ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2013
- When Jason Morris' son Cole was two years old, he broke his thighbone and spent several weeks in a full-body cast. The medical bills came to about $13,000, but Morris, his wife, and six children don't have health insurance. Instead they belong to Samaritan Ministries, an organization of devout Christians who chip in to cover each other's medical bills. Following the usual process at Samaritan, members from all over the country mailed the Morris family small checks that added up to enough money to cover all the bills. "We had the emotional side of it," says Morris, "but the financial side of it was completely taken care of."
Samaritan has about 86,000 members spread among all 50 states, which makes it the largest of three "health care sharing ministries" in the U.S. Households of three or more are required to send $370 each month to another family to help cover the bills from a medical crisis. Headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, where 94 staffers coordinate the bill-sharing process, the organization is based on the belief that patients are ultimately responsible for their own medical bills. But in times of crisis, the community bands together to pitch in and help bear the burden. "Faith in God applied to health care," is one of the organization's mottos."We had the emotional side of it, but the financial side was completely taken care of."
Samaritan may soon become a casualty of new incentives created by Obamacare, which does virtually nothing to do reduce third-party payments in delivering health care. When their bills are mostly covered by insurance companies or the government-which may also be heavily subsidizing their premiums as well-patients aren't discerning shoppers.
For full text and links: reason.com/reasontv/2013/10/01...
Written, shot, edited, and narrated by Jim Epstein
About 6.45
Go to http:reason.com/reasontv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's TH-cam Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
And it’s still up and running today strong as ever
This video is extremely dated. It was uploaded in 2013. Since 2013 which option has proven to be more effective? Samaritan Ministries now has tripled in size! Obamacare premiums have only increased!
Phil R right👏👏
Might want to update this video after looking at the current "affordable" health plans on the market place!
@Matt Are there any links you can recommend with information that we could do our own updates?
MrAntiOrdinary I was referring to the sharp rise in premiums through the marketplace. We found that only one company was available and only one type of plan (HMO) on the marketplace. We also had the same information and rebate given, and got two different prices based on which browser we used. Chrome have us the cheaper price.
Great video. Accessible, factual, simple, straightforward, personal. Well done, folks.
I had no idea this existed. What a great idea.
By far the most powerful Reason vid I've seen.
Excellent!
Video implies that Health care sharing ministries like Samaritan will disappear. Disagree. Am a licensed Health Insurance Agent and see HCSMs as a viable alternative to the ACA insurance plans for like minded Christians.
That is great to hear :)
I think we would all benefit from seeing an update now that it's been about a decade since this video first posted.
Obama Care is not cheaper or better. I am saving $400 per month to get off of Obama Care, and I can go to any Doctor.
Pause at 1:06 to pay tribute. =)
Reason, PLEASE produce much needed content on modern health share options. The average consumer could use all the guidance they can get finding affordable options right now.
Even if all 86,000 members of this organization were paying the $370/month premium, that's only around $32 million per month that they are taking in. That's not enough to pay for all 86,000 members health care costs, if a substantial amount of them become sick
My wife and I are in the Samaritan Ministries sharing program. The organization is friendly to speak to and very efficient. It is sad to see ObamaCare destroying the market's and driving up cost. When patients are responsible for paying, they look for services that offer the best return on investment. For example, when having a child, we renegotiated all of our costs up front, and know exactly what we are going to have to pay!
Milton Friedman always said that your never as careful with other people's money as you are with your own.
Samaritans is now 495 for the highest membership which is I think if you have kids, not sure. But that price is doesn't matter how many kid you have. You could have 10 kids and it's still the same price, unlike other insurance policies that charge more per each person in the family.That is very affordable. And they have a maximum of 250k per incident that they will pay. That pretty much means anything that ever happens, cancer, strokes, anything, will be covered.
... the landowner, in their role as a landowner, has not paid into the construction of the school at all unless there's a property tax and if there is, he/she has paid into it much less than he/she gains.
In Hong Kong, the city buys land around the places they're going to build infrastructure and then once they've built it, they sell the land back to pay for it.
There are a lot of ideas on how to make it work. Some people say it should be a monthly rent from the assessment of the general area.
Property taxes are not the same. A property tax subsidizes vacant lots. It taxes you for constructing better buildings for more tenants. At the very least, there should be a dual-rate system that taxes land at a higher rate than property.
