Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Ft. Worth Star Telegram has a story about the Christian Science church and health insurance. The Christian Science church rejects the germ theory of disease and believes that all illness is spiritual in nature rather than physical and thus should be treated with prayer and counseling rather than medical intervention. It seems the church is concerned that changes in our healthcare system will undermine the use of insurance to pay for people to pray for them.
Christian Scientists, like most people, are keeping a close eye on what might happen with national healthcare reform in the wake of the economic crisis.But their viewpoint is different from most.
A misconception many people have is, "Why would Christian Scientists worry about health insurance anyway? Don't they just rely on faith and prayer for healing?"
Many of them do, said Phil Davis, global spokesman for the Boston-based religion. But because some employers and insurance companies reimburse Christian Scientists and others who use prayer-based healthcare, changes that might threaten that would be alarming.
Yes, they actually think people should be reimbursed for praying for people by insurance companies.
Christian Science is a religion of equals, not a priesthood or hierarchy. The branch churches are democratic and run from the laity. But there are those whose career is to pray with others. They do charge, because that is their only source of income, doing this full time.There's also Christian Science nursing, which provides individual physical care. There are more than 20 Christian Science nursing facilities in the U.S., as well as private duty nurses. They work without medical procedures or drugs. They do bandages, assist with mobility, cleanliness. . . . In a large sense, everyone is a practitioner, but there's the element of track records. [Practitioners] are also available to the general public...
In the 1980s, we had more than 300 insurance companies in the United States that had riders or provisions for prayer-based healthcare. But in the mid-1990s, we went through a huge shift from a fee-for-service into what we call managed-care system. We're working to be included in that. But HMOs and PPOs are so medically oriented that Christian Science doesn't fit as neatly -- although Medicare, Medicaid, military insurance and federal employees' insurance now make allowances.
Imagine that - medical insurance that is "medically oriented," As opposed to fantasy oriented.
Politics
Comments
I always thought if your career is to pray with others as your only source of income, you were called "clergy". Well, the president did say we would have to cut some waste to help lower Medicare costs. Here's a good start.
Posted by: Budbear | February 26, 2009 9:44 AM
I would love to know how much of our tax dollars are spent on C.S. prayers. What a scandal!
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 26, 2009 9:59 AM
Gingerbaker - great point. I never would have guessed we are paying to perform a service where the evidence argues intercessory prayer slightly harm patients, and with Christian Scientists, risks great harm given it also supplants medical treatment. If we're paying taxpayer dollars for that, it appears to me that's a violation of the establishment clause and from a policy perspective, an incredibly idiotic method of spending tax payer dollars.
All - It disgusts me that creationists/IDists, Scientologists, and Christian Scientists all fraudulently attempt to buttress their decidedly non-scientific notions by marketing them using the word science. It provides strong evidence of the level of integrity of their adherents.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 26, 2009 10:20 AM
I have no problem with health insurers paying for prayer treatment. All it has to do is passed the appropriate clinical trials.
Posted by: Taz | February 26, 2009 10:21 AM
Paying for Christian Scientist prayers and nursing is a profit making scam by insurance companies. They collect premiums and then just pay for hours of prayer and nursing. They don't have to cover drugs, surgery, doctors fees, lab tests, hospital stays, etc. Seriously ill Scientists don't go to intensive care or cardiac rehab, they just die. Bet they pay the same premium rates as people who do use doctors, but they get next to nothing in return!
Posted by: Ann Klein | February 26, 2009 10:40 AM
Ahhh, good old CS raising its ugly head again. I grew up in a CS household, and very fortunately reached the age of consent with no worse damage then some impaired fertility (untreated lady problems) and a troubling hip deformity (untreated hip dislocation in childhood).
Ed, you're understating it a little when you limit what they reject to germ theory. Most devout Christian Scientists also reject medical care for injury, diabetes, cancer, mental illness, and other such nasty problems. Basically, if it wasn't current practice when Mary Baker Eddy was alive, it's not allowed. CS folks will get glasses and visit dentists (sans novocaine, though), but that's usually it.
Budbear, the article actually gets it pretty dead on with the description of CS church management. Practitioners are not associated with specific churches, and it is often recommended that people work with a practitioner who is *not* a co-churchgoer, the rationale being that a person who knows you personally can not help as effectively as a stranger. A little like the idea that MD's shouldn't take care of their family members -- they're too close to the situation.
Most insurers will cover CS nursing care -- very few that I'm personally aware of also cover the practitioners fees. I'm all for not funding the practitioners - I think the whole religion is dangerous.
