Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Christian Scientists and other religious groups that believe in faith healing over conventional medicine want the health care reform bill to make sure they've got coverage for their "treatment" choices.
Some of the bills advancing in the House and Senate would exempt religious objectors from mandates to obtain health coverage. More controversial is Christian Science's wish to see its prayer-based healing approach covered like conventional medical treatment. And they want spiritual options to be available to all Americans, not just those who follow their religion."It's so important that anyone in this country, not just Christian Scientists, not be discriminated against because they use spiritual care or rely on it instead of conventional medical treatment," said Phil Davis, who manages media and legislative affairs for Christian Scientists globally.
I think that's a great idea. Insurance companies should not only pay faith healers, they should pay for the salt that other superstitious people want to throw over their shoulder, and for chicken's blood for voodoo practitioners to sprinkle around someone's house. Maybe even some wing of bat or eye of newt that might be necessary to put together an effective spell, and "healing crystals" and runes too.
Because it would be "discrimination" not to, right? Well, no. It would not be. You have every right to believe in whatever ridiculous bullshit you want to believe in; you don't have any right to have other people pay for it.
Some of this stuff is really quite funny:
That would entail coverage under private and public health insurance for the work of 1,100 Christian Science "practitioners," professionals in the church who help others with prayer for healing, as well as its nurses and nursing facilities.Christian Science practitioners do not operate directly out of the church, leaders say, but are screened through an application and discipline process set forth by the Christian Science Journal.
That's funny. They have certified praying people.
But Christian Scientists say they are a legitimate alternative."What we face in any mandated health care reform is: Will the public have access to something beyond conventional medical treatment?" Davis said. "Will the menu of options simply include a conventional approach or will there be other options, including spiritual care as taught in Christian Science?"
If the answer isn't no, some people have clearly lost their minds.
Politics
Comments
What's to cover? There shouldn't be any costs to prayer (there certainly aren't any benefits). What's the usual co-pay for a free service?
Posted by: uknesvuinng | October 15, 2009 9:25 AM
Once again: What do you call 'alternative medical treatment' that works? You call it 'medical treatment'.
These religious nutjobs need to keep their prayer in their churches and to themselves. Trying to squeeze their way into legislation is their way, though. Then again, it might be nice if the consenting adults in those congregations used prayer as their only medical treatment.
Posted by: Dan J | October 15, 2009 9:30 AM
Oh gods no. Yet another thing to write to my representatives about this week.
Free? You've never worked with a CS practitioner, I see. Phone talks will run you 20-80 dollars, depending on the length, complexity of topic, and popularity of the practitioner.
Seriously - kill this, kill it now. This kind of spiritual care kills people. Mostly children. Everyone - please write to your representatives - refer them to http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/victims.htm .
Posted by: PennyBright | October 15, 2009 9:36 AM
What's to cover? There shouldn't be any costs to prayer (there certainly aren't any benefits). What's the usual co-pay for a free service?
Obviously somebody somewhere is making some money off of it. (And they want more.)
Posted by: 386sx | October 15, 2009 9:37 AM
I thought the gist of the treatment that is wasn't a traditional medical science approach.
Now they wanted to be treated like they are medical science and have the same standing?
Ha ha.
Posted by: Clifford Pickard | October 15, 2009 9:40 AM
Actually, I think the more nearly correct term here would be "certifiable praying people."
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | October 15, 2009 9:44 AM
It's very unnerving since the entire motivation behind health care reform is to reduce costs and increase access. If we allow nonsensical "treatments" into the plan, it will just mean we're paying extra for nothing, and costs will rise. It could unravel the entire point of the reforms.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | October 15, 2009 9:46 AM
Does their demand to have coverage violate the First Amendment?
Posted by: Katharine | October 15, 2009 9:50 AM
Private individuals, devoid of any government power, cannot violate the 1st Amendment.
Now, if the government were to actually accede to their demands... I cannot fathom how actually paying people to pray with taxpayer's money would not be an endorsement of religion.
Posted by: DaveL | October 15, 2009 9:58 AM
I'm assuming "Christian Science" is willing to undertake controlled clinical studies and submit evidence of safety and efficacy to the FDA, right?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | October 15, 2009 10:00 AM
These morons need to be put in jail not reimbursed. There is plenty of evidence that shows the that prayer does not work as a medical treatment and has the potential, due to inaction, of costing the health care system more money down the road when someone's condition gets worse and the end up in the emergency room.
I thought two of the goals of health care reform was increased efficiency and preventative care. These snake oil salesmen achieve neither. Ed, do you have any names of congressmen that are trying to push for this? I want to know who these batshit insane people are.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 15, 2009 10:06 AM
So parents can pray over their sick child until he dies, and get PAID for it? By the taxpayers?