A landowner receives benefits from increased value even if they never sell it. They can borrow against it, for one, but they also gain profit from it if they should choose to rent it out or to hold it until they sell it in the future...
When you tax property, it disincentivizes improvement. When you tax land, it encourages using it at its highest efficiency.
When you build a school, you pay for it with taxes and then the land values go up and some private landlord pockets the increased value. So I've been working and paying taxes to build this school and my money essentially goes into some guy's pocket because he owns land nearby the school.
Land value tax makes infrastructure self-financing by capturing that increased value.
This demonstrates that we can lower the costs of medical care by being aware of the costs and making frugal choices. In an environment where medicine had to respond to frugality there would be an incentive to come up with less expensive alternatives as in other industries. The reason people become bankrupt is that they unknowingly agreed to extremely expensive care options expecting someone else to pay. I bought a new Jaguar when I could only afford a used car.
I think that Obamacare may eventually increase their membership. I am considering joining Samaritan's healthcare ministry because Obamacare raised my premiums by 43% and doubled my deductible. I also don;t support the family planning provisions of Obamacare.
seems like most types of obamacare family plans are more expensive than that
We've gotten SO USED to this model of "competition being a driver of success" that, essentially, we've become NUMB to the idea that JUST BEING A DECENT PERSON AND CARING FOR YOUR FELLOW MAN can ALSO be a driver for success in some areas. You just have to know how the basic mechanics behind Field X/Y/etc.
The idea that ONLY COMPETITION will "work" to make things better or more efficient is BS. Sure, in many areas, it does work well, but competition and cooperation aren't mutually exclusive in
If they lost 80 percent of there customers due to it being cheeper to use the government option it does not matter if they are allowed to continue business.
You're very absolutist to say the ONLY way a person gets $100 is by adding $100. What about landownership? If I own land and someone else builds a school, my land values may go up $100 without me having added anything.
That's why I favor a land value tax. The unimproved value of land is not at all attributable to the landowner in his/her actions as a landowner.
Since the land value is 100% created by the community around the land, the community is owed a ground rent. Thomas Paine wrote about it.
We are teaching our children to NOT be personally responsibile. As was said about Samaritian patients wanting to keep health care down, it is their money. Doctors will start having, if they don't already, have a 'cash' price and an Obamacare price. The Obama care price will have to reflect all the administrative hoops the doctor will have to go through to get paid, sure maybe more money but the government is know for late payments.
We paid for insurance for years, we rarely used services. Most people are the same, that is how insurance works.
2020 and the marketplace costs are a joke. We use CHM, and have since Obamacare destroyed our chance of obtaining affordable health insurance.
Praise the Good Lord for healthshares.
These really are the future of health care, I believe.
They may have paid taxes in a different role, but in their role as a landowner, they have only paid the taxes on property which subsidize vacant lots. If you also have tenants and take care of the property and stuff, you will be taxed on income, but just in the act of owning land, you'll pay no tax but property.
They also benefit when they rent the land or borrow against it. Land is the main credit creation. And the value of the land wasn't created by the landowner, it was created by all the ...
Many years ago our family looked into this type of plan. They don't accept people with certain conditions we could not qualify for this . Being a Christian was not good enough for them.
Many will, though, causing the monthly fee for Samaritan Ministries to go up, which will ultimately cause the failure of Samaritan Ministries. It's called crowding out, which is the main problem with all of the government's over reach into private markets.
I know, been dealing with such nonsense for almost 15 years. It seems that insurance companies will sometimes dispute bills as a way to deter a medical provider from giving certain types of treatment. When they do this it costs the hospital in lawyer fees. The hospital gets the original fee paid & loose money trying to get their payment. Next time a similar patient requires similar treatment the provider is reluctant. This is why hospitals charge so much when dealing with medical insurance.
No. The argument is that they will be FORCED onto the exchanges, which may me cheaper than what Samaritan is charging. The other side is that the other 330,000,000 million Americans in the country will subsidize this cost (that's why it may be cheaper), along with all the fees the government pockets. You see that these people may have more money in their pockets, but others will have less to such an extent that the economy will shrink comparatively to what would happen WITHOUT the ACA.
If you watched the video attentively they pointed out that ever increasing government intervention has largely destroyed the volunteer mutual charity societies that used to exist that were similar to Samaritans. If there was choice out there, I'm sure there would exist a Mutual who you would find worthy of joining, where ALL the members shared your views.
