money in bank accounts but that he had been slowly putting away his
savings in cash for nearly 30 years as his “nest egg”. He explained that while others had put their
money in retirement accounts only to see those accounts lose half their value
in recent years, this was his retirement.
He was preparing for an uncertain future.
There being nothing illegal about
his cash holdings, the IRS returned all of the cash they seized cash to him.
But for four year they kept up
the prosecution which reportedly cost the government perhaps as much as $2
million in taxpayer money. And what was the result?
The result is that the lawyer
will likely be sentenced to serve time in a federal prison, which you might
note will also be at taxpayer expense.
In addition he will likely lose
his license to practice law which means that he will no longer be the high wage
earner he has been for thirty plus years which will cost the government even
more money in lost revenue on his earnings.
According to various reports the
lawyer asked the government how much they claim he owed them and yet they never
supplied him with a figure.
The government could have charged
the lawyer for back taxes, levied a substantial penalty and of course since
they already had their hands on more than enough cash to obtained payment,
could have settled the matter pretty much on their own terms. But they did none of these things. Why?
What could possibly have been the
purpose of this four year prosecution which was obviously very expensive in
more ways than one?
For the answer to this question,
go back to where I asked you to stop a minute and assess your reaction to this
case and how it made you feel. Over
powering prosecutions like these serve only one purpose, to make an example out
of people for the rest of us to see. In
other words, cases like this make us fear our government.
Of course the lawyer denied that
he had failed to report any of his income.
In addition to his law practice he ran several businesses and his books
were handled by a book keeper, his tax returns prepared by a CPA and he
testified that he trusted these professionals to do things right. But of course the government stood firmly on
the law that says no matter who prepares your taxes, your signature means that
you have affirmed the accuracy of everything reported on those returns and if
any of it is wrong you have committed perjury.
It is hard to tell how much money
this lawyer spent defending himself, but one thing is clear; we have all now
been taught to shudder at the thought of the government coming after any of us.
What is the solution? A lot of politicians these days like to say
they favor a “fairer/flatter tax”. But
things don’t seem to be getting any better.
In fact things have just gotten a
whole lot worse. The Supreme Court has declared that the penalties under
ObamaCare are really a tax which of course will be enforced by the IRS. The IRS has just
added thousands of new agents. We hear
annual reports how the IRS is ramping up its enforcement efforts and with
thousands of new agents and a whole new set of laws to enforce things just got
a whole lot scarier.
Is there a plan is to make
American citizens fear the government more and more each day? It should be the other way around. As Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the
people fear the government, there is tyranny."
The time has come to eliminate
the IRS, to pass “The Fair Tax” thus removing the need for citizens to file
burdensome tax returns under penalty of perjury. The “Fair Tax” would streamline collection, eliminate
loopholes, spread the tax burden equally over the entire population and result
in a steady stream of revenue to the government throughout the year.
And the fair tax would eliminate
the fear of government agents bursting into your private property wearing
bullet proof vests, carrying machine guns aimed at your head and shouting
orders at you. That’s how this case of
lawyer, Larry Lawrence started and it will end with him going to prison.
And after considering that he is
headed to prison, isn’t it fair to ask “for what”? Was all of this really worth a few dollars in
unpaid taxes? No matter how much he owed
it had to be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Kentucky's bogus Medicaid talking point
Just as Kentucky House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover started pushing last week for Gov. Steve Beshear to avoid the massive unfunded Medicaid expansion option under ObamaCare, media reports of a study showing the state stood to benefit more than any other suddenly appeared.
The report, issued by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, saw immediate statewide distribution primarily through public news sites (here and here) and business publications (here and here) and at least one newspaper (here).
Only one tiny problem with that: the report was dated May 2010. These numbers are ridiculously outdated and and the ranking is meaningless, released now as a clumsy attempt to score political points. The fact Kentucky media outlets seem to have swallowed this whole should be incredibly embarrassing for them.
The truth is the massive Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act would very likely result in significant numbers of privately insured low-income people dropping coverage and signing up for Medicaid, according to another old report.
Hope this changes the conversation in Frankfort this week as Beshear weighs whether or not to drive the state to insolvency faster with this easily avoidable government expansion.
The report, issued by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, saw immediate statewide distribution primarily through public news sites (here and here) and business publications (here and here) and at least one newspaper (here).
Only one tiny problem with that: the report was dated May 2010. These numbers are ridiculously outdated and and the ranking is meaningless, released now as a clumsy attempt to score political points. The fact Kentucky media outlets seem to have swallowed this whole should be incredibly embarrassing for them.
The truth is the massive Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act would very likely result in significant numbers of privately insured low-income people dropping coverage and signing up for Medicaid, according to another old report.
Hope this changes the conversation in Frankfort this week as Beshear weighs whether or not to drive the state to insolvency faster with this easily avoidable government expansion.
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Frankfort GOP coming around on ObamaCare
A video released by Kentucky House Republican Leader Jeff Hoover shows the first real sign of life from Frankfort's GOP leadership in support of health freedom in the Commonwealth.
The striking lack of any mention of health insurance exchanges in the video was cured by House Republican Director of Communications Michael Goins, who pointed to a press release mentioning the need to opt out of the exchange at the end of its last sentence.
