See, here is the thing: regulated insurance companies have recorded complaints with state regulators and anyone can look up the data and see how many complaints a given company has had, how many per thousand policyholders, what the trend is over a few years, etc. With religious healthcare mumbo-jumbo, there is no transparency. How would we know if a particular organization was screwing its supplicants (or whatever they are called) left, right and center?
See, here is the thing: I asked if you could find any evidence that there are problems, and once again you go off with name calling (mumbo jumbo, supplicants) and ranting about how things are supposed to be in your well regulated world. (BTW, you sound like the kind who irons underwear, and snaps chalk lines before shoveling snow.) These programs are geared to a very specific and small audience. IF they had all the issues that you claim, don't you think it just might show up ANYWHERE on the net, be it warnings from fellow churchgoers, or even articles about entire congregations leaving after a member suffered from financial ruin, since their Christian share program failed them?
Bottom line is successful programs like this are probably a lot more common than you think. The largest Amish community in my state runs a very substantial one. It a cost sharing program involving voluntary contributions from members, and cooperation from local providers. It's been going on for decades, and is based on a self insurance model that has gone on for centuries. It probably violates most regulations you cherish, yet manages to provide reliable low cost care for tens of thousands, without screwing anybody.
I know, this must be simply impossible, right?
What are you so upset about? I looked at several reviews and for the most part people really like share programs like this. It appears to have been working well for quite a while. I think some posters are stating that there is an increased risk with these types of sharing programs. They lack the structural advantages a of real insurance company. That is not a bash; just a fact. Money in has to equal money out. With these programs some will pay far more than they every receive and vice versa. The program cannot make up for shortfalls with reinsurance, investment proceeds, or reserves.
I think the biggest thing a lot of people are missing is your share-premium-gift whatever you want to call it is not tax deductible. This means your Share + Save to Share monthly premium for a family of $438 is the equivalent to $700/mo on a before tax basis (25% Fed. + 5% state + 7.2% FICA) which really doesn't save you anything over ACA.
Furthermore, when comparing this program to an HDHP, you cannot contribute to an HSA while on one of these sharing programs meaning you are missing out on ~$2500 of tax savings per year vs. how many on the forum are using an HSA as a long term savings vehicle. In my state a non-subsidized ACA Silver HDHP for a family is $448/month with 6400 deductible and 7600 max out of pocket. The sharing program is similar to an HDHP as well because they don't cover a lot of sub $300 office visits i.e. pretty much is catastrophic coverage. I would note however that HDHP's cover preventative care where the sharing program does not.
If you are planning on utilizing an HSA to help build your stache lets compare the two in after tax dollars:
Premiums: HDHP - $3354/yr vs Samaritan - $5256/yr
Save $6500: HDHP - $4082 vs. Samaritan - $6500
Typical use for a family of 4 - (5 unscheduled visits @ $300, 8 dental cleanings @$95, 4 physicals @150) - HDHP - $1500 vs. Samaritan - $2860
Max out of pocket in a yr - HDHP - 8126.8 (premiums + MoP) vs Samaritan - $8416 (premium + typical care + $300 for cat. expense)
It seems like those who think the sharing programs are such a good deal have not taken the time to compare the plan on an after tax basis. It seems to have costs quite comparable to a HDHP without the added benefit of saving $2500/yr on your taxes when building your stache.