Instead, you have Obamacare: 19 Taxes to pay for subsidies to make things "free", mandatory involvement or a further tax. Is that better?
My family has been a member of Samaritan Ministries for many years and no, I will not be switching to Obamacare.
I admire systems like this one and Sons of Hermann.
I liked because he mentioned the price check at menards. And also because this is a god fearing organization lol
I had never heard of Samartin healthcare systems. These are a great idea! And I love the last part of it about the guy driving out to negotiate lower costs, that may not always work but the point is he tried...on Obamacare everyone will be scheduling doctors appts every time they get a runny nose and won't give a shit about cost.
If it gains value without you doing anything, you're not paying an opportunity cost anymore than you are paying an opportunity cost when you buy a stock instead of starting a small business.
Your statement was that you cannot gain money without adding money. This is a situation where people can and DO gain money without adding money. Even if you don't leave a lot vacant, you are still collecting the value of the work of the people around you when you rent or sell or borrow against that land.
Also increases incentive to encourage those around you to stay healthy. Are there options for healthcare co-ops/ medi-shares, exclusively for non-smokers/ drinkers and people of healthy body weights? Those three factors alone would eliminate the majority of healthcare costs in this country.
What happens when the government can no longer sustain paying such a large portion of the health care premiums? Will the cost of medical treatment increase when everyone has health insurance? Who decides what medical treatment is needed, a doctor or an accountant? Why did the hospital try to charge over $5,000 for an MRI when they thought insurance was going to pay and then reduce the cost to under $1500 when they discovered there was no insurance coverage?
The government has crowed out private health care now. Government is slowly creeping more into your health care...
The alternative provided would be mutual aid societies.The reasoning is that those receiving health care are more likely to negotiate lower prices if they have a personal relationship with their financial provider.In my country Canada, public health costs have exploded already 67% of the Ontario legislature and rising at a frightening speed.I would expect that public healthcare costs will do the same in the US if left the only option.I do agree that some last resort public option is a good idea.
No. In a free market economy, the ONLY way a person gets $100 is by ADDING $100 to the economy. Wealth transfers only shuffle money, never adding anything. In fact, wealth transfers negatively impact the economy in two ways: 1) the gov takes their cut and 2) opportunity costs.
Spending NEVER adds to an economy. Only production. Consumption is an attempt to measure growth, but it's only an approximation.
In the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, BE HEALED CHRIST DISCIPLE!! Lord Jesus, please heal "Christ Disciple" of everything that is wrong with him or her in Your Name and take the glory, honor and praise for his/her healing!! PLEASE JESUS.
Perhaps you didn't watch the video for the explanation of WHY Samaritan will likely disappear. The explanation will be due to crowding out, rather than making it illegal. There are second order effects, i.e., UNintended consequences to every law. The problem is that we KNOW what many of the unintended consequences will be and they will make us all worse off.
Yeah, your land value *could* gain a little bit of value just by sitting there, but you're paying the opportunity cost of not doing more valuable things with it. Which is why most people don't just own empty lots; they either of shares of real estate trusts, or they buy land to develop it, which benefits everyone.
That's a good question. Both care and so does the government. But individuals making choices about their own bodies is more ethical (a) and (b) individuals choosing not to buy at a given price affects the market differently than a determination by government or insurance companies to pay a below-market rate for a given service. The former causes entrepreneurs to look for ways to produce at a lower price so as to sell to more people. The latter causes hospitals to shift the costs elsewhere.
... people in that area. The government should not tax improvements. The real estate rates that vary based on improvements are solely owned by the person who paid for it. Land value, however, is created by the community. If you build a mansion in the middle of nowhere, your land value will be the same. The value of the site is based on whether or not there are other people around it. That's why Central Park is surrounded by skyscrapers. Central Park would be free with LVT
why doesnt REASON do MORE of this kind of reporting????
I forget exactly what it was called but there was a secret organization of african americans preceding and during the recession that were much like this however instead were more in terms of income and social security..
Markets work. People care, not governments.