The effort fits in the "better late than never" category, but not by much. Most Republican legislators voted to give Beshear $50 million to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare. Forcing Beshear and the Democrats to fight on the record for ObamaCare during budget negotiations would have been campaign gold this fall, at the very least.
We need to hear more from Rep. Hoover and other GOP legislators about specific steps to get out from under ObamaCare. A very easy move with a big payoff for consumers would be to expand the Religious Publications Exemption in the Kentucky Insurance Code so Kentuckians could be more confident in the option provided by religious-based health sharing organizations, which are exempted from federal mandates under ObamaCare.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Is Beshear reconsidering ObamaCare?
Within moments of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding ObamaCare, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced he would issue an executive order creating a health insurance exchange under the law. Further, he said he was considering whether to accept the law's attempt to expand Medicaid.
That was a week ago. What's the hold up?
Kentucky can't afford Medicaid now. Indeed, we need fewer people on Medicaid rather than signing up more. Even Beshear, who campaigned on expanding dependency on Medicaid in 2007 and has actively fulfilled that promise since, has to understand this fact.
Frankfort Republicans already gave Beshear $50 million on paper in the 2012 budget bill to expand Medicaid. They did nothing to stop him from setting up the bureaucracy to support an exchange. All he has to do is sign a paper and it is all over. So what is he waiting for?
Could the November elections for nervous House Democrats have something to do with it?
I sure hope so. It would be great to see Greg Stumbo lose his position as House Speaker because Beshear/Obama overreach on health insurance. But it would be better for the state if Beshear admitted that we can't afford it and removed this one piece of uncertainty from the dark clouds blocking Kentuckians' ability to see brighter days ahead.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Judge Wingate flip-flops on health freedom
Less than two weeks ago, Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate said he would rule soon on the Kentucky health freedom case. Now he says he is waiting for the state and health sharing group Christian Care Medi-Share to meet first.
They aren't likely to meet soon.
The Beshear administration has the people of Kentucky in an ObamaCare headlock and intends to keep us there. Governor Beshear and his minions in the legislature don't want a public discussion about this, so they are pulling all the strings to keep it quiet.
Will we let them succeed?
They aren't likely to meet soon.
The Beshear administration has the people of Kentucky in an ObamaCare headlock and intends to keep us there. Governor Beshear and his minions in the legislature don't want a public discussion about this, so they are pulling all the strings to keep it quiet.
Will we let them succeed?
Monday, July 02, 2012
Kentucky most important health reform state
The health freedom effort in Kentucky got a boost last week with coverage in BusinessWeek and the Christian Broadcasting Network (click the links to read), but all everyone wants to talk about is the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Go figure.
All kidding aside, it will take a huge effort to rein in the Kentucky Department of Insurance and help create an environment for free market health care in Kentucky. And the federal effort for real reform won't mean anything if we don't get it right in Frankfort.
But if we can make headway in Kentucky, we can help the rest of the nation get out from under government control of healthcare. Kentucky is unique in its constitutional protection of citizens from absolute and arbitrary government. (See Section 2 of the Kentucky Bill of Rights.)
Insurance regulation in the states is almost universally arbitrary in that the laws are too broad and then are applied haphazardly. This chaotic regime is much like having a crazy despot who lets his friends get away with murder but attacks his enemies on a whim. That's no way to regulate anything, much less an industry which such an important impact on the lives of all citizens.
If we can overturn insurance regulation in Kentucky, we can show what a waste of resources government regulation of insurance is. That's because prices will do down and quality of service will go up. When Kentucky does this, people in other states will want to follow suit.
This effort can snowball quickly, but it will take a lot of people spreading the word. Will you help?
All kidding aside, it will take a huge effort to rein in the Kentucky Department of Insurance and help create an environment for free market health care in Kentucky. And the federal effort for real reform won't mean anything if we don't get it right in Frankfort.
But if we can make headway in Kentucky, we can help the rest of the nation get out from under government control of healthcare. Kentucky is unique in its constitutional protection of citizens from absolute and arbitrary government. (See Section 2 of the Kentucky Bill of Rights.)
Insurance regulation in the states is almost universally arbitrary in that the laws are too broad and then are applied haphazardly. This chaotic regime is much like having a crazy despot who lets his friends get away with murder but attacks his enemies on a whim. That's no way to regulate anything, much less an industry which such an important impact on the lives of all citizens.
If we can overturn insurance regulation in Kentucky, we can show what a waste of resources government regulation of insurance is. That's because prices will do down and quality of service will go up. When Kentucky does this, people in other states will want to follow suit.
This effort can snowball quickly, but it will take a lot of people spreading the word. Will you help?
Sunday, July 01, 2012
If John Yarmuth is only source, you're biased
A pretty important ObamaCare story over the weekend in the Louisville Courier Journal failed the smell test.
The article described a program through which the federal government provided $58 million to fund a scheme created by the "Affordable Care Act" to create a new health insurance co-op in Kentucky.
With supposedly independent programs like this, who needs government run insurance or the so-called public option?
But when the Courier Journal had time last week to talk to anyone with a point of view on this very controversial approach, it seems they could only manage to reach ObamaCare cheerleader John Yarmuth.
Needless to say, he is in favor of it.
In other news, certainly unrelated to bad, unbalanced journalism, the Courier Journal on Sunday pulled down their pay wall that had been telling readers to subscribe or face being shut off from their quality news source.
