3girls4me Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Hi Ladies, We are considering going to Medishare for our health "insurance." My husband asked me to post on here and see if any of you lovely ladies can share any CONS and reasons NOT to do this - from experience or close relationships with anyone who has had a bad experience. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I can't share about Medishare, but we've been with Samaritan Ministries for over a decade now and I can definitely vouch for that Health Share program. Our needs have been met 100% and they include a broken collarbone, hubby passing out in our horse pasture (unexplained), my youngest son's diagnosis of a non-typical epilepsy (including the ambulance to the hospital from one of his episodes), my brain tumor (including a form of radiation folks at the hospital told me is NOT normally covered by many insurances), carpal tunnel surgeries (both hands), and trying to figure out the latest puzzling stuff. If we'd been with health insurance instead, we'd have been seriously in debt and/or broke based on the cost difference monthly and insurance having both a deductible and OOP sections to be met each year. We pay for annual regular stuff (physicals, flu shots, maintenance tests, prescriptions needed beyond 6 months, etc), but there's more than enough in what we save to easily pay our needs for those out of pocket. They don't come anywhere near the difference in monthly cost alone, not to mention the massive OOP sections we'd have had to meet. YMMV based upon what you need for maintenance and/or prescriptions. (With cancer drugs, there's no max on the time limit.) Oh, and I could choose any doctor or hospital I wanted - no worries about networks. The concept works well. I just can't vouch for MediShare since we're with Samaritan Ministries... 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 We just started Medi-Share in September. The reason... Our health insurance premiums tripled with DH's work, and we would not be getting better insurance. My DH, who is an engineer, researched the options extensively and we settled on Medi-share. It was a little scary. Out of the mainstream and all. As far as reasons not to do it... I don't know of any. It's not insurance. And a lot of providers look at you funny when you give them the card. They are not familiar with it. They do not pay for our allergy shots. But the premiums are so low that it all kind of evens out. The premiums are much lower, even than our premiums with our former insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Juat make sure they will accept you and your entire family. I had heart surgery 42 years ago and so they won't cover me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emzhengjiu Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Does Medishare cover prescriptions? Some prescriptions can be so very expensive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in OR Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Do you or your spouse ride a motorcycle? I looked at the Medi-Share website last month when I got our letter about our premiums skyrocketing. They have a limit of $100,000 coverage for an accident involving a motorcycle (although they waive it if you ride it during mission work). My husband uses his motorcycle to commute to church. He is an excellent rider and works to maintain his skills, but there are other drivers and factors involved. I'm not willing to risk having to cover accident costs over that amount if something were to happen. Erica in OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emzhengjiu Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I'm a member of Christian Healthcare Ministry. I like them better because pre-existing conditions can be covered under certain circumstances. Prescriptions still are not though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 during one prolonged unemployement stint - dh contacted them. they turned us down. we were the "wrong" religion. (we don't drink, don't smoke, don't use recreational drugs, etc.) I've heard similar from other people - of a variety of religions. ' makes me think of the homeschool coops that only allow people who have narrow statements of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy the Valiant Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I'm a member of Christian Healthcare Ministry. I like them better because pre-existing conditions can be covered under certain circumstances. Prescriptions still are not though. Christian Healthcare Ministries covered me through surgery due to a pre-existing condition, and they were 100% on target & more than fair. I recommend them highly. Read the details, and ask questions, of course, but - they did what they said they would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emzhengjiu Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 during one prolonged unemployement stint - dh contacted them. they turned us down. we were the "wrong" religion. I've heard similar from other people. I don't know about Medishare, but Samaritan Ministries requires a pastor's signature for membership and annual renewal. I was a member of Samaritan Ministries for a year, but had trouble renewing because I was between churches at the time. Christian Healthcare Ministries ask if you are a practicing Christian but doesn't require any outside verification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I do not use these organizations because I don't believe their practice of excluding pre-existing conditions and not allowing reimbursement for illnesses that are a result of "sin" (such as lung cancer as a result of smoking or liver disease from excessive alcohol consumption) or their disallowing coverage of care related to a special need that existed prior to adoption, exclusion of pre existing type 1 diabetics, previously diagnosed genetic conditions and severe limits (so much so as to be non-existent) on coverage of mental health issues, STD's, and more is compatible with a compassionate Christian worldview. My secular insurance company makes no such judgements. I think if something is going to be promoted as being uniquely Christian, than it should be. