D
Domer1997
Guest
Let’s not slander Notre Dame, especially when you obviously know nothing about Our Lady’s University…i.e. even its correct name!
“UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME” NOT Notre Dame University…?
- Status
“UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME” NOT Notre Dame University…?
C
Corki
Guest
It’s been a while since I was in college but “back in the day” all of the international students got insurance through the school as did most of the students who were not dependents of parents. This might include virtually all graduate students in many institutions.
I don’t know if this covers just insurance or also health care provided on campus. Most schools have some kind of student health service that takes care of minor illnesses, routine things such as prescription refills and allergy shots and, at least in my larger school, even things like PT after minor accidents. These student health centers are particularly important when the school is not in a mid or large city. I happened to go to a big state university so dispensing contraception was the “norm” but I am sure that Catholic institutions don’t want to be required to do this.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Have to use more than 2 letters for a post to take. But no.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Please friend; don’t accuse me of making slanderous remarks.
Lets look at ALL the generated News coverage of UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME in the last five years from a Catholic prospective.
Let the news speak for itself (Pros and Cons) on both sides of the fence unless your choosing to turn a blind eye. Its not like the Catholic University has a spotless record of perfection.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Ah, I see. However a basic google search (for whatever that’s worth, lol) shows that not every school provides health insurance so it does appear not to be absolutely necessary to attract students. There do appear to be private student health insurance policies that are available.
I’m not sure either. Based on searches it seems to only apply to group health insurance plans. I’d imagine that if a Catholic school was being forced to administer abortificients that they’d be mentioning it alongside the health insurance issues.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Ah, I see. I guess I’m still not sure why the article singles out FUS. Maybe it makes for a better headline.
W
Wolseley
Guest
Might be the very thing to bring back orders of teaching brothers and sisters…
I
incense
Guest
You’re all missing the point. Freedom of Religion is being reduced in this country to Freedom of Worship, meaning only your worship service is free from government intrusion. Everything else, you have the burden to prove to the government bureaucrats that regulation interferes with your religion. So explain why paying for someone’s contraception interferes with your practice of religion. Explain how hiring a practicing homosexual as a catechist interferes with the practice of religion. How about just as the church secretary?
And very importantly, they’re questioning whether these universities and hospitals are even Catholic because they hire non-Catholics and they give services to non-Catholics. No matter how ironic that the civil rights groups which have worked so that everyone is included will now be penalizing groups for including others, this is now what they’re trying to do.
So you may not care about the morality of sterilization or birth control, you might even snicker that they will be forced to provide it. What will happen when you go to a hospital and your treatment is expensive and someone decides to judge whether you deserve to live? Then you might be really glad that you’re in a Catholic hospital with morals. That’s already happening in other countries.
Or what if you’re a non-Catholic and work for a Catholic hospital or university. Will you be fired so they can maintain their Catholic identity? If you’re ill and the nearest hospital is Methodist or Jewish or Baptist, will they be allowed to treat you without losing their religious identity?
And very importantly, they’re questioning whether these universities and hospitals are even Catholic because they hire non-Catholics and they give services to non-Catholics. No matter how ironic that the civil rights groups which have worked so that everyone is included will now be penalizing groups for including others, this is now what they’re trying to do.
So you may not care about the morality of sterilization or birth control, you might even snicker that they will be forced to provide it. What will happen when you go to a hospital and your treatment is expensive and someone decides to judge whether you deserve to live? Then you might be really glad that you’re in a Catholic hospital with morals. That’s already happening in other countries.
Or what if you’re a non-Catholic and work for a Catholic hospital or university. Will you be fired so they can maintain their Catholic identity? If you’re ill and the nearest hospital is Methodist or Jewish or Baptist, will they be allowed to treat you without losing their religious identity?
J
JReducation
Guest
There are some problems that most people are dancing around.
