There are also pastors that want to negotiate a salary. For example, asking what a candidate’s salary expectations are. They may view this as a way to save money by getting a low bidder? I think in practice it really means they know they can’t pay you a lot, but they need a place to begin the conversation. In the case of school principals, I have seen pastors negotiate to find a number both parties can agree on. Parish managers too.

There are also pastors that want to negotiate a salary. For example, asking what a candidate’s salary expectations are. They may view this as a way to save money by getting a low bidder? I think in practice it really means they know they can’t pay you a lot, but they need a place to begin the conversation. In the case of school principals, I have seen pastors negotiate to find a number both parties can agree on. Parish managers too.

I detest this practice. A job should have a salary, or at least a range. Don't make me guess how much I think you're willing to pay. You have a budget. Use it.

And now you are into the deeply problematic area known as part-time. Parishes and dioceses often say that if you work less than 25 (some places 29) hours, you are part-time. And of course you are not eligible for health insurance,etc. But that many hours prevents you from another job. You are right that the question of insurance should be on the table. But I say let there be another level where part-timers can either be paid to get insurance or the insurance is made available to them in some way. The reason is that the diocese gets a group rate which is in many instances, cheaper than someone buying their own insurance. Sadly, no one has taken me up on that problem.

There are legitimate reasons why some positions (such as the one I just posted, mea culpa) can't include a salary range. University policy, in my case.

CHMinistries used to be good but they are rapidly going downhill. Massive rate hikes and decreasing the benefits.

I don't disagree at all, Abbysmum.

The FTC claimed that the AGO scale was anticompetitive. I think that that was wrong on its face. Now pastors have no guidelines to work with.

We looked at Chicago’s guidelines in the last year, and even for someone stuck in standard OCP/GIA stuff, the pay is abysmal for the work required.

But neither should tell the whole story or be the last word: some jobs are worth a lot more, and you should even hire a second person.

And it’s fine if a salary band is posted somewhere. But being upfront is the key.

Well sure!

Right, I think there’s room between « they’re unfair, and actually favor the employer » and « they’re anticompetitive and no one can publish guidelines » (which, the former may well have been the genesis of the complaint, but the resolution kind of stinks).

Have been with CHM for 10 years and they have paid every single bill over $500 without fail. Not sure where you got your info. None ever refused.

Francis, your experience is great, except that it does not take a whole lot of googling to find that people have terrible experiences with virtually all of these health-share programs; insurance is the way that our system works. People don’t have to like it, but it’s the way that it is. And what about your bills under $500? Those would be pretty pesky in my case! I would not want to be fully on the hook for those, which is what you’re suggesting is the case.

No, I’m not. I’m referring to both, because there are problems with both. If our standard is that it doesn’t take a lot of googling, then you can find that people have problems with Christian Healthcare Ministries.

I never said that insurance was a perfect system (I explicitly said that it wasn’t), but insurance is obligated to pay certain bills per the terms of the contract, at the contractual rate; otherwise, you pay that rate, not the cash price (which is sometimes higher than the insurance price). And at the end of the day, insurance companies have to follow certain laws and regulations when they deny services (this is particularly galling when the physician, if there even is one, is not actually a peer expert of the specialist in question, and this is usually when the insurance company folds). CHM is not obligated to reimburse you, and there’s essentially no appeal process.

Even in deep-red Tennessee the official position of the state government is that these are prone to the problems like the ones I described.

Healthcare sharing ministries facilitate the sharing of medical expenses and are NOT insurance companies. Neither their guidelines nor plans of operation are insurance policies. If you join a healthcare sharing ministry, whether anyone chooses to assist you with your medical bills will be entirely voluntary. No other participant will be compelled by law to contribute toward your medical bills. Participation in the organization or a subscription to any of its documents should never be considered to be insurance. Regardless of whether you receive any payments for medical expenses or whether this organization continues to operate, you are responsible for the payment of your own medical bills.

In fact, CHM won’t even forward bills (so you’re in a catch-22: how can you pay a bill that you don’t know about?); insurance is a heavily regulated industry. These are not.

I can appreciate the distress at paying for abortion and contraceptive services, but this is why dioceses and religious orders, etc. need to have more, not fewer, employees covered to make it worthwhile. Unfortunately, Ascension got out of the insurance business, but they were offering plans without such coverage, because it’s a Catholic company.

I would argue that it is in the diocese’s best interest to pay for insurance and to heavily discourage healthsharing ministries of any kind.

Nothing to contribute, I just keep reading the title as "Salieri's..."

CHM does not pay hospitals or doctors directly. There is no way a doctor or hospital is going to bill them UNLESS the person involved makes a major mistake (and doesn't understand policies). I read through a bunch of the Google reviews on CHM, many of them bad. I can pick through a bunch of them that show that whoever wrote them didn't bother to read any of their policies.

Again, there are problems with CHM, but the example above is not one caused by them.

Have to agree with TCJ here - what MatthewRoth describes is not my experience and not how my healthshare operates. I simply tell the hospital I'm uninsured (I don't even mention that I'm part of a healthshare) and they send me the bills, which I then forward to the healthshare. I've always been reimbursed in full (minus the "deductible"). I have also been consistently discounted across the board for hospital services - sometimes as much as 30% - though not for other things such as an ambulance.

It's not a perfect system - nothing is - and it can be hassles on my end, but it's significantly less than insurance.

Hospitals do not bill CHM. When you sign up for CHM, you read VERY CLEARLY in their policy that you do declare yourself SELF-PAY. If you tell a hospital you are self-pay, they (surprise, surprise!) bill YOU.

If anything else occurs, it is the result of the member not being aware of CHM policies and misinforming the hospital. What part of that is so hard to understand?

As I said, there are plenty of things you can criticize CHM about. The one you are making the biggest fuss about is not an issue except for people who sign up for things but don't read instructions.

MatthewRoth

I don’ agree that I hijacked the discussion. Insurance is an important part of a church job, and I was simply mentioning an alternative for those who can’t get it. Just saying.

I don’ agree that I hijacked the discussion. Insurance is an important part of a church job, and I was simply mentioning an alternative for those who can’t get it. Just saying.

I’m just going to repost this section of Canon Law here.

Can. 231 §1. Lay persons who permanently or temporarily devote themselves to special service of the Church are obliged to acquire the appropriate formation required to fulfill their function properly and to carry out this function conscientiously, eagerly, and diligently.

§2. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 230, §1 and with the prescripts of civil law having been observed, lay persons have the right to decent remuneration appropriate to their condition so that they are able to provide decently for their own needs and those of their family. They also have a right for their social provision, social security, and health benefits to be duly provided.

Keyword: "decently"

didn't sign it , but still like to grumble about it occasionally.

As the head of a household of eight I will vouch for CHM, as well as for doing one's own research with regard to personal and familial health and wellness

I’m just grateful I live in Canada and don’t have to worry about paying for healthcare or ridiculously expensive insurance and co-pay for the most part between provincial health insurance and employer extended health and dental benefits.

We've used Samaritan ministries for 12 years now, without ever having trouble of any kind with bills large and small. I would say these alternative ministries are critically important to the salary discussion because (at least in my diocese) the HALF of a family insurance premium that the employee pays years ago surpassed our mortgage as the largest expense in the budget. I honestly do not know how I would afford this line of work without an alternative and vastly cheaper insurance solution (and I make a very reasonable salary). Both pastors and workers should know about these options in the salary discussion.

I negotiated our exit to Samaritan myself - no one forced me into it. And in the process both the parish and my family saved large amounts of money every year.