Insurance - is it good stewardship or lack of trust in God?

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

Do you happen to know if Samaritans has any provisions for Christians to join when they have no regular church attendance? I'm thinking about shut-ins due to health condition and it appears that they require attendance at a church 3 out of 4 weeks a month.

Thank you for the site and info.

livingink

[Guest]

Homer has asked a very relevant question which I hope some of you will answer. If you choose not to have health insurance, should a health care provider be required to treat you if you arrive at the provider's facility unconscious with no known means of payment for services that the provider might render?

livingink

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

Do you happen to know if Samaritans has any provisions for Christians to join when they have no regular church attendance? I'm thinking about shut-ins due to health condition and it appears that they require attendance at a church 3 out of 4 weeks a month.

Thank you for the site and info.

livingink

Hi,

I am not sure. I attend a house church which doesn't seem to bother them. I wouldn't be suprised if they did have something for them. I would recommend calling them. I really didn't think about that since I go to church regularly and all.

God bless,

[Guest]

Homer has asked a very relevant question which I hope some of you will answer. If you choose not to have health insurance, should a health care provider be required to treat you if you arrive at the provider's facility unconscious with no known means of payment for services that the provider might render?

livingink

I think so.

If I am not mistaken, hospitals are based on the (Christian) idea that we should help each other out with money being secondary. Not that I think this service should be free.

But, should an institution not want to do this, I suppose it would be their prerogative to deny care. This would be unethical of course IMO and is probably against the law.

God bless,

[Guest]

Homer has asked a very relevant question which I hope some of you will answer. If you choose not to have health insurance, should a health care provider be required to treat you if you arrive at the provider's facility unconscious with no known means of payment for services that the provider might render?

livingink

A hospital has to treat you even if you don't have insurance if they deem it an emergency. That is a federal law. Basically, the government reimburses the hospital. In the end though the tax payer is the one who is paying for that service. At least this is how it works at my hospital.

The irony of the whole thing is that we fight so hard against a nationalized healthcare system when in a sense we already have one. It's just that you aren't going to get the best care possible.

[Guest]

Thanks guys. I understand it is a law made by government but think about that a little. A Christian decides to follow Christ for provision of good health. He is injured in an unexpected accident. He has chosen not to have insurance. Government now intercedes and essentially denies the person the opportunity to die which, for the Christian, is gain. Not only that, the Christian's care is cost-shifted to taxpayers who profess varying religious beliefs and unbeliefs. So, is the Christian professing to place his care in Jesus' hands all the while knowing that there is a government safety net waiting to catch him? Government edict aside, should it be a given that this servant of Christ has contemplated death and chosen it in the event of a life-threatening injury?

livingink

[Guest]

Thanks guys. I understand it is a law made by government but think about that a little. A Christian decides to follow Christ for provision of good health...

I am not sure I would say that I trust Christ for "good health" only that I trust that He will provide the means for me receive treatment if that is His will.

...He is injured in an unexpected accident. He has chosen not to have insurance. Government now intercedes and essentially denies the person the opportunity to die which, for the Christian, is gain...

I am not sure this uninsured unconscious Christian can be blamed for what the government does in "denying his opportunity to die" seeing as how he's konked out and all.

Not only that, the Christian's care is cost-shifted to taxpayers who profess varying religious beliefs and unbeliefs.

Why is this automatically assumed? When this sleeping brother wakes up he can figure something out about payment can't he? He can still trust God in this circumstance as well.

So, is the Christian professing to place his care in Jesus' hands all the while knowing that there is a government safety net waiting to catch him?

I placed my care there not knowing about this law. Or at least I've never thought about it until now.

Government edict aside, should it be a given that this servant of Christ has contemplated death and chosen it in the event of a life-threatening injury?

Why would this be the case? Is it a given that anytime someone that chooses to not be insured gets knocked out they have chosen death, even though God may not want him to die? Could it not be that he has "chosen" that the will of God for him be done?


God bless,

[Guest]

Homer has asked a very relevant question which I hope some of you will answer. If you choose not to have health insurance, should a health care provider be required to treat you if you arrive at the provider's facility unconscious with no known means of payment for services that the provider might render?

livingink

perhaps the parable of the good Samaritan would give us an insight as to deal with people in need.



Luke

10:30 Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
10:31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
10:32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.
10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion.
10:34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
10:35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.'
10:36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"



The good Samaritan never questioned the Jew that was hurt as to how he had gotten hurt and if he had properly prepared himself for such circumstances and then decided whether he would help or not. I believe that when a person is in need of care we should provide it, that seems to be our Christian duty.

[Guest]

I was waiting for the Good Samaritan passage and you replied as I expected. The question is not for the Samaritan but for the innkeeper. Should he be expected to give the injured man a room plus care for him without reasonable expectation of payment? The Samaritan apparently believed that the innkeeper was due payment for his expenses and time in caring for the injured man. Not to say that the innkeeper may not have offered to provide the care for no charge but I don't believe he was obligated to do so.

Derek, I have answers to all the points you made and I appreciate your kind discussion as this has been a subject I have contemplated for several years. I would like to defer until some of the others have a chance to answer. I would especially like to hear the forum contrarian's point of view on this since I believe he will have a businessman's insight into the subject. I hope he will consider discussing the costs of running a business whether it be a hospital or an inn.

And I forgot to tell you that the injured Christian in my example may not wake up. He's in a coma. With no next of kin. He doesn't own a house or car. No savings accounts. Or significant assets that can be sold. And he doesn't have a pastor. He listens to some guy on the radio for his teaching so nobody knows exactly what he would want done. What else do I need to limit to give you no wiggle room?

I'll be out of town for the next week but I look forward to reading how the discussion goes when I return.

kind regards,

livingink

[Guest]

And I forgot to tell you that the injured Christian in my example may not wake up. He's in a coma. With no next of kin. He doesn't own a house or car. No savings accounts. Or significant assets that can be sold. And he doesn't have a pastor. He listens to some guy on the radio for his teaching so nobody knows exactly what he would want done. What else do I need to limit to give you no wiggle room?

Should he be expected to give the injured man a room plus care for him without reasonable expectation of payment?

Throughout these posts you seem to be linking no insurance with not wanting to pay for medical expenses. Why is this?