Of all of the complaints about the Baucus bill or the health care reform bills in general, this one hasn't gotten much attention yet:
Witch Doctory in Senate’s Health Care Plan.
ATHEISTS OPPOSE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE “FAITH HEALING” PROVISIONS IN HEALTH CARE REFORM BILLS
An Atheist public policy organization today called for elimination of requirements in Senate legislation which would reimburse faith-based “healers” for their services.
The Senate Finance Committee has taken up the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 which has an amendment titled “Religious Non-discrimination in Healthcare. The provision bans insurance companies from denying patients “benefits for religious or spiritual healthcare. Similar legislation, the Affordable Health Choices Act, has already cleared the U.S. Senate, and has a similar provision.
Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, warned that the measure amounts to a public subsidy for certain religious groups.
“Any adult in the legislative or executive branch of the federal government, or of any state government, who wants to use unproven, unscientific ‘remedies’ should be free to do so,” said Buckner. “But support for such irrational nonsense violates the separation of religion and government and the canons of good sense. Including faith-healing or other non-medical ‘treatment’ in health care legislation must be rejected.”
Giving any sort of legitimacy to quackery, religious or otherwise, seems inherently dangerous to me. Especially dangerous and indeed often fatal to children of folks who take this stuff too far. While this particular amendment doesn't seem to change the fact that killing a child with faith based denial of care is still generally illegal, it could encourage more of it and even reward those who attempt it and propagate irrational fears, distrust, or dismissal of proven medical treatments to those who might otherwise not know better. Of course empowering the government to decide what treatments should be covered is bound to cause even more issues along these lines. Will insurance companies or government programs be forced to pay for scientology thetan tests too? How about subluxation tests/treatment in the quackier side of chiropractic care which has roughly the same scientific grounding... i.e. none. Will we end up with a public option for prayer circle coverage too?
Let's just avoid the slippery slope towards absurdity and kid sized body bags and just knock this nonsense out of any current or future health care bill. These bills have enough problems.
“But support for such irrational nonsense violates the separation of religion and government and the canons of good sense. Including faith-healing or other non-medical ‘treatment’ in health care legislation must be rejected.”
How specifically would this violate the separation of religion and government? Where is that separation mandated? And since when did "the canons of good sense" factor into legislation? Who determines good sense?
Overall I'm an advocate of medical care coverage being confined to medical science as opposed to ever-broadening coverages on the basis of practicallity and cost. A venture down the above mentioned path could lead us to paying for seances, enlightenment retreats, and whole host of other "spiritual" products and services scams. The restriction shouldn't have much effect of those of faith seeking healing within the "body of the church" since such services or treatments (most commonly prayer or pastoral counseling) are usually gratis which, IMO, should be.
So I agree with the effect but not with the reasoning.
"How specifically would this violate the separation of religion and government? Where is that separation mandated? And since when did "the canons of good sense" factor into legislation? Who determines good sense?"
On the first question: If the government is mandating a religious practice be paid for by private companies or pays for such practices directly through a government program, it seems to be a fairly clear cut case of government involving itself in religious matters. At least to me.
On the second: The separation is mandated by current Constitutional law that has applied the Jeffersonian 1st Amendment approach (and I'd also argue the Madison approach) of the restriction on government's ability to meddle with or give preference to religious practices. As this is federal law we're talking about, no need to get into how that approach has been made applicable to local/State governments as well via 14th Amendment incorporation. I realize many disagree with Jefferson's and Madison's separation of church and state interpretation, but that is the current legal precedent. One that makes sense if the usage of "respect" is "a relation or reference to a particular thing" as opposed to the more narrow meaning that would limit the prohibition to a national church. I'm inclined to take Madison's approach since he drafted the language, intepreted it as a broader prohibition, and governed accordingly on such matters.
On the third: I'd hope using good sense would factor into any legislation, though my hopes are regularly dashed. The founders fortunately found it prudent to put in a lot of safeguards in case those in power were being less sensical, though even those safeguards have been regularly overwhelmed by the sheer popularity of nonsensical ideas.
On the fourth: We all do as individuals... arguably poorly at times.
"So I agree with the effect but not with the reasoning."
Works for me.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Are you sure they aren't talking about chaplains? The article, and your post, make it sound like a Witch Doctor is being called in to brew up Eye of Newt and Wing of Bat. The term "spiritual healthcare" usually refers to chaplains who counsel people as they are healing or dying.
But I could be wrong on that. More information would be great.
However, if you are arguing that the government shouldn't mandate coverage of chaplaincy, or pay for it with tax dollars because it involves religion then you're just wrong. The military is full of chaplains who take their pay directly from the government and have been doing so for a very long time. After all, there are no atheists in a foxhole. Or so I've been told.
The government already subsidizes certain religious groups and always has like chaplains, aid to faith-based nations, 401c(3) tax designations etc.. Of late "W" expanded faith-based programs very early in 2001. Then Obama announce plans this summer to not only maintain but to expand President Bush’s beloved faith-based programs. Buckner may be looking for a share of the support.