The article described a program through which the federal government provided $58 million to fund a scheme created by the "Affordable Care Act" to create a new health insurance co-op in Kentucky.
With supposedly independent programs like this, who needs government run insurance or the so-called public option?
But when the Courier Journal had time last week to talk to anyone with a point of view on this very controversial approach, it seems they could only manage to reach ObamaCare cheerleader John Yarmuth.
Needless to say, he is in favor of it.
In other news, certainly unrelated to bad, unbalanced journalism, the Courier Journal on Sunday pulled down their pay wall that had been telling readers to subscribe or face being shut off from their quality news source.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Kentucky regulators hunting more Christians
The Kentucky Department of Insurance has now received responses from two Christian health sharing companies under investigation for operating as illegal insurance companies. A state official this morning described the late responses as incomplete and said he would send follow-up questions early next week.
The two companies, Christian Healthcare Ministries and Samaritan Ministries, can't win a cat-and-mouse game with state insurance regulators. Changing Kentucky law to better follow our constitutional protection against arbitrary government power is the only way for this health insurance alternative to escape black market status in Kentucky.
Just letting these companies off the hook is no solution. In fact, doing so would only make the situation worse by increasing the sense of uncertainty in an environment with no fixed rules.
Christians should band together quickly to ensure Kentuckians have unfettered access to greater choices as ObamaCare destroys the more traditional ones. Non-Christians clearly have a stake in this too. They should push state government to restrict the definition of "insurance" in state law to better allow for the creation of a vibrant market in alternative financial products for them as well.
The two companies, Christian Healthcare Ministries and Samaritan Ministries, can't win a cat-and-mouse game with state insurance regulators. Changing Kentucky law to better follow our constitutional protection against arbitrary government power is the only way for this health insurance alternative to escape black market status in Kentucky.
Just letting these companies off the hook is no solution. In fact, doing so would only make the situation worse by increasing the sense of uncertainty in an environment with no fixed rules.
Christians should band together quickly to ensure Kentuckians have unfettered access to greater choices as ObamaCare destroys the more traditional ones. Non-Christians clearly have a stake in this too. They should push state government to restrict the definition of "insurance" in state law to better allow for the creation of a vibrant market in alternative financial products for them as well.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Beshear wants Tea Party rematch
Back on May 7, Governor Steve Beshear's ObamaCare road show started in Frankfort. It ended abruptly the same day when a crowd of tea partiers showed up to ask questions about this government takeover of health care.
Governor Beshear's Health Cabinet Secretary Audrey Haynes told CN2's Ryan Alessi today they are going to give it another shot.
Stay tuned for updates. It will be on their turf again, on their terms. But they still can't answer the tough questions.
Governor Beshear's Health Cabinet Secretary Audrey Haynes told CN2's Ryan Alessi today they are going to give it another shot.
Stay tuned for updates. It will be on their turf again, on their terms. But they still can't answer the tough questions.
What's that in Mitt Romney's punch bowl?
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney might want to talk at length, clearly and forcefully, about the Supreme Court's ObamaCare ruling. Especially given that this is still on his campaign web site under the heading "Courts and the Constitution."
Justice Roberts' vote to uphold ObamaCare can be explained, but that's not the end of the story.
I think Romney's biggest problem isn't with the constitutionality of ObamaCare, which he has already addressed substantially. His problem is in the philosophical details of any kind of government takeover of healthcare and in the implementation of this one through health care "exchanges," a heinous bureaucracy capable of doing much more damage than even the individual mandate.
Federal funding has already been distributed to the states to set up these exchanges, of which Romney has gone on record in support. Don't think the Obama campaign will fail to let that detail slip out a few times before November.
Justice Roberts' vote to uphold ObamaCare can be explained, but that's not the end of the story.
I think Romney's biggest problem isn't with the constitutionality of ObamaCare, which he has already addressed substantially. His problem is in the philosophical details of any kind of government takeover of healthcare and in the implementation of this one through health care "exchanges," a heinous bureaucracy capable of doing much more damage than even the individual mandate.
Federal funding has already been distributed to the states to set up these exchanges, of which Romney has gone on record in support. Don't think the Obama campaign will fail to let that detail slip out a few times before November.
Beshear burns us in ObamaCare fire
Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear is about to announce his executive order throwing the Bluegrass State into ObamaCare via a health insurance exchange.
Avoiding a state-run exchange is the surest option left to prevent the Affordable Care Act from bankrupting us with unfunded mandates. Despite what Beshear will say, federal law explicitly allows states to opt out of setting up an exchange. The law also clearly gives the federal government control of so-called state health insurance exchanges, so the line he will give us about maintaining local control should be ignored.
Make sure you get your legislative candidates on the record for or against ObamaCare. In Jessamine County, House Democratic Caucus Leader Bob Damron is for ObamaCare and his Republican opponent Matt Lockett is opposed to it.
Avoiding a state-run exchange is the surest option left to prevent the Affordable Care Act from bankrupting us with unfunded mandates. Despite what Beshear will say, federal law explicitly allows states to opt out of setting up an exchange. The law also clearly gives the federal government control of so-called state health insurance exchanges, so the line he will give us about maintaining local control should be ignored.
