If there's one thing the frugal can't stand, it's being bamboozled into having to pay for something we didn't choose and don't want. Examples run the gamut from the "helpful" team mom who purchases monogrammed gym bags for the whole team, then informs each teammate that his share will be $40; to the tried-and-true bait-and-switch tactics of dishonest salespeople.
Well, here's another one: The Department of Health and Human Services has recently issued a ruling that henceforth and with few exceptions, health insurance plans must offer contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs at no charge to policy holders.
Problem: There are a whole lot of folks who don't want part of their premium dollars going to such "services." The Roman Catholic Church, on record for being against such anti-reproductive measures for about the last 2,000 years, is so distressed by this latest development that it is openly urging its adherents to defy this law that they see as a direct attack on their religious freedom.
And what about the frugality aspects of this ruling? More healthcare offerings, by definition, mean more cost. Why can't we citizens be allowed to pick and choose plans that offer defined benefits more in keeping with our lifestyles?
Gay men shouldn't have to pay for contraception or maternity care, for instance, but may want plans that cover better gastroenterological services. Scuba divers may want full-cost riders for pressure chamber treatment in the event that they get "the bends." Women could skip coverage for prostate cancer but pay more for breast cancer coverage.
Alas, healthcare plans in this country do not work this way. Government mandates require that every plan offer practically every possible health service imaginable. Of course, the cost of all these services drives up the price of the plans. It's like going to a car dealership and having to pay for the full-sized van when you only wanted a golf cart.
"Medical cost sharing" plans work around the high cost of health care insurance by more accurately tailoring their services toward the lifestyle choices of their participants. Medi-Share and Samaritan Ministries are two such examples, both of which cater to those following a Bible-based lifestyle. By not having to pay for STD's, abortions, sex-change operations and the like, members can put their funds toward expenses that are higher in this population group, like maternity care. It's amazing what a difference targetted coverage makes; whole families in both plans pay in less than $400 a month. (One caveat: Neither plan can handle truly catastrophic expenses. Samaritan caps at $250,000.)
How long before we see other population groups pooling together so they can put their medical care funds where they actually want them?
----------------
Elise Cooke is the author of the national award-winning The Miserly Mind, 12 1/2 Secrets of the Freakishly Frugal.
Comments