AllGov - News - Senate Includes Prayer Treatments in Healthcare Bill

Back to News

Senate Includes Prayer Treatments in Healthcare Bill
Thursday, November 05, 2009

(painting: Albrecht Durer)

As if the federal health care overhaul didn’t have enough controversial components, the Senate has included in its version a provision requiring insurance companies to cover Christian Science prayer as a medical treatment. The idea was pushed by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah with the support of Democratic Senators John Kerry and the late Edward Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, where the Church of Christ, Scientist is based.

Although the cost of insurers paying for prayer treatments wouldn’t be that much, the plan could potentially lead to other religions demanding coverage for spiritual healing, not to mention represent a violation of the church-state separation doctrine.

“I think when Congress mandates that health companies provide coverage for prayer, it has the effect of the government advancing religion,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, told The Los Angeles Times.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

Healthcare Provision Seeks to Embrace Prayer Treatments (by Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger, Los Angeles Times)

Comments

Cassie - 11/24/2009 6:06:46 PM
"If the individual mandate to buy insurance does not provide for those who rely on qualifying spiritual care, they may receive no benefit for their premiums. While Christian Scientists normally choose a path other than conventional medicine, this choice is not based on blind faith. It instead reflects a systematic approach to prayer that has proven to be reliable and effective in the lives of those who practice it" I'm not sympathetic to the "may receive no benefit" argument. I pay for lots of insurance from which I *hope* I will receive no benefit. For example, I hope I receive no benefit from my life insurance (I'd rather stay alive). CSs maintain that they are allowed to choose medical treatment, and of course, if they are unconscious after an auto accident, the ambulance will take them to the emergency room too, so they may indeed receive a benefit. More to the point--"blind faith" is pretty much all CS has to support it. Their websites of supposedly verified healings turn out to be "verified" by people affirming that the testifier is a good guy. And published JAMA studies show that CSs have a shorter lifespan than the rest of us, despite the fact that they don't drink alcohol or smoke. I'm happy for my tax dollars to support any treatment with evidence that it works. But to pay for prayers? No thanks. Perhaps radcs would be interested to learn that in some churches, you can get prayers for FREE! And those people experience healings too.

radcs - 11/6/2009 9:01:16 AM
In response to Ellen's objection to Christian Science practitioners charging for prayer, it should be pointed out that the Christian Science practice is a full time ministry for these individuals (and they have made a formal commitment not to divide their attention between their healing work and other types of employment). They are not paid by the church organization; their financial support comes soley from their patients. In this context, it might be helpful to think of Christian Science practioners health care workers and not church workers. Just as doctors, dentists, chiropractors, therapists, etc. normally charge for their services, so do CS practitioners. That being said, I don't know of any CS practitioner who would turn away a patient who has no means to pay for treatment, and many practitioners devote a significant portion of their time to this "benevolence" work.

Ellen Adler - 11/5/2009 3:36:23 PM
I am a "recovered" Christian Scientist, meaning I have left the cult. Yes, it is a cult. I was raised in the religion, my parents were Readers in the church and my grandmother was a Christian Science Practioner (gets paid to pray). Christian Science is the only religion that asks you to pay someone to pray for you. This is outrageous. You should NOT pay to have prayer. Prayer is free and always should be. The government should NOT cover the cost of spiritual healing since it can be done without cost to anyone. If Christian Scientists don't like it, then stop paying for prayer.

radcs - 11/5/2009 9:20:43 AM
I am a practicing Christian Scientist and my family has successfully relied on spiritual healing for five generations now. My intent in posting this comment is not to “pitch” my preferred system of healing to those who depend on other types of health care, but to explain why I feel it is important that there be a provision for spiritual healing in any forthcoming healthcare legislation. It would seem fundamentally unfair for someone to be required to pay for insurance that does not cover the type of healthcare he or she utilizes. In a policy climate where some form of mandated universal coverage appears likely, it would only seem fair that anyone required to pay into a system would have coverage for the type of health care that they have found works best for them (without depriving anyone else of their choices). If the individual mandate to buy insurance does not provide for those who rely on qualifying spiritual care, they may receive no benefit for their premiums. While Christian Scientists normally choose a path other than conventional medicine, this choice is not based on blind faith. It instead reflects a systematic approach to prayer that has proven to be reliable and effective in the lives of those who practice it. I appreciate this opportunity to provide a different perspective on this issue. Anyone interested in learning more about Christian Science healing may wish to check out the website www.ChristianScience.com.

Jacques - 11/5/2009 7:58:46 AM
I, personnaly believe in the miracles and certainly there are a lot which were brought by prayers. There are a lot of accounts supporting this although nobody can prove anything. Every year several hundreds of miracles happen in Lourdes, France. A carefully chosen panel of doctors investigate these with so much scruples that only less than one hundred were labelled as miracles bearing no acceptable scientific explanation in one century. Why not to require the insurances companies to cover the transportation spends of sick people going to Lourdes?