If the Los Angeles Times is to be believed, the Senate health reform bill requires insurers to consider covering prayer "treatments" as medical expenses. The provision was inserted by Senator Hatch from Utah, with support from my own two Senators - Kennedy and Kerry! The Christian Science Church, which has substantial wealth, is based in Massachusetts. This probably explains why two ordinarily thoughtful liberal Senators supported such an absurdity.
In my clinical practice I often encouraged patients to use prayer as part of their "management strategy" for handling their conditions. And when patients with serious ailments asked me to remember them in my prayers I said I would, even though I do not do petitionary prayer. (I generally interpreted the request to be about concern for their well being and commitment to them, which is why I felt comfortable saying "yes" to the request.) But when prayer for patients by others has been subjected to experimental study it has not been effective. Mandating ineffective treatments is exactly what legislatures should not do.
The article quotes Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, as saying the provision raises serious questions about government support of religion: "I think when Congress mandates that health companies provide coverage for prayer, it has the effect of the government advancing religion." I disagree.
If prayer were shown to be effective in curing disease (and it hasn't been) it would seem just as reasonable for insurance to cover it as to cover acupuncture or hypnosis. For insurers to say "we will cover Christian prayer, but not Muslim prayer" or vice versa, would appear to be government endorsement of a particular religion. But endorsing a practice (prayer) doesn't require endorsing a belief (in a supreme being).
The reason for opposing the provision for covering prayer under insurance is that interventions that have been tested and found to be ineffective should not be paid for by communal funds. That should be a no-brainer in a rationally governed health system. But rational governance is not a covered benefit in the U.S. health "system"!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If health care is the problem, insurance is not the cause and government is not the answer.
Of those "50 million," that lack insurance there were 45,000 who died without health care.
WITH health care, 98,000 died FROM health care because of malpractice.
The question is do we want to trust that largest corporation in the world, the U.S. Government. Do not expect house calls anytime soon.
We have seen how well the government delivers on its promises and its bureaucracies pursue the money without giving us benefits on so many levels
.
Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS.
http://theprogressivecapitalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/affordable-health-care-for-america-act.html
That blog of mine above has several .pdf connections (HR. 3962 and two summaries, a few videos, and page references for new taxes and other mandates).
If you cannot use the link, google "Progressive Capitalist H.R. 3962."
If you believe the promises of this bill, you have to deal with the lie that it fosters competition with a government option called the "Public Option" and establishes the government as a monopoly making its own rules.
Don't worry. You'll run out of "rich" soon enough.
We have at least a $12 trillion economy of which at least $1.8 trillion is spent on health care.
If you read the bill, there are plenty of opportunities to soak the middle class, if you do not mind the 1.6 million made jobless.
REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act
MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN
http://thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/ainsfloor_01_xml.pdf
Herbert Benson's spirituality and medicine conference included a discussion of intercessory prayer some years ago. The discussant posed the question, "If G-d could be proven with a randomized trial, what would that do to our belief in G-d?" He cited a randomized study which did show the effectiveness of intercessory prayer by complete strangers for hospitalized patients. The G-d that I believe in is bigger than a randomized study could "prove." My God is in another and more important realm. God may say as the poet said, don't tell me why you love me, as those reasons may disappear; love me for myself.
Moreover, the concept of paying for prayer is loathsome. Religious groups may pay for institutions in which to pray, and ritual objects to use in prayer. Holding a hand out for payment for prayer is the worst sort of begging. The prayers that my G-d listens to come from the heart.
Hi John and Eric -
Thank you for your comments!
John, the concerns you express about government are widespread, and are a major source of opposition to more government involvement in health care, whether through a public option or, more ambitiously, a single payer insurance program. My concern about the government is whether we have the stomach to set the needed expenditure limits. Medicare has been very successful in making lots of important and valuable treatment available to seniors. But it's been a flop at containing expenditures.
Eric - the only studies I'm familiar with have not shown a correlation between prayer by strangers and clinical improvement. And I agree with you that paying for prayer is not compatible with a sense that prayer comes from the heart.
It's an interesting thought experiment to consider how insurers should respond if it were proven that prayer by "prayer specialists" correlated with clinical improvement. There are many treatments which clinicians administer and insurers cover for which we have no understanding of the mechanism of effectiveness. In principle a case could be made that insurance should pay for the "prayer treatments." I have zero expectation that a correlation of this kind will be discovered. But reflecting whether an effective intervention of that kind should be covered and the rationale for our answer would be revealing about our presuppositions about what constitutes "real health care."
Best
Jim
Post a Comment