With healthcare reform moving ever closer to reality, supporters and
opponents are scrambling to add and subtract provisions. The Senate may
take longer to vote than its House of Representatives counterparts, but
debate is still going strong. Majority Leader Harry Reid is mediating
battles over the public option, cost, illegal immigrants, abortion
coverage...and prayer? Yes, apparently there is a clause in the Senate
Finance and Health committees' versions of the bill that would require
health insurance plans to provide coverage for "religious or spiritual
health care", including prayer services. Such a provision brings up
multiple questions. Mandated coverage has the potential to drive up
premiums for questionable results. If it passes, such care would be
also included in the public option, possible opening the government up
to legal problems.
Prayer treatment, such as that offered by
Christian Scientists, consist of the arrangement of a large group of
people to pray for a patient's speedy recovery. Some studies have
indicated that it may have a positive effect on some people's
conditions. However, that could be due to the patient feeling comfort
and support as opposed to any spiritual intervention. A positive
attitude, on the other hand, has been proven to help cancer patients
and others. Knowing that others are praying for you (if you are
religious) is no doubt reassuring. While someone could ask their own
place of worship (if any) to pray for them, promoters of formal prayer
treatment claim that they can provide a wider variety of prayers from
religious practitioners for up to $40 per day. Most of this treatment
supplements conventional medicine, making it unclear where improvements
are coming from. In other cases, it serves to replace traditional
treatments. It would be a large expense for private and public health
insurance plans alike, without the evidence-based testing proposed by
the Obama administration as a method of reducing healthcare costs.
Also,
these types of religious treatments open the federal government up to
potentially costly charges of religious discrimination. Although the
requirement would only apply to those health insurance plans
participating in the proposed insurance exchange, it is still risky. A
public option that covers prayer may violate the establishment clause
of the 1st Amendment, which states that the government cannot promote
one religion or absence of religion over another. Even in the private
health insurance market, consumers with other religions or no religion
at all will resent that their health insurance plan
is subsidizing another faith. Supporters of the separation between
church and state, including atheists, would have a good chance at
convincing the ACLU to take the case. The government, though, could
argue that--since there is no religious preference for coverage and
patients are allowed to choose what, if any, religion to recieve
treatment under--it should pass legal muster. It would probably end up
an issue for the Supreme Court to decide. Other critics believe that
requiring reimbursement for such "pseudoscience" will result in greater
waste in our health care system. It could also create a slippery slope
for other religions to receive public funding. Initially, the money
spent on spiritual treatment will be small because the Christian
Science church has relatively few members. Later on, however, America's
major religions could create various treatments for their tens of
millions of adherents, which insurers will also be forced to cover.
So
who is responsible for sneaking this provision into the Senate's health
reform bill into the first place? It was a joint effort; Republican
Senator Orrin Hatch, along with Democrats John Kerry and the late Ted
Kennedy, sponsored the amendment. Hatch's support is surprising, since
there is virtually zero chance that he will vote for reform. Kennedy
may have had his own personal reasons, but he and Kerry were/are
representing Massachusetts--the state that's home to the Christian
Science church lobbying for coverage of its treatment. However, Kerry
denies that religious and spiritual care must be covered under his
amendment; rather, it would only prevent discrimination by health insurance plans
against legitimate medical expenses (as deemed by he IRS) if they also
happen to be spiritually-based. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
removed similar proposals from two House of Representatives commitee
bills, fearing that they are unconstitutional. On the other hand, Reid
is noncommittal about the future of prayer coverage in his bill.
Yamileth Medina is an up and coming expert on Health Insurance and
Healthcare
Reform. She aims to help people realize that they don't have
to go without a health
insurance plan while waiting for a public option, if it ever
gets passed. Yamileth lives in Miami, FL.
Very interesting! I'm more of a skeptic, but I feel every little bit helps. Meditation has the potential to help a lot when it comes to mental health and relieving stress. It could prevent some medical conditions.
Buddhist Meditation is a technique, it doesn't necessarily have any religious connotation or significance beyond the fact it was developed for that purpose. It can be used secularly without worry of any religious implications.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
With healthcare reform moving ever closer to reality, supporters and
opponents are scrambling to add and subtract provisions. The Senate may
take longer to vote than its House of Representatives counterparts, but
debate is still going strong. Majority Leader Harry Reid is mediating
battles over the public option, cost, illegal immigrants, abortion
coverage...and prayer? Yes, apparently there is a clause in the Senate
Finance and Health committees' versions of the bill that would require
health insurance plans to provide coverage for "religious or spiritual
health care", including prayer services. Such a provision brings up
multiple questions. Mandated coverage has the potential to drive up
premiums for questionable results. If it passes, such care would be
also included in the public option, possible opening the government up
to legal problems.
tweet this!