LV... my concern is with coverage of procedures as opposed to hospitals having chaplains and such. e.g. insurance being forced to compensate some snake oil salesman for casting out demons. As far as faith based initiative stuff, I don't mind if it goes to secular community service works without discrimination that a church happens to do on the side. I worry about where lines may be crossed on that, but addressing those concerns gets complicated quick and may be a post for another day.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
LV... my concern is with coverage of procedures as opposed to hospitals having chaplains and such. e.g. insurance being forced to compensate some snake oil salesman for casting out demons.
And I think Sarah Palin's concern about end of life counseling was translated into "Death Panels."
It is amazing the leaps of logic people are willing to make to oppose health care reform.
no one cares if the guy across town hires someone to cast out demons - it only becomes an issue when you do it taxpayer money and make us all pay for it.
It is amazing the leaps of logic people are willing to make to oppose health care reform.
I not sure you are interpretting Sarah Palin's concerns as she intended them. My take on her view was that end of life counseling is and should be a personal choice free of any mandated requirements. When there is a push to mandate such personal choices/decisions, the first thing I would ask is "why, what's in it for them?" What's in it for them is cutting their costs, which really have nothing to do what is best for the individual. One sure fire method of cutting health care costs, that in most cases dramatically increase in our "golden years", is to die. I certainly don't want someone who is interested in saving a buck counseling those who have dwindling faculties as to when and how they should die, do you?
That does not mean I'm against health care reform as a whole nor do I think is Mrs. Palin. But sure helps to further demonize and debase her to say so doesn't it?
Ok, so digging:
The amendment in question was #239, Kerry/Hatch C14.
The text is as follows:
It wasn't adopted into the committee bill, which hasn't been reported out of committee yet. So no money for snakehandlers in Illinois ICUs.
"I certainly don't want someone who is interested in saving a buck counseling those who have dwindling faculties as to when and how they should die, do you?"
A profound misconception regarding the "death panels" concern is the assumption that this isn't happening now. "Counseling" would not be an accurate term for how insurance companies handle end-of-life costs, however.
DaveM... I'm still concerned it will still eventually find its way into the Baucus bill just as it did in the Senate counterpart to HR 3200. If it stays out of the Baucus bill or any other bill and is removed from the other bill(s), I'll be a happier camper. No reason to make any of these bills any worse than they already are.
Toldja... I think Palin's focus on the end of life care coverage was off the mark, or at least poorly presented initially. Her criticism went way beyond what the bill actually stated and she really didn't make a coherent case about the potential for abuse via pressuring such counseling or limits on coverage until later. It ended up killing off coverage for end of life counseling in general (which was a bit silly since even Newt Gengrich was in favor of such coverage with appropriate limitations on potential abuse/meddling by the government) instead of working towards appropriate limitations. Given her opposition to government solutions though, it's doubtful she would have supported a bill with or without "death panels."
Politicalchemy... I'd hope that a public plan by the people, for the people, and all that jazz would be expected to do better than the system it is supposedly reforming. The "well the current system sucks too" argument seems a bit odd to defend the reform proposals that are supposed to be fixing it, not emulating it. To be fair I think some problems are unavoidable with both private systems and government systems, but with the end of life care it seemed fairly feasible to address concerns about bureaucratic bean counting abuse... even if it was a bit absurd that some folks were trying to make it out to be some whole new issue with a government plan.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
A profound misconception regarding the "death panels" concern is the assumption that this isn't happening now. "Counseling" would not be an accurate term for how insurance companies handle end-of-life costs, however.
So pile on everybody, grandpa's lookin a little peaked. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
"...that such religious or spiritual health care shall be an expense eligible for deduction as a medical care expense..."
So creating a tax deduction for the snake handler's expenses does not constitute paying for it per se, but it certainly seems to endorse it and help pay for it.
I guess you set up your snake breeding farm as a religious supply store....
Her criticism went way beyond what the bill actually stated and she really didn't make a coherent case about the potential for abuse ...
Sounds like the thesis of this thread.
They are talking about chaplains, not snake charmers. Just as they were talking about end of life counseling, not death panels.
The Evel Knievels of logic.
They are talking about chaplains, not snake charmers. Just as they were talking about end of life counseling, not death panels.
Did they say chaplains in the language? How do know they didn't mean Ghost Busters or excorcists?
The Evel Knievels of logic.
If only it were that simple and it all was as innocent as posed. Unfortunately, our experience with the loose wording of legislation begs it to be tested with worse-case-scenario potential for abuses. Sad, but true and also logical.
Why do I need a tax deduction for talking to a chaplin?
Dane... your guess is as good as mine. Equally confusing is how these folks at American Atheists, hardly a bastion of conservatism, have become covert republicans hell bent on destroying health care reform in general because they want some religious provisions kept out it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
God bless'm :-)
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued a statement saying he supports President Barack Obama's goals of overhauling the country's healthcare system to hold down costs and improve quality.
