Maxwells shilling for Scamaritan

[ViolaSebastian]

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.

I agree, to a certain extent, but we have to keep in mind that individuals can decide who they send their money to help. So add in the whole 'personal responsibility' (no drinking, no drugs, no smoking, no "sexual immorality", agree not to sue a fellow Christian) and 'worthiness to receive help' (a very certain type of Christian) and you've got yourself a big steamin' crock of conservative thought.

I would absolutely hate, hate, hate for the decision on whether or not my medical bills get paid is how 'sexy' my illness or injury happens to be. Of course people with premature babies or cancer are going to get more help than people with bunions and diabetes. And oh man, don't get me started on the psychiatric/behavior health issues of this garbage--they'll only cover psychiatric care if you're involuntarily committed, and won't publish any psychiatric medication that can't be proven needed with a blood test--in other words, any freakin' psychiatric medication. So basically, things have to get so bad that you're held on a 5150, then you can have the fact that you were so out of control that you needed to be involuntarily committed published for all the world to see and decide if you're worthy enough for help. And even then, don't think about asking for help paying for your medication so you don't have to be involuntarily held again. Yeah, how could this possibly go wrong... :?

[Antimony]

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....

I would suspect that she signed up upon marriage and before pregnancy so those conditions were not pre-existing at the time of enrollment.

It also sounds like you have to ask for something to be covered specifically, as opposed to having it cover certain expenses always (probably why Sarah has never asked for a claim) but I could have interpreted that wrong.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

This is definitely not the first time the Maxwells have been quoted about Scamaritan - they've given statements on the program on non-Maxwell websites even.

I know I've posted this a few times before, but you can read Nathan Maxwell's testimony about Scamaritan here: http://www.khi.org/news/2011/may/23/fai ... ans-cover/

Money quote:

He said they didn't want to send money to a company that covers abortions or pay into an insurance pool that enabled people to live unhealthy lifestyles.

"Somebody that would, you know, not be managing their diabetes correctly and being hospitalized over and over,†he said. “ I don't want my money to help fund that. That can sound selfish, but I didn't like the idea of enabling people that way. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility."

[SPHASH]

This is definitely not the first time the Maxwells have been quoted about Scamaritan - they've given statements on the program on non-Maxwell websites even.

I know I've posted this a few times before, but you can read Nathan Maxwell's testimony about Scamaritan here: http://www.khi.org/news/2011/may/23/fai ... ans-cover/

Money quote:

Nate is a big fan of personal responsibility yet he continually knocks up his wife who has a history of miscarriages and premature deliveries. Fucking hypocritical asshole.

[Coco]

Well unfortunately with their growing families it's only a matter of time before someone gets a condition they once judged others for having. Then they'll change their tune pretty fast.

[uber frau]

I agree, to a certain extent, but we have to keep in mind that individuals can decide who they send their money to help. So add in the whole 'personal responsibility' (no drinking, no drugs, no smoking, no "sexual immorality", agree not to sue a fellow Christian) and 'worthiness to receive help' (a very certain type of Christian) and you've got yourself a big steamin' crock of conservative thought.

I would absolutely hate, hate, hate for the decision on whether or not my medical bills get paid is how 'sexy' my illness or injury happens to be. Of course people with premature babies or cancer are going to get more help than people with bunions and diabetes. And oh man, don't get me started on the psychiatric/behavior health issues of this garbage--they'll only cover psychiatric care if you're involuntarily committed, and won't publish any psychiatric medication that can't be proven needed with a blood test--in other words, any freakin' psychiatric medication. So basically, things have to get so bad that you're held on a 5150, then you can have the fact that you were so out of control that you needed to be involuntarily committed published for all the world to see and decide if you're worthy enough for help. And even then, don't think about asking for help paying for your medication so you don't have to be involuntarily held again. Yeah, how could this possibly go wrong... :?

Psychiatric services aren't covered by Scamaritan. (Mental health issues are all down to personal failings and/or Satan according to most fundies so I doubt they'd feel any sympathy even if someone got to the point of being admitted as an involuntary patient.)

I'm fairly sure that Scamaritan only covers the services provided in hospital, for ppl they deem godly, for conditions they deem worthy and no ancillary or preventative or community based services.

The conditions are so damn restrictive that it's not that strange that Sarah has never needed to use her 'cover'.

