Christians? You got an Obamacare loophole — if you want it

You don't have to have health insurance coverage if you sign up for a dubious alternative called a health sharing program.

How dubious? This dubious:

Although they have procedures for dealing with coverage disputes, they're largely unregulated by state insurance departments that oversee private carriers.

And this dubious:

If Medi-Share is an insurance alternative, its guidelines carry an eye-catching disclaimer:

"The payment of your medical bills through Medi-Share or otherwise is not guaranteed in any fashion." Members remain solely responsible for payment.

Indeed, the main part of the story, the hook, is about Medi-Share refusing to pay for brain tumor surgery, and even eventually winning an arbitrator's decision on the matter based on its claimed inability to pay.

And this dubious, in terms of Christian brotherly love:

Nevada pastor Michael Rowden sued Medi-Share over its refusal to pay for treatment of a heart condition. He eventually reached a settlement. "I was actually embarrassed to be associated with them," he said.

So, how does it "work," using that word theoretically? Here's how:
Every month, they pay a fixed "share" to cover the medical expenses of members in need. The cost usually is less than private insurance, but it's not tax deductible. Members use a network of medical providers.
OK, so .... being a hypothetical devil's advocate here ...

What if Muslims, especially based on their history of nonbank lending networks and such, started something similar and got an exemption from Obamacare?

Conservatives would go apeshit. They would probably claim the exemption was because Obama was indeed a Muslim himself. The practice would be touted as proof of sharia law in America.

And, tell me again, how Christians are being "persecuted"?

That said, I seriously expect about the same number of Christians to sign up for this as who drive without auto insurance or who own homes without insurance (or without lightning rods).

The sad part, per my "persecution" crack, is the pandering involved by Members of Congress (and, indirectly, the "Muslim" Obama Administration). That said, by not supporting a single-payer system, or at least making it an option, Team Obama opened itself up to loopholes like that. And, because the Obama Administration has trumped BushCo on faith-based initiative spending and indulgence, I bet Preznit Kumbaya actually isn't at all saddened by the existence of this loophole.

Faith-based Obama breaks more campaign promises

In a great article on President Barack Obama’s White House's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Sarah Posner notes an alarming amount of warmed-over Bushism on faith-based issues. One example:

Obama has reneged on his pledge, made in a July 2008 speech in Zanesville, Ohio, to undo Bush-era rules permitting direct taxpayer funding of religious institutions and allowing institutions that receive federal grants to engage in hiring discrimination based on religion.

That, in turn, has this response from Rev. Barry Lynn:

"I am very disappointed that President Obama's faith-based program is being rolled out without barring evangelism and religious discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs," says Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It should be obvious that taxpayer-funded religious bias offends our civil rights laws, our Constitution and our shared sense of values."

I could have told you this was likely a year ago.

Meanwhile, allegedly progressive evangelicals like Jim Wallis have been giving Obama political cover even as he definitely tacks to the right on abortion and what religious activists he plays to.

Anyway, read the full four pages for details of yet another Obama sellout

Needed – evidence-based treatments and rehabs

I’m sorry, they’re NOT needed in Oregon, a key point of an EXCELLENT New York Times story about the revolving door of court-mandated AA meetings, AA/12-Step based rehabs, and, here in Texas first, then taken to Washington, George W. Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” in drug and alcohol rehab — initiatives that Barack Obama wants to expand, if you’ll remember. If you don’t, you’re being reminded.

Oregon, on the other hand, started such requirements in 2003 — per state legislation, no less, and not just regulatory agency rule-making. The requirements, phased in over several years, are mostly on the books now.

Here’s how it hits the road. Abotu 54 percent of Oregon’s $94 million budget for addiction treatment services goes to evidence-based programs, compared to about 25-30 percent before the mandate. The state has not yet analyzed the impact of this change on clients, the Times story says

The Oregon laws only apply to paid rehabs, but AA couldn’t make the cut either. It claims (then tries to step aside its own claims) that it’s the best solution for “real alcoholics,” but keeps no statistics on its success rate. And it certainly doesn’t review its methodology in a scientific manner.

Take ‘Obama the constitutional law scholar’ with a grain of salt

Why?

One word and one phrase.

The word? An acronym named “FISA.”