And since when was it "discrimination" to say -- based on mountains of evidence -- that your faith-based "alternative medicine" doesn't work, and therefore isn't worth paying for by anyone?
Do these people actually take themselves seriously? Or are they trying to kill public health-care policy by making unreasonable and divisive demands?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 15, 2009 10:10 AM
I hate to point out that we are already subsidizing this, but indirectly. The medical expenses part of Schedule A (Form 1040) allows deductions for Christian Science Practitioners, Acupunture, and Chiropractic treatments. There are attempted deductions for all other manner of woo as well, but only those three are specifically allowed. See IRS Pub. 17.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 15, 2009 10:17 AM
Actually, yes, it would be discrimination. Whenever you make a distinction between two sets, you're discriminating - we do it all the time. Students taking a test try to discriminate between right and wrong answers; people looking to buy a car must discriminate between makes and models; Congress writing a healthcare reform bill must discriminate between bullshit treatments and actual medicine (or, you know, leave it up to the actual medical authorities, instead of trying to cover all the corner cases of a gigantic field themselves).
It's this stupid "discrimination is always bad" blanket that lets bullshit like this proposal get anywhere. Discriminating between ideas is a good thing!
Posted by: Tacroy | October 15, 2009 10:18 AM
Oh yeah and I forgot to add: in 2006, a study was completed that showed no difference in health outcomes between heart surgery patients who were prayed for and patients who weren't. Since there were a total of 1800 cases, the effect of prayer must be negligible if greater than zero. For some reason nobody ever seems to know about this study - probably because it showed no effect, and thus is generally uninteresting.
New York Times' report on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Posted by: Tacroy | October 15, 2009 10:23 AM
Perhaps the 'Christian Scientists' haven't heard, Obama is setting up panels that will assess the effectiveness of the treatment given and pay-out in accordance to the treatment's outcome on patients as a whole. No improvement in outcome for the patient over non-treatment; no change in your pocket. Sorry 'bout that suckers. - DJ
________________________
PS: see here. Now THAT'S EFFECTIVE TREATMENT.
Posted by: DIngoJack | October 15, 2009 10:33 AM
Christian Science
This has to rate as the greatest oxymoron of all time. Can someone please explain to these people what science actually entails.
I think this actually means,Will the public have access to woo so I can get rich off of someone's ignorance, at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 15, 2009 10:35 AM
Tacroy,
It does not appear that the NY Times study used certified prayer givers. If it would have, I'm sure there would have been different results.
Posted by: Odie | October 15, 2009 10:38 AM
if their "service" is praying to god for the patient to be healed, how about we "reimburse" them by praying to god for them to be paid?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | October 15, 2009 10:38 AM
Doug: "Christian Science" is neither, so how can that phrase be an oxymoron? Can nothing contradict nothing?
Oh, and I think Nomen has the right solution to this question.
Posted by: Raging bee | October 15, 2009 10:58 AM
As a former CS and current atheist I would like to say that it is high time for this religion to die off.
Other than the Christian Science Monitor newpaper there is nothing of value and much harm coming from this cult.
Posted by: GregB | October 15, 2009 11:14 AM
I think you're all being terribly short-sighted about this. I mean, sure, there's the pointless up-front cost of paying the certified prayer specialists. But since the patients will probably have a very high mortality rate, think of the fortune we'll be saving on expensive hospital care!
Posted by: Dave | October 15, 2009 12:11 PM
Actually, what I'd love to see in the bill is severe penalties for practicing medicine without a license applied to faith healers and other medical scam artists.
Posted by: BaldApe | October 15, 2009 12:20 PM
Raging Bee,
Last time I checked christian philosophy is definitely at odds with the scientific method, or reality in general. Yeah not technically an oxymoron, I'll concede defeat.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 15, 2009 12:25 PM
Has Glenn Beck announced that Obama's Death Panel will prohibit prayers for speedy recoveries?
Posted by: mark | October 15, 2009 12:30 PM
Oh, this is so disingenuous. "Have access." They're trying to make it sound as if people will be forbidden from praying to God for a healing, or prevented from taking whatever bit of nonsense they want to take. If they can frame it that way, they'll get a lot more sympathy and support than if they came right out and were clear about what they're demanding here.
Posted by: Sastra | October 15, 2009 12:42 PM
Just what we need: subsidies for people to close their eyes and wish really hard for a solution.
Maybe that's what we should have done with the TARP money. Given it to Pat Robertson so that he could pray really hard to improve the economy. Then all our woes would be cured.
Posted by: JStein | October 15, 2009 1:15 PM
Do a little actuarial analysis. If CS patients are part of a mandatory "public option" - paying in at a standard rate - and their only insurance reimbursements are for prayer-based healing methods, they will be paying into the insurance a lot more than they will ever get out for reimbursements to prayer-based healers.