Make sure you get your legislative candidates on the record for or against ObamaCare. In Jessamine County, House Democratic Caucus Leader Bob Damron is for ObamaCare and his Republican opponent Matt Lockett is opposed to it.
Kentucky Christian health story takes off
ObamaCare survived the U.S. Supreme Court, so now the focus turns to ways for citizens to survive in the brave new world of federally-controlled health care.
Religious-based health sharing should be the first stop for a lot of us.
Unfortunately, the states are not ready for this. And the Christian health sharing groups aren't either.
Kentucky must immediately change its Insurance Code to allow health sharing groups to help Kentuckians escape ObamaCare. No state does a good job of allowing this to happen, but Kentucky is unique in its hostility toward health sharers and in its constitutional protections that should allow them to escape our arbitrary laws prohibiting them from helping us.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
"Kentucky versus Christians" escalates
Two illegal Kentucky health insurance companies failed today to respond to a state Department of Insurance inquiry about their activities. Letters dated June 12, 2012 from the Public Protection Cabinet required an explanation or justification to be made to the Commonwealth of Kentucky by today.
At issue is the marketing of health sharing plans by Christian HealthCare Ministries and Samaritan Ministries in conflict with state law. Both entities fail to meet the extremely narrow "Religious Publications Exemption" in Kentucky's Insurance Code that would allow them to operate here. This Code also defines "insurance" so broadly as to make nearly anyone fall under its jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth has been battling a third health sharing group, Christian Care Medi-Share for more than a decade. Their case has come to an odd standstill.
Given that health insurance consumers' interests would be better served by more competing firms in an open and transparent marketplace, a solution would be to expand the "Religious Publications Exemption" to allow any church or religious organization to act as an unregulated health insurer.
A better solution would be to change the definition of "insurance" in state law from anyone engaged in shifting risk to anyone who voluntarily signs up with the Insurance Department to be regulated as an insurance company.
That way, we could have two insurance markets: one with direct government oversight and one without in order to maximize consumer choice and also to gauge the efficacy of alternative regulatory schemes.
The Public Protection Cabinet is expected to send out a second round of letters tomorrow, demanding a response and threatening fines and further legal action.
At issue is the marketing of health sharing plans by Christian HealthCare Ministries and Samaritan Ministries in conflict with state law. Both entities fail to meet the extremely narrow "Religious Publications Exemption" in Kentucky's Insurance Code that would allow them to operate here. This Code also defines "insurance" so broadly as to make nearly anyone fall under its jurisdiction.
The Commonwealth has been battling a third health sharing group, Christian Care Medi-Share for more than a decade. Their case has come to an odd standstill.
Given that health insurance consumers' interests would be better served by more competing firms in an open and transparent marketplace, a solution would be to expand the "Religious Publications Exemption" to allow any church or religious organization to act as an unregulated health insurer.
A better solution would be to change the definition of "insurance" in state law from anyone engaged in shifting risk to anyone who voluntarily signs up with the Insurance Department to be regulated as an insurance company.
That way, we could have two insurance markets: one with direct government oversight and one without in order to maximize consumer choice and also to gauge the efficacy of alternative regulatory schemes.
The Public Protection Cabinet is expected to send out a second round of letters tomorrow, demanding a response and threatening fines and further legal action.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Extreme Frankfort inaction leaves us hanging
Wednesday marks eleven months since Kentucky's last official action on the rights of Kentuckians to protect themselves from excessive healthcare regulation in the case of Christian Care Medi-Share. This unacceptable delay wastes precious healthcare dollars we can not afford to throw away.
July 27, 2011 was the day Kentucky's Department of Insurance filed a contempt of court motion against Christian Care Medi-Share for operating in the state despite a March 1, 2011 Franklin Circuit Judge's permanent injunction against their continued operation here.
Medi-Share is still actively operating in Kentucky and falsely telling potential members there is no legal issue preventing them from doing so. The Kentucky Department of Insurance continues to ignore other such organizations operating in similar violation of state law. Continued official silence in this matter fails to serve the public interest regarding the pursuit of reasonable health coverage just as government is moving swiftly to otherwise limit our choices.
Please call Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate at 502-564-8382 and ask him to rule on the contempt motion in Commonwealth v. Reinhold without further delay.
Friday, June 22, 2012
What's your health regulation tax?
A full analysis to compare health insurance policies usually involves looking at premiums, deductibles, co-insurance, maximum coverage amounts and exclusions.
One very important element in the cost of health insurance that doesn't usually come up is the cost of regulation. The point seems moot because we think of health coverages all being regulated the same way, so there is no reason to consider what those costs are.
But there is more to the story.
No matter how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on ObamaCare, the nearly certain shake-up in the health insurance market that results may send you hunting for a new way to pay for your medical needs. If you are a Christian, you might want to take a long look at Christian health sharing plans.
And that's where the cost of regulation comes into the equation in a big way.
Christian health sharing plans (Christian Care Medi-Share, Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries to name three) don't fall completely under state regulation. Also, they are mostly exempt from regulation under the Affordable Care Act -- the part of the law most likely to survive even if the individual mandate is thrown out.
The relative lack of government regulation results in dramatically lower pricing for the sharing plans. That's not to say that they are automatically superior to government-approved plans, though. And this distinction is extremely important.