First: the issue has nothing to do with student census. The issue is that if the law requires that our schools pay for contraception and abortion and we refuse to do so, we will be penalized. This is a violation of our constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.
Second: the three Franciscan universities in the USA do not have the muscle as do the Jesuit schools and Notre Dame. Our schools cater to the middle class student. Friars, not by corporations, run them. Therefore, their funding is not as generous as those schools run by secular corporations. The parents of the students of these small colleges do not have the muscle power that parents at Notre Dame have. It’s a different population.
Third: there is a need for people of all faiths to stand up to this invasion. Men and women of faith have a constitutional right to practice their faith without interference from the State.
Not in the USA. There are several reasons for the drop of teaching brothers and sisters in the USA.
- The failure of the religious communities to implement the recovery of their roots and charism correctly. Instead, they dove forward into some unknown thing called “progress”.
- The failure of the diocesan clergy and religious sisters to promote the brother’s vocation. If you listen carefully at every mass, “Let us pray for an increase in priestly and religious vocations.” To the layman in the pew this translates into “Let us pray for an increase in priests and sisters.” Archbishop Dolan once said that he does not allow this petition at St. Patrick Cathedral. He has mandated that it be reworded. “The brothers are the forgotten vocation, because most Catholics (including diocesan clergy and sisters) do not understand the place of the brother in the Mystical Body.” God is generous with his call to the consecrated life, but this call must be mediated through the prophetic voice of his people. Young men and women can’t hear the voice that is muffled.
- With few exceptions, most religious will not teach middle class or higher, because we were not founded for that ministry. There is nothing wrong with the middle class or higher. Middle class people have souls that need salvation as much as anyone else does, but most of us religious were founded to live and serve among the poor. Originally, we ran Catholic schools because they served a population that was neglected. That is not the case today. Most Catholic schools are in the suburbs among the middle class. There are congregations that do teach the middle class, because poverty is not an issue for them, such as the Sisters of St. Dominic, Sisters of St. Benedict, and the Brothers of Mary. I’m sure that there are others, but I can’t remember who they may be.
- I believe that we’re going to have to come up with a plan similar to what I saw many religious communities do in South America. The brothers and sisters agreed to teach the middle and upper classes if the parents agreed to pay 25% more than the actual cost of education in order to educate poor children. Some religious, such as the De La Salle Christian Brothers had a partner school system. They had a school among the middle class and higher, which paid tuition. That school funded a mission school for poor immigrants. The PTA was wonderful. They had all kinds of fundraisers and sent the money to the partner school that the brothers ran. My community had an adopted school program. We did not teach at the school, but we made it our mission to train teachers (religious and lay) to teach among the poor.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Franciscan University will not have to pay for contraceptives under the Obama Health Care Plan.
What they’ll have to do is provide health insurance for the employees who work there and health insurance companies will be required to pay for contraceptives.
So the University is not mandated to do anything against Catholic teaching, under the health-care plan.
The Obama Health-Care plan is “private health insurance reform,” nothing more.
It was written by and for the Health Insurance companies.
Even Catholic Dioceses, who have employees, will be required to provide private health insurance for their employees.
Those companies, as they do now, pay for contraceptives, so on this issue, there is nothing really knew when it comes to Obama’s health care reform law.
Jim
What they’ll have to do is provide health insurance for the employees who work there and health insurance companies will be required to pay for contraceptives.
So the University is not mandated to do anything against Catholic teaching, under the health-care plan.
The Obama Health-Care plan is “private health insurance reform,” nothing more.
It was written by and for the Health Insurance companies.
Even Catholic Dioceses, who have employees, will be required to provide private health insurance for their employees.
Those companies, as they do now, pay for contraceptives, so on this issue, there is nothing really knew when it comes to Obama’s health care reform law.