So, is that a problem if they are suckers?
Posted by: natural cynic | October 15, 2009 1:30 PM
It certainly implies that cost is a barrier concerning access to prayer.
I don't know which would be a more damning indictment of Christian Science - that they actually think prayer is effective against illness or that your church will refuse to pray for you if you're too poor to front the cash.
Posted by: DaveL | October 15, 2009 1:38 PM
natural cynic,
Those prayer based procedures aren't cheap. It's not easy garnering the lord's attention these days, he is extremely busy and requires many a tithing before he will even hear a case, and it doesn't hurt to sacrifice an animal or two as well which don't come free of charge.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 15, 2009 1:46 PM
"You have every right to believe in whatever ridiculous bullshit you want to believe in; you don't have any right to have other people pay for it."
The whole point of the health insurance debates we're having now is forcing people to pay for things whether they want them or not. Anyone in favor of a government-run health care system of one of the forms currently being proposed without specialized care for Christian "Scientists" is saying that they favor forcing CS's to pay for treatment that they wouldn't use but are against forcing everyone else to pay for "treatment" that only CS's will use. The fact that the CS's are wrong doesn't make the hypocrisy of this view go away.
I'd say the quoted sentence above is 100% accurate, but that the only way to achieve it is to immediately end all talk of a government-run health care system and begin an immediate push for free-market health care reform.
Posted by: Miko | October 15, 2009 2:07 PM
Perhaps if the reimbursement rate could be somehow tied to the degree the treatment method improves over treatment via placebo?
Posted by: abb3w | October 15, 2009 2:13 PM
Horseshit. It's about making sure everyone will have access to effective medical care if and when they need it.
I favour forcing people to pay taxes towards effective and necessary treatments for those who need them, whether they themselves use them or not. Men do not get to withhold tax monies from gynecological or obstetric care, just as pacifists don't get to withhold taxes from the Department of Defense, just as the childless don't get to withhold taxes from public schools. The fact that some people cannot or will not avail themselves of important public services does not invalidate the concept of public services.
Prayer cannot resort to the same justification, because it doesn't work. To pay for it, therefore, is a waste of money and serves no purpose but to advance CS medical claims as being on par with medical science. It's an illegal endorsement of religion, it's a disservice to science, and it's an affront to taxpayers.
Actually, as I have just shown, it does.
Posted by: DaveL | October 15, 2009 2:18 PM
I look at these things as retard taxes except in the case of children, in which case they become torture.
It's sort of similar to psychics and gambling machines: it bankrupts the stupid, whether of their money or their life.
Posted by: Katharine | October 15, 2009 2:34 PM
Posted by: Doug Little | October 15, 2009 2:42 PM
I'm all for it. I need a second income, and getting paid at an M.D. rate for sitting on my can helping people pray sounds great. :O
I've got a great amendment for the bill, too: base government reimbursement on the efficacy of diety. We'd first have to take data on it, of course. But surely our representatives can't object to providing the public with the ability to make an informed decision on whether a Jesus-prayer or Buddha-prayer is better for gout. :)
Posted by: eric | October 15, 2009 2:55 PM
We're already underwriting homeopathy, acupuncture, and reiki. Seems like the Good Ship Sanity is long departed.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | October 15, 2009 3:12 PM
Posted by: Sara | October 15, 2009 4:03 PM
Dave@22:
Not necessarily. These would also be the people who would try to pray away the early warning signs of easily-cured/preventable diseases until they get so sick that expensive emergency medical services are needed (assuming that they get dragged, unconscious, into a hospital by sane people).
Posted by: Monimonika | October 15, 2009 4:56 PM
Then there would be those who would try to pray away nothing in particular and charge for it. Treating the healthy to make them extra-super-healthy-in-some-unspecified-way is a mainstay of alternative medicine.
Posted by: DaveL | October 15, 2009 5:24 PM
@naturalcynic
Not true. There is a significant christian "science" population where I train, and when they get heart attacks, they come to the ER like everyone else. The difference is they send their families out of the room before they say "Do everything you can!" Since they avoid primary care in favor of prayer care, they're generally in pretty crappy shape to begin with.
Posted by: Whitecoat Tales | October 15, 2009 5:43 PM
The whole point of the health insurance debates we're having now is forcing people to pay for things whether they want them or not.
Yeah, and we pay taxes for cops and firefighters and Medevac choppers, whether or not we'll ever need them ourselves! Oh, the unfairness of it all!! Cue the hormone-driven teenage rebellious self-pity!!! Oh wait, I'm not a teenager anymore. Never mind.
Miko, you're an idiot. Read a book about how insurance works. Then, if you can handle that, read another book about how civilized societies work.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 15, 2009 6:56 PM
I'm not so sure. The British government has been expanding coverage on a host of alternative woo therapies every bit as ineffective as intercessory prayer. Why? It saves the system money. Most primary care complaints heal themselves in time, and woo costs less than clinic time or prescription pharmaceuticals.
