NOM

I haven't seen it posted here, but a little while ago, BYU-I announced that they will require students who use Medicare to purchase additional, supplemental medical insurance to attend the school at high cost, without any real reason why. Que outrage and media scrutiny.
https://www.eastidahonews.com/2019/11/t ... o-say-why/

At the same time, there are report about the school pressuring reporters for the school newspaper to not comment on the controversy.
https://religionnews.com/2019/11/21/stu ... e-stories/

Here in an interesting take on just how poorly this was handled.
https://www.postregister.com/opinion/ed ... 1c2aa.html


On a related note, how common is it for universities to require outside health insurance? I went to WVU. There, all full time students had access to the school medical program. All doctor's visits to a school doctor were fully covered. You only had to pay for prescriptions. I never got any, so I don't know how expensive they were. I went in several times. Everything from urinary issues, to sprained ankle and a dislocated knee cap. My wife even had the first few month of her pregnancy covered, no questions. Never had a bill for any of it. Just show your student ID and that's it. You saw student doctors, but they were supervised by a full doc, so the school got good training out of it as well. Is this common or an exception?

Why is it they can't keep from stepping in it. Anyone in the business of getting information from COJCOLDS needs chest waders. It seems Oaks' Where Will This Lead went completely unnoticed by internal consumers.

This quote is such a gem. How many churchocrats did it take to wordsmith this down to such carefully worded nonsense?

Due to the healthcare needs of the tens of thousands of students enrolled annually on the campus of BYU-Idaho, it would be impractical for the local medical community and infrastructure to support them with only Medicaid coverage.

Plans at BYU-Idaho are administered by Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators, established by the LDS Church — cost $536 per semester for an individual or $2,130 for a family. Medicaid, on the other hand, is free or low-cost coverage for low-income people who qualify.

So which one takes precedence? The one run by the mega-conglomerate corporation of course. The bottom line is for all Church Corporation subsidiaries to make a profit. Let those so-called "public universities" bear the burden of so-called "kind-heartedness". That stuff does not maximize revenues.

Health insurance is pretty much a guaranteed money-making racket if you're extorting payments from a captive audience of healthy young people. When I was a student in the late 70s-early 80s, student insurance only cost $25/semester and they STILL made money off me. I visited the university clinic once in four years for a sore throat.

Not only are some of those kids on medicaid, but a lot of them are already covered by their parents' employment benefits.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:16 am

Health insurance is pretty much a guaranteed money-making racket if you're extorting payments from a captive audience of healthy young people. When I was a student in the late 70s-early 80s, student insurance only cost $25/semester and they STILL made money off me. I visited the university clinic once in four years for a sore throat.

Not only are some of those kids on medicaid, but a lot of them are already covered by their parents' employment benefits.

If I understand correctly, parents' employment benefits would meet the requirement, so a student could opt out. Medicaid is the only problem. Over on reddit, there are lots of stories of people getting charged for insurance they did not need when they were not enrolled in the college. They've got a great racket.

The post register article was excellent and really summed it all up

More on this story of hornswoggling the students with insurance perfidy in the New York Times:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BBXgzFF?

Consumer Protection Bird wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:57 pm

More on this story of hornswoggling the students with insurance perfidy in the New York Times:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-BBXgzFF?

That is a pretty harsh assessment, so I will offer a rebuttal: It is the student's fault for attending BYU-Idaho. Caveat Studentor!

#fireeyring

Is Medicaid State funded? If so perhaps the state of Idaho put pressure on byu-Idaho to pay for insurance.

Maybe I'm way off base but I could see it happening. I mean a bunch of religious conservatives would never want government funded healthcare, would they? When I first read the story my first thought was why so many students at byu are relying on the government for healthcare.

So, I'm confused. Is it this: Tithing is down so BYU-I has been inducted to make up for part of the loss by forcing students to buy from the Church's insurance company, which company has highly inflated rates?

Random wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:01 pm

So, I'm confused. Is it this: Tithing is down so BYU-I has been inducted to make up for part of the loss by forcing students to buy from the Church's insurance company, which company has highly inflated rates?