Jim
C
Corki
Guest
Jim,
I don’t think you have been following the more recent developments. Although the original Obama plan may not have required it, the new HHS regulations** do**. All private insurance plans will be requried, under the new rules to include coverage for contraception and sterilization. Private insurance is not an “off the shelf” product. An organization negotiates with the insurance company to craft a plan that meets the needs of the employee group and the budget of the employer as well as other considerations. Up until now, moral and religious considerations were valid to use in the plan development. Various items are covered or not covered under this negotiation. Under the new HHS plan, the ability for Catholic institutions to craft a insurance plan that is acceptable under Church teaching will be taken away. The institutions **will be **forced to pay for coverage for contraception and sterilization. The plan is mandating Catholic institutions to do this against Church teaching.
The Catch-22 to this is that the university could opt to either not offer insurance or to offer but not pay for the insurance. The former would just drive more Catholics into the federal program which is worse in terms of the immoral things it covers. The latter would result in more expense to the employee. It would keep the Catholic institution “clean” in terms of not paying for something immoral but would put it on the Catholic employees to either pay or go without.
Unfortunately, the moral choice is to ignore the requiement, provide insurance that is not in conflict with Church teaching and let the courts sort it out. But you need the cooperation of the insurance company and the ability to face the risk of an unfavorable future ruling.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Well, I live in Massachusetts under Romney Care and yes, health insurance plans are “off the self” as you put it.
Fact is, there are few crafted insurance plans in existence today. Most health-insurance companies have various packages to choose from.
All that I know of, pay for contraceptives. It’s up to you whether you use them or not.
Fact is, they’d rather pay for a customer’s contraceptives than their pregnancy and delivery of their child.
The mandate in the HHS was probably pushed for by the insurance companies themselves.
Jim
C
Corki
Guest
I have worked with employee benefit plans for over 20 years. There is a core of benefits and then there are add-ons. Elective surgery is virtually always one of the “add ons”. That includes all sterilization procedures. Birth control pills are usually an option for prescription drug coverage which itself is an add-on. Other birth control may or may not be covered depending on the plan.
There are some states that put more restrictions. Mass. is one of those so I see where you are coming from. FUS is not, however, in Mass so your state regulations don’t apply to them.
Once these things are in the plan, the organization pays for them whether the employee uses them or not. If the company is large enough, it will be self-insured and will pay directly for them.
If you have proof that the push for this came from insurers, please provide it. The insurance companies have been resisting efforts that restrict their ability to work with employers to tailor plans so I don’t see why they would break with that now.
J
JReducation
Guest
The way that it works now is that the friars select the coverage for their employees and students. The way that the law will work, if passed, is that the insurance company has to provide this coverage as ordinary care, not as add-on. This forces the friars to play for the package. On the other side, if the friars opt not to provide insurance for their employees or students, there may be legal consequences here too. The wording in the law is not quite clear. The friars have a mandate not to pay for these insurance packages. But that’s only part of the puzzle.
Many colleges have on campus clinics staffed with medical doctors and registered nurses. These are great, because the safe the students money. They’re free. If the law passes as is, these students can walk into these clinics and ask for a prescription for birth control, which is banned at all Franciscan clinics.
While it may sound as if this is binding the insurance company, it binds the customer. The customer is the employer who pays for the package and there is more in the law, it’s not just about insurance. It’s also about providing services in our clinics, hospitals and dispensaries.
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves, “What gives the government the right to require that insurance companies violate natural law?” Once you impose this on the company, there is a ripple effect.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Corki
All I’m saying is, the insurance industry pretty much wrote the Obama Care Health Insurance Reform Act.
Paying for birth control is obviously less expensive than paying for pregnancy and birth, and then adding on a child.
If not for government mandates, they’d probably pay for nothing at all. As it was, not too long ago, health insurance companies in Texas and California, could drop a person, at will.
People who were insured and paying premiums who came down with some costly medical need, were notified that they were no longer insured.
I believe most states have put laws into place preventing this from happening, but the point is that the insurance companies will get away with whatever is less costly for themselves and they could care less what happens to the customer they insured who know needs medical care that is going to cost them.