CS nursing care is another issue though.... while I don't like the religion, providing basic needs care to dying people -- which is most of CS nursing -- is something I support. I'm extremely conflicted over it.
Ann, CS insurance packages usually aren't as pricey regular medical insurance, so your schadenfreude is slightly misplaced.
Posted by: PennyBright | February 26, 2009 11:22 AM
Heck, I'll pray for people to get healthy too! I'm just looking to find where and to whom I should send the bill.
I'm sure I could do it for less than CS as I have no meeting rooms to keep up and all.
Pesto be with you - RAmen!
Posted by: a2audrey | February 26, 2009 11:44 AM
PennyBright, you have my sincere sympathy. I am a recovering RC myself. Thanks for the insight into CS practices, since my knowledge of that particular delusional system is restricted to third person anecdotes. When I was a young lad in Catholic school, we would be occasionally visited by "missionary" priests. They would bring the hellfire and brimstone, rousing up the troops to get right with the lord. The purpose being mostly to recruit potential priests and, even more so, to loosen up the purse strings of the flock for fleecing. They were an exotic (to us) change from the parish priests we had grown up with. I see them now as no different than itinerant preachers, gadding about to pad the payroll. I see the CS practitioners as you described in the same way. Detached, impersonal charlatans scamming for cash in the guise of religious practice. You know, clergy.
Posted by: Budbear | February 26, 2009 12:50 PM
CS: "I'm submitting a claim for reimbursement for some healing prayer I did."
Insurer: "Okay. We'll pray you get the money. God should provide it 4-6 weeks."
Posted by: eric | February 26, 2009 12:58 PM
Years ago I went to a lecture given by a sec. humanist -skeptic who had done some investigations of children harmed by "spiritual" forms of medicine. He told a story of a young teenage girl who had been sent to one of the Christian Science "hospitals" with a very serious but curable condition. She died. She not only died, she died in agony, because they did not give her any pain medication. They told her that her sickness was all in her head, and that it was her own fault because she didn't have enough faith, and was letting Satan mislead her.
I remember that the speaker practically broke down when he related that the "nurses" would come in and scold this young girl for screaming, because she was scaring the other children. And they would tell her she was "stubborn" and "rebellious against God" and that is why it hurt.
If Christian Science isn't covered because tests show that it doesn't work, then alternative medicine won't be covered either, for the same reason. This is a small part of a big fight.
Posted by: Sastra | February 26, 2009 1:42 PM
You know, we visit doctor's offices and pay them for their services because they've been trained to make medical treatments -- we pay them for their time and expertise.
Now CS implies that there are some people whose prayers are inherently more effective than others? So, suppose 1% of the U.S. population gets into the prayer business, if someone request a prayer from the general population, say senator Edwards, for example -- it could potentially turn into several million billable hours to the insurance industry?
Posted by: Lucas | February 26, 2009 2:33 PM
For the fun of being contrary as much as anything else, I want to weigh in my support for CS-based insurance. I see insurance as legalized gambling, with pre-defined buy-in and certain restrictions on the pay-out. From that point of view, I see nothing wrong with insurance companies taking CS-adherants' premium money, and providing benefits that fit their wrongheaded beliefs.
I admit that my reasoning is a little weaker when tax funds come into play, but the "frredom of religion" rights of the patient seem to me to override the "no establishment of religion" requirement for the government.
My only real problem with such coverage is when it is allowed and applied to people unable to make the decision for themselves - children, especially. But that is a problem with CS whether they're insured or not. In general, though, I think people should have the right to be stupid - and paying insurance premiums that provide ineffective care certainly qualifies.
Posted by: BobApril | February 26, 2009 3:35 PM
"Nervous as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
-Tom Lehrer
Posted by: khan | February 26, 2009 5:05 PM
Three points:
1. Christian Scientists do not choose prayer over medical treatment because we are "stupid" or "wrongheaded" or any of a thousand other pejoratives that have been hurled at us over the years. We choose prayer over medical treatment because in our experience, it works. My mother having been healed of medically diagnosed infertility through CS treatment, I consider my own existence to be tangible proof of the efficacy of Christian Science. To convince me that CS does not work, one would first have to convince me that I do not exist.
2. If insurance companies realized the bargain they'd be getting, I think they'd be lining up to pay for CS treatment. Example: A CS practitioner healed me of endometriosis in two treatments, for which he charged me a grand total of $50. If someone knows of a doctor who can match that, I think my non-CS friends would really like to have his name and contact information.
3. Practitioners charge for their services because they are professionals who have devoted themselves to the full-time practice of CS healing. The practice is far more demanding than one might suppose, and practitioners have to be available 24/7 to take care of their patients, so it doesn't make sense for a practitioner to have another job. They charge for their work because A.) their work is valuable, and B.) they need to support themselves.