State regulators across the country, probably without exception, hate Christian health sharing organizations and have taken pains to keep us from flocking to them. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Every state law I have seen that mentions them takes pains to limit the ability of health sharing organizations to operate to their full potential. The standard approach requires them to state explicitly that there is no promise claims will be paid. That could seem pretty scary, but really only if you haven't done much research into health sharing plans or government-regulated plans.
"Regular" health insurance is just a one year contract. That should be horrifying for anyone on one as well as motivating for anyone who learns health sharing plans are not limited as to their terms.
The lack of legal support for health sharing plans is the only thing really holding them back. Kentucky's schizophrenic approach to them may be worse than any state's in the nation, but they all appear to be pretty bad.
Christian health sharing organizations are alternatives to health insurance that are barely, if at all, legally permissible in Kentucky. The problem has much more to do with bad law than with the organizations and their health plans.
A bill to expand the Religious Publications Exemption to the Kentucky Insurance Code would be a big help. Specifically, striking all of KRS 304.1-120(7) except for (c) would get the government off the backs of these good organizations and allow a strong self-regulating market to develop to benefit Christians all over Kentucky who would otherwise be victimized by the coming exploding costs in government-regulated health insurance.
What amounts to a "health regulation tax" really just benefits government health regulators. We can't afford their taxes anymore.
One very important element in the cost of health insurance that doesn't usually come up is the cost of regulation. The point seems moot because we think of health coverages all being regulated the same way, so there is no reason to consider what those costs are.
But there is more to the story.
No matter how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on ObamaCare, the nearly certain shake-up in the health insurance market that results may send you hunting for a new way to pay for your medical needs. If you are a Christian, you might want to take a long look at Christian health sharing plans.
And that's where the cost of regulation comes into the equation in a big way.
Christian health sharing plans (Christian Care Medi-Share, Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries to name three) don't fall completely under state regulation. Also, they are mostly exempt from regulation under the Affordable Care Act -- the part of the law most likely to survive even if the individual mandate is thrown out.
The relative lack of government regulation results in dramatically lower pricing for the sharing plans. That's not to say that they are automatically superior to government-approved plans, though. And this distinction is extremely important.
State regulators across the country, probably without exception, hate Christian health sharing organizations and have taken pains to keep us from flocking to them. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
Every state law I have seen that mentions them takes pains to limit the ability of health sharing organizations to operate to their full potential. The standard approach requires them to state explicitly that there is no promise claims will be paid. That could seem pretty scary, but really only if you haven't done much research into health sharing plans or government-regulated plans.
"Regular" health insurance is just a one year contract. That should be horrifying for anyone on one as well as motivating for anyone who learns health sharing plans are not limited as to their terms.
The lack of legal support for health sharing plans is the only thing really holding them back. Kentucky's schizophrenic approach to them may be worse than any state's in the nation, but they all appear to be pretty bad.
Christian health sharing organizations are alternatives to health insurance that are barely, if at all, legally permissible in Kentucky. The problem has much more to do with bad law than with the organizations and their health plans.
A bill to expand the Religious Publications Exemption to the Kentucky Insurance Code would be a big help. Specifically, striking all of KRS 304.1-120(7) except for (c) would get the government off the backs of these good organizations and allow a strong self-regulating market to develop to benefit Christians all over Kentucky who would otherwise be victimized by the coming exploding costs in government-regulated health insurance.
What amounts to a "health regulation tax" really just benefits government health regulators. We can't afford their taxes anymore.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Judge to rule against Kentucky Christians
A Kentucky judge is about to send thousands of Christians scrambling for new health coverage when he finds a religious health sharing group in contempt of a court order.
Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate said through a spokesperson that his ruling on a Department of Insurance motion to find Christian Care Medishare in contempt of court will come soon.
Wingate has no choice but to rule against Kentucky Christians under state law and despite an exemption for such groups in the federal ObamaCare law.
The solution to this mess is to change Kentucky law in favor of health care freedom right away.
Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate said through a spokesperson that his ruling on a Department of Insurance motion to find Christian Care Medishare in contempt of court will come soon.
Wingate has no choice but to rule against Kentucky Christians under state law and despite an exemption for such groups in the federal ObamaCare law.
The solution to this mess is to change Kentucky law in favor of health care freedom right away.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Indiana could have Christian health problem, too
Christian health sharing organizations, exempt from ObamaCare, have put on a full-court press across the country in recent years to gain exemption from regulation by state governments.
Effective July 1, Indiana joins a collection of mostly conservative states who have taken legal steps to secure the rights of Christians to gain private healthcare regardless of federal government actions.
Kentucky has completely missed this opportunity so far, possibly because health sharing lobbyists mistakenly thought they had already changed Kentucky law.
But Indiana Christians may be operating under a false sense of security. You can look at the language of the new Indiana law here.
A court could very easily rule that any of the major health sharing organizations violates Sections 4 or 5 of the law if the organization takes possession of any member sharing funds at any point or if the court views penalties against failure to make timely payment between members as a form of breach of contract and, therefore, part of a failed "promise to pay" that puts the organization back under Indiana Department of Insurance regulation.
Christians really are going to have to look beyond little legislative tweaks and narrow exemptions if they really want to protect their health care freedoms at the state level.