Why would someone who can't afford health insurance have that many kids?
but it's kind of moot when the vast majority of folks don't 'shop around' anyway regarding HC. Besides... when you're deathly ill or in major pain and NEED TREATMENT RIGHT AWAY, the last thing you should have to worry about is, "Can I afford this? Where can I get the best price?" for crying out loud
Money shouldn't even be a factor. No one should be profiting off it. Yes... SOME folks MAY be 'incentivized' via competition and profits to "do better" regarding private practices, drugs, etc.
The public sector will die when the Private sector dies The public sector needs the private sector.
Why do you assume that the landowner has not paid public taxes? If the school under construction is in their area they probably have funded it through all three tax systems. Why should gov't tax when the taxpayer has not made any income off of varying real estate rates? That is just an arbitrary money grab. They only benefit if they sell the land so any the hypothetical price does not matter. They already tax land transactions and for the upkeep.
The wealthy person in your example won't just have 39.9996 billion dollars hidden under his mattress. He probably has it invested, where it goes to fund capital investment, mortgages, small businesses, etc.
I was referring to Obamacare.
I'm confused why only individuals and not profit seeking insurance companies care about their healthcare costs... and they've got more leverage
How would this tax work? They already have property taxes, at least here. Do you mean taxing any transactions involving land or a regular levy? Unless someone is willing to sell he their land at the time of increase then they are not really receiving any profit from the inflated real estate value. The property owner also paid taxes but I guess they would benefit disproportionately which is to be expected. I guess that some luck out and have schools built nearby.
A parable: It's said that if you place a frog in a pot of boiling water it will hop right out to escape the danger. BUT; put a frog in a pot of cool water and turn up the heat very slowly until it reaches a boil, the frog will not be aware of the danger until it's to late.
Americans - are we boiled frogs?
I much prefer these technical analysis of the costs themselves and how they can be reduced via a more accountable system.
If you make it clear to people how much cheaper PREMIUMS would be with much higher deductibles, and free from mandates to cover doctor visits etc - that would be much more convincing.
I don't think this should be too hard to work out, you just have too look a the balance sheet of 1 HMO & deduct the charges for routine procedures.
Reason?
Technically speaking, if the US spent the same per person as Canada on healthcare, then the US government would already cover all Americans like Canada does. The US is spending $8,233 of which 56% is public spending, that is $4,610 per person. The total Canada healthcare cost is $4,445, which is $165 less then the US government is currently paying. Yay 'merica! Getting bad healthcare for more money!
This seems like voluntary socialism. You have to agree to be part of it. If you don't, you're not. It's the first form of socialism I've ever approved of. It doesn't create permanent dependency, it doesn't force any of its members to join... I like it.
You KNOW that's something fucked up. There's no private company under its own financial plan that would or could causelessly cut their fee by 70 fucking percent over a meeting.
Used to be we were all capitalists and religious. Two separate things. Being capitalist (the competition side) for our physical wellbeing, and religious (altruistic) for the good of our conscience and well being of our neighbours.
Today, we are living in a society where the levers and holders of power and neither capitalist, or religious.
Don't know if you agree, that's just what I thought as I read your comment.
I am okay with some tax, as long as it is reasonable. I would argue for more third party oversight and accountability. I'll look into LVT. Sounds good.
This is basically the way it was with Catholic charity hospitals in the 60s. Where'd they all go? Government hyper-regulation.
I actually work for a company that does similar stuff with social services to the Jewish community in a country where most care is already socialised.
Well no, if it exists then it is by definition a possible alternative. I agree that these aid societies may not be the best for the poor or the rarity of big ticket items but that does not discredit it for the middle class or for small ticket items. It is not true that the US has lower access to healthcare. Here people are expected to wait several months even for lifesaving surgery. Many of us, go to the US to avoid wait times. The gov't, cost growth, does not need to control the whole industry.
The prices they mentioned are typical fair market rates that insurance pays today. Looks like these people were paying to much for to little coverage. The ACA will be a much better deal for those folks.
Corporatocracy. aka the problem with our current health care and drug industries. While I'm again Obamacare in its current form, we do need some kind of serious reform if only because we are currently being beat by third world countries when it comes to healthcare.