Posted by: Emily | February 26, 2009 6:31 PM
eric wins the thread, hands down and folded.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 26, 2009 7:14 PM
Emily, when you say that CS healing `works', can you please point to any studies in the medical literature that prove this? As a believer myself, I do believe in prayer when one or a loved one is sick, but I also believe that God helps those who help themselves. I am naturally skeptical of prayer sans other treatment.
An experiment where believers are divided into one group where CS practitioners do the work, and another that received prayer and conventional medical treatments, would go a long way to confirming or refuting your claims. I put believers into both groups because I don't want to rule out divine assistance in healing. Such an experiment, if properly replicated, would clearly tell us whether on not CS `works'.
(By the way, I know a guy who bangs saucepans together to get rid of illnesses. He's suffering from diabetes, arthritis, gingivitis, myxomatosis, and carpal tunnel syndrome, but is the first to admit that if only he'd banged MORE saucepans, more loudly and more enthusiastically, he'd be healthy today.)
Posted by: Vincent Manis | February 26, 2009 7:16 PM
no. you choose it because in your delusions it works.
you see, we have this system for finding out whether a method really works or not, whether the folks who use it are just mistaken --- or deluded, or whatever --- or not. it's called empiricism, and in medicine, it's applied through the method of the randomized double-blind trial. it's very, very good at separating fact from fantasy, reality from one's fondest delusions. it's a bit tricky and cumbersome to use, but that's partly because us humans are so frustratingly good at deluding ourselves.
funny thing, though --- when you apply this method to intercessory prayer, you find that prayer doesn't work.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 26, 2009 7:22 PM
Folks other then Emily, I apologize for the long post. Emily, please read the whole thing. And read it again in a few days, when you've calmed down.
Emily,
The problem is that Christian Science *doesn't* work. You believe it does because people you trust have told you that it does - because you've listened to the testimonials on Wednesday nights, and read them in the Journal. Maybe you've even experienced 'healings', where you had a problem, and prayed or read and it got better.
The thing is, when you look at the scientific studies people have done to see if Christian Science works -- it doesn't. Here's an example of one way this has been studied -- scientists looked at groups of people to see how long they lived. They found out that Christian Scientists don't live as long as people who aren't Christian Scientists. If Christian Science worked the way that Key to the Scriptures teaches us it does, those studies should have found that Christian Scientists live longer.
Here's the summary of one study:
Gale Wilson was an autopsy surgeon for the coroner in King County, Washington, USA who studied death records in that county from 1935-1955. He (or she) found that Christian Scientists tended to die at a slightly earlier age than non-Christian scientists; that the cancer death rate for Christian Scientists was twice the national average, and that at least 6% of Christian Science deaths were medically preventable [Wil]
And here's another one:
William Franklin Simpson conducted the study most devastating to Christian Science's health claims. He compared graduates of Principia College (a Christian Science school) to graduates of the University of Kansas, and concluded with high confidence that graduates of Principia died at an earlier age than the control group [Simp].
Another simple way we can study Christian Science to see if it works is to look at how many people get sick from vaccine preventable diseases. Again, we find evidence that Christian Science doesn't work -- now this isn't great evidence , because it's based on one institution - Principia, but it is strong evidence. People at Principia get the measles alot more often then people in the general population, and when they get measles they get sicker and die more often then people in the general population. Why? Because most of the people who work and study at Principia aren't vaccinated.
So there is plenty of evidence, Emily, that Christian Science doesn't work. So why do so many people think that it does? There are a couple of simple answers for that, too.
The first answer has to do with reporting bias --- you've heard lots of stories about how Christian Science has worked, because people who believe in Christian Science only want to tell the stories where it worked, and anytime anyone tries to talk about how Christian Science didn't work for them, they are told something like "You just have fully realized the Truth, yet."
Reporting bias encourages everyone to tell the same kind of story -- this is what you see when you read the Journal. The Journal doesn't publish testimonials about people who didn't get healed, only ones who did. This is bad science, and it's bad reporting too, because the Journal doesn't do anything to make sure that the testimonials it is publishing are true.
Another reason that it can be easy to believe that Christian Science works is that most people don't get really sick or injured, and a lot of the time when a person is just a little sick or hurt, they can better without any help at all. So, a lot of the time, no matter what you do, a sick person is going to get better. Just because you get better when you do something, like praying, doesn't mean the praying is what made you better.