If I were in as much hot water as California, I'd sing a song for the guy with the ice cubes too.
Why do I need a tax deduction for talking to a chaplin?
I asked earlier for clarification on what was meant by "spiritual healthcare." Instead, we got "snake charmers." And more ridiculing of anyone who believes anything. In the absence of any facts that explain the terminology, I see nothing that would prove it is not chaplains, or spiritual counselors, instead of snake charmers.
On the other hand, I suppose it is possible this is referring to things like Native American healers, or other spiritual healers. I am not aware of Christians who are paid to travel around and lay hands on people or pray for people in the hospital. But I suppose that is possible. Would you folks be opposed to tax breaks for travel expenses in the case of a Native American healer who travels to perform a healing ceremony on a person of that faith?
And more ridiculing of anyone who believes anything. In the absence of any facts that explain the terminology, I see nothing that would prove it is not chaplains, or spiritual counselors, instead of snake charmers.
"You didn't prove me wrong, so I must be right!" There's logic for ya. It's not that others believe the language refers to snake charmers and exorcists, but nothing in the language says it couldn't be. Again, loose language opens the door to such. Where do you draw the line on spiritual or faith treatments? Concievably someone could claim they are a sun worshiper and demand tax deductions their wintering in Florida. Can of slimy worms.
On October 8th, 2009 at 05:35 PM, A is for Anonymous said: "Would you folks be opposed to tax breaks for travel expenses in the case of a Native American healer who travels to perform a healing ceremony on a person of that faith?"
Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: I would oppose any new tax breaks, for travel or any other expenses, expressly designed to aid any religious healing ceremony such as you described. That said, I have no problem with the supposed traveling religious healer taking advantage of pre-existing tax breaks that may apply to traveling for work; but those advantages, such as deducting milage, would apply to anyone traveling for work, and wouldn't single out traveling religious healers for an advantage that no one else could qualify for.
HG
"Giving any sort of legitimacy to quackery, religious or otherwise, seems inherently dangerous to me."
When it's the government either giving or denying legitimacy to anything I get worried.
"It's not that others believe the language refers to snake charmers and exorcists, but nothing in the language says it couldn't be. Again, loose language opens the door to such. Where do you draw the line on spiritual or faith treatments?"
Indeed, the language both suggested in the Baucus bill and the actual language that ended up in another Senate bill both are ambiguous as to what the insurance or exchanges may not deny when it comes to "benefits for religious or spiritual health care." We can ask ourselves where we'd draw the line and, given the diversity of IP posters, come up with a hundred different answers that might span the globe in cultural and/or religious origins. But regardless of our own personal views, this doesn't change the fact that the language offered for these bills doesn't draw any line, suggest any line, imply any line, etc.
This of course leaves a lot of potential for selective enforcement and future court battles depending on how it is actually implemented by whatever socially liberal or socially conservative Executive Branch may be at the helm at any given time in the future. But even if it is somehow pulled off without any exclusivity or discrimination towards any particular religion or spiritual belief system, the issue of government requiring payment towards religious activities by others, as well as taxpayer money being used to ensure full access to health care going into the mix, remains.
Some seem to think that these measures have drawn a line to limit the applicability to hospital chaplains, who generally aren't doing any billing for their work that an insurance company would eventually decide to grant or deny payment for. Some providers may keep such folks on staff and provide resources for them as an added convenience or perk, but again this would still not be about providing billable services that an insurance company would have to worry about granting or denying compensation over. It just doesn't make any sense that these amendments would have anything to do with such activities as they're specifically referring to coverage issues that they never get involved in. But regardless of that conjecture, the claim falls apart just by reading the language of the bill which doesn't have any such limitation, implied or otherwise without imagining it.
Unfortunately faith in such imaginary lines isn't just being used to defend these bills, but apparently going as far as inhibiting any correction or necessary revisions to make them better. This particular language seems to be representative of the various wheeling and dealing to get the bills passed at all costs, at the expense of getting it right.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/
How shall these folks file their tax return this year?
"I'd hope that a public plan by the people, for the people, and all that jazz would be expected to do better than the system it is supposedly reforming. The "well the current system sucks too" argument seems a bit odd to defend the reform proposals that are supposed to be fixing it, not emulating it."
"So pile on everybody, grandpa's lookin a little peaked. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Sure, this is an easy tactic because I didn't cover every possible nuance associated with this observation. Of course I would hope a public plan (or any other sort of reform) would do a better job of dealing with end-of-life issues (reference the snide "counseling" comment.) That wasn't the point.
Regarding Toldja's reply, I will attempt to answer seriously even though there's a high probabiity that I'm wasting my time. On second thought, I'll be efficient and simply refer you to my comment above.
Dane... hopefully the prison warden can help them with their tax questions for the next several years. A shame they aren't being charged with murder instead of manslaughter.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"You didn't prove me wrong, so I must be right!" There's logic for ya
Yes, actually that is logic for you.
If someone has a better answer, please let us know.