Ah my mistake thought you meant this organization my bad
Wait, so the argument is that people won't do this because they won't have to anymore and now they can put their money towards something that will grow the economy?
but who's to say that there aren't ALSO millions of non-greedy, TRULY-COMPASSIONATE folks who'd care just as much about QUALITY and keeping costs low in this country?? that perhaps run nonprofits or would if they could stay afloat? Or WOULD create great new medical advances if they could make a decent living off them (but not BILLIONS in profit... esp. for drugs which 'create' new diseases, like "restless leg syndrome", which seemed more or less nonexistent even 20 or 30 years ago)
Im counting the days to when my employer drops our healthcare and I have to pay 100-125 more a month for higher deductibles and shittier health care...and my current plan is NOT "Cadillac" as they call them. I am not wealthy in the least bit....
Wouldn't that only be true if all money were circulating at all times?
If a person has $100- he/she will buy $100 worth of things (growing the economy), but if a person has $40 billion, he/she won't generally buy more than, say $100,000. To me, it seems that, moral arguments aside, taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a sound economic strategy.
I'm not even necessarily advocating it. It just seems logical to me, It appears to do more good than harm.
im interested to join Samaritan's...
I feel for you. Insulting that this is due to the so-called "Affordable" Care Act.
Disappointed in the quality of this video. It completely ignores that the insurance company negotiates on rates, probably much better than an individual. Also, insurance companies cover preventative care because it reduces costs in the long run.
Oh god no. Firstly, economist generally agree that the super wealthy are more likely to invest and give to charity. They simply do not keep mass amounts of capital lying around. That is why most, ie Forbes, measures their wealth in Net Value and not how much cash they have. Actually in times of recession the lower income earners tend to hold on to their capital creating deflation. The gov't is not in the position to transmit revenues anywhere near as efficiently as price points Gorbachov agreed.
For now, Samaritan Ministries is safe from Obamacare.
See 26 USC § 5000A(d)(2)(B)
Tax payer subsidies are a far cry from organizations like Samaritan Ministries. Samaritan Ministries relies on VOLUNTARY participation. Tax payer subsidies are FORCIBLE takings of wealth that is redistributed according to politicians' and bureaucrats' preferences, rather than actual consumers.
There is nothing wrong with a collective as long as is voluntary.
Have you ever heard of Fascism? How do you think a private company is going to compete with a publicly subsidized one, without the help of government?
Yes. I hated the crony capitalism of the bailouts I would like to see laws that prevent lobby groups and GSEs. The gov't should mix with the private sector as little as possible.
The last Brazil president, Luis Inacio "Lula", when Obama had come to Brazil had given the idea to create a public health care service in U.S, in the very way of Brazil, and bingo: Obamacare!
Hardly, but one that doesn't excuse your mistake. Don't blame your shortcomings on others.
If you have to ask, you may never know.
Mike
That's true. Or he might own land. Land is a great store of value because you don't have to do anything- you could sleep all day and the value of your land would go up because of the community around it. Taxes on capital and labor make no sense. It's harvesting the private work for public services. When we don't tax land, we allow private harvesting of public work. That's completely backwards. We need to shift taxes off of income, labor, and exchange and onto land.
Your insurer is forced to charge you more as they are forced by the Government to cover more.
You don't have to be "wealthy" to understand this principle or what it takes to reverse the problem. You just need 4th grade maths skills.
In this case it was voluntary
And on the subject of paying their own costs, do you think healthcare costs are high in the first place because of inelastic demand? I'm just curious. I find the conservative argument for single-payer convincing. It lowers everyone's cost and allows the market to actually work because the government won't die if it turns down a price. It makes companies compete for the contract like garbage collectors in a city, What do you think about that?
Beware of anyone willing to hold on to their beliefs “to the bitter end”...
You are correct. I see how my thought process was wrong. I don't like the idea of taxing capital. I don't like the idea of taxing income or exchange either. The government should fund itself with land value tax. Without LVT, the private landlords are harvesting the work of the public and the public is harvesting the work of the private with other taxes. It's completely backwards.
a thriving society. Or perhaps even an org. itself
We need to revive our altruistic roots and stop worrying so much about "competition, competition, competition"
360 a month is probably pretty damn good for a married couple with young kids yeah?
Forgive me for saying so I do not wish to be rude, but I believe you have missed the point of the video. This video does not assert that anyone should go without healthcare, but rather we should at least consider alternative means of ensuring the availability of health care. This is an important issue and by forwarding these straw man arguments we denigrate the issue as a whole. What if the sick could recieve cheaper care through these structures? Would you oppose it then?
But at least we voted our "conscious."