Emily, I really hope you are still reading this. I'm worried about you, and your family. Christian Science can be a very dangerous thing to believe -- it can make people ignore medical problems that are very serious, and people can die. Please think about what I've written, and consider reading a book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. It's a really good book about how people think, and why they believe things that aren't true.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions, or just want to talk -- I know how hard it can be to think about Christian Science, and to let yourself doubt, but you will be so much safer and happier if you let yourself benefit from everything that modern science and medicine has to offer. I can be reached at greensoul -insert at here- gmail dot com.
Posted by: PennyBright | February 26, 2009 11:59 PM
I can see in this a new health plan that will help remedy our current economic woes: Pay a basic living wage to unemployed people to pray for strangers who are ill. The unemployment rate goes down. And because most of the patients die, jobs will open up and the overall cost of healthcare will eventually go down because there are fewer sick people.
Posted by: Gerry L | February 27, 2009 12:06 AM
I am not aware of any clinical studies on this particular subject, but I have never looked for them, either; given the choice between statistics and direct, personal experience, I invariably choose the latter as a basis for my decisions. A journalist for many years, I found that studies were often flawed, and statistics were often manipulated to serve the purposes of one group or another.
I don't need empirical evidence to tell me that a chronic illness -- which lasted 15 years and confounded the best efforts of the medical establishment -- vanished into thin air immediately after I received Christian Science treatment for it. I know it happened. I experienced it. All the gratuitous sarcasm and unwarranted condescension in the world will not change that fact.
Anyone interested in finding out what Christian Scientists believe and what is actually involved in our system of healing is welcome to read our textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy. You can find a free PDF of the book online here.
Posted by: Emily | February 27, 2009 12:32 AM
I would love to know how much of our tax dollars are spent on C.S. prayers. What a scandal!
This is a great reason why government should stay out of the healthcare business. Once health insurance is nationalized, it becomes the political football of special interests trying to get their little goodies added to it. If the Christian Scientists get their people elected, then prayer coverage is added and the secularists get mad and create a special interest group to try to overturn it. The secularists get elected, they strip it out and now the Christian Scientists are mad and suing or lobbying to put it back. There is no possible way to make all 300 million people happy at the same time. Implementing one size fits all programs like national healthcare encourages factions that will always be striving to get elected so they can remake healthcare based on their own values. Bastiat discussed this tendency in his work The Law. It is a great read if you haven't dug into it before.
The best solution is for the government to stay out of it altogether and let private companies choose what to cover and what not to cover based on the needs of their business and the customers they serve. If a private company decides they don't want to cover prayer treatment, then great. If another one does, then great. The companies serve the markets they choose to serve and everybody is happy.
Posted by: mroberts | February 27, 2009 12:45 AM
No, mroberts, that's why you keep religion out of government.
Posted by: Bachalon | February 27, 2009 12:54 AM
It was just an example Bachalon. Any value system could be inserted in place of "Christian Science" and my point would be the same. Don't miss the main point by getting lost in irrelevant minutiae.
Posted by: mroberts | February 27, 2009 1:08 AM
Penny: Thank you for your concern. You may be relieved to learn that Christian Scientists are not required to forgo medical treatment if the situation seems to warrant it. Rather, we are encouraged to practice from our current point of understanding and to be honest to where we are. Mrs. Eddy advises us to "emerge gently from matter into Spirit," which I take to mean that we should not bite off more than we can chew. Not all Christian Scientists follow this advice, but I try to. There was a time, early in my study of Christian Science, when I might treat one condition with prayer, another with herbs, and still another with conventional medicine.
I look at it like math. The average six-year-old cannot solve quadratic equations. Does this mean that the quadratic formula does not work? Of course not. It simply means that the student's understanding has not advanced enough for him to be able to apply it effectively. I would hope that a skeptic would not regard my shaky grasp of analytic geometry as evidence that analyt is bunk. Likewise, I would hope that a skeptic would not regard my (or anyone else's) present understanding of Christian Science as evidence that the entire system of healing is bunk. Metaphysics, like math, is absolute ... but human understanding of metaphysics, like human understanding of math, lies somewhere along a continuum, and the exact point on that continuum is going to vary from individual to individual. The best thing any of us can do is to be honest to where we are -- and patient with those who may be at a different point of understanding.
Posted by: Emily | February 27, 2009 1:14 AM
It already is that way. For some of us, anyway.
This isn't about goodies, it's about using tax payer money to line the pockets of charlatans and liars. Proven charlatans and liars, I should add.
The point isn't to make everyone happy. It's to give them some standard of health care. Some reasonable expectation that they or their children will not have to die, declare bankruptcy or needlessly suffer because they don't have money to afford treatment.
