Slog Comments
Would You Trust a Christian Scientist to Write Our Nation's Health Care Laws?
1
We really ought to start saying "birth control/hormonal therapy" (or something like that) to underscore how its just not about preventing pregnancy, but also about preventing cancers, help with bad periods, and more.
4
@1: Absolutely not, because that would be conceding to the Republican frame that there is something wrong with woman choosing to have sex.
This is about sex control, not birth control.
This is about sex control, not birth control.
5
But then the taxpayers would be footing the bill, and that'll really make the religious nutcases squawk.
It's embarrassing how backwards this country is.
It's embarrassing how backwards this country is.
6
@2 Exactly. We're talking about people who believe in magic books and spells, talking donkeys and snakes. At least with children, you can have some expectation that they'll eventually face reality. Reality has no place in organized religion.
8
I have to disagree with fairlyable @7, that is not well written and well argued, Goldy. What you're talking about in this fantasy Christian Scientist health plan is, basically, not offering a health plan. And not offering your employees health insurance is something that, you know, employers can already do.
9
@1 Rush Limbaugh didn't call Sandra Fluke a slut because she was having bad periods. Conservatives have framed the argument in the context of shaming women for having sex, enjoying sex, and not getting pregnant after having sex. That's the argument we're responding to.
10
This is less about contraception and more about allowing employers to selectively fuck over your health care benefits as they see fit. Religion makes for a handy smokescreen, of course.
11
I think many people still consider the use of birth control to be vaguely immoral. Most Catholic women use birth control. However, I suspect many of them feel that they are doing something wrong and that they would be better people if they did not use birth control. Hence the public sympathy for the Church's protest.
12
Oh, bullshit, Goldy. Christian Scientists don't do conversion or coercion, they educate their children, and are big on having laws that treat all the weirdos well, as well as being fairly well-invested in the Enlightenment. Saying one of them couldn't do this is like saying a childless judge couldn't serve in family court. The only difference you'd likely see in having a Christian Scientist write the law would be to require employers to cover religiously-based alternative health care.
Rail all you want on how fucked up their theology is, and I'm right there with you. But what you have written is just plain clueless bigotry on your part.
Rail all you want on how fucked up their theology is, and I'm right there with you. But what you have written is just plain clueless bigotry on your part.
13
Of course, a major difference between the Christian Scientist's approach and the others' approaches is that the Christian Scientist is not a religious proselytizer and the Christian Scientists don't seek to force their beliefs on other people -- they just want to practice their own religion in their own way amongst themselves.
14
single payer, no iterations on what is covered or not - whether you fuck, smoke, drink, etc., everyone gets the same coverage. Pay for it by: educating people the best you can on appropriate use of the system (i.e. single payer is not "free", we all pay for it and thus must all do our best to minimize costs) and devise some methodology to limit care that prolongs life at some age ("death panels!") - I'm no Steve Jobs fan be he said it quite well when he said we all need to "get out of the way" for the next generation(s).
15
Re the Christian Scientist exception: it's worth pointing out that this isn't even hyperbole coming from those opposed to the Republicans' position. It is their position - it's part of the Blunt Amendment. And that's not an accident, nor an oversight. To support this claim, I call on the authority of the Republican best placed to opine on the subject: the eponymous Senator Blunt himself:
So, to recap: the author of the legislation that would exempt employers from having to provide coverage of treatments to which they personally are ethically opposed has specifically mentioned Christian Scientists as qualifying - that is to say, people who are religiously opposed to all health care.
A couple of commenters (#12, #13) have said that Christian Scientists are too enlightened ever to exploit such a law. I'd like to think they're right, although surely within a large community of Christian Scientists there must be some individuals who are less admirable, even some who are venal. But the behavior of actual Christian Scientists isn't even the point: it's the behavior of Sen. Blunt and 47 other Senators, all but three of them Republicans. They have attempted to pass a bill that would by their own admission permit Christian Scientists or any others to deny any and all health care, if they happen to be so inclined. That actual Christian Scientists would tend to be better people than these Senators is nice, but it's not really the point.
More...
