So I happened to be reading a website about the Amish, and I came across this:
"Do the Amish pay taxes?"
"Self-employed Amish do not pay Social Security tax. Those employed by non-Amish employers do pay Social Security tax. The Amish do pay real estate, state and federal income taxes, county taxes, sales tax, etc.
The Amish do not collect Social Security benefits, nor would they collect unemployment or welfare funds. Self sufficiency is the Amish community's answer to government aid programs. Section 310 of the Medicare section of the Social Security act has a sub-section that permits individuals to apply for exemption from the self-employment tax if he is a member of a religious body that is conscientiously opposed to social security benefits but that makes reasonable provision of taking care of their own elderly or dependent members. The Amish have a long history of taking care of their own members. They do not have retirement communities or nursing homes; in most cases, each family takes care of their own, and the Amish community gives assistance as needed."
Now, I'm sure that the Society has already exploited the use of this exemption for its Bethelites. In fact, I know they have, since I remember signing a form that designated me as living under a "vow of poverty" as a member of a religious order, and would no longer pay any taxes, nor be contributing to SSI. This form can be found here: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf
If you look at the form, on page two it requires the SSI admin person to check a box that says: "This religious group is recognized as being in existence continuously since December 31, 1950, as providing a reasonable level of living for its dependent members, and as being conscientiously opposed to public or private insurance."
I see two problems with this. First, what constitutes a "reasonable level of living for its dependent members"? Finding out that they have a minor or major health condition and kicking them out of the Bethel home? I suppose that by eliminating that person as a member of the Bethel family they don't have to demonstrate that they're taking care of them. But that doesn't really make sense, either. How would it look from a legal perspective if an Amish community expelled elderly or sickly members, no longer took care of them, and still expected to be designated as a "religious group that provides a reasonable level of living for its dependent members"?
Second, how does the Society demonstrate that it is "conscientously opposed" to public or private insurance? The Amish do so because they have an extremely tight-knit community and to rely on insurers of any kind would be to, in their minds, turn their back on their community and not trust that God and their community will care for them. The Society, on the other hand, carries no such doctrine on insurance. To say that the Society is somehow "conscientously opposed" to public or private insurance is laughable, when speaking of either the religion at large, or whatever legal entity they use for the Bethel family.