This isn't an argument against why government can't deal with health care, it's an opportunity for mroberts to demonstrate once and for all why the "pro-life" moniker is such a fucking joke.
Except that everyone isn't happy. Nevermind that "the market" has not provided a good solution to this problem. Health care costs have sky-rocketed compared to the rest of the world. We pay more for less and tend to survive less. Particularly if we are black, poor, or if we are less educated. We suffer more crime, more poverty. We have the highest infant mortality rates, the least amount of maternal and paternal leave of pretty much all developed nations. Should we really be bragging about this?
By almost any measure we are not an example to the rest of the world. Unless by example you mean "how not to do shit".
Clearly, the status is not quo.
Posted by: Leni | February 27, 2009 1:33 AM
mroberts:
You're right; there really is no way to make 300M people happy. In fact it's hard to make 3 people happy. You could make me very happy, though, by spewing your idiocy on a forum where it might actually be appreciated. LGF, Powerline or one of the other braindead reichwing blogs come to mind. I think you're a masochist, but for fuck's sake, man, pull your head out of your ass and think for yourself. Oh, btw, shut the fuck up.
Posted by: democommie | February 27, 2009 4:45 AM
Well, obviously! Some believer you'd make otherwise!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 27, 2009 7:03 AM
emily:
If prayer works why won't god heal amputees? Surely loss of a limb is as deserving of healing as chronic back pain...
Posted by: cthulhu | February 27, 2009 8:20 AM
And Emily - what about the people for whom it doesn't work?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | February 27, 2009 8:27 AM
Posted by: Taz | February 27, 2009 9:18 AM
Let's make this blindingly clear - Christian Science practiced by parents on their children is a horrible form of child abuse, whether they deny those children medical care, or indoctrinate their children into believing dogma which has been discredited as not only incapable of healing, but dangerous given their reluctance, procrastination, or refusal to engage in what has been statistically shown to optimize results, i.e., medical care. They also abuse their children by indoctrinating them in a way that limits their children's education and career opportunities.
Emily - if you are parent and given your beliefs, you are abusing your children if you have any. Simple as that. You are no better than a pedophile. What you've presented in defense of yourself is ignorance of the achievements of medical care coupled to rhetorical and logical fallacies designed to defend your delusions. We can see through it because we understand the arguments for and against your position while also understanding rhetorical and logical fallacy statements as PennyBright and Taz point out. You can't see through it because you've already argued you've never considered the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your superstitions, plus admittance you'd reject it if it was compelling as biased even when it's not, plus you are unable to even develop coherent arguments devoid of logical fallacies and instead based on empirical evidence that is statistically significant, e.g., the severe reporting bias you depend on here plus your outright rejection of statistically significant evidence that has been established as legitimate.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 27, 2009 10:17 AM
Except that everyone isn't happy. Nevermind that "the market" has not provided a good solution to this problem. Health care costs have sky-rocketed compared to the rest of the world. We pay more for less and tend to survive less.
Yes, and it is not the free market that is to blame. Government has regulated healthcare to death, and it is dying because of it. In California, the legislature mandates that insurance companies cover all kinds of procedures, which means that have more costs. When they have more costs, they do what? They raise their rates! This is no surprise, folks. People that buy insurance have to pay for all these new coverage requirements even though they don't want them. High costs is partly a government-created problem. Why do we need insurance for a routine doctor visit anyway? Insurance is for catastrophic disasters, not routine things. By involving insurance and managed care and government in the process of a routine doctor visit, you add people that need to be paid for their work and it just drives up costs. Folks, government healthcare is not the answer. Look at Canada. They have government healthcare and it is expensive and substandard. Canadians come to the US for healthcare.
The primary way that government controls costs for universal healthcare is by rationing benefits, which puts government bureaucrats in the position of deciding who gets coverage and who doesn't. This already happens in Britain.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article4498748.ece
In a free market, it is possible to have limitless healthcare because the market always responds to the needs of potential customers.
Posted by: mroberts | February 27, 2009 10:43 AM
mroberts, what procedures, how much do they cost, and how often are they performed?
Weird, I just looked up the death rate of Canada vs. the US and it turns out their death rate is lower than ours. Don't even try to tell me that medical care has nothing to do with that.
Their life expectancy seems to be higher as well.
Assuming you're right (and that's a big if), for what reasons (medical and personal) are they coming to US?
I was wondering how long it would be until someone uttered some bullshit about the "free market."
Posted by: Bachalon | February 27, 2009 12:44 PM
In a free market, it is possible to have limitless healthcare because the market always responds to the needs of potential customers.