“The Respect the Rights of Conscience Act doesn’t mention any medical procedure. It doesn’t mention anything specifically. It treats Christian Scientists like Catholics, and Muslims just like Methodists,” Blunt says. “The principle is you cannot tell people they have to do things that violate their faith beliefs. It’s as simple as that.”
So, to recap: the author of the legislation that would exempt employers from having to provide coverage of treatments to which they personally are ethically opposed has specifically mentioned Christian Scientists as qualifying - that is to say, people who are religiously opposed to all health care.
A couple of commenters (#12, #13) have said that Christian Scientists are too enlightened ever to exploit such a law. I'd like to think they're right, although surely within a large community of Christian Scientists there must be some individuals who are less admirable, even some who are venal. But the behavior of actual Christian Scientists isn't even the point: it's the behavior of Sen. Blunt and 47 other Senators, all but three of them Republicans. They have attempted to pass a bill that would by their own admission permit Christian Scientists or any others to deny any and all health care, if they happen to be so inclined. That actual Christian Scientists would tend to be better people than these Senators is nice, but it's not really the point.
16
Yeah, Warren, that's not the real point. But there's already way too much demonizing-of-the-other going on in this country, and when Goldy falls into that trap, I'm gonna call him on it.
Also, you're ignorant. Christian Scientists aren't opposed to all health care. They're officially in favor of dental work and bone-setting. As it happens, these were close to the only medical treatments that were less likely to kill you than not at the time the religion was founded.
Also, you're ignorant. Christian Scientists aren't opposed to all health care. They're officially in favor of dental work and bone-setting. As it happens, these were close to the only medical treatments that were less likely to kill you than not at the time the religion was founded.
17
@#8
1) Well, no, employers can't necessarily refuse to offer their employees health coverage. The Affordable Care Act, being as it is a compromise with America's Rube Goldberg system of health coverage provision, includes an employer mandate (as does Romneycare in Massachusetts). Indeed, the whole point of schemes like Blunt's is to eviscerate the ACA.
2) The provision of "health insurance" with odd, putatively religiously mandated gaps is if anything more deceptive and more dangerous than a binary decision of whether to offer comprehensive coverage. People may think they are covered by insurance until they need it, when it is suddenly too late.
3) It's always worth pointing out that in the US, at least under pre-ACA rules, individual health insurance is a myth. Not only is it far, far harder to get than employer-provided insurance; not only is it gutted by exceptions for pre-existing conditions; not only is it far more expensive and far less comprehensive than employer-provided, pooled insurance; but the practice of "rescission" meant that in the event it became vitally necessary it was more likely than not to vanish in a puff of smoke - or, more realistically, in a crushing burden of debts and health crisis. Insurance companies admitted that every year they cancelled 0.5% of policies - but because of the way rescission works, essentially all of those were individual policies. In a given year, only perhaps 5% of policyholders cost the insurer anything at all (and you can bet it wasn't the profitable customers having their policies cancelled), and a minority of those cost the insurer a large amount. Work out the numbers, and an individual policyholder racking up large medical expenses stood a better-than-even chance of having their insurance yanked.
More...
1) Well, no, employers can't necessarily refuse to offer their employees health coverage. The Affordable Care Act, being as it is a compromise with America's Rube Goldberg system of health coverage provision, includes an employer mandate (as does Romneycare in Massachusetts). Indeed, the whole point of schemes like Blunt's is to eviscerate the ACA.
2) The provision of "health insurance" with odd, putatively religiously mandated gaps is if anything more deceptive and more dangerous than a binary decision of whether to offer comprehensive coverage. People may think they are covered by insurance until they need it, when it is suddenly too late.
3) It's always worth pointing out that in the US, at least under pre-ACA rules, individual health insurance is a myth. Not only is it far, far harder to get than employer-provided insurance; not only is it gutted by exceptions for pre-existing conditions; not only is it far more expensive and far less comprehensive than employer-provided, pooled insurance; but the practice of "rescission" meant that in the event it became vitally necessary it was more likely than not to vanish in a puff of smoke - or, more realistically, in a crushing burden of debts and health crisis. Insurance companies admitted that every year they cancelled 0.5% of policies - but because of the way rescission works, essentially all of those were individual policies. In a given year, only perhaps 5% of policyholders cost the insurer anything at all (and you can bet it wasn't the profitable customers having their policies cancelled), and a minority of those cost the insurer a large amount. Work out the numbers, and an individual policyholder racking up large medical expenses stood a better-than-even chance of having their insurance yanked.