[WonderingInWA]

"If you have questions please ask Samaritan’s directly."

Sarah, so glad you are "apart of" Samaritan, too!

Good lord, someone find her an editor!

[uber frau]

Oh ye of little faith. The Maxwell's don't need editors. They do it themselves. Why pay someone to do what you (think you) can do yourself for nothing? *

But then, what else can we expect from someone who writes rather than reads?

*Actually, I share that philosophy when it comes to buying anything written by the Maxwells. I figure I can throw a collection of random texts at a wall and see what sticks just as well as they can. And I'm pretty sure that even my writing is as good as Sarah's.(It can't be much worse at any rate.)

[jerkit]

You have to sign away your right to ALL drinking? Even a glass of wine at Christmas dinner? A champagne toast at a loved one's wedding? *eye roll*

[Buzzard]

I hadnt seen the "save to share" scam before. This makes the whole thing even worse!

samaritanministries.org/how-it-works/savetoshare/

As the cost of health care has risen, there have been a gradually increasing number of publishable needs that have exceeded the $250,000 maximum publishable amount in the basic ministry.

Save to Share™ is a ministry for those who wish to share in the medical needs of other members that exceed the $250,000 publishable amount. Save to Share™ members are asked to set aside the designated amount for their household size (see chart below). They do not send the amount set aside to Samaritan Ministries.

When a Save to Share™ participant has a need that exceeds the $250,000 maximum publishable amount of a regular need, the other Save to Share™ participants will be asked to share from their set aside funds for the amount over $250,000.

So you "save" your mandatory amount (should you decide to participate, of course) and then you can choose to send up to half of your saved amount to someone who is worthy of your blessing. Of course, Samaritan ministries takes a $15 fee/year for the honor of saving in your own bank account and participating in this program. Likely so that no honest christian with a catastrophic need says they were part of the program when they arent.

How does this qualify under the ACA? I had no idea that you could only insure yourself UP TO 250k. Isnt that the whole point, that no one would find themselves in a condition resulting in medical bankruptcy?

[HereticHick]

You have to sign away your right to ALL drinking? Even a glass of wine at Christmas dinner? A champagne toast at a loved one's wedding? *eye roll*

Where do you see that? On page 14 or 15 of the Samaritan booklet, it says you can just pledge to drink moderately and never get drunk.

And yes, Tricare Military Insurance is just for RETIRED military (20 or more years or service) & their spouses & their children, who age out. Just being a military veteran does not get you, or your family, health benefits.

[jerkit]

Where do you see that? On page 14 or 15 of the Samaritan booklet, it says you can just pledge to drink moderately and never get drunk.

And yes, Tricare Military Insurance is just for RETIRED military (20 or more years or service) & their spouses & their children, who age out. Just being a military veterans does not get you, or your family, health benefits.

Ahh, okay. I didn't read the booklet, I just saw someone post "You can't drink or smoke"

[NachosFlandersStyle]

Was there a religious opposition to insurance prior to the Obamacare freakout? I know that Ned Flanders considers it a form of gambling, but I figure that in the real world the only reason to go without is that you're broke or, in recent years, you want to brag about how you're resisting socialist tyranny!!!1!1!!

Also, Sarah says in 13 years she has never had to "submit a need" to Samaritan. Does this mean they don't cover regular checkups?

[WonderingInWA]

Was there a religious opposition to insurance prior to the Obamacare freakout? I know that Ned Flanders considers it a form of gambling, but I figure that in the real world the only reason to go without is that you're broke or, in recent years, you want to brag about how you're resisting socialist tyranny!!!1!1!!

Also, Sarah says in 13 years she has never had to "submit a need" to Samaritan. Does this mean they don't cover regular checkups?

I think the idea is that regular checkups are just paid out of pocket because it's just not worth submitting a claim. Regular checkups are relatively inexpensive and maybe if you're living the uber-Christian lifestyle like the Maxwells, you don't participate in regular checkups anyway. You know, because Jesus is watching out for you.

I do wonder if Melanie does mammograms. She's getting to the age of eligibility.

[NachosFlandersStyle]

[quote="ViolaSebastian"

I agree, to a certain extent, but we have to keep in mind that individuals can decide who they send their money to help. So add in the whole 'personal responsibility' (no drinking, no drugs, no smoking, no "sexual immorality", agree not to sue a fellow Christian) and 'worthiness to receive help' (a very certain type of Christian) and you've got yourself a big steamin' crock of conservative thought.

