Hey, there! Log in / Register

Poor women won't be able to get abortions, but John Kerry wants to make sure they can get Christian Science counseling

The Los Angeles Times reports on a health-care "reform" pushed by John Kerry (and, to be fair, by the late Ted Kennedy) that would require insurers to pay for Christian Science counseling sessions as a health-care expense.

Via Deb Geisler, who requests our new senior senator read up on the First Amendment's separation clause.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

It's not even the church-and-state issue here that's a problem. I don't find anything wrong with the government paying for religious-affiliated healthcare, as long as it's truly open to all people without discrimination, doesn't promote any sort of agenda, and uses scientifically informed best practices to provide healthcare.

I personally provide some healing practices that, while they aren't tied into any particular religion, but which could be considered "Eastern" or "alternative." I also work with people to use their preferred religious material as a component of their healing. I get reimbursed by government-sponsored and private insurance. But that's because I'm doing these things within the established framework of Western medicine, and not doing anything that would be frowned upon by the state board that licenses me.

Christian Science healing, as I understand it, involves a practitioner telling people to forgo evidence-based treatment, even in situations involving imminent danger to health. That's what I have a problem with. Someone who is practicing Christian Science healing cannot be licensed by any state board, because the state boards aren't OK with a provider telling someone to stop taking the meds that keep them from being psychotic, and to go ahead and go hurt themselves. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it. An individual is free to choose not to see doctors, and to some extent to encourage their friends and family to do the same, but that doesn't mean the state should license religious healers as professional providers. Insurance companies, public and private, should stick to reimbursing licensed providers who have received recommending training and who operate within established standards.

Again, it's fine if people go to a religious healer, or someone with a crystal ball, or no healer at all, but insurance shouldn't pay for these things any more than they should pay for me to get my living room painted green because I read somewhere that it will improve my health. Insurance companies need to continue to pay only for evidence-based work by licensed professionals.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Medicare has been paying for Christian Science nursing care for many years. This has been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court. I think the church has argued that the Medicare payments cover the cost of running the facility and paying the nurses, but that the payments are not used to pay for prayer treatment from Christian Science Practitioners.

So as far as I can tell, the proposed bill would be the first case of government-sponsored insurance paying for Christian Science Practitioner treatment.

up
Voting closed 0

If they allowed an opt-out, too many people would file for it and then demand care when they fell ill.

This way, people pay into the system and get this concession - which is pretty cheap - and then they either don't use care or they get care they paid for if they change their mind.

up
Voting closed 0

Is whether they will be allowed to pray for a miscarriage.

up
Voting closed 0

About 1/3 of known conceptions don't turn into babies for a variety of reasons. Even more sacred fertilized eggs never implant for bad timing reasons alone.

If you are going to go that route, you might as well appeal to the most active practicioner of pregnancy failure in the business!

up
Voting closed 0

This bill which was slapped together by the fools in Washington probably contains a lot more interesting items. Is tort reform included?
Can you imagine what would have been passed at the request of our new Commander In Chief back in July when he demanded Congress send him something (anything) to sign by THAT deadline?
That's all right though because we have to pass something, if only to honor the memory of our late Senator.

up
Voting closed 0