Jim
Your level of expertise supersedes my limited knowledge on health insurance.
Sterilization, as in a woman having her tubes tied, is not always elective and often medical necessity. Long story, but I do have experience in this area.
I’ve never seen a plan that didn’t include birth control pills. But I’ll yield to your expertise on this issue.
.
All I’m saying is, the insurance industry pretty much wrote the Obama Care Health Insurance Reform Act.
Paying for birth control is obviously less expensive than paying for pregnancy and birth, and then adding on a child.
Well, I’ve seen the opposite. Insurance companies work to pay for as little as they have to.
If not for government mandates, they’d probably pay for nothing at all. As it was, not too long ago, health insurance companies in Texas and California, could drop a person, at will.
People who were insured and paying premiums who came down with some costly medical need, were notified that they were no longer insured.
I believe most states have put laws into place preventing this from happening, but the point is that the insurance companies will get away with whatever is less costly for themselves and they could care less what happens to the customer they insured who know needs medical care that is going to cost them.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The bottom line is, so what?The way that it works now is that the friars select the coverage for their employees and students. The way that the law will work, if passed, is that the insurance company has to provide this coverage as ordinary care, not as add-on. This forces the friars to play for the package. On the other side, if the friars opt not to provide insurance for their employees or students, there may be legal consequences here too. The wording in the law is not quite clear. The friars have a mandate not to pay for these insurance packages. But that’s only part of the puzzle.
Many colleges have on campus clinics staffed with medical doctors and registered nurses. These are great, because the safe the students money. They’re free. If the law passes as is, these students can walk into these clinics and ask for a prescription for birth control, which is banned at all Franciscan clinics.
While it may sound as if this is binding the insurance company, it binds the customer. The customer is the employer who pays for the package and there is more in the law, it’s not just about insurance. It’s also about providing services in our clinics, hospitals and dispensaries.
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves, “What gives the government the right to require that insurance companies violate natural law?” Once you impose this on the company, there is a ripple effect.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
They buy an insurance policy package for their employees which pays for birth control and such.
It’s up to the employees who use the insurance whether they go against Catholic teaching on these issues or not.
If it offends you, don’t use that part of the coverage.
Fact is, most of American including the majority of Catholics, use some form of birth control. Also, some forms of birth control are used to treat women for medical issues outside of preventing pregnancy. Should the insurance company not pay for this?
Jim
C
Corki
Guest
The “so what” is that buying coverage for birth control and sterilization is just as immoral as buying the contraception and paying for the sterilization itself.
It would be almost ok if the employer could offer the required coverage but not pay for it. However the Obama healthcare plan does not allow that either.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine.
The “so what” is immoral. You may not use contraception, participate in abortion or make it possible for others to do so. Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae clearly state that this makes you materially complicit and morally culpable.
Then there is the General Constitution of the Franciscan Order that makes it very clear that no member of the order, friar, sister, nun or secular may ever, under any circumstances disobey the Church.
Such an overt act of disobedience can get you dismissed from the order and allows the Minister General to request that you be excommunicated for disobeying St. Francis. Francis made it very clear that we may never question or disobey. This is not up for discussion among Franciscans or the people we serve or those who work for us.
If the Church says that you’re morally complicit, then you may not purchase these insurance packages for your staff.
I’m noticing that you have OCDS after your name. If you check the Discalced Carmelite tradition and constitutions, I believe that you have the same tradition of obedience to the moral law and the Magisterium. Teresa of Avila would not simply say, “So what?”
Neither the state nor the insurance company have the right to pay for these, because they violate natural law. The goal is to provide necessary healthcare, not violate the moral law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
The problem is that the employer who finds those practices immoral is now being forced to pay for them.
That’s not exactly respect for religious freedom…
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Offering no insurance seems the logical choice. Let each employee know the approximate amoung of salary that would have been taken for insurance, and then tell them to secure their own.
- Status