I like you Ritch - without making a metophorical leap to a political hot-topic, I would vote for the global coverage… mostly based on the fact that its only $15 more dollars per person and better safe than sorry.

This being said, I always refuse any extra coverage with a rental car and I never buy an extended warranty on an electronic device. However, I always order hamburger meat well-done and typically will not go back to a restaurant after seeing it has less than an 85 rating.

I hope this is helpful and eye-opening to some of you…

Billy

Interesting ethical question. They’re never quite so simple in the real world as we envision them in our minds, huh. I’ll do a pro/con comparison of both options:

Lower cost and no universal health insurance

Pros
-lower cost
-emphasis on individual responsibility
-makes soccer league more available to parents with insurance but less disposable income

Cons
-makes soccer league less available to parents lacking insurance (if they decide to abstain because they lack insurance)
-children may become injured during a game without insurance

Higher cost and universal health insurance

Pros
-all injuries automatically covered
-makes soccer league more available to parents with insurance

Cons
-higher cost
-less emphasis on individual responsibility
-makes soccer league less available to parents with insurance but less disposable income

Parents obviously have the choice of whether to enroll their children in the league or not, so this isn’t really an issue of right/wrong but what is more lucrative for the league. You are going to exclude someone either way. With the low cost option w/o insurance you exclude those who lack insurance AND will not let their children play soccer because of it. They may very well decide to let their children play soccer anyway, and while you can argue the responsibility of such a decision, it does leave the parent with a choice.

With the high cost option you exclude those who can’t afford the marginal difference of $15. That’s probably not many people, but it’s probably just as many as are excluded by the first option. You also give people a reason to dislike the policies of your league and possibly look elsewhere as they find themselves paying a higher cost for insurance they don’t need.

I’m a fan of greater choice and individual responsibility, so I agree with Rich in supporting the lower rate. Since it’s a private league and everyone who pays does so voluntarily then this is simply a matter of which choice will better support the goals of the league. I don’t know exactly what the league’s goals are, but I think it’s important to frame the question in this context. This is all voluntary. Anyone can step out and decide not to pay/play. Therefore, I view this as a business decision for the league and not a moral decision.

Isn’t this an adult soccer league?

So children are of no issue. I say lower rate.

Yes it’s an adult league, but I guess some of the adults don’t have insurance…

Jeff: Interesting points. Does your analysis look any different from a Christian perspective?

Rich Sturmfels
Diesel Does It

Rich,
I don’t know how to apply Christianity to this issue in any deep capacity. It’s a decision on whether to play in a soccer league. If you want to play in the league then play, if not then don’t. I don’t think Jesus taught very heavily on cost/benefit analysis, and that’s essentially what you’re doing. You’re trying to determine if the added cost of the league (and the cost of playing in a league whose principles you might not agree with) is worth the benefit of playing. I don’t know…

Some thoughts…

What would Jesus do? Score 12 goals a game and heal anyone that gets hurt. Then he’d take a knife, stab the soccer ball, and bust out 4 bases, a bat, and a baseball.

My initial thought was that the team would take care of the teammate, whether he/she gets hurt during the game, has a flat tire, needs gas money, or has a relationship problem. This aide would be rendered on demand without taxing the whole league up front.

I don’t know. Maybe that same kind of giving also applies to somehow covering the cost of insurance for the whole team by some people paying more money into the system than others or seeking a corporate sponsorship. After all, the league/team is better protected if more money is put into the system.

But then again, who is more important? The league surviving? Or the individual avoid expensive medical care?

Jeff: I guess I’m asking that for me as a Christian, knowing enough about myself that it’s only by God’s grace and mercy that I am blessed, should I have demonstrated similar mercy and grace to those undeserving uninsured soccer players in this situation? Perhaps it’s more in my attitude to the problem than the final answer to any cost/benefit analysis…

EA: Jesus wouldn’t have a knife on the soccer field ; ) Interesting assumption on teammates taking care of teammates. I’d be all about helping them to the hospital, changing their tire, etc (God’s gifted me with Helping Hands) but helping out with a bill for someone not insured, that’s a big stretch for me.

Rich Sturmfels
Diesel Does It