|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 9:09:48 AM
Blog link
I'll let Orac do most of the talking; he's got his sources in order here.
The wording is such that a non-discrimination clause effectively works as a mandate for private insurers (and any gov't healthcare) to pay for Christian Science prayer "treatments".
Also noted:
"If I were in the hierarchy of the Church of Scientology, if these provisions favoring Christian Scientists remain in the final bill that passes, I'd be licking my chops to sue the government to force it to pay for E-meter treatments and" auditing."
I think I may actually have to write in, for once. Granted, my two senators are Rep., so I think they'll vote down the whole bill regardless of what's in it... |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 11:09:06 AM
What about Voodoo? And snake charmers? I need that stuff covered, too. |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 12:32:09 PM
Given the extreme health risks of winter exposure, I think the health care system ought to take preventative measures. Like paying my rent. |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 2:06:56 PM
If Christian Scientists are forbidden from seeking medical treatments from doctors, and if insurance companies aren't going to pay for their 'faith healing', could they be exempt from the proposed requirement to buy health insurance?
|
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 2:16:29 PM
On Monday 10/19/09 - 2:06:56 PM CowDung wrote:
If Christian Scientists are forbidden from seeking medical treatments from doctors, and if insurance companies aren't going to pay for their 'faith healing', could they be exempt from the proposed requirement to buy health insurance? |
I can't imagine why that would be the case. You don't get a break on local taxes by telling the city counsel that you're not going to use the roads, parks or schools, do you? |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 2:23:25 PM
Didn't Obama promise that we can keep our current coverage if we want? I assume that would apply to non-coverage as well...
As far as the roads, parks, etc., it's a bit different of a situation. In the CS belief system, the 'faith healer' is their medical practitioner. I would almost think that requiring them to buy coverage and then denying them their health insurance coverage is a bit unfair and may even be a violation of their freedom of religion... |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 2:34:08 PM
In my belief system, pacifism is the only viable defense. Yet a huge chunk of my taxes go to the military-industrial complex while no one will help me pay for my meetings to come to a consensus decision about nuclear disarmaments with Ahmadinejad. |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 2:41:02 PM
If the requirement to buy health insurance really a tax?
Tax money generally goes into a big fund to pay for a variety of things. Making people buy health insurance is a much more specific and targeted use of one's money.
|
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 2:57:03 PM
Guess we wouldn't have that problem with a single-payer public option  |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 3:53:14 PM
Primary flaw in CD's argument:
As far as their kids are concerned, state courts have final say in what sort of health care the child gets, regardless of freedom of religion. In many recent cases where children have died under faith healers, with parents avoiding proper medical care, parents have been tried for (and generally found guilty of) negligent manslaughter. |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 3:57:53 PM
Secondary, yet more minor, and a weaker argument: We have no guarantee that they won't use the system (if they get sick enough, leave their religion, etc.). Part of the public benefit of a coverage mandate is such that each person is at least paying into the system, such that when that person does incur costs, it's not so much a public burden (contrasted against a non-insured individual going bankrupt for emergency care, in which the final cost is spread among all former lenders, the health care provider, etc).
Basically, since we can't really turn anyone away from life-saving, emergency care regardless of their religion... Well, basically, if we allow enough exemptions, then if they do decide to come to their senses, but only with end-stage terminal illness, then we've screwed the point of having a coverage mandate to begin with. |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 7:03:52 PM
The coverage mandate is already flawed because they have watered down the fines so much. It seems that it would be a lot cheaper to pay the fine than carry insurance. Since they will guarantee acceptance of preexisting conditions, people can pick up insurance when they go to the doc and drop it soon afterward.
I see the mandatory insurance thing like mandatory gun ownership laws (although I believe those cases have been upheld as constitutional). There are arguments that can be made that rights are being violated by making such mandates.
True, they do charge parents with crimes of negligence for not seeking medical care, but do/can the state force them to seek treatment for their child and force them to pay for that treatment?
|
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 7:11:39 PM
Except the cost isn't a public one when someone doesn't own a gun, so the analogy doesn't apply.
It's more like mandated driver's insurance, in analogy, which does not run afoul of any constitutional requirements.
And yes, the state can force a parent to seek treatment for a child; there's a story in this exact forum of a parent not taking her 400 pound kid in for doctor's visits, and being threatened with losing him.
|
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 7:19:20 PM
That's not the point, though; even the House bill is calling for private insurers to cover anything that is tax-exempt by IRS code, even...
Which includes faith "healers". |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 8:44:58 PM
This is rubbish. CS faith healer aka medical practitioner does not hold a medical license. |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 9:30:37 PM
But they do have "licensed" spiritual healers! (And here I would wave my hands about in that mock-eerie sort of way.) |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 10:05:04 PM
how can I get in on this...?
If I claim "snake oil" is my religion will they put that in too?
Cause I can make hella good snake oil |
|
|
Monday 10/19/09 - 10:19:40 PM
I wonder if insurance will pay my CPA? |
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 1:04:37 PM
On Monday 10/19/09 - 7:11:39 PM Malletman wrote:
Except the cost isn't a public one when someone doesn't own a gun, so the analogy doesn't apply. It's more like mandated driver's insurance, in analogy, which does not run afoul of any constitutional requirements. |
Would it continue to be a public cost if a new system involving mandatory health insurance coverage is put in place?
|
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 1:18:14 PM
On Monday 10/19/09 - 2:06:56 PM CowDung wrote:
If Christian Scientists are forbidden from seeking medical treatments from doctors, and if insurance companies aren't going to pay for their 'faith healing', could they be exempt from the proposed requirement to buy health insurance? |
I actually double checked this, by the way, and it seems as if there is no strict forbiddance of modern medicine; just that faith "healing" is preferable, and not to be done in conjunction with real medicine. Specific churches may have different rules, but as a large organization, that seems to be the consensus.
|
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 1:26:53 PM
Interesting- - I didn't realize that medical care was ever a "valid" option.
I wonder why faith healing isn't to be done in conjunction with real medicaine- - I would think that they would be open to all the help they can get...
|
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 2:27:56 PM
maybe the same reason you can't mix medications 
(honestly I have no idea how their thought process works. that's one belief that'll always be beyond me) |
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 3:00:18 PM
Apparently because using real medicine admits to a "material" aspect of illness, and admitting that will drag down the efficacy of the praying (you know, because it's so effective otherwise).
So most of them don't opt for (real) medicine. |
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 4:26:14 PM
On Tuesday 10/20/09 - 1:26:53 PM CowDung wrote:
Interesting- - I didn't realize that medical care was ever a "valid" option. I wonder why faith healing isn't to be done in conjunction with real medicaine- - I would think that they would be open to all the help they can get... |
Actually, this is the approach most Christian faiths take. Also, most faiths would not appoint a special "faith healer" (and if they WERE appointed, it wouldn't be due to any sort of certification process, it'd just be because they were particularly gifted with prayer) and would never expect payment for this. |
|
|
Tuesday 10/20/09 - 11:54:50 PM
Most Christian faiths pray for people who are sick and under a doctor's care- - the idea that you can only have healing prayers OR a doctor seems to be unique to the Christian Scientists...
|
![[link] I`ll let Orac do most of the talking; he`s got his sources in order here. The wording is such that a non-discrimination clause effectively works as a mandate for...](/art/yt_logo_bub5.gif){kind=logo}
