Health Care Sharing Plans

[somarco]

Prejudice:

A pre-judgment or unjustifiable, and usually negative, attitude of one type of individual or group toward another group and its members. Such negative attitudes are typically based on unsupported generalizations (or stereotypes) that deny the right of individual members of certain groups to be recognized and treated as individuals with individual characteristics.


Racism:

A different from racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination. Racism involves one group having the power to carry out systematic discrimination through the institutional policies and practices of the society and by shaping the cultural beliefs and values that support those racist policies and practices.

 

[straightnochaser]

saying things are racist, is steeped in racism.

Only to racists....

 

[tikibarrister]

Only to racists....

How can you even lift your fingers to type with the weight of that chip on your shoulder?

While one can certainly argue that "Birthers" were motivated more by denying Obama the White House than any genuine passion about the consitution, to say it was racism is a wildly prejudiced assertion.

In fact, it's trivial to disprove this based on history.

I'm sure you think that

• every Democrat who took Goldwater's birth to court in 1964 because he was born before Arizona was a state were racists
• every Democrat who took Romney's birth to court because his parents were born before Utah statehood were racists
• every Democrat who took McCain's birth to court were racists because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone to court were racists
• every Democrat who took Chester A. Arthur birth to court because there were rumors in Canada were racists

Or the others I'll let you google for yourself.

The Obama birth controversy was nothing new. I can think of at least five Presidential candidates whose opponents took them to court because they wanted to disqualify them over their birth. Guess what they all have in common? It was Democrats trying to qualify Republicans.

The only difference here is that this is the first time a Republican candidate challenged a Democrat's birth.

And you call it racism.

Sucks when your prejudice runs into facts, eh?

 

[rmhaire]

Sucks when your prejudice runs into facts, eh?

Damn kid. You're good.

Have you ever met @somarco?

 

[straightnochaser]

How can you even lift your fingers to type with the weight of that chip on your shoulder?

While one can certainly argue that "Birthers" were motivated more by denying Obama the White House than any genuine passion about the consitution, to say it was racism is a wildly prejudiced assertion.

In fact, it's trivial to disprove this based on history.

I'm sure you think that

• every Democrat who took Goldwater's birth to court in 1964 because he was born before Arizona was a state were racists
• every Democrat who took Romney's birth to court because his parents were born before Utah statehood were racists
• every Democrat who took McCain's birth to court were racists because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone to court were racists
• every Democrat who took Chester A. Arthur birth to court because there were rumors in Canada were racists

Or the others I'll let you google for yourself.

The Obama birth controversy was nothing new. I can think of at least five Presidential candidates whose opponents took them to court because they wanted to disqualify them over their birth. Guess what they all have in common? It was Democrats trying to qualify Republicans.

The only difference here is that this is the first time a Republican candidate challenged a Democrat's birth.

And you call it racism.

Sucks when your prejudice runs into facts, eh?

Hilarious

 

[kgmom219]

I've had Medishare before. Had it for 4 years I believe. Did not have any issues with it.
Even had to use it. No issues.

Yes, its not insurance.
Yes, the guarantees are not as strong as insurance.

When insurance is affordable, insurance is a better way to go. But for many, insurance is not affordable, and Medishare is a better route.
Whats the point of protecting your assets with insurance, when the insurance itself is making you poor?

Prior to Biden fixing ACA (and like him or not, there were some major issues and he got them fixed) by removing the subsidy cliff, the premium issue made the share plans very attractive. Now that the cliff is gone, Marketplace plans are usually in the ballpark with much better coverage.

The problem is that people on Share Plans aren't exactly getting their news from sources that praise Biden and how he made the Marketplace better.

 

[yorkriver1]

Potential ACA clients opting instead for a sharing plan who need/want to keep their across state lines providers would have to pay about $30000 total for another 11 months of a PPO through COBRA and don't want to spend the money for ACA coverage that won't cover the out of state providers. In a year one will go on Medicare and get MedSupp + PDP, then the spouse can decide on their choice again for the next couple years. PS I don't/won't get paid by a sharing plan to sell it. I have not researched about E&O covering it, and it's just not what I want to do. For example, the pre-existing definition would need to be so carefully reviewed that there could easily be issues with interpretation. Don't have time for that.