Kentucky can lead on this issue by calling a special legislative session and changing the definition of "insurance" to include only companies that are registered as such with the Department of Insurance.
Effective July 1, Indiana joins a collection of mostly conservative states who have taken legal steps to secure the rights of Christians to gain private healthcare regardless of federal government actions.
Kentucky has completely missed this opportunity so far, possibly because health sharing lobbyists mistakenly thought they had already changed Kentucky law.
But Indiana Christians may be operating under a false sense of security. You can look at the language of the new Indiana law here.
A court could very easily rule that any of the major health sharing organizations violates Sections 4 or 5 of the law if the organization takes possession of any member sharing funds at any point or if the court views penalties against failure to make timely payment between members as a form of breach of contract and, therefore, part of a failed "promise to pay" that puts the organization back under Indiana Department of Insurance regulation.
Christians really are going to have to look beyond little legislative tweaks and narrow exemptions if they really want to protect their health care freedoms at the state level.
Kentucky can lead on this issue by calling a special legislative session and changing the definition of "insurance" to include only companies that are registered as such with the Department of Insurance.
Health sharing group responds, but still incorrectly
The fight for health care freedom in Kentucky still faces odd resistance from marketers of the closest thing to Liberty-oriented health coverage available to Kentuckians.
It's time for that to stop.
As of yesterday, the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries had posted on their web site false information justifying their exemption from Kentucky state insurance regulation. Today, the information is changed but it is still false.
The statute referenced above is the Religious Publications Exemption which would exclude health sharing organizations from regulation if they did not in any way act as a financial intermediary between customers and health care providers. The organizations I have looked at all function as intermediaries.
Again, the problem is with the law. Kentucky's definition of insurance is so overly broad it essentially means whatever insurance regulators want it to mean. This exemption is so narrow as to apply to only extremely small organizations. In fact, if your church ever pays medical bills for needy members, it could be shut down by state government under current law.
Additionally, Kentucky has a unique constitutional provision that turns this whole mess on its head potentially for the benefit of all Americans. Section 2 of the Kentucky Bill of Rights prohibits government at any level from exercising arbitrary power.
Kentucky's Insurance Code is the poster child for arbitrary power because it is authorized to exercise control over people without clearly defined limits on the scope of that power.
Fixing this problem involves a simple approach which would serve Liberty for Kentuckians right away and then spread like wildfire over the rest of the country. The approach involves decriminalizing the selling of "unauthorized" insurance in the state.
Look at it this way: the Commonwealth of Kentucky has been burning public resources for a decade trying to chase Christian Care Medi-Share out of the state. Today the company still operates here and the Department of Insurance is still claiming to care about consumer protection.
Let the legislature define "insurance" to mean only companies who voluntarily request government regulation. Some actually might. The big insurers have grown accustomed to the government protection; let them have it if they wish.
But a shadow economy in insurance need not be a black market. We could have a "free" market to go alongside the "government" market and let the people decide which works better. Kentucky's Constitution specifically creates this opportunity for us, we just have to invoke it.
Alliance of Health Sharing Ministries, that means you. Your member organization, Christian Care Medi-Share is already in a legal battle for its ability to serve customers in this state. Stop screwing around with your web site and come to their aid with the Kentucky Constitution as the only weapon you need.
Monday, June 18, 2012
A 9 year old mistake in Christian health debate
Resistance from Christian health sharing organizations has stymied what should be easy collaboration to battle Kentucky's unconstitutional insurance regulatory regime.
I just figured out what the problem is.
The Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries reports on its web site that Kentucky passed a law in 2003 to allow health sharing entities to act as a conduit for funds. Such a change in the law might clear up a major problem regulators and the Kentucky Supreme Court have with these organizations.
The only problem with this is the bill failed to pass. Never even got a floor vote in the House, where it originated.
This mistake appears to be what is causing the Christian health sharing organizations to think they are on solid ground in Kentucky. They would do well to check the facts and reconsider their failing strategy right away. It's an embarrassing screw up, to be sure, but the best solution is to join in and fight against the flawed reasoning of insurance regulation.
Given the substantial uniformity of state insurance regulation, making Kentucky a focal point for reform could yield fantastic results.
The ObamaCare U.S. Supreme Court decision coming any day now is really just the beginning of the health care freedom battle in America. Getting with the program, therefore, presents a very powerful opportunity for marketers of Christian health sharing programs.
I just figured out what the problem is.
The Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries reports on its web site that Kentucky passed a law in 2003 to allow health sharing entities to act as a conduit for funds. Such a change in the law might clear up a major problem regulators and the Kentucky Supreme Court have with these organizations.
The only problem with this is the bill failed to pass. Never even got a floor vote in the House, where it originated.
This mistake appears to be what is causing the Christian health sharing organizations to think they are on solid ground in Kentucky. They would do well to check the facts and reconsider their failing strategy right away. It's an embarrassing screw up, to be sure, but the best solution is to join in and fight against the flawed reasoning of insurance regulation.
Given the substantial uniformity of state insurance regulation, making Kentucky a focal point for reform could yield fantastic results.
The ObamaCare U.S. Supreme Court decision coming any day now is really just the beginning of the health care freedom battle in America. Getting with the program, therefore, presents a very powerful opportunity for marketers of Christian health sharing programs.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Sen. Mike Lee swings too hard for Romney
An old lawyer saying counsels counselors to bang on the law if they don’t have good facts, to bang on the facts if they don’t have good law and to bang on the table if they have neither good law nor good facts.