That's one of the dumbest thing I have ever read.
It's impossible to have "limitless" ANYTHING. The universe is finite. The planet is finite. TIME is finite.
Why does the overall state of healthcare in the country always improve when universal healthcare is institued?
The market has no ethics. In healthcare, if someone can't afford it, the market won't care one way or the other -- that person might as well die.
Posted by: R. Sherman | February 27, 2009 1:07 PM
My original response got hung up in moderation due to links, so I'll just state this and let those interested Google the relevant data...
In a word, BULLSHIT. According to a 2008 OECD report, Canada's health care costs are far lower than the States both as percent of GDP (10% vs. 15.3%) and per capita ($3678 vs. $6714 in US dollars). And in spite of this, health care outcome are at least as good if not better in Canada (see the comparison reported by Guyatt in Open Medicine), and overall health indicators are generally superior (e.g., an infant mortality rate of 4.6 vs. 6.4, and lifespan of 80.3 years as opposed to 78.0).
Anyone who claims that Canadian health care is more expensive and produces poorer outcomes is either inexcusably uninformed or intentionally mendacious.
"Limitless" health care, even if that weren't an impossibility, does not necessarily result in best possible health for the population. If only some people can afford health care provided by the free market, it doesn't matter how available it is, it still won't help them.
The problem with free market health care is precisely that it views those in need as "customers", and provides its service on a basis of ability to pay. Oddly enough, we don't use this model with policing, or firefighting, or education...
Posted by: Tulse | February 27, 2009 1:13 PM
Tulse:
"intentionally mendacious" sounds like the name of that band Jack Black had a while back.
It's also a perfect description of mroberts.
Posted by: democommie | February 27, 2009 4:25 PM
Tulse:
I have talked to libertarians who claim that paying for police and firefighting would work. Of course they ignore the fact that unrestrained capitalism rewards bad behavior as well as good.
Posted by: cthulhu | February 27, 2009 6:28 PM
And I've talked to schizophrenics who claim they are Napoleon, but that doesn't make it true...
Posted by: Tulse | February 27, 2009 7:31 PM
Of course it isn't; I'm the real Napoleon.
Posted by: Bachalon | February 27, 2009 7:36 PM
Tulse: I'm a big fan of the Canadian system, but its advantages are less than is often stated, in that:
1. Many Canadians travel to the US to have minor surgeries for which there is a substantial waitlist at Canadian facilities (tonsils, for instance);
2. Provincial and national budgets understate health care costs by assigning facilities costs (ie, building and maintaining hospitals) to the "General Budget" category, rather than assigning them against health care.
Even accounting for these and lesser corrections, the Canadian system appears to be (slightly) cheaper while providing substantially better outcomes. The "Free Market" system of the US is not free, nor is it a success. We need a better model.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 27, 2009 7:46 PM
kehrsam, I don't think that anyone would argue the Canadian system is perfect -- I certainly won't. But I think it is indisputable that it is significantly cheaper than the US while producing as good or better outcomes that are distributed far more equitably in the population. I've lived under both systems, I would never willingly go back to US-style health insurance.
Posted by: Tulse | February 27, 2009 10:50 PM
kehrsam:
Since you bring up hidden costs. I don't know how the accounting is done, but I'm guessing the Geezermed Express that takes folks to places Windsor, Ontario or other Canadian border cities to buy their meds at greatly reduced prices must be costing somebody in Canada something.
Posted by: democommie | February 28, 2009 7:57 AM
The Canadian v. U.S. Health Care system comparison is a somewhat false comparison. We can also consider 'best practices' and 'lessons learned' from other countries, such as France, the U.K., Japan, and the Scandinavian countries.
Given our health care expectations and what we are paying now as a percentage of GDP, there are much better models to consider other than Canada. In fact, ignorant supporters of our status quo reflexively use Canada's model to argue against reform. It's to our advantage to swing the debate to the economics of France's model v. our model immediately given their perfect ignorance on best practices and then introduce the other countries' best practices.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 28, 2009 8:32 AM
Michael Heath:
Your thoughtful and well researched comment would be of great value to those chowderheads--IF they had any intention of listenig to reason or examining facts. As it is, you're preaching to the choir of those of us who know what you're saying is true while making what sounds like "la,la,la,la" noises to the idiots who have their fingers in their ears.
Posted by: democommie | February 28, 2009 9:52 AM
democommie - actually, I have some fun with this in verbal discussions around the dinner table. As soon as someone brings up health care reform, a conservative tells a story about wait times in Canada. I then ask what they think about the French model, the U.K. model, and the various Scandanavian models, leaves them sputtering. . .
