Baucus bill: religious exception to insurance mandate?

JoeTheJuggler · 16th September 2009, 10:19 PM

I just read that the Baucus health insurance reform bill makes an exception to the universal insurance requirement to those who have religious objections to health insurance.

That sounds like one very large loophole. Does anyone know any details? Do the other versions have this same exception?

Puppycow · 17th September 2009, 02:13 AM

http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepa...Future_Act.pdf

Page 31:

Quote:

Exemptions from the requirement to have health coverage would be allowed for religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare, and for undocumented aliens.

ETA: I don't know what "religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare" means, but it sounds like a potential loophole.
ETA2: Probably means if you are willing to forgo all modern medicine. You could "convert" to this religion as long as you are healthy, and then "convert" to another one if you get sick.

ETA3:
Page 32:

Quote:

Exemptions from the excise tax will also be made for individuals below 100 percent of FPL, any health arrangement provided by established religious organizations comprised of individuals with sincerely held beliefs (e.g., such as those participating in Health Sharing Ministries), those experiencing hardship situations (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) and an individual who is an Indian as defined in Sec. 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Will the government decide whose beliefs are "sincerely held"?

XBoxWarrior · 17th September 2009, 02:25 AM

The Baucus bill is going to go the same way as his Montana political future...

Nowhere!

Baucus somehow didn't notice that Conrad Burns got tossed out of office in '06 due to his right-wing political decisions...Montana will find another Democrat to replace this "insurance peddling" schmuck.

JoeTheJuggler · 17th September 2009, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepa...Future_Act.pdf

Page 31:

ETA: I don't know what "religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare" means, but it sounds like a potential loophole.
ETA2: Probably means if you are willing to forgo all modern medicine. You could "convert" to this religion as long as you are healthy, and then "convert" to another one if you get sick.

ETA3:
Page 32:

Will the government decide whose beliefs are "sincerely held"?

Thanks for the info. I hadn't thought about it in terms of Christian Scientists or others who eschew medicine. I was wondering what religion objects to insurance. (And do they object to other kinds of insurance as well?)

If they're just taking themselves out of the healthcare system altogether, I'm less concerned. These are the people who will murder a child for their strange beliefs, so I don't see converting in the face of serious illness as such a big problem.

I wonder how this stuff works wrt to parents choosing not to insure their children for religious grounds. (I guess that's the same issue as not getting modern medical treatment for children.)

BTW, the government already decides a similar matter in granting or denying Conscience Objector status. The INS also makes determinations over when a marriage is legit. I think the issue of weighing whether a belief is "sincerely held" is more about weeding out demonstrable fraud. (Though I'm not saying this authority isn't abused!)

dudalb · 17th September 2009, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

The Baucus bill is going to go the same way as his Montana political future...

Nowhere!

Baucus somehow didn't notice that Conrad Burns got tossed out of office in '06 due to his right-wing political decisions...Montana will find another Democrat to replace this "insurance peddling" schmuck.

Nope they will probably send a conservative GOPer in his place.
Montana is not a very liberal state, buddy.

16th September 2009, 10:19 PM	#1
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,991	Baucus bill: religious exception to insurance mandate? I just read that the Baucus health insurance reform bill makes an exception to the universal insurance requirement to those who have religious objections to health insurance. That sounds like one very large loophole. Does anyone know any details? Do the other versions have this same exception?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

17th September 2009, 02:13 AM	#2
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepa...Future_Act.pdf Page 31: Quote: Exemptions from the requirement to have health coverage would be allowed for religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare, and for undocumented aliens. ETA: I don't know what "religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare" means, but it sounds like a potential loophole. ETA2: Probably means if you are willing to forgo all modern medicine. You could "convert" to this religion as long as you are healthy, and then "convert" to another one if you get sick. ETA3: Page 32: Quote: Exemptions from the excise tax will also be made for individuals below 100 percent of FPL, any health arrangement provided by established religious organizations comprised of individuals with sincerely held beliefs (e.g., such as those participating in Health Sharing Ministries), those experiencing hardship situations (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) and an individual who is an Indian as defined in Sec. 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Will the government decide whose beliefs are "sincerely held"?
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell Last edited by Puppycow; 17th September 2009 at 02:26 AM.

17th September 2009, 08:10 AM	#4
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 10,991	Originally Posted by Puppycow http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepa...Future_Act.pdf Page 31: ETA: I don't know what "religious objections that are consistent with those allowed under Medicare" means, but it sounds like a potential loophole. ETA2: Probably means if you are willing to forgo all modern medicine. You could "convert" to this religion as long as you are healthy, and then "convert" to another one if you get sick. ETA3: Page 32: Will the government decide whose beliefs are "sincerely held"? Thanks for the info. I hadn't thought about it in terms of Christian Scientists or others who eschew medicine. I was wondering what religion objects to insurance. (And do they object to other kinds of insurance as well?) If they're just taking themselves out of the healthcare system altogether, I'm less concerned. These are the people who will murder a child for their strange beliefs, so I don't see converting in the face of serious illness as such a big problem. I wonder how this stuff works wrt to parents choosing not to insure their children for religious grounds. (I guess that's the same issue as not getting modern medical treatment for children.) BTW, the government already decides a similar matter in granting or denying Conscience Objector status. The INS also makes determinations over when a marriage is legit. I think the issue of weighing whether a belief is "sincerely held" is more about weeding out demonstrable fraud. (Though I'm not saying this authority isn't abused!)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

17th September 2009, 02:25 AM	#3
XBoxWarrior Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Up on Cripple Creek Posts: 972	The Baucus bill is going to go the same way as his Montana political future... Nowhere! Baucus somehow didn't notice that Conrad Burns got tossed out of office in '06 due to his right-wing political decisions...Montana will find another Democrat to replace this "insurance peddling" schmuck.

17th September 2009, 11:03 AM	#5
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,448	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior The Baucus bill is going to go the same way as his Montana political future... Nowhere! Baucus somehow didn't notice that Conrad Burns got tossed out of office in '06 due to his right-wing political decisions...Montana will find another Democrat to replace this "insurance peddling" schmuck. Nope they will probably send a conservative GOPer in his place. Montana is not a very liberal state, buddy.