I would absolutely hate, hate, hate for the decision on whether or not my medical bills get paid is how 'sexy' my illness or injury happens to be. Of course people with premature babies or cancer are going to get more help than people with bunions and diabetes. And oh man, don't get me started on the psychiatric/behavior health issues of this garbage--they'll only cover psychiatric care if you're involuntarily committed, and won't publish any psychiatric medication that can't be proven needed with a blood test--in other words, any freakin' psychiatric medication. So basically, things have to get so bad that you're held on a 5150, then you can have the fact that you were so out of control that you needed to be involuntarily committed published for all the world to see and decide if you're worthy enough for help. And even then, don't think about asking for help paying for your medication so you don't have to be involuntarily held again. Yeah, how could this possibly go wrong... :?

This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that private charity can replace aid programs. Of course the media-savvy parents who can take slick photos of their adorable, afflicted blond child (and then spend all day pushing the cause on Facebook and Twitter) are going to get donations to their medical fund. But the vast majority of people can't make that work. Same with this, it sounds like-- Samaritan says they live by the biblical command to "bear one another's burdens" but they are only covering catastrophic incidents. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy to help out a neighbor who has pneumonia but if your neighbor's burden includes expensive, complicated long-term care like blood pressure medicine or checkups for diabetes or even anti-psychotics-- well, that doesn't make for a good, self-aggrandizing blog post about how we took a casserole to Mrs. So-and-So in her time of dire need. So she's on her own.

*edited for quote formatting problems

[Coco]

This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that private charity can replace aid programs. Of course the media-savvy parents who can take slick photos of their adorable, afflicted blond child (and then spend all day pushing the cause on Facebook and Twitter) are going to get donations to their medical fund. But the vast majority of people can't make that work. Same with this, it sounds like-- Samaritan says they live by the biblical command to "bear one another's burdens" but they are only covering catastrophic incidents. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy to help out a neighbor who has pneumonia but if your neighbor's burden includes expensive, complicated long-term care like blood pressure medicine or checkups for diabetes or even anti-psychotics-- well, that doesn't make for a good, self-aggrandizing blog post about how we took a casserole to Mrs. So-and-So in her time of dire need. So she's on her own.

*edited for quote formatting problems

Exactly. In their ads in homeschool magazines there is never a mention that the claims could be denied because of lifestyle reasons. It's presented as just a friendly group coverage that avoids a lot of red tape. I had no idea that it was so corrupt until the details were made clear by other people here.

[Cartmann99]

This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that private charity can replace aid programs. Of course the media-savvy parents who can take slick photos of their adorable, afflicted blond child (and then spend all day pushing the cause on Facebook and Twitter) are going to get donations to their medical fund. But the vast majority of people can't make that work. Same with this, it sounds like-- Samaritan says they live by the biblical command to "bear one another's burdens" but they are only covering catastrophic incidents. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy to help out a neighbor who has pneumonia but if your neighbor's burden includes expensive, complicated long-term care like blood pressure medicine or checkups for diabetes or even anti-psychotics-- well, that doesn't make for a good, self-aggrandizing blog post about how we took a casserole to Mrs. So-and-So in her time of dire need. So she's on her own.

*edited for quote formatting problems

We have stories here in Nutbag City on a regular basis about someone who needs help with their medical bills. As you said, it's hard work to make an average person look "worthy" enough and to reach enough people willing to donate. It sickens me to see people reduced to begging to pay medical bills. It doesn't have to be this way. :(

[Cleopatra7]

Does Samaritan cover procedures that require long-term care, like chemotherapy or a by-pass operation? Are certain types of cancer covered (i.e., breast or brain cancer, ones that "just happen"), while those that are deemed to be "lifestyle related" like lung or anal cancer not? If someone requires a by-pass would that be considered a the result of a bad lifestyle (e.g., the result of not eating healthily or working out)? Do you have to fill out paperwork justifying why you need X,Y, or Z and provide proof that it wasn't your fault? I just don't see how this is a workable solution to the healthcare problem if there are so many conditions that aren't covered. It's medicalized victim blaming.