It would be interesting to see a study of clinical outcomes and costs of CS populations vs general population groups (particularly the uninsured, woo users, well-insured perhaps).
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 15, 2009 9:14 PM
This is exactly why the federal government should stay limited to preserving our rights to life, liberty, and property. Once the federal government attempts to become a provider instead of a mere protector, it becomes the political football of every interest group demanding to get their interests written into the law. If we do get universal health care, the far left will want abortions funded. If the right takes over the government in the next election, they will write the abortion provisions out of the law. If the left takes over again in some election after that, they will put the abortion funding provisions back in. We end up with this endless seesaw of back and forth as interest groups endlessly battle to get their interests written into the law. Considering how many different interests groups are out there, it is not surprising that the result is endless political discord, greater polarization, and insanely complex laws.
The truth is, the federal government shouldn't be in the health care business, period. There is no authorization in the Constitution for it, and it just turns public policy into a political football battled over by every political interest group in the country.
Bastiat had some great thoughts on this issue:
As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.
Once the law goes from mere protector to provider, it must "plunder" somebody for the sake of another. Somebody's property must be confiscated to provide a benefit to some other that did not earn it. We see this today with the health care issue. If this health care bill passes, the rich (and possibly the middle class as well) and insurance companies will be plundered so that health care can be given to poorer people. You can bet that in the next election, the insurance companies and rich will battle to weaken the law while the poor will fight to preserve and strengthen it. The health care bill will become the political football of class warfare; the poor on one side, and businesses on the other endless fighting to write their interests into the law. Regardless of what side you would take, is this really healthy for our country?
My thinking is that government health care, if it occurs anywhere, should only occur at the state level. If the citizens of one state want to institute for themselves wasteful and unworkable programs like government health care, so be it. However, it should not occur at the federal level. It is unconstitutional and it becomes a political football fought over by every interest group, like the scientologists, as they endlessly battle to insert their two cents on the issue into the law.
Posted by: mroberts | October 15, 2009 10:29 PM
Raging Bee, civilized people don't condone the use of force against those who have not harmed or threatened anyone else. Only religious fanatics and people of your ilk do things like that. The society people such as you advocate for is certainly not a civilized one.
Posted by: steven | October 15, 2009 10:32 PM
Because being #1 in costs and #30-odd in outcomes is efficient and viable.
There may be legitimate arguments to be made against government health care. But that is so far from being one of them, that it runs straight into "flat-out lie" territory.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | October 16, 2009 1:01 AM
Steven@45, Miko and mroberts:
STFU, you idiots. If one of you morons would start a blog for the other morons to visit and stoke their delusions there it would be a good thing.
You want government out of the healthcare business? Cool, let's dump the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, the CDC, the FDA and all the rest of the federally managed/funded healthcare organizations. Let's also make sure that the current flu vaccines programs get stopped in their tracks, because everyone knows that GOD will save you--the millions of dead in the Spanish Influenza epidemic of 1918 notwtithstanding.
You ignorant clowns.
"There may be legitimate arguments to be made against government health care. But that is so far from being one of them, that it runs straight into "flat-out lie" territory." re: mroberts usual drivel.
You would expect something else from him?
Posted by: democommie | October 16, 2009 4:22 AM
Unworkable?
For pity's sake, first of all you are aware, aren't you, that the government already manages health care for the elderly, the indigent, soldiers, prisoners... pretty much all the most costly demographic groups there are to insure, and has for decades?
Also, did you not know that the United States is one of only two industrialized democracies that does not implement some form of universal healthcare, right? That's an awful lot of countries that have relied for generations on something you call 'unworkable'.
Further, while I agree that federalist principles put the proper place of public health care at the state level, how is a federal healthcare system 'unconstitutional'?
Posted by: DaveL | October 16, 2009 6:41 AM
Democommie, my advice to you is to try and remember what you learned back in kindergarten and then apply those same concepts to real life situations. The result could mean a dramatic improvement in your behavior.
Posted by: steven | October 16, 2009 7:26 AM
How is Raging Bee advocating the use of force? By making people pay taxes?
Listen, I have some sympathy for libertarian economic philosophy. I certainly can see how unfair it seems to force people to pay costs that they did not incur, simply because they are able to pay them. Consider this scenario, however:
Let's say that, as happens any number of times each year in the U.S., some meth dealer manages to blow up his home in a giant cloud of anhydrous ammonia. What happens next? Firefighters arrive on the scene, the an ambulance, HAZMAT crew, and finally police. Any survivors get evacuated to a hospital where they are decontaminated and treated. Meanwhile the firefighters and HAZMAT are still cleaning up the toxic scene of destruction. Later the police will file charges, a prosecutor will be assigned to the case, the dealer will likely be represented by a public defender, and his whole case will be presided over by a judge. Likely, he will be convicted and sent to prison for several years, where dentists will attempt to salvage his meth-damaged teeth.