I can’t figure it out either. Considering the big pile they were definitely going to step in, I doubt it’s worth whatever money they’ll make. I’d bet many of the Medicaid enrollees are pumping out babies, so I’m not convinced that this move would make them much money.

Spicy McHaggis wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:58 pm

Is Medicaid State funded? If so perhaps the state of Idaho put pressure on byu-Idaho to pay for insurance.

Maybe I'm way off base but I could see it happening. I mean a bunch of religious conservatives would never want government funded healthcare, would they? When I first read the story my first thought was why so many students at byu are relying on the government for healthcare.

There are several reasons why students at BYU rely on the government for healthcare:
1) BYU (all campuses) requires health insurance for all students. You will be kicked out if you don't have health insurance.
2) BYU health insurance has terrible maternity coverage for non-student spouses. The health insurance is very expensive and the deductible for maternity issues is very high such that the health insurance doesn't help with a normal pregnancy. So a family with a non-student wife who is pregnant has to pay for both expensive health insurance and for the costs up to what a normal pregnancy runs.
3) Married students at BYU are encouraged to have babies quickly and not wait until they graduate or have a stable source of income.

It's interesting to note that the church has softened its stance on government provided healthcare. The latest manual on finances in the self-reliance class doesn't rule out government provided benefits or even say that they should only be used after extended family resources have been exhausted. It only cautions against relying on government provided benefits long term.

This move by BYUI is bizarre. I'd put money on it that the decision quietly gets retracted.

lol they have reversed course

the prophet of this church is and will always be social pressure.

https://twitter.com/VoteDarlene/status/ ... 2531816448

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:10 pm

lol they have reversed course

the prophet of this church is and will always be social pressure.

https://twitter.com/VoteDarlene/status/ ... 2531816448

Yep. I've seen about four different national news outlets pick up this story and they all are painting the church in a bad light.

Leadership can NOT stand bad press. Otherwise they and the rest of the church would still be polygamists and restricting blacks from the priesthood.

That's why they're tiptoeing around the LGBTQ decisions that they're making. They really want to keep that stuff on the down low.

Once Snidely Whiplash realizes that all the townsfolk have seen him tying Nell to the tracks, he reluctantly releases her and says to himself, "Curses, foiled again... well, at least I will have the LGBTQ community to kick around".

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:10 pm

lol they have reversed course

the prophet of this church is and will always be social pressure.

https://twitter.com/VoteDarlene/status/ ... 2531816448

Well, that didn't take long.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:04 am

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:10 pm

lol they have reversed course

the prophet of this church is and will always be social pressure.

https://twitter.com/VoteDarlene/status/ ... 2531816448

Well, that didn't take long.

I wonder if the brethren ever feel like they are loosing control. Where once they could issue edicts from on high with little or no pushback, now they get pushback on every questionable move they make.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:18 am

Just This Guy wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:04 am

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:10 pm

lol they have reversed course

the prophet of this church is and will always be social pressure.

https://twitter.com/VoteDarlene/status/ ... 2531816448

Well, that didn't take long.

I wonder if the brethren ever feel like they are loosing control. Where once they could issue edicts from on high with little or no pushback, now they get pushback on every questionable move they make.

I've had the same thought.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 26, 2019 7:18 am

I wonder if the brethren ever feel like they are loosing control. Where once they could issue edicts from on high with little or no pushback, now they get pushback on every questionable move they make.

I think that LDS leadership has been relying on the scriptural stories of doubters and apostates getting cursed by God. Moses causes an earthquake after the golden calf incident. There is the story in Acts about people dying during tithing settlement. Nephi used Sith Force Lightning on his moron brothers. Sherem and Korihor get struck down after debate with the prophet. Those stories were veiled threats that kept 19th century Mormons in line.

The problem is that you actually have to smite someone once in a while or the masses will slowly start to doubt your divine connection. That worked only vaguely during the time of Joseph Smith and not all since then. I will grant that the 19th century "smiting" was occasionally done by Danites and other especially fervent believers. The 20th century saw none of that and so the skepticism of the 21st century is to be expected.