Caring for the Poor and Vulnerable: A Virtue Analysis of Mandated Health Insurance Compared with Healthcare Sharing Ministries.

Abstract

In the present time, what has been called the "medical-industrial insurance complex" in the United States needs reform. As health insurance in the United States remains inaccessible to millions of people, and as prices continue to rise, questions arise about the most moral ways to ensure delivery of health care especially to the most vulnerable populations. In this essay, I offer a virtue analysis of the moral implications of health insurance mandated by the US Government in contrast to an increasingly popular alternative to insurance, namely, healthcare sharing ministries. In part 1, I list some of the moral problems entangled with US Government-mandated health insurance, including injustice, disrespect for patient autonomy, limitations on patient freedom, exploitation of patients for profit, undermining of conscience rights, cooperation with evil, and scandal. In part 2, I discuss the issue of risk and then list some potential moral advantages to healthcare ministries, including respect for patient autonomy, conscience, and the religious freedom to witness to the Catholic faith in charity and solidarity.

Summary: Mandated health insurance the United States presents some moral challenges for conscientious Catholics, whereas healthcare sharing ministries appear to ameliorate some of these issues. Ultimately, the individual should have freedom to choose either insurance or healthcare sharing, given the different benefits and risks entailed by both.