Now, who pays for all this? Think of the combined years of specialized training for firefighters, HAZMAT crews, EMTs, ER Doctors, police, all the lawyers, the corrections officers, all the way down to the prison dentist. Think of all the specialized equipment. Think of all the specialized facilities, from the hospital to the prison.
Who will pay? The incarcerated addict? You can't get blood from a stone.
You and I will pay, and all the other people who are economically productive. Because we can.
Alternatively, we could decide to just shoot the survivors on the scene. That reduces our costs somewhat, but now we have to contend with lawsuits from the relatives of innocent bystanders who just happened to be at the wrong house when someone's pressure vessel ruptured. We also have to pay for the bullets. We also have to be willing to pay whatever it takes to convince a person of good conscience to shoot a helpless casualty who may or may not bear any responsibility for the situation at hand (Alternatively, we can hand out guns to people who don't mind killing helpless innocents. See how well that works out.). Of course, once the meth-makers understand they will receive no quarter, you can bet they'll give none in return. Expect any such scene to be booby trapped to the hilt.
So maybe we should go still further and not touch such a scene at all. No police, no firefighters, no HAZMAT. A very cheap solution, unless you live nearby and you're the kind of person who minds living around vacant lots full of toxic chemicals and strewn with rotting bodies. I don't imagine that would do wonders for your property value. But now we have the same problem- costs being forcibly borne by people who didn't incur them.
That's the problem: you will pay. You can pay for public schools and food stamps. Or you can save money on that and pay for the extra police and jails to absorb the legions of unemployable and idle young people. Or you can skip the police and pay for a walled compound patrolled by your own private armed guards. Either way, you will pay. The question is, which sort of society will you pay to live in?
Is it fair to make people pay for social programs they don't use? No. It isn't fair. But it is practical. And civilized. And humane.
Posted by: DaveL | October 16, 2009 7:29 AM
However you guys feel about Steven, Miko, and mroberts, it is unfortunately inevitable that creating government programs like this will result in such claims for inclusion by various groups who ought not be included. You can rant about the woo-meisters all you want, but once we as a people say we're going to hand out public monies for X, suddenly everyone who can find some remote cover for X will try to claim it. That's simply the way government works. You've opened the door by demanding a government program, whatever the justness of that program, and it's not that easy to close when the line forms behind it.
Oppose them by all means--dear god please oppose them!--but to act shocked that they're making such claims is to reveal either a stunning naievete, or a cynicism worthy of Captain Renault.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 16, 2009 7:37 AM
James hanley,
You are no doubt shocked, shocked that there is
gambling going ondubious health care provided here.DaveL,
Excellent summary of, well, modern urban civilization. No good choices without money.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 16, 2009 9:24 AM
Once the federal government attempts to become a provider instead of a mere protector, it becomes the political football of every interest group demanding to get their interests written into the law.
A lecture on government incompetence -- from a Paultard who advocates the gold standard? As usual, the people who scream loudest about how gummint cain't get nothin' right, are the same people who vote for uncaring morons who go out of their way to make the worst, most shortsighted and incompetent decisions possible.
The fact that you, mroberts, can't imagine government acting maturely, when the "liberals" you routinely trash manage to do just that every day, all over the world, only proves you have no clue what you're talking about, and should just shut the hell up and let more intelligent people lead the public debate.
The only reason this is an issue at all, is that too many reich-wingers like mroberts refuse to admit that religion is not the equal of science. Recognize this, and separating good medicine from obvious BS becomes a LOT easier.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 16, 2009 9:46 AM
You've opened the door by demanding a government program, whatever the justness of that program, and it's not that easy to close when the line forms behind it.
So whenever we advocate a government program, it automatically becomes our fault when someone tries to abuse it? Your phrase "whatever the justness of that program" pretty much admits the dishonesty of your claim: if you can oppose a just and necessary program with that reasoning, then it's not a valid objection.
In case you haven't noticed, most such programs come with at least some bureaucratic mechanism for weeding out frivolous, invalid and fraudulent claims. All you need to do is write a sensible set of rules -- and, of course, be willing to pay for the enforcement.
Posted by: Raging bee | October 16, 2009 9:56 AM
Here's how we can get the religious crap out of the health-care debate once and for all: get a bunch of Pagans to push for an amendment to fund THEIR stupid woo, and force the Republicans to choose between: a) supporting a religion they call "devil-worship" to try and discredit the health-care program; or b) laughing the unproven religious woo out of town. Once they do the latter, then the same logic can be turned against the "Christian Science" asshats, and there will be no more talk of funding unproven faith-healing.
