The Anabaptist perception towards insurance policies!

[steve-in-kville]

Steve would probably remember the Lebanon Valley Farmers Bank. They would have accepted a church letter in place of property insurance. Ephrata Bank does as well I believe.

Yes I do! They were a good bank. Ephrata has a branch in Myerstown now.

[Grace]

Steve would probably remember the Lebanon Valley Farmers Bank. They would have accepted a church letter in place of property insurance. Ephrata Bank does as well I believe.

Yes I do! They were a good bank. Ephrata has a branch in Myerstown now.

Some of Ephrata National Bank's Board of Directors are Mennonites. For many years one of the owners of Paul B (Zimmerman) Hardware have served as one of the directors, which is still the case. Paul Zimmerman Jr. served for many years, belonging to the Weaverland Conference Church. I saw a photo once and among all the suits and ties, he was the one wearing the plain suit.

Here in Lancaster County and Lebanon County we are very fortunate to have Wellspan and Penn Medicine that recognize the plain communities sharing programs and give discounts for those on mutual aid health programs. The stipulation is that the bills are paid in a very timely manner. The program is called "Plain Pay" and they recognize the many different Anabaptist conferences. They include those who have non plain mutual aid health programs, such as Christian Healthcare, Samaritan's healthcare, Medishare, etc. Some of the churches have a benevolence funds that offer short term loans to people who have large medical bills. This is so they can pay their medical bills promptly. And when the money comes in from the health sharing program, they pay the loan back.

On another note, there have been many times I disagreed with Ken on many issues, but his comments on this thread are well said and I agree with them. Got to give credit where credit is due.

[barnhart]

Grace, I generally agree with Ken's comments as well but I also like to press into the neglected corners, a little devil's advocate can be useful.

[TruthSeeker]

Here in Lancaster County and Lebanon County we are very fortunate to have Wellspan and Penn Medicine that recognize the plain communities sharing programs and give discounts for those on mutual aid health programs. The stipulation is that the bills are paid in a very timely manner. The program is called "Plain Pay" and they recognize the many different Anabaptist conferences. They include those who have non plain mutual aid health programs, such as Christian Healthcare, Samaritan's healthcare, Medishare, etc. Some of the churches have a benevolence funds that offer short term loans to people who have large medical bills. This is so they can pay their medical bills promptly. And when the money comes in from the health sharing program, they pay the loan back.

I've rubbed shoulders with Well Span's Director of Plain Community Relationships and am impressed with her skillset. She's unostentatious, knowledgeable, and respectful of the Plain community and they of her.

Conversely, as a former Patient Service Specialist honoring the "Plain Pay" rate for the Plain community, I've also been privy to hearing sentiments from those outside the Plain community concerning the seeming "discrimination" of the rates.

[Ken]

I had in mind life insurance.

Same thing. I have life insurance as does my wife. If I die I don't want her to suffer hardship and have to struggle with paying the mortgage, putting the kids through college, or having to work longer into her sunset years due to lack of resources. Or worse, have to depend on family who themselves do not necessarily have abundant resources to help. Or church charity. Not when I can plan for that eventuality myself. But we have inexpensive term-life policies that are set to expire when we are into our projected retirement years. So they are basically just income replacement. Not expensive whole-life policies that act as windfalls for your heirs long after the money is needed.

[Ken]

I'll make a stab at the theology of Anabaptists who oppose insurance in favor of mutual aid organizations. I think it has to do with concern that funds are mutually shared among brothers and sisters in the Lord, and not going to support a third party organization or people who are living worldly or sinful lifestyles. As I understand it.

This isn’t really correct. The main factor was avoiding being a party to a lawsuit which is basically required with indemnity insurance.

Another factor is that the mutual aid is more effective, at less cost, because there aren't a bunch of fat cats at the top getting filthy rich. But the threat of being forced to be party to a lawsuit is a big deal, one that affects one's own morality (not just the pocketbook).

I'm a little bit confused here. How does having insurance force you to be a party to a lawsuit?