Senator Mike Lee is an old lawyer, trying to defend Gov. Mitt Romney’s pick of Gov. Mike Leavitt to head his White House transition team should he be elected president in November. And Senator Lee is definitely banging on the table.
Asked last week to explain how a man who spent the last couple of years making a fortune encouraging states to implement ObamaCare on the flimsy (and incorrect) reasoning that “local control” is an option under the law is now going to help lead the way on dismantling it, Sen. Lee turned to the famous straw man argument.
Lee dismissed worries about the fact that Leavitt was profiting from the implementation of President Obama’s health care law.“If the rule were, you cannot be considered a conservative, or even palatable to any conservatives under any circumstances if you have operated in or especially made a profit in any area that isn’t 100 percent governed by free market, no one would qualify,” Lee said. “The truth is there are so many things, especially in the post-Obamacare world, where the market isn’t really free.”
Please. We aren’t talking about judging Gov. Leavitt a conservative or even talking at all about government-supported profit, much less demanding a complete absence of it. We are talking about measuring Leavitt’s credibility in the role of bolstering the already shaky credibility of a Republican nominee on the top issue that gives would-be supporters pause.
Banging on the table at a moment like this serves only to hold Romney back in a race he should be walking away with.
Red State has already asked nicely once.
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Christians begins
The Kentucky Department of Insurance has acknowledged receipt of complaints against two Christian health sharing organizations for illegally selling health insurance to citizens of the Commonwealth.
The organizations are Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries. The Department demanded, on Monday June 11, a response from them within two weeks.
Such religious-based health sharing organizations are exempt from ObamaCare mandates, sparing their members at least some of the negative effects of the federal law euphemistically dubbed by Congress the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
At issue is Kentucky law, which defines insurance as "a contract whereby one undertakes to pay or indemnify another as to loss from certain specified contingencies or perils called 'risks.'" This means essentially that most human interactions could constitute "insurance" and invite regulation under the state's insurance code.
An example I have been using is that if I sell you an umbrella on a cloudy day, I could be considered your insurance company under state law. It sounds ridiculous, but it applies to a law that is so overly broad as to be hazardous to our liberties.
A "religious publications exemption" found in state law has been cited as a way for these religious health sharing organizations to escape state regulation. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 (Commonwealth v. Reinhold) that "the (sharing organization) must be set up so that one subscriber sends the money for assistance to the other subscriber without the money passing through an intermediary."
Both organizations fail on this point, though Samaritan in most cases at least usually operates merely as an information source linking financial needs with payors and suggesting payments.
So, in the eyes of the law, both sharing organizations are insurance companies and should -- again, under the law -- be regulated. Given Kentucky's overzealous regulatory regime, that means shutting them down.
The point of this exercise is that insurance regulation has proven in dramatic fashion to be at least counter-productive by providing an illusion of consumer protection as well as an impossible to miss negative impact on pricing of services. Before we fall for giving near-total control of our health care system to federal and state governments, we should take a closer look at how such control is and has been handled in Frankfort.
If we do that, we ought to agree to dismantle insurance regulation altogether.
The organizations are Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries. The Department demanded, on Monday June 11, a response from them within two weeks.
Such religious-based health sharing organizations are exempt from ObamaCare mandates, sparing their members at least some of the negative effects of the federal law euphemistically dubbed by Congress the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
At issue is Kentucky law, which defines insurance as "a contract whereby one undertakes to pay or indemnify another as to loss from certain specified contingencies or perils called 'risks.'" This means essentially that most human interactions could constitute "insurance" and invite regulation under the state's insurance code.
An example I have been using is that if I sell you an umbrella on a cloudy day, I could be considered your insurance company under state law. It sounds ridiculous, but it applies to a law that is so overly broad as to be hazardous to our liberties.
A "religious publications exemption" found in state law has been cited as a way for these religious health sharing organizations to escape state regulation. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in 2010 (Commonwealth v. Reinhold) that "the (sharing organization) must be set up so that one subscriber sends the money for assistance to the other subscriber without the money passing through an intermediary."
Both organizations fail on this point, though Samaritan in most cases at least usually operates merely as an information source linking financial needs with payors and suggesting payments.
So, in the eyes of the law, both sharing organizations are insurance companies and should -- again, under the law -- be regulated. Given Kentucky's overzealous regulatory regime, that means shutting them down.
The point of this exercise is that insurance regulation has proven in dramatic fashion to be at least counter-productive by providing an illusion of consumer protection as well as an impossible to miss negative impact on pricing of services. Before we fall for giving near-total control of our health care system to federal and state governments, we should take a closer look at how such control is and has been handled in Frankfort.
If we do that, we ought to agree to dismantle insurance regulation altogether.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Let's rock the health care debate
Kentucky has a history of being notoriously bad on health insurance issues.
We now have an interesting opportunity to push back in a big way, but need some
national help to do it.
In 1994, after the failure of HillaryCare, Kentucky destroyed its individual health insurance market by requiring insurers to accept all applications regardless of health status. Dozens of health insurance companies immediately left the state, leaving only one. The legislature subsequently restored some sanity to the marketplace, but some big problems remain.
