Insurance vs. Healthshare

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lmw7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lmw7

Guest
We currently use Solidarity Healthshare, and were using it out of financial necessity. My husband got a new job with insurance coverage that is about financially equal to Solidarity.

Our questioning comes in regards to morality. Financially/legally/coverage wise, insurance would be the better option. Solidarity would still be acceptable. However, we are wavering in that Solidarity does not cover services that are objectionable to a well-formed conscience. On the other hand, they also do not cover pre-existing conditions for a specified amount of time after joining, which some say is a moral qualm, leaving behind the ‘least of these.’

In short, if someone is choosing between a healthcare sharing ministry that is morally sound (but the consumer is without legal protection) and an insurance company where participation in evil would be remote but the company is legally “on the hook,” is there a moral obligation by the consumer to choose the morally sound sharing ministry?

Edited to add a related question–is there a moral qualm in not providing coverage for pre-existing conditions?
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think it might depend on how much money you have to spend on healthcare. If you have tons of money at this point, stay with the healthshare that has worse coverage. If you’re not swimming in money, I think the moral choice would be to get the coverage that will not bankrupt your family in case of catastrophe.
 
I’m not sure the morality of either is the deciding factor. Perhaps one should just choose the one that is best for the family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top