Jump to content
IGNORED

Maxwells shilling for Scamaritan


Dark Matters

Recommended Posts

Wonder if they are getting compensation for this post?

 

blog.titus2.com/2014/12/20/health-insurance-alternative-samaritan-ministries/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I guess they include mental health in the "unethical procedures" that make regular health insurance so bad.

Interesting to note Steve cannot join.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father looked into Samaritian when he got divorced in desperation because he could not find nor afford any other insurance. His high blood pressure, well controlled with the same medication for over 20 years, was his pre-existing disqualifier. He was hoping to have just major medical for emergencies but he said they basically had clauses to disqualify any major medical they wanted if they opted to do so. It also required not only no drinking and no smoking but a personal reference to your moral character from your minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what would happen if (heaven forbid) a single girl is raped? Would Scamaritian cover her medical costs, or call her a not so very nice word and kick her out of the program?

It doesn't seem very "Christian" not to cover those with high blood pressure. That is not something a person can avoid. (You can lower your risks, but it is hereditary. The same with Diabetes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also required not only no drinking and no smoking but a personal reference to your moral character from your minister.

And Steve is the family Pastor to whom the "children" all have to submit for accountability.

If any of them were to choose to leave the compound, they would find themselves without basic medical cover, on top of everything else they would lose.

Interesting that Steve and Teri don't qualify. After so many years of cover by Steve's corporate employers, I doubt Paranoid Steve would even want (or trust!) a shared payment scheme for his own needs. But a dodgy scheme with a gazillion exclusions is a perfect motivation to keep his children eating green smoothies and doing pre-dawn workouts every day, just as per his preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they include mental health in the "unethical procedures" that make regular health insurance so bad.

Interesting to note Steve cannot join.

And contraception too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It disgusts me that they take a Story from the Bible about loving your neighbor- no matter who they are- and perverting it beyond recognition.

Way to miss the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarah, honey: it's "How would you like to be a part" - NOT "apart." ("Apart" implies separateness, which is the exact opposite of what you're trying to say.) It's "quite a few of we Maxwells," NOT "us Maxwells." (You wouldn't say "Us are in the program," you would say "We are in the program.")

Sorry, FJ-ers, but OMG, the SOTDRT writing, from a 32 year-old...makes me want to chew a bowl of carpet tacks. :angry-banghead: Thus endeth my stabby contribution to this thread.

Oh, and hey, Stevie - HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE!!! :nenner:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what would happen if (heaven forbid) a single girl is raped? Would Scamaritian cover her medical costs, or call her a not so very nice word and kick her out of the program?

It doesn't seem very "Christian" not to cover those with high blood pressure. That is not something a person can avoid. (You can lower your risks, but it is hereditary. The same with Diabetes.

Here's what Pastor Mike Huckabee said about this issue in 2010:

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."

:(

Source: talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/huckabee-opposes-insurance-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-audio?ref=fpb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping this died with the leech's demise? really this is good because if you are a ™ you won't have preexisting conditions. Plus nothing like having to announce in the magazine what is wrong with you and get judged by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Steve is retired military he and Teri have Tri-Care for Life so they don't need this "insurance". However their children would age out at 18/high school graduation unless they were enrolled in school full time. (I'll admit I'm not sure how Obamacare changes this rule). That would explain why Sara joined at 18. Tri-Care wouldn't cover her anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Steve is retired military he and Teri have Tri-Care for Life so they don't need this "insurance". However their children would age out at 18/high school graduation unless they were enrolled in school full time. (I'll admit I'm not sure how Obamacare changes this rule). That would explain why Sara joined at 18. Tri-Care wouldn't cover her anymore.

I don't think he's ever said he's retired military, just that he served in the military, the Air Force, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's "quite a few of we Maxwells," NOT "us Maxwells." (You wouldn't say "Us are in the program," you would say "We are in the program.")