[sparkles]

Does Samaritan cover procedures that require long-term care, like chemotherapy or a by-pass operation? Are certain types of cancer covered (i.e., breast or brain cancer, ones that "just happen"), while those that are deemed to be "lifestyle related" like lung or anal cancer not? If someone requires a by-pass would that be considered a the result of a bad lifestyle (e.g., the result of not eating healthily or working out)? Do you have to fill out paperwork justifying why you need X,Y, or Z and provide proof that it wasn't your fault? I just don't see how this is a workable solution to the healthcare problem if there are so many conditions that aren't covered. It's medicalized victim blaming.

I've wondered the same. And how far would they take things in an effort to deny coverage? Could you be denied if you had a family history of a certain type of cancer? And with certain "lifestyle related" cancers, how could they be sure it actually WAS lifestyle related? For instance, of the three people I know with lung cancer, not a single one was ever a smoker or even lived with a smoker. Could they be denied "just because?" I'm also curious how they handle new problems that crop up because of a previously covered condition. My daughter, for example, was born with a neural tube defect and throughout her life, she's had new issues crop up as a result. Would Scamaritan deny coverage for those claiming they were caused by a pre-existing condition. I'm seeing a minefield of loopholes here.

[Marian the Librarian]

And, just like magic, "apart" has been changed to "a part."

HI, STEVIE!!!111!!! FJ will send you a bill for editing services. :lol:

[Justme]

I remember reading that they don't guarantee to cover everything, whether your "fault" or not. Their maximum is also only $250k, not much in the world of cancer.

They don't cover routine type care, exams, and sick visits. Your suppose to tell your dr that you have no health insurance and hope (beg) they will lower the rate.

I doubt very much that Sarah (or any of the unmarried "children") have had regular physical, screening exams, and/or gyno visits. Could you imagine the horror on her face when told to strip, put on a gown put her feet in the stirrups. :o

[slickcat79]

I hadnt seen the "save to share" scam before. This makes the whole thing even worse!

samaritanministries.org/how-it-works/savetoshare/

So you "save" your mandatory amount (should you decide to participate, of course) and then you can choose to send up to half of your saved amount to someone who is worthy of your blessing. Of course, Samaritan ministries takes a $15 fee/year for the honor of saving in your own bank account and participating in this program. Likely so that no honest christian with a catastrophic need says they were part of the program when they arent.

How does this qualify under the ACA? I had no idea that you could only insure yourself UP TO 250k. Isnt that the whole point, that no one would find themselves in a condition resulting in medical bankruptcy?

It doesn't. Programs like SM and medi-share do not meet the qualifications for a plan under the ACA...BUT an individual may opt to join one of those programs instead of purchasing an ACA-approved plan and they are considered to have met the individual mandate. It's like, if you don't want the coverage you are actually entitled to, they'll let you screw yourself.

And yeah, aside from not covering any preventive care, ANY need under a certain amount ($350? $500? something like that) is not considered publishable, so if you have 6 kids who all needed to go to the doctor for chicken pox at $200 apiece...better hope you have some money saved.

[ViolaSebastian]

Psychiatric services aren't covered by Scamaritan. (Mental health issues are all down to personal failings and/or Satan according to most fundies so I doubt they'd feel any sympathy even if someone got to the point of being admitted as an involuntary patient.)

I'm fairly sure that Scamaritan only covers the services provided in hospital, for ppl they deem godly, for conditions they deem worthy and no ancillary or preventative or community based services.

The conditions are so damn restrictive that it's not that strange that Sarah has never needed to use her 'cover'.

They cover it in some extremely limited instances:

24. Psychiatric Care—Inpatient psychiatric

care due to involuntary commitment, and

the treatment for injuries and detectable

organic agents causing cognitive disabilities

are publishable up to $50,000 per condition.

Psychotropic medication to treat chemical

imbalances not demonstrable by lab tests is

not publishable except as a part of involuntary

commitment. No other type of psychiatric

care or services is publishable.

25. Psychological Services—Psychological services

including psychophysiology are not

publishable.

samaritanministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/201406-Guidelines-for-website.pdf

[SPHASH]

Hi Steve! Thanks for reading here and making Sarah change "apart" to "a part".

[Coco]

i really doubt any of them have ever had a gynecologist medical exam or screening. As if just living a holy life can prevent all ills. And when they get married they probably prefer to use a midwife at home for all checks. The Maxwells' extremely modest way of living probably results in the hubby knowing more about the wife than the wife knows about herself. Which is probably fine to them, since the hubby "owns" that part of the wife.