(The problem, of course, isn't finding unproven Pagan woo; it's finding enough Pagans shameless enough to knowingly hawk the dumbest of their woo to Congress. Hey, we'll do ritual buck-naked, but that doesn't mean we don't have standards...)
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 16, 2009 10:21 AM
Doug Little "These snake oil salesmen achieve neither."
They aren't snake oil salesmen. They're imaginary snake oil salesmen.
mroberts "The truth is, the federal government shouldn't be in the health care business, period. There is no authorization in the Constitution for it, and it just turns public policy into a political football battled over by every political interest group in the country."
So we should cut all social programs? The VA? The EPA? The FDA? How about public roads? I mean, Big Highway is always trying to push their "roads", fighting Big Granola which fights to tear them up.
"You can bet that in the next election, the insurance companies and rich will battle to weaken the law while the poor will fight to preserve and strengthen it."
So we should just skip all that and side with Big Business-slash-the rich?
"Regardless of what side you would take, is this really healthy for our country?"
Fighting to make your neighbour's life less miserable is better than giving up. Who knows, maybe he'll even help me out when I need it, through supporting some program via his vote and his taxes.
But I suppose you're against the idea of reciprocal altruism.
"My thinking is that government health care, if it occurs anywhere, should only occur at the state level."
Because there are no special interest groups at the state level?
…Terse version:
Shorter Mroberts: Down with empathy!
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Oh, unless it involves the State. Then screw those less well off than you.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 16, 2009 10:59 AM
I'm confused why you need "specialist" prayer people. Surely that is work for your local church gathering and family.
Why we don't have a medical "standard" that says what medicine is and is not is beyond me.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 16, 2009 11:08 AM
My younger brother Jeff is the shame of the Degan family. He not only lives in France, he actually likes it there. He has a French wife and two gorgeous little French daughters. Honestly I think the guy is a closet commie. Back in August, in a letter to his fellow countrymen and women regarding health care, he ended it by saying:
"In short, in the US, you pay more, get less, and die younger than we do in Europe. What part of that don't you understand?"
Well, hey there! That's a danged good question! What part of that don't we understand? Why is it that so many of us have to be dragged, kicking and screaming like half-witted little preschoolers, into the brave new world of change? What the hell is the matter with us anyway? How can it be that such a huge number of Americans cheerfully join movements of mass stupidity and salivate on cue to the sound of Dr. Glenn "Pavlov" Beck's bell? It kind of makes you wonder, huh?
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Posted by: Tom Degan | October 16, 2009 11:27 AM
Steve@49:
The advice I learned in kindergarten, Steveie, was to not let smug, blowhard assholes tell me how to think. You, Miko and mroberts are all of that.
James Hanley:
You're right, there will be all sorts of fucking crazies who want to feed at the the trough, just like now. As someone pointed out in a comment a few down from yours, there is a need for regulation and enforcement. The reason there is less fraud and malfeasance in some businesses/organizations than others is because some are better run than others. Saying that government can't work is a canard. Underfunded, under regulated government can't work, that's for sure.
Posted by: democommie | October 16, 2009 11:34 AM
democommie "Underfunded, under regulated government can't work, that's for sure."
You've obviously missed the Conservative Solution®, fundingcuts, privatization and further deregulation*1.
*1. Strong oversight and regulation strangles the ability of private business to police themselves, doncha know*2.
*2. And when that fails, blame it on the atheists.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Raging Bee @54
Are you familiar with the concept of an attractive nuisance? Yes, you share responsibility for creating something that will be attractive to fucktards, woomeisters and other charlatans. The fact that they're more responsible doesn't mean the original advocates don't share in the responsibility. Any time an outcome is easily predictable from action X, those who advocate action X share some responsiblity for the outcomes.
Actually, I wrote that to highlight the fact that I think there is justness to a public health care system. Thanks for taking it completely the wrong way. Your hatred of me clearly leads you to read everything I write in the most possible negative light. That doesn't mean I intended it as you chose to read it.Posted by: James Hanley | October 16, 2009 2:27 PM
@ #61, point taken. And it is precisely this sense of responsibility -- not to mention a strong political/bureaucratic incentive to make our policies work visibly well -- that leads us to advocate well-written standards and strong detection and enforcement mechanisms.
Remember, it's not the liberals who are pushing this CS BS; it's the right-wing idiots trying to sabotage the whole public-healthcare program.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 16, 2009 3:07 PM
Lessons from kindergarten
A play in one act
Mother: "Son, please take out the trash."
Son: "Aw, mom, why do I have to? I didn't throw any of that stuff away!"
Mother: "Well, son, since you are part of this family, there are certain responsibilities that go with living in this household."