Normally if you have liability insurance they will defend you against a lawsuit but if you are getting sued, the lawsuit is going to happen whether or not you have insurance. And you are likely to need to hire your own lawyer if it is a serious lawsuit rather than relying on the one that works for the insurance company. In fact, having a robust insurance policy probably makes it more likely that you won't get sued but rather, reach a settlement. Insurance companies have very deep pockets and good lawyers.

On other side of the equation, if someone damages you or your property. You always have a CHOICE as to whether to make a claim or seek compensation. Every insurance company I have ever heard of is more than happy if you don't file a claim that might lead to a lawsuit.

[ken_sylvania]

This isn’t really correct. The main factor was avoiding being a party to a lawsuit which is basically required with indemnity insurance.

Another factor is that the mutual aid is more effective, at less cost, because there aren't a bunch of fat cats at the top getting filthy rich. But the threat of being forced to be party to a lawsuit is a big deal, one that affects one's own morality (not just the pocketbook).

I'm a little bit confused here. How does having insurance force you to be a party to a lawsuit?

Normally if you have liability insurance they will defend you against a lawsuit but if you are getting sued, the lawsuit is going to happen whether or not you have insurance. And you are likely to need to hire your own lawyer if it is a serious lawsuit rather than relying on the one that works for the insurance company. In fact, having a robust insurance policy probably makes it more likely that you won't get sued but rather, reach a settlement. Insurance companies have very deep pockets and good lawyers.

On other side of the equation, if someone damages you or your property. You always have a CHOICE as to whether to make a claim or seek compensation. Every insurance company I have ever heard of is more than happy if you don't file a claim that might lead to a lawsuit.

Most insurance policies contain provisions whereby you agree to allow the insurance company to control the defense of the claim, including cooperating with them in counter-suits on your behalf and subrogation against other (possibly) responsible parties. So, if the brakes on your vehicle malfunction causing you to crash into another vehicle and paralyze the occupant for life, the insurance company would be required to pay the damages your would otherwise owe, but if there is reason to believe the brakes failed due to improper work when they were installed, the insurance company might require you to sue the mechanic who installed the brakes.

[Josh]

It seems that there are two separate conservative Anabaptist theological arguments against insurance (or commercial insurance).

The first is an affirmative argument in that there is a belief that a Christian community has an obligation or religious duty to provide for one another when someone is sick or faces financial hardship of some sort. Or in our old age. don't know which specific scripture is most often cited to support this argument but there is obviously a lot of Biblical teachings to this end. It goes to the heart of Christianity.

The second is a negative argument that Christians should not participate in or purchase insurance. The theological argument for this stance seems far weaker than the affirmative argument above. As far as I can tell, it is essentially an argument that we should trust in God and not men. But of course we don't really do this in any other walk of life. We have jobs and work hard to put food on the table and a roof over our heads. We don't just trust that it will happen on its own through faith.

Personally I find the first argument more compelling than the second. And I'm not sure that constructing a Christian community in which we have an obligation to look out for one another necessarily leads to the second conclusion--that one should reject insurance. Maybe the best way to actually look out for one another is to make sure that we do have insurance?

If I have mischaracterized the scriptural argument let me know.

You missed the main objection to insurance, which is not being a party to a lawsuit.

[Josh]

This isn’t really correct. The main factor was avoiding being a party to a lawsuit which is basically required with indemnity insurance.

Another factor is that the mutual aid is more effective, at less cost, because there aren't a bunch of fat cats at the top getting filthy rich. But the threat of being forced to be party to a lawsuit is a big deal, one that affects one's own morality (not just the pocketbook).

I'm a little bit confused here. How does having insurance force you to be a party to a lawsuit?

Normally if you have liability insurance they will defend you against a lawsuit but if you are getting sued, the lawsuit is going to happen whether or not you have insurance. And you are likely to need to hire your own lawyer if it is a serious lawsuit rather than relying on the one that works for the insurance company. In fact, having a robust insurance policy probably makes it more likely that you won't get sued but rather, reach a settlement. Insurance companies have very deep pockets and good lawyers.

On other side of the equation, if someone damages you or your property. You always have a CHOICE as to whether to make a claim or seek compensation. Every insurance company I have ever heard of is more than happy if you don't file a claim that might lead to a lawsuit.

Ken,

Google “subrogation”