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?