I beg to differ. "quite a few of us Maxwells" is correct. "A few" is the subject of the sentance. "Us" is correctly in the objective case because it is the object of the preposition, "of".

We would say "A few of us are in the program." Not "of we."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's ever said he's retired military, just that he served in the military, the Air Force, I think.

If he served out his tour(s) of whatever length and received an honorable discharge, then isn't he eligible for Tri-Care as a vet? That's the whole premise along with GI Bill educational benefits; you don't have to be career military to receive them upon separation from service.

Not Steve can be expected to be honest about any of this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to retire from the military to get the benefits. For some reason I thought he had been career military but I could be dreaming that up ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to retire from the military to get the benefits. For some reason I thought he had been career military but I could be dreaming that up ;)

Grandad Rex (Teri's late father) was retired military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what Pastor Mike Huckabee said about this issue in 2010:

:(

Source: talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/huckabee-opposes-insurance-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-audio?ref=fpb

wow. Yeah that comparison only works if they were asking for coverage for someone who had passed away - ceased to exist. That's not the point of eliminating pre-existing condition rules. It's to keep insurance companies from scamming people out of coverage they need and/or have paid for.

Another reason that's an uneducated thing for him to say is that medicaid is retroactive for people who apply. (i think up to 3 months with proof) :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'apart' instead of ' a part' is annoying. Come on Sarah, you are an author, learn the difference.

And I'm interested in knowing which Maxwells are not part of Samaritan. And why

I'm really amazed that Nathan and Melanie are still allowed to be members.

And Sarah has never had a claim? She never goes to the doctor? Or is Samaritan for major expenses only and you pay for regular doctors visits by yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what Pastor Mike Huckabee said about this issue in 2010:

:(

Source: talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/huckabee-opposes-insurance-for-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-audio?ref=fpb

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it is not the same thing at all....

Now why are Mel's pregnancy issues covered? She had premature births, NICU stays, etc. In a sense, that is "pre-existing" pregnancy issues....

"Normal" insurance plans are not allowed to discriminate against pre-existing conditions anymore to "qualify". Scamaitian should also have to follow this rule to qualify....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how much are the Maxwells being paid for this ad? Are their monthly fees being waived? I just cannot see them posting it just to make the world aware of Scamaritan. There is a little desperation in this post. I wonder if the Maxwells just need the money since they don't Energize as much. I don't recall them regularly advertising others products. Since Steve and Terri cannot partake in the scam, I wonder what they are doing for insurance. I noticed that Sarah just glossed over that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard of this organisation but have never really look at them until today (I live in an evil country with socialised medicine so...yeah) but the whole idea seems very Marxist to me. I don't have an issue with that at all, but it seems very bizarre that many of these families are ultra right wing conservatives and probably perpetuate the whole 'dirty pinko commie' thing...yet buy in to a health care system that smacks of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'apart' instead of ' a part' is annoying. Come on Sarah, you are an author, learn the difference.

And I'm interested in knowing which Maxwells are not part of Samaritan. And why

I'm really amazed that Nathan and Melanie are still allowed to be members.

And Sarah has never had a claim? She never goes to the doctor? Or is Samaritan for major expenses only and you pay for regular doctors visits by yourself?

My friend was looking into something similar (not scamaritan but the same idea - group coverage), and it had a $5000 yearly deductible for claims. They also had to measure their waists, get a physical, and submit their BMI before approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard of this organisation but have never really look at them until today (I live in an evil country with socialised medicine so...yeah) but the whole idea seems very Marxist to me. I don't have an issue with that at all, but it seems very bizarre that many of these families are ultra right wing conservatives and probably perpetuate the whole 'dirty pinko commie' thing...yet buy in to a health care system that smacks of it.

Just like Mennonites that say insurance isn't trusting God but churches all over the world will pitch together to pay for health costs if the person needing help is holy enough - it's a way to control people into a certain way of life. Everyone's trying to be perfect to stay in the group because so much of their security depends on not doing anything that would get them shunned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.