Of course you are right the next time these conservatives engage, sans me, they'll go right back to their Canadian wait time meme.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 28, 2009 10:36 AM
Sastra: if you're still around, have you got a cite for that story by any chance? I'd be interested in reading about it (dates perhaps too).
CS-ers on-dogma do not believe in Satan or even 'evil' as such. There is only 'Error'. The other aspects to the story seem unusually harsh as well, from my experience (although people tend to bring with them the baggage of whatever religion they left and work it into CS in their own way). It's academic I guess, and the net result is likely the same, but by the sounds of it the people involved were being very bad CSers on top of everything else.
Posted by: Muzz | February 28, 2009 10:43 AM
Muzz,
While I am not familiar with the specific case that Sastra discusses, the story presented certainly sounds plausible. I think that given most people's general unfamiliarity with CS teachings, Sastra's use of 'Satan' instead of 'Error' can be forgiven - certainly the concepts are similiar.
For a brief overview of some known child deaths due to religious medical neglect (not all CS related) you can check out the CHILD web site : http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/homemain.htm
Keep in mind that CHILD is not a comprehensive overview of such deaths -- many more occur then end up in criminal court, or even in the media. I can attest from both anecdotal and personal experience that many CS parents do let their children suffer terribly in the name of their faith. I and the other children in the CS churches I attended growing up regularly shared our horror stories with each other. I got to listen to my younger brother scream for four hours one day while my mother tried to pray away a broken arm, a bloody towel wrapped around the protruding bone. It wasn't until his non-CS father got home that he got taken to the ER.
While it is true that 'official' church dogma doesn't mandate refusing conventional medicine, there is in my experience a massive social stigma attached to it within the church. CS teaches that you shouldn't need anything but prayer and 'Truth' to accomplish healing, and as prettily as people try to whitewash the facts away, the simple truth is that using conventional medicine is so severely frowned upon that devout believers just can't bring themselves to do it. When your only support system is your church and your practitioner, you're not going to do things that will get yourself ostracized. It is a terrible self preserving cycle of pain.
Posted by: PennyBright | February 28, 2009 1:30 PM
Penny: I am sorry your brother had such a horrible experience. There is nothing in Christian Science that would suggest that one should not have a bone set; in fact, Mrs. Eddy offers specific advice to the contrary.
I have not experienced the "massive social stigma" you describe, although I am aware that some have. Christian Scientists, like members of all other Christian denominations, are expected to obey Jesus' command to "judge not, that ye be not judged." Unfortunately, Christian Scientists, like members of all other Christian denominations, sometimes fail to follow Jesus' teachings. I am very sorry your family seems to have run across some of this behavior. A Christian Scientist who is truly practicing what Mrs. Eddy preached would never, ever make a mother feel guilty for seeking medical care for her child (or anyone else) when she felt it was appropriate. Those decisions are entirely between the Father and the individual, and it is not anyone else's place to judge.
Thank you for your concern, and thank you for being able to discuss this rationally and with a modicum of respect for those who may disagree with you. I do not agree with your generalizations about the church as a whole, but given your experiences, I can certainly understand why you would feel that way, and I hope that you are able to find physical and spiritual healing through whatever means are most comfortable for you personally.
Posted by: Emily | February 28, 2009 9:22 PM
Penny: Yeah cheers. Interesting stuff. I don't mean to drag this into "No True Christian Scientist..." teritory. I was just curious about the specifics. Luckily, my upbringing was a lot milder than yours by the sounds. But I know well enough that the zeal with which these things are applied (or misapplied for that matter) can vary wildly, and the effect of a fairly closed community and the implicit failure of resorting to medicine can be strong stuff by itself.
Posted by: Muzz | March 1, 2009 5:58 PM
Ahh, the classic 'No True Scotsman' question.
I'm comfortable with my generalizations - before I left the church I attended five different churches in three different states. I saw a man's face get eaten by tumors. I saw church "friends" refuse to speak to us when they found out my step father called for ambulance when he cut his leg open with a chainsaw. I had a friend die at the scene of an auto accident he was in because his un-injured father wouldn't let the paramedics treat him, and I listened to that father get praised for his faith during the Wednesday testimonial period.
Each of these things happened at a different church. The problem with Christian Science isn't the occasional bad apple - it's a bad barrel.
Posted by: PennyBright | March 1, 2009 8:27 PM
There was one religious organisation in the USA whose name escapes me but it did run several business enterprises including insurance businesses. Despite its belief in the efficacy of prayer in healing its premiums for both believers and nonbelievers were THE SAME. Both categories were adjudged to be at comparable risk.