Son: "You can't force me! I didn't ask to be born!"
(stalks off)
Mother: "Wait til your father gets home..."
THE END
(ok, ok, I won't quit my day job...)
Posted by: ildi | October 16, 2009 4:07 PM
ildi:
I learned that lesson, too, but my moms wasn't prone to stupidity like mroberts and friends. Besides she had a wicked backhand.
Posted by: democommie | October 16, 2009 4:43 PM
I am disappointed and hurt by your comments. I am a practicing Christian Scientist. What you call "ridiculous" connects an earnest seeker to God and His healing power.
Posted by: Dave | October 16, 2009 6:36 PM
Raging Bee @61,
Well, you'll never hear me arguing against that. I am rather pessimistic about Congress's abilitity to actually do so, of course. ;)Dave @65,
If you're a Poe, you need more practice. If you're serious, go pray in a closet and leave us a lone.
Posted by: James Hanley | October 16, 2009 6:49 PM
I don't know, is one lone enough? We're going to be hungry after the hunting expedition and autopsy, and there's a lot of people to feed...
Posted by: ildi | October 16, 2009 7:45 PM
In a shocking turn of events, mroberts has once again decided to make a ridiculous comment and then depart the thread. Whodathunkit?
Posted by: democommie | October 17, 2009 10:27 AM
I'm sure Faux News will come up with a fair and balanced approach to resolving this issue:
30 seconds of a charismatic "certified Christian Science
physicianhealer" proclaiming that there is oodles of scientific evidence that proves that prayer works (you know, of course the mind-body connection is powerful, and spiritual healing works via the mind), followed by 30 seconds of a "regular" physician, mumbling something relatively incomprehensible about prospective randomized clinical studies.Voilá! A real debate! Fair and Balanced. Clearly, 50% of the population is comprised of prayer based adherents, and there is just is much evidence that they are right because 50% of the people in this debate said so (and that second guy was pointy-headed and boring...)
Posted by: flitedocnm | October 17, 2009 11:44 AM
Dave "I am disappointed and hurt by your comments. I am a practicing Christian Scientist. What you call "ridiculous" connects an earnest seeker to God and His healing power."
I'm fine with you, by yourself, doing it for yourself to yourself, just as long as you don't drag your kids along.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 17, 2009 1:06 PM
I cannot speak for or against other alternatives to conventional medical practices; however prayer is the health care system for Christian Scientists and many times for other individuals. Prayer for healing is a foundation upon which this religion is based. Healing in Christian Science came first, before the religion, and is basic to its practice. Its healing practice is based on the accounts of healing in the Bible - Old Testament and New Testament - based on the teachings and healings of the prophets, and of Christ Jesus and his disciples, and others that followed them.
Although a Christian Scientist is free to choose whatever he/she feels will help them, most practicing Christian Scientists begin with prayer. No one condemns a Christian Scientist for turning to the medical field and paying them to try and help them. Even doctors have sometimes suggested that a patient try Christian Science when there seems to be no hope - documented in healing testimonies - and why shouldn't a Christian Science Practitioner be paid just as the doctor was paid? Not only is the cost incredibly less expensive than medical treatment but healing does happen.
A Christian Science Practitioner devotes their full time to the healing practice - they can have no other occupation -, they are available 24 hours a day, they will even go to the patient - this is how they make their living. It is specific prayer for a specific person at their request. All that is asked is that if people are mandated to pay into a health care system, for which they contribute to for others' health care also, that they have the right to choose spiritual healing as their health care system.
Posted by: Kathy | October 21, 2009 4:09 PM
Kathy:
Yada, yada, yada. WHEN prayer is proven, in double-blind studies--with control groups--to approach the efficacy of, at least, aspirin, to curing cancer; THEN it should be considered a recompensable medical expense. Not before.
Posted by: democommie | October 21, 2009 10:46 PM
Kathy @ 71:
Because it's efficacy has been measured at best to be equal to all other free placebos and in some cases, results in worse results than if the patient believed no one was praying for them. If a Christian Scientist wants to exercise their religious freedom rights by paying for someone to prayer for them, that's fine with me. But would I accept our disestablished government from using tax dollars for something that doesn't work? No, it's both unconstitutional and really idiotic public policy. In fact, the logic to allow such is equal to paying a voo doo priestess to kill a few chickens and cast a spell or whatever they do.
On the other hand, Science and its attendant medical practioners have a measurable and continuously improving rate of success.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 21, 2009 11:35 PM
Kathy | October 21, 2009 4:09 PM:
When you or your loved ones get sick, please, please take yourself or them to a doctor.
Posted by: llewelly | October 21, 2009 11:47 PM
I would like health care or what it truly is, sickness care, to be available for all who need it. I don't need it and I don't want to have to pay for something I won't use. I qualify for medicare but chose not to get it and spend the money on organic food and supplements instead. My health plan is to live, eat and think right. Doesn't cost a thing!