18
Suppose my "religion" said that blacks were less worthy than whites? Could I refuse to serve blacks in my diner?
NO!!!!!
So there is clearly a point where "personal beliefs" are not a valid reason to refuse to comply with a law.
So no, all employers must provide what the government says they must provide. Regardless of "personal beliefs" of the employer. They are employees. Not slaves.
As a church you can advocate in your teachings that "good" people would not avail themselves to the covered services. But you must still provide that option for them.
NO!!!!!
So there is clearly a point where "personal beliefs" are not a valid reason to refuse to comply with a law.
So no, all employers must provide what the government says they must provide. Regardless of "personal beliefs" of the employer. They are employees. Not slaves.
As a church you can advocate in your teachings that "good" people would not avail themselves to the covered services. But you must still provide that option for them.
19
Yesterday I went past a Church of Christ, Accountant.
The pastor said I could light a candle instead of paying my income tax.
B'Ding!
Thanks to Jake Johannsen for letting me use his head-trippy comedy styling!!
20
@#16
1) I admit that I'm not well versed in the details of Christian Science. I doubt Blunt or the other 47 Senators that voted with him are, either. Indeed, the distinction between the details of actual Christian Scientists and the effects of their legislation was something I took care to state in my comment.
2) The difference between a religious opposition to all health care and a religious opposition to all health care bar bone setting and dentistry is something of a fine point.
3) And, in fact, you're very unfair to medicine in the time of Mary Baker Eddy. Per Wikipedia, Eddy started to formulate her ideas in 1866 and first propounded them in 1875. Sterile technique dates to 1865, and Ether was used as an anaesthetic two decades before that. When Eddy was formulating her ideas the country would have been littered with crippled young veterans who'd been saved from death by amputation, crude as it was. Medicine during the life of Eddy was extremely crude and the good ideas that later came to dominate were still spreading or hadn't even been discovered, but medicine in 1875 was much better than it had been a couple of decades previously, and much, much better than you characterize it.
1) I admit that I'm not well versed in the details of Christian Science. I doubt Blunt or the other 47 Senators that voted with him are, either. Indeed, the distinction between the details of actual Christian Scientists and the effects of their legislation was something I took care to state in my comment.
2) The difference between a religious opposition to all health care and a religious opposition to all health care bar bone setting and dentistry is something of a fine point.
3) And, in fact, you're very unfair to medicine in the time of Mary Baker Eddy. Per Wikipedia, Eddy started to formulate her ideas in 1866 and first propounded them in 1875. Sterile technique dates to 1865, and Ether was used as an anaesthetic two decades before that. When Eddy was formulating her ideas the country would have been littered with crippled young veterans who'd been saved from death by amputation, crude as it was. Medicine during the life of Eddy was extremely crude and the good ideas that later came to dominate were still spreading or hadn't even been discovered, but medicine in 1875 was much better than it had been a couple of decades previously, and much, much better than you characterize it.
21
Here's another scary one: Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions. That means that if your boss was (unbeknownst to you) a JW, and you were in a serious accident, your medical insurance might not cover the blood transfusions required to save your life.
22
@17 "Indeed, the whole point of schemes like Blunt's is to eviscerate the ACA."
I agree. The Republicans don't think the government ought to be telling private employers what kind of health insurance benefits (if any) works should be offered. The whole 'freedom of conscience' thing is just a smoke screen to advance a 'limited government' agenda.
I agree. The Republicans don't think the government ought to be telling private employers what kind of health insurance benefits (if any) works should be offered. The whole 'freedom of conscience' thing is just a smoke screen to advance a 'limited government' agenda.
23
The reason the analogy doesn't work is because Christian Science doesn't hold that medicine is a sin or wicked or immoral or an affront to God or whatever. Christian Science holds that its a distraction which focuses the mind on the material world when the problem originates in erroneous engagement with the spiritual nature of human existence.