Deep down...they don't believe it anyway.
Posted by: John Jennings | March 3, 2009 12:54 PM
Regarding Christian Science---guess what? CS has as much chance of healing major diseases as a doctor. Simple. I am not a CS'er but have been stuck in hospitals with THREE relatives for the last two months and have seen huge medical care abuses. HUGE. Charging hundreds of dollars for aspirin, for example. Home Health Care organizations are BILKING MEDICAID AND MEDICARE big time...honeys, THAT'S where your tax dollars are going! Why isn't anyone barking angry about THAT?!! CS practitioners are getting a tiny bit of insurance money as they are just a handful compared to the huge megalomaniacal system of physicians and allopaths. It's interesting how everyone is so anxious to condemn PRAYER but so willing to allow incompetent doctors who don't even know their patients names, much less their history, treat them! My aunt was stuck in a hospital all day with NO ONE EVEN COMING IN TO SEE IF SHE WAS OKAY and she had a PULMONARY EMBOLISM. She had to drag HERSELF to take a shower, even though she was HOOKED up to a monitor! No one even NOTICED that her monitor was off! No, folks, you can criticize CS or any other "quackery" as you may call it---but the real incompetence and billions of dollars is in YOU REMAINING IN YOUR SICKNESS which is the goal of all the money machine healthcare systems in the USA. "Keep 'em sick and keep doctor's pockets full!" CS has a lot of fringe lunatics like every religion, but none of that was sanctioned by Eddy (its founder). They DO go to doctors. That's like saying all Mormons are like the Mormon cult living in that compound in Texas! (When did Marie Osmond last dress in calico and not wear make-up?! She's even...gulp...DIVORCED!) Dr Larry Dossey (MD) wrote about how prayer was effective in healing. Time Magazine wrote a cover story on it last week. Prayer does work. Besides, A CS practitioner may charge 25 dollars for a session...how much did your doctor get on your last visit? How much did your hospital pocket from your last stay? You are wasting your energy protesting a religious group that is so small in number as to be (almost) insignificant. Go slay the real dragon---the wasteful spending in allopathic healthcare. I rest my case.
Posted by: Marianne | March 3, 2009 2:53 PM
Marianne:
No, prayer does not work. Try again, and try not to shout so much next time.
Posted by: Sean Michael | March 3, 2009 4:04 PM
Mary Baker Eddy died in 1910. Anyone who defaults to the medical advice of someone who was not a physicians and who's been dead for a century is brainwashed or mentally challenged, and certainly has no business raising kids.
Gee, what were MBE's thoughts on stem-cell research? Organ transplantation? MRSA?
Fucking sad, irresponsible bunch and I feel bad for anyone unlucky enough to have been in their clutches at any time. Obviously, some people never escape excapt through a (possibly premature) death.
Posted by: Dances with MILFs | March 3, 2009 4:59 PM
Many people have experienced that there is not just one approach to health care. What will be beneficial for everyone is that there be effective options available and that any mandated healthcare reform give insurance companies the freedom to decide what they will cover. I’m a Christian Scientist, and what you’ve been saying doesn’t ring true to me. I’ve had healings, and I know it works. Christian Science is a healthcare system that has successfully met the needs of people I know for many years …many generations. It’s reliable and cost-effective and should be included in healthcare reform legislation if our country’s program is to be truly universal.
Posted by: Chris Slaughter, Christian Science Committee on Publication for Texas | March 5, 2009 11:17 AM
Chris Slaughter - Bullshit. Produce clinical trials that show prayer is "effective" and "reliable", as you put it, or admit you're pushing superstitious nonsense. Personal anecdotes are worthless - you can get the same regarding any load of crap, from crop circles to channeling to alien invasions. Peddle your snake oil somewhere else.
Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2009 11:30 AM
Marianne, Chris Slaughter et al. -
No doubt when my great aunt Ellen died, her brethren in CS prayed for her healing. it didn't help. She died of diabetes anyway. Too bad a new-fangled treatment called 'Insulin' could have kept her alive for decades. Too bad it completely wrecked the life of her son, his grandmother, and several of his uncles and aunts.
But at least you and tour cult got to pray! -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | March 5, 2009 11:39 AM
Health Insurance Policy For All Seasons
This plans help in the payment of our health care before time. It is advisable to know the type of coverage that your health insurance plan gives to you, the rules and guidelines that governs your health insurance plans in details. Many health insurance plans covers things like injuries, outpatient visits and pregnancies. This reason makes health insurance planning very important. The right insurer can only be contacted via a trusted health insurance website.
Posted by: Finance Entry | March 18, 2009 11:50 PM