The phrase? “Faith-based programs.”

Obama was OK with the FISA amendment bill, and openly so, before opponents like Feingold and Dodd even had a serious chance to try to block it.

Specific to constitutional law, why did Obama think Big Telecom needed a “get out of jail free card”?

(Here’s a link to all my “Obama + FISA” posts.)

Faith-based initiatives?

First, Obama is on record as wanting to expand them.

Add to that what I am going to assume is a shell game, a deliberate one, and NOT naivete, over the idea that federal vs. private funds can be and will be “segregated” by faith-based groups. (Our segregation of funds to Israel has sure stopped it from building a wall segregating Palestinians, hasn’t it?)

Top it off with B.O. giving us little idea what programs will or will not cut mustard in his administration, like this one, and his record here is scary.


Specific to constitutional law, I’ve long said most current faith-based programs at least challenge constitutionality if not going well beyond it, and that’s without B.O. wanting to expand them. I don’t need a rhetorical question here.

(Here’s a link to all my “Obama + fait” posts.)

Finally, the University of Chicago doesn’t strike me as a hotbed of progressive constitutional law, and Cass Sunstein doesn’t strike me as being as progressive as he cracks himself up to be.

Are these the type of faith-based orgs Obama wants to support?

A Georgia abstinence-only group has gotten half a million tax dollars for, among other things, this:

"Boys and girls are invited to chew cheese-flavored snacks and then sip some water, after which they are to spit the resulting 'bodily fluids' into a cup. After a game in which the fluids are combined with those of other students, ultimately all cups are poured into a pitcher labeled 'multiple partners' sitting adjacent to a pitcher of fresh water labeled 'pure fluids.' In the final segment, each boy and girl is asked to fill a cup labeled either 'future husband' or 'future wife' with the contents from one of the pitchers.”

Just as BO hasn’t explained how many troops he thinks we’ll be left in Iraq after “combat” troops are pulled, he hasn’t explained how he will determine what faith based programs are “worthy” of living high on the government teat, suckling at the government breast, stroking the government rod, embracing the engorged government money wand, etc., even in the name of failed sex-education programs.

Faith-based Obama rejects Constitution — updated

Boy, does he become more conservative in more ways every day.

Now, Barack Obama wants to expand Bush’s faith-based programs, including faith-based hiring and firing.

Err, Obama, the Constitution says:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

That’s public trust, like faith-based programs, not just public office.

And, this idea of “segregating” funds so that faith-based groups “only” hire/fire in the non-federally funded portion of their activities? Yeah, and how well does that work with funding non-wall building portions of Israel’s budget?

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama’s position on hiring has the potential to be a major “Sister Souljah moment” for his campaign.

Yesterday, he threw MoveOn under the bus; today, it’s secularists, and the Constitution, for the second time in 10 days. How many “Sister Souljah moments” does Obama have up his sleeve?

Oh, and what’s with having Kuo consult on all of this? This is a man who criticized Bush for not going far enough with faith-based initiatives

What next? By the time we get to the Fourth, we won’t have anything left to be patriotic about if we follow Obama.

Here’s Obama’s full speech, via TPM. Here’s the takeout graf:

First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

As I note above, this “segregation of funds” has been nothing but an enabler and pass-through when it comes to Israel and its building of the West Bank Wall.

Second, if you’re serious about this issue, how much is it going to cost for that much monitoring of faith-based groups that get federal funding?

Third, are faith-based groups going to try to avoid or dodge that scrutiny?

Fourth, I’m sure this WILL wind up being no less a photo-op than it was for Bush.

Faith-based Obama rejects Constitution

Boy, does he become more conservative in more ways every day.

Now, Barack Obama wants to expand Bush’s faith-based programs, including faith-based hiring and firing.

Err, Obama, the Constitution says:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Emphasis added.)

That’s public trust, like faith-based programs, not just public office.

And, this idea of “segregating” funds so that faith-based groups “only” hire/fire in the non-federally funded portion of their activities? Yeah, and how well does that work with funding non-wall building portions of Israel’s budget?

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama’s position on hiring has the potential to be a major “Sister Souljah moment” for his campaign.

Yesterday, he threw MoveOn under the bus; today, it’s secularists, and the Constitution, for the second time in 10 days. How many “Sister Souljah moments” does Obama have up his sleeve?