Posted by: Connie | October 31, 2009 1:21 AM
Connie,
And when you slip and fall on the front step and your femur snaps, you can just shake a bottle of wheatgrass juice at it and it'll heal right up!
Douche.
Posted by: Rick R | October 31, 2009 9:47 AM
I have had wonderful results using Christian Science healers. Once I saw a healer, mentioned I had a terrible stomach pain, and he said that would be taken care of. In my heart of hearts I didn't believe him, but within a half hour all the pain was gone. I have had fevers healed, and my boyfriend was healed of some emotional problems he was going through. I am not a practicing Christian Scientist, but I do think the C.S. healers are amazing people, working for the common good, and I recommend that people give it a try even if, like me, they are sceptical of its effectiveness.
Posted by: C. T. | November 7, 2009 11:54 AM
C.T. - People who are sick need real medicine. Encouraging them to try quack cures is vile. Take your anecdotes and shove them up your ass.
Posted by: Taz | November 7, 2009 12:17 PM
Today's medicine is tomorrow's quackery. e.g. bloodletting and doctors recommended margarine full of trans- fat just a few years ago. The govt MANDATED asbestos in schools.
Now we are all forced to tithe (and then some) to the current religion of materialism and pay homage to the new government sponsored medical priests.
Chiropractic WORKS even though the AMA denies it.
Our grocery shelves are full of lo fat doctor recommended crap and the obesity crisis only gets worse.
The new government sponsored medical emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: Wes | November 8, 2009 8:17 AM
Are some of you doubting Gods Care and ability to heal? If you do you have never completely depended on Gods Care.
I have relied on Christian Science healing for more than 30 years and have had many healings through prayer. Some with using a Christian Scinece Practictioner and other times Just relying on God - there are many Medical Drs who also beleive in Prayer, so what is the diff - Try prayer first and than to go the Med Dr. who will charge much more than the a practictioner will. As to Children dieing with prayer based healing the actual face is less Children die with prayer based healing than do in the hospital
This is a face. Just pick up a Christian science sentinal and you will see monthly people who are healed and many drs testimony to this fact.
God Bless all
DAvid
Posted by: David L Roberts | January 16, 2010 9:46 PM
"Just pick up a Christian science sentinal and you will see monthly people who are healed and many drs testimony to this fact."
*Laughs*
When it comes to citations, you're going to have to do much better around here than that, David.
Posted by: Rick R | January 16, 2010 9:56 PM
Believe is Christian Science? Have I got deal for you!
This stone-that-keeps-away-tigers could be yours for six low, low monthly payments of $19.99!
Don't believe it could possibly work?
Read these dozen testimonials from people who HAVE NEVER seen a tiger!
SEE HOW WELL IT WORKS! It's a miracle!
(If not completely satisfied simply send the stone back, free of charge!)
[Rolls eyes] - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 16, 2010 10:20 PM
Today's medicine is tomorrow's quackery.
Maybe, but some things, including CT, are today's quackery.
Are some of you doubting Gods Care and ability to heal?
It's not hard when you don't believe in god.
Posted by: Taz | January 16, 2010 10:30 PM
Let's see your citation. I wouldn't doubt it in terms of absolute numbers, because all but the most insanely zealous parent will take their child to the hospital if the situation becomes dire enough. Let's see an actual comparison of recovery rates from the same ailment of the same severity for those treated in hospitals vs. those treated with
prayernothing.Posted by: DaveL | January 16, 2010 10:36 PM
The author of this article is unscientific. False conclusions based on false assumptions. I could explain, but it would try the patience of bloggers who have no patience and who simply sing their tired songs over and over again like broken record players.
Furthermore none of the anti-CS bloggers above are doctors or scientists.
I grow increasingly skeptical of skeptics, when these skeptics are just spinning fear and nonsense just to make a buck.
Who's more ethical: an MD or CS practitioner (both trying to work good based on experience), or the skeptic/journalist naysayers who seldom haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about?
Posted by: Robert | March 19, 2010 3:51 PM
@85-Good points.
First of all, Christian Scientists don't use conventional healthcare. So, they shouldn't have to purchase mandated insurance. However, if they are forced to purchase mandated insurance, they should be allowed to use it for the healing of choice.
Almost all the people on here are bitching about how "prayer" does no one any good. I doubt that any have *sincerely* tried. That doesn't matter though. Millions more people have died under professional medical care than under Christian Science treatment.
How about this: forget healthcare reform and liberal entitlement. No one should pay for something that they don't use.
This whole health care reform is rubbish if not the nightmare that some on the far right claim.
Posted by: RJ | March 23, 2010 6:26 PM