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I do not use these organizations because I don't believe their practice of excluding pre-existing conditions and not allowing reimbursement for illnesses that are a result of "sin" (such as lung cancer as a result of smoking or liver disease from excessive alcohol consumption) or their disallowing coverage of care related to a special need that existed prior to adoption, exclusion of pre existing type 1 diabetics, previously diagnosed genetic conditions and severe limits (so much so as to be non-existent) on coverage of mental health issues, STD's, and more is compatible with a compassionate Christian worldview. My secular insurance company makes no such judgements. I think if something is going to be promoted as being uniquely Christian, than it should be. they also discriminate against christian denominations of which they don't approve. we're christians - but we're not according to medi-share. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Does Medishare cover prescriptions? Some prescriptions can be so very expensive! It covers 6 months of prescriptions per incident. So no, doesn't cover ongoing meds like insulin, blood pressure medication, MS meds, arthritis meds, etc, at least not for more than 6 months. And the other health share plans don't cover them at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Unwed pregnancy is also not covered, and they instaed refer you to adoption services, which is very very squicky to me. And the biggest issue is there is no guarantee....if they run out of money, they run out of money. That said, I'm looking, but don't think they would cover me becaue of my bariatric surgery, and wouldn't cover my husband's antidepressants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I do not use these organizations because I don't believe their practice of excluding pre-existing conditions and not allowing reimbursement for illnesses that are a result of "sin" (such as lung cancer as a result of smoking or liver disease from excessive alcohol consumption) or their disallowing coverage of care related to a special need that existed prior to adoption, exclusion of pre existing type 1 diabetics, previously diagnosed genetic conditions and severe limits (so much so as to be non-existent) on coverage of mental health issues, STD's, and more is compatible with a compassionate Christian worldview. My secular insurance company makes no such judgements. I think if something is going to be promoted as being uniquely Christian, than it should be. We have pretty good real insurance and I haven't even considered this type of thing because I have a child with Asperger's who needs therapy, which this would not cover. I also have an adopted child who had pre-existing conditions. I would be worried that anything could happen that they would say, "nope, won't cover." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 And the other health share plans don't cover them at all. Samaritan Ministries covers 6 months worth for covered needs, or at least they have when we've needed them - and unlimited with cancer meds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Samaritan Ministries covers 6 months worth for covered needs, or at least they have when we've needed them - and unlimited with cancer meds. Six months isn't very long for a medication that is needed for a lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Six months isn't very long for a medication that is needed for a lifetime. Exactly why it needs to be brought up for people to consider. I know what we save monthly in the difference in cost (roughly 6K per year now) and have saved over the years with our needs more than makes up for anything we might need in future years, but everyone needs to think about their own risks/needs/whatever and come to their own conclusion regarding pros and cons. If we had been with insurance instead of health share, we'd be out more than 75K just from some of the needs so far (with the 24K annual OOP deal). It would easily be closer to 130 - 150K if I counted it all up (monthly savings + other needs). The way our insurance was written (back before we switched), some of our needs like the broken collar bone wouldn't have been covered at all. I shudder when I think of what could have been if we hadn't switched. Others from the Hive have shared their insurance nightmares too. Regardless of what one thinks about Health share programs, it's definitely not 100% truth that insurance is better. If one is qualified for Health Share, then they get to think about the pros and cons themselves to see what they prefer. It's good to see the pros and cons of both up front IMO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 The shares paid are not tax deductible as insurance payments were for us (self-employed small business owners). It is a bit of extra work to explain the plan to providers, but essentially you are cash pay, which they usually accept and like. We were members for six months (of Samaritan Ministries) when ds12 was hospitalized for a migraine lasting over a week. The total cost was $4,000, but we paid nothing out of pocket. Traditional insurance would have paid nothing, as we had a high deductible plan. The same plan we had for years would have doubled in cost under ACA while still remaining a high deductible plan. That is when we made the switch. That one medical crisis was the equivalent of almost a year's worth of shares paid. It is a bit of extra paperwork and work to submit the bills, but SM was responsive, and we had a fast turnaround to be reimbursed. It was nice not to have the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that I used to have with the high deducible insurance plan when my son was hospitalized, knowing that the entire stay would be covered. They also covered the doctor's visit and meds he had the day before being hospitalized, the follow up visit with the neurologist and a month's worth of meds (which was all he ever needed). Three years ago, my other son fell and cut himself on the leg, requiring multiple stitches at a total cost of $1,200. Insurance paid nothing. It was all out of pocket and went toward our deductible, which we never met. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 We have inexpensive access to mental health care, and none of us are on expensive routine meds. My little dd was born with a birth defect and may need surgery at some point. It will be covered once we have been members for five years. I have learned of the app/website "GoodRX", which gives deep discounts on prescription meds and tells you which local pharmacy is the cheapest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 When we were looking we marked them off our list within two hours of research. They're the least flexible of the three hit cost sharing companies. We went with CHM and other than the slow reimbursement times we are happy with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dsaf Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) We are considering Medishare because our work premium is about the same as a housing now, over $13,000/year. At this point in pricing, we figure we can get major medical 10k deductible policy with them for $200, and put the difference in premiums away in our savings account and it would be equivalent coverage. Then if something big does happen like cancer, we just get through the rest of the year, work with the hospital for payment plans, and just re-enroll with our group insurance or exchange at the next enrollment period. With a high deductible, we also may be more inclined to eat better and exercise more because of the personal investment. I am a little nervous because we are giving up comfort of traditional insurance, but in theory, any organization with a strong financial history should be able to get a loan if it does happen, and then raise the rates later to pay it off. There's no such guarantee with insurance companies either, how else do you think they stay solvent besides charging more? The only other comfort is being able to sue them when they decline, and that isn't guaranteed either. If there is anyone using Medishare let us know your experience, especially is you had a large payout. Thanks! As for pre-existing coverage for behavior based illness--it is not covered because it really isn't moral to smoke, over eat, and drink, and then feel you are entitled to be a financial burden on the group as well as it being largely preventable. Edited February 20, 2016 by dsaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 As for pre-existing coverage for behavior based illness--it is not covered because it really isn't moral to smoke, over eat, and drink, and then feel you are entitled to be a financial burden on the group as well as it being largely preventable. Entitlement isn't the issue. Grace is the issue. I don't believe a "Christian" group should ever see it as a "burden" to care for one of their own. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 during one prolonged unemployement stint - dh contacted them. they turned us down. we were the "wrong" religion. (we don't drink, don't smoke, don't use recreational drugs, etc.) I've heard similar from other people - of a variety of religions. ' makes me think of the homeschool coops that only allow people who have narrow statements of faith. How very Christ-like of them. <rolling eyes> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Entitlement isn't the issue. Grace is the issue. I don't believe a "Christian" group should ever see it as a "burden" to care for one of their own.I don't think it is entitlement or a grace issue. It's a matter of keeping costs down. And I have always wondered why it is that if a person willfully engages in behaviour that is detrimental to his or her health they should expect that the rest of us (who don't engage in that behaviour) pay for the health problems that are a direct result of that! That doesn't make sense to me. Edited February 20, 2016 by KrissiK 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I don't think it is entitlement or a grace issue. It's a matter of keeping costs down. And I have always wondered why it is that if a person willfully engages in behaviour that is detrimental to his or her health they should expect that the rest of us (who don't engage in that behaviour) pay for the health problems that are a direct result of that! That doesn't make sense to me. What if I got in a car accident on the way to my lover's house for a theesome?? They would cover that even though it was a result of sin. We're all sinners. It is odd to single out a few issues and decide they are unworthy of coverage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 What if I got in a car accident on the way to my lover's house for a theesome?? They would cover that even though it was a result of sin. We're all sinners. It is odd to single out a few issues and decide they are unworthy of coverage.It's not a sin issue. It's a behavior and consequences issue. And they are not singling out a few issues. We belong to Medi-Share, and I believe they do not cover injuries acquired in the commission of a crime or other immoral activities. And why do people get so bent out of shape because they don't? Do people really think they ought to be able to live the way they please and have other people pay for the fall out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest summer99 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I looked into medishare when we were comparing health sharing programs and year and a half ago. We ended up choosing Liberty Healthshare instead because I was more comfortable with a health share that works more like traditional insurance where the doctor bills the health share and the health share pays the doctor directly, as opposed to medishare where as far as I can recall, the doctor bills you and then medishare members send you their shares, which you use to pay the doctor. I was concerned that since there is no pre notification/eligibility number for the doctors to call that they would require payment or a large deposit up front if anyone were to need surgery, (I had an urgent surgery two years ago and the hospital required my full deductible up front before they would admit me). We have been very pleased with the service at Liberty and would definitely recommend them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) It's not a sin issue. It's a behavior and consequences issue. And they are not singling out a few issues. We belong to Medi-Share, and I believe they do not cover injuries acquired in the commission of a crime or other immoral activities. And why do people get so bent out of shape because they don't? Do people really think they ought to be able to live the way they please and have other people pay for the fall out? I'm not sure this is entirely true. As far as ongoing meds, it makes sense to me that a program of this kind might not pay for that - it is the responsibility of individuals to budget for, and lower premiums would make that possible for people. I would guess that decision is primarily financial. But within a group setting, smoking, for example, tends to make for a cheap member. Smokers may have certain health problems and die, but of course everyone, eventually, has certain health problems and dies. Smokers tend to do it younger and faster than most, and so they cost less than people who live longer and are older for more years. If you really wanted to get rid of the expensive people you'd try and weed out the people that will live long and need care and have a slow decline over 20 years. ETA - If I wanted to weed out people for being injured for self-inflicting injuries, I would probably weed out people who get injured in sports or especialy repetitive injuries from running or golf or tennis, and so on. No one needs to do those things. Edited February 20, 2016 by Bluegoat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) I don't think it is entitlement or a grace issue. It's a matter of keeping costs down. And I have always wondered why it is that if a person willfully engages in behaviour that is detrimental to his or her health they should expect that the rest of us (who don't engage in that behaviour) pay for the health problems that are a direct result of that! That doesn't make sense to me. A Christian world view tells me I am supposed to care for others and it also tells me that unbelievers will know we are Christians by the way we treat one another. A Christian world view tells me that my money is not my own, instead it belongs to God and He has trusted me with it. A Christian world view tells me "to him whom much is given, much is required (Luke 35-48 for context)." A Christian world view tells me that I am to love because He first loved me. I think that the coverage policies do not reflect the known facts about mental health, addiction, diabetes, birth defects and developmental issues. Yes, these things are all "expensive." So are a lot of other illnesses and injuries. Cost should not be the deciding factor in how Christians treat one another, though. Mental health issues are not issues of choice, yet they are excluded from "coverage." Diabetes Type I is not a matter of choice, yet it is excluded from "coverage." Exempting the disabilities of adopted children from coverage if the disability were known prior to the adoption is unconscionable. It seems that flies in the face of not only how God treats us (John 14:18), but also the biblical mandate to care for the widows and orphans (James 1:27). But, have no fear, because the government will provide coverage for these children through Medicaid if they don't have insurance. If they aren't adopted by a Christian family because the family can't afford to care for them, then the state will provide a foster home, group home or medical home. Honestly, such attitudes make me wonder what people think they are saying when they say they believe in "sanctity of life." In this case, it seems to mean something along the lines of "All life is sacred, but I'm not paying for it if it's expensive." Edited February 20, 2016 by TechWife 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 It's not a sin issue. It's a behavior and consequences issue. And they are not singling out a few issues. We belong to Medi-Share, and I believe they do not cover injuries acquired in the commission of a crime or other immoral activities. And why do people get so bent out of shape because they don't? Do people really think they ought to be able to live the way they please and have other people pay for the fall out? Is sin not a behavior? How would they know if the injury or illness occurred during an "immoral" activity? As far as a crime goes, well, they wouldn't need to cover it because the prison system actually has decent health care coverage. The government will pay for it (in other words you are paying for it through your tax dollars, so you are paying of it anyway). Honestly, I'm not bent out of shape at all. I have no problem deciding not to participate in these programs at this point in my life. I also don't have a problem speaking out when I see inconsistencies between faith and action. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I'm not sure this is entirely true. As far as ongoing meds, it makes sense to me that a program of this kind might not pay for that - it is the responsibility of individuals to budget for, and lower premiums would make that possible for people. I would guess that decision is primarily financial. But within a group setting, smoking, for example, tends to make for a cheap member. Smokers may have certain health problems and die, but of course everyone, eventually, has certain health problems and dies. Smokers tend to do it younger and faster than most, and so they cost less than people who live longer and are older for more years. If you really wanted to get rid of the expensive people you'd try and weed out the people that will live long and need care and have a slow decline over 20 years. ETA - If I wanted to weed out people for being injured for self-inflicting injuries, I would probably weed out people who get injured in sports or especialy repetitive injuries from running or golf or tennis, and so on. No one needs to do those things. I think you bring up some really good points. As far as the medication goes, though, I think that there are many medications out there that are impossibly expensive. There are many that people cannot possibly budget. There are a lot of people (especially elderly people) who go without medications, which has numerous ramifications. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Honestly, I'm not bent out of shape at all. I have no problem deciding not to participate in these programs at this point in my life. I also don't have a problem speaking out when I see inconsistencies between faith and action. I think everyone contemplating health care coverage for themselves and their families needs to decide what's best for them. I know for us, I have massive issues knowing any insurance premium I would be paying if we went with insurance would have portions taken out for stockholders and CEO salaries. I know if we went with insurance we'd be stuck with networks, deductibles, co pays and OOP maximums that are high and often the cause of distress with folks I know IRL. I know doctors I see would have to get permission for things they think are best - and it could be denied. I know one of the financial office workers when I had radiation told me she was surprised health share would cover what I had because many insurance companies won't. I'd be paying for abortions (the vast majority of which really goes against my beliefs). I can't speak for Medi-Share, but with Samaritans, I don't have to worry about any of that. There is no perfect system out there. Everyone needs to choose what works best for them. There's no question in my mind that Health Share by far and wide is better for us both financially and ethically even if I don't agree with all of their ethics. Oh, and our insurance at school "covers" mental health and addiction issues... but two of my co-workers have had to take out high dollar loans or seriously raid their retirement fund when these things hit their families. Insurance sure didn't cover much IRL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I think everyone contemplating health care coverage for themselves and their families needs to decide what's best for them. I know for us, I have massive issues knowing any insurance premium I would be paying if we went with insurance would have portions taken out for stockholders and CEO salaries. I don't have a problem with stockholders earning money, but the CEO salaries can be eye-popping. However, I don't expect my insurance company to have policies based upon a Christian world view. I have different expectations when something is supposed to be uniquely Christian. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I don't have a problem with stockholders earning money, but the CEO salaries can be eye-popping. However, I don't expect my insurance company to have policies based upon a Christian world view. I have different expectations when something is supposed to be uniquely Christian. Perhaps, but I don't care for insurance companies practicing medicine and that, to me, is a much larger concern, esp since chances were good I wouldn't have been able to get the treatment deemed best by a doctor vs insurance. We all have to pick what's most important to us when there is no perfect answer. It's good to point out the differences so others can choose what fits them best if they are in the category (Christians) who get to choose. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 When I investigated these before, we were excluded because of not being trinitarian. I think it's an interesting premise though. I also know someone who had a very good experience with Medishare, they covered an appendectomy with no problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 I think you bring up some really good points. As far as the medication goes, though, I think that there are many medications out there that are impossibly expensive. There are many that people cannot possibly budget. There are a lot of people (especially elderly people) who go without medications, which has numerous ramifications. THat is true, but what I think you could argue that it just isn't what these programs are meant to do - they are not trying to give that kind of care - probably because it is just not viable for them to do so, they are too small. They are an alternate to conventional insurance programs which have their own issues, the main one being that they are unaffordable for many. People should go in with their eyes open, knowing that they will have to fund certain things in other ways. But it makes more sense than a plan with co-pays you could never make, or that will bankrupt you in the case of something serious anyway. In the end, you need a properly designed universal system of some kind, but until then it is a bunch of inadequate choices. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.