Oh, and what’s with having Kuo consult on all of this? This is a man who criticized Bush for not going far enough with faith-based initiatives

What next? By the time we get to the Fourth, we won’t have anything left to be patriotic about if we follow Obama.

Bush-lite Obama sells out Constitution on ‘faith-based’ issues

A 2005 diary of his on The Orange Pseudoliberal Monster talks about how he’s OK with government-backed, Republican-created “faith-based” initiatives:

I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. … I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans). (Emphasis added.)

But, he is probably backing a one-trick pony.

Over at Free Inquiry, Tom Flynn says that in 40 years, maybe less, nobody will even remember the “faith-based initiative.”

The magazine has a more in-depth takedown of Democrats’ kowtowing to the Religious Right’s attempt to enter government by the back door on this issue, too.

Hillary Clinton sees no contradiction between “our constitutional principles” and “faith-based initiatives.” And Barack Obama depicted faith-based programs as a “uniquely powerful way of solving problems,” especially for substance abusers.

I can refute Obama directly on that one.

A boatload of longitudinal studies show that Alcoholics Anonymous, the original “faith-based program” for substance abuse, is no more successful for long-term sobriety, than other treatment, self-help or group support modalities.

For more, see my refutation of Arianna Huffington.

Of course, Obama doesn’t stop there, as he also sounds Republican-like in setting up this straw man:

Barack Obama claims to be “a devout Christian” and asserts that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.”

First, here’s a very good riposte:

National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy complained, “I don’t want a progressive evangelical movement any more than I want the conservative one we have right now.”

And, here’s an even more telling one — The Constutution:

“No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I believe “public Trust” would include any entity getting government funds.

In addition to all the other reasons not to vote for Obama, such as concerns about how liberal he is, this one has weighed hard in my mind for quite some time.

That said, as Free Inquiry also notes, Obama is far and away from being alone among Democratic leaders on this issue.

Arianna Huffington disses secularists

While the Divine Ms. A has done a lot of good in supporting the growth of the liberal blogosphere, it comes as no surprise, knowing her NewAgeish tendencies in some areas, to know that she totally misses the boat with her higher-power babble . (Yes, the post is seven years old, but I’ve never heard the Huffmaedchen withdraw her general tenet.)

That, in turn is part of a larger and sadder blank-check support for “faith-based initiatives” in general. (Oh, BTW, what would the Bush Administration, or the Greek Goddess (snark again) do, if a Wiccan or Satanist applied for a faith-based grant?)

Here’s the nutbarrery of her nut grafs, though:

In the same way that astronomy wasn’t able to move forward until Copernicus posited that it was the Earth that revolved around the sun — also an unpopular view at the time — our society will not be able to reclaim its proliferating human casualties until it comes to terms with the fact that healing revolves around the acceptance of a higher power.

Of course, there will always be people who believe there is no God, just as there continue to be flat-earthers, convinced that Copernicus had it all wrong.

So, we’re as stupid and contrary as flat-earthers.

First, possibly the most horrific war in history, in terms of total civilian suffering, was an inter-Christian religious war, the Thirty Years War. Even today, and not just among or by Muslims, or Jews, or Christians, wars are fought in the name of religion.

The Tamil Tiger separatists are Sri Lanka, for example, are mainland-India oriented Hindu “religious nationalists.” (Given the nature of Hinduism, and a comment about to follow, that’s the best handle I can devise.)

Speaking of that, India has its Hindu Nationalist Party. Oh, Goddess, you remember it, don’t you? The party that won Indian parliamentary elections in 1998 on a promise to start nuclear bomb testing? And then doing so.

Or, let’s not forget the Japanese militarists of World War II praying at Shinto shrines, or the kamikazes thinking their missions were divinely supported.

I then got to thinking, I could have updated Arianna’s column myself and fictitiously bylined it under an even bigger rectal irritant’s name. All I had to do was go to Washington Monthly, crib a few quotes from some of Amy Sullivan’s more insipid posts, insert them at the right points in the Divine Miss A.’s original column slap Amy’s byline on it, and, voila!

Oh, and welcome any readers of Kevin Drum’s “liberal, godless blog.” Not.