Enter ObamaCare.
A small corner of the ObamaCare debate has escaped the national spotlight. That corner is occupied by religious-based health sharing organizations, which are exempt from the so-called Affordable Care Act.
Three such organizations, Christian Care Medi-Share, Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries are at the center of a very quiet debate running right to the heart of what is wrong with the idea of government regulating health care.
In 2002, Kentucky filed a lawsuit against Christian Care Medi-Share, alleging that the company fit the state’s definition of an insurance company and needed to be regulated as such. This effectively destroys the company’s ability to operate in the state because their ability to avoid the state’s crazy quilt of mandates and their much lower premiums are what could make them a better choice for some consumers.
To their credit, Medi-Share refused to just go away quietly. They won exemptions in court while the state kept appealing. In 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against Medi-Share and the state moved then to remove them from Kentucky.
To their credit, again, Medi-Share refused to leave. And this is where it gets really interesting.
Perhaps realizing they don’t want to get caught on the wrong side of the Affordable Care Act — actually worse than ObamaCare! — just as the fire gets really hot, Kentucky has stopped fighting to remove Medi-Share. They still tell callers to the Department of Insurance consumer information line that Medi-Share is operating illegally and shouldn’t be trusted to serve citizens’ health care financing needs, but there has been no official action against the company for almost a year.
And the sad truth is that, given the way the state law is written, Kentucky is on solid ground in persecuting the Christians who seek refuge from federal overreach through Medi-Share.
And that’s where the other Christian health sharing companies enter the story. A Kentucky Department of Insurance spokeswoman told me almost three weeks ago that further action against Medi-Share was imminent and that while Samaritan and Christian Healthcare had previously been investigated and found to be properly operating outside the bounds of state insurance regulation, they would be investigated again.
There has been no apparent official action since then. And the truth is Samaritan and Christian Healthcare also operate in conflict with Kentucky law.
Arbitrary application of the law is prohibited by Kentucky’s Constitution. State regulators have created a chilling effect on consumers and Christian health sharing organizations with their actions. The proper action is to enforce the law universally or to repeal it and allow this opportunity for health freedom to flourish.
Kentucky needs to repeal this worse-than-ObamaCare provision in state law by redefining “insurance” in KRS Chapter 304 to exclude health sharing organizations and we need to do it this summer in special session to prevent further harm to Kentucky Christians.
And if, in doing so, we expand those freedoms beyond just Christians, then so much the better. But to do any of this, we need to draw national attention to this fight. Please spread the word as widely as you can.
In 1994, after the failure of HillaryCare, Kentucky destroyed its individual health insurance market by requiring insurers to accept all applications regardless of health status. Dozens of health insurance companies immediately left the state, leaving only one. The legislature subsequently restored some sanity to the marketplace, but some big problems remain.
Enter ObamaCare.
A small corner of the ObamaCare debate has escaped the national spotlight. That corner is occupied by religious-based health sharing organizations, which are exempt from the so-called Affordable Care Act.
Three such organizations, Christian Care Medi-Share, Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries are at the center of a very quiet debate running right to the heart of what is wrong with the idea of government regulating health care.
In 2002, Kentucky filed a lawsuit against Christian Care Medi-Share, alleging that the company fit the state’s definition of an insurance company and needed to be regulated as such. This effectively destroys the company’s ability to operate in the state because their ability to avoid the state’s crazy quilt of mandates and their much lower premiums are what could make them a better choice for some consumers.
To their credit, Medi-Share refused to just go away quietly. They won exemptions in court while the state kept appealing. In 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against Medi-Share and the state moved then to remove them from Kentucky.
To their credit, again, Medi-Share refused to leave. And this is where it gets really interesting.
Perhaps realizing they don’t want to get caught on the wrong side of the Affordable Care Act — actually worse than ObamaCare! — just as the fire gets really hot, Kentucky has stopped fighting to remove Medi-Share. They still tell callers to the Department of Insurance consumer information line that Medi-Share is operating illegally and shouldn’t be trusted to serve citizens’ health care financing needs, but there has been no official action against the company for almost a year.
And the sad truth is that, given the way the state law is written, Kentucky is on solid ground in persecuting the Christians who seek refuge from federal overreach through Medi-Share.
And that’s where the other Christian health sharing companies enter the story. A Kentucky Department of Insurance spokeswoman told me almost three weeks ago that further action against Medi-Share was imminent and that while Samaritan and Christian Healthcare had previously been investigated and found to be properly operating outside the bounds of state insurance regulation, they would be investigated again.
There has been no apparent official action since then. And the truth is Samaritan and Christian Healthcare also operate in conflict with Kentucky law.
Arbitrary application of the law is prohibited by Kentucky’s Constitution. State regulators have created a chilling effect on consumers and Christian health sharing organizations with their actions. The proper action is to enforce the law universally or to repeal it and allow this opportunity for health freedom to flourish.
Kentucky needs to repeal this worse-than-ObamaCare provision in state law by redefining “insurance” in KRS Chapter 304 to exclude health sharing organizations and we need to do it this summer in special session to prevent further harm to Kentucky Christians.
And if, in doing so, we expand those freedoms beyond just Christians, then so much the better. But to do any of this, we need to draw national attention to this fight. Please spread the word as widely as you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)