Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments

A little-noticed measure would put Christian Science healing sessions on the
same footing as clinical medicine. Critics say it violates the separation of church and state.

by Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger
The Los Angeles Times
11/3/09

Reporting from Washington -

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."

It would have a minor effect on the overall cost of the bill -- Christian Science is a small church, and the prayer treatments can cost as little as $20 a day. But it has nevertheless stirred an intense controversy over the constitutional separation of church and state, and
the possibility that other churches might seek reimbursements for so-called spiritual healing.

Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science Church official, said prayer treatment was an effective alternative to conventional healthcare.

"We are making the case for this, believing there is a connection between healthcare and spirituality," said Davis, who distributed 11,000 letters last week to Senate officials urging support for the measure.

"We think this is an important aspect of the solution, when you are talking about not only keeping the cost down, but finding effective healthcare," he said.

The provision would apply only to insurance policies offered on a proposed exchange where consumers could shop for plans that meet standards set by the government.

But critics say the measure could have a broader effect, conferring new status and medical legitimacy on practices that lie outside the realm of science.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics that promotes separation of church and state, said the opportunity to receive payment for spiritual care could encourage other groups to seek similar status.

"This would be an absolute invitation to organize," Gaylor said.

The Christian Science Church, which was founded in Boston in 1879, has pushed throughout its history to secure official recognition for its paid prayer practitioners. Their job, as outlined by the church's founder, Mary Baker Eddy, was to pray for healing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those of medical doctors.

In the early 20th century, the church sought recognition from state regulators so the practitioners would not be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. Criminal courts have convicted Christian Scientists in cases where children have died after visiting prayer
healers instead of receiving conventional medical care. The church says no such incidents have occurred for two decades.

About 90 years ago, private insurance companies began paying for Christian Science prayer treatments, but more recently, managed-care insurers declined reimbursements, insisting on paying for care that produced proven medical results.

The Internal Revenue Service allows the cost of the prayer sessions to be counted among itemized medical expenses for income tax purposes -- one of the only religious treatments explicitly identified as deductible by the IRS. Some federal medical insurance programs, including those for military families, also reimburse for prayer treatment.

The spiritual healing provision was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College.

Two committees in the House voted to include the measure in their versions of the overhaul, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) stripped it from the consolidated House bill last week after a few members argued it was unconstitutional.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, said the provision raised 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," he said.

The legal issue, however, may not be cut and dried.

Michael McConnell, who heads the Stanford University Constitutional Law Center, said that "as long as patients are the ones who choose, and religious choices are given no legal preference or advantage, the proposals would appear to be consistent with constitutional standards."

In the Senate, the provision is included in a version of the bill drafted by the health committee. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is considering whether to include it in the consolidated bill he will send to the Senate floor.

Kerry's spokeswoman, Whitney Smith, disputed that insurers would be forced to cover prayer. Instead, she said, "the amendment would prevent insurers from discriminating against benefits that qualify as spiritual
care if the care is recognized by the IRS as a legitimate medical expense. Plans are free to impose standards on spiritual and medical care as long as both are treated equally. It does not mandate that plans provide spiritual care."

Hatch said, "I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare."

But Dr. Norman Fost, a pediatrician and medical ethicist at the University of Wisconsin, said the measure went against the goal of reducing healthcare costs by improving evidence-based medical practices.

"They want a special exception for people who use unproved treatments, and they also want to get paid for it," he said. "They want people who use prayer to have it just automatically accepted as a legitimate therapy."

Christian Science leaders say many critics misunderstand their faith. Christian Scientists do not reject medical care, church leaders said. Instead, they promote spiritual healing and do not interfere with decisions about whether to pursue medical help.

Davis has been trained as a practitioner and still occasionally treats the sick.

"We'll talk to them about their relationship to God," he said. "We'll talk to them about citations or biblical passages they might study. We refer to it as treatment. It's an affirmation of their relationship with God, and the understanding that comes from their prayer, of their
relationship with God."

During the day, Davis may see multiple patients and pray for them at different moments. He charges them $20 to $40 for the day, saying, "I think that it would be considered modest by any standard."

The church, which has seen a steady decline in adherents, does not reveal membership numbers. It claims between 1,700 and 1,800 congregations in more than 60 countries.

Davis said the church consulted legal experts to develop legislation that was constitutional and consonant with the overall goals of healthcare reform. It also hired a major Washington law firm, Mayer Brown, to lobby for the provision.

"We think this is an important aspect of the solution," Davis said, arguing that Christian Scientists are leading the fight for all who believe in spiritual healing. "We don't believe there should be hurdles between an individual and spiritual treatment that could be the most important solution to healthcare in this country."

Yeh, but I just can’t help thinking about how much cheaper it will be to pray away illness than put someone through the rigors of medicalization. And exorcism can’t be that much either. I mean, how much cheaper would an exorcism be than hours of therapy?
I think it’s a plot by the AMA and APA to stop the faithful from honing in on their turf.
Maybe instead of paying the ‘healing’ types, we would just allow them to take up a collection. Is there malpractice insurance for ‘healing/exorcists’? Does that mean