So a Christian Scientist wouldn't have any problem at all with other people going to the doctor or even with going to a doctor themselves, though doing so would be a kind of failure or an act of cowardice I guess maybe you could call it. But they wouldn't be worried about pissing off God because the C.S. version of God isn't judgmental that way and doesn't send people to hell.
I was raised Christian Scientist, by the way. I wouldn't call myself lapsed because I never bought it in the first place, not even as a kid. But I do know how it works.
So a Christian Scientist wouldn't have any problem at all with other people going to the doctor or even with going to a doctor themselves, though doing so would be a kind of failure or an act of cowardice I guess maybe you could call it. But they wouldn't be worried about pissing off God because the C.S. version of God isn't judgmental that way and doesn't send people to hell.
I was raised Christian Scientist, by the way. I wouldn't call myself lapsed because I never bought it in the first place, not even as a kid. But I do know how it works.
24
OK. So now we are going down a rat hole. I'll look into the history of the spread of medical advances in my spare time and adjust my characterization appropriately.
One other thing, though, that is relevant to the actual modern-day problem is that it's not really correct to say Christian Scientists "oppose" health care. A better word is "refuse". If Americans would switch from opposing-for-everyone to refusing-for-themselves those common behaviors their group felt were morally objectionable, it would be awesome.
I think that's what I most objected to in Goldy's piece -- the singling out of a group who actually "gets it" on the role of faith in government in order to make an even more scary projective other.
One other thing, though, that is relevant to the actual modern-day problem is that it's not really correct to say Christian Scientists "oppose" health care. A better word is "refuse". If Americans would switch from opposing-for-everyone to refusing-for-themselves those common behaviors their group felt were morally objectionable, it would be awesome.
I think that's what I most objected to in Goldy's piece -- the singling out of a group who actually "gets it" on the role of faith in government in order to make an even more scary projective other.
25
Many currently practicing Christian Scientists use conventional health care either completely or partly. My mother was raised as a Christian Scientist in the 40's and 50's and her family's view was to allow "necessary" procedures that had obvious benefit. She received regular dental checkups, had bones properly set, and took antibiotics when needed. I believe her family avoided pain medication in most or all situations.
I'm not sure what the official party line is on health practices, but followers seem to be encouraged to come to their own conclusions about what works best for them (and to allow others to do the same). They are non-literalists about the Bible and focus on personal experience with the spiritual in a way that probably annoys most other Christian sects. They run one of the most objective newspapers it the world (The Christian Science Monitor) and strongly believe in the separation of Church and State. I would be shocked if a Christian Scientist in any political position tried to push a medical agenda based on making others conform to their religious beliefs.
I'm not sure what the official party line is on health practices, but followers seem to be encouraged to come to their own conclusions about what works best for them (and to allow others to do the same). They are non-literalists about the Bible and focus on personal experience with the spiritual in a way that probably annoys most other Christian sects. They run one of the most objective newspapers it the world (The Christian Science Monitor) and strongly believe in the separation of Church and State. I would be shocked if a Christian Scientist in any political position tried to push a medical agenda based on making others conform to their religious beliefs.
26
mirth @25 -- the use of medicine as you describe was indeed common both then and when I was a child. I assume it roughly equivalent to American Catholics' use of birth control.
28
@24
"If Americans would switch from opposing-for-everyone to refusing-for-themselves those common behaviors their group felt were morally objectionable, it would be awesome."
I think that is the difference between a "religion" and a "theocracy".
My religion teaches that X is wrong so I will not do X.
vs
My religion teaches that X is wrong so I will try to prevent people who do not share my religion from doing X.
See also "gay marriage".
"If Americans would switch from opposing-for-everyone to refusing-for-themselves those common behaviors their group felt were morally objectionable, it would be awesome."
I think that is the difference between a "religion" and a "theocracy".
My religion teaches that X is wrong so I will not do X.
vs
My religion teaches that X is wrong so I will try to prevent people who do not share my religion from doing X.
See also "gay marriage".
29
For all those "A Christian Scientist would never do that" folks:
Nixon was a Quaker, but decided to bomb the shit out of Cambodia.
Nixon was a Quaker, but decided to bomb the shit out of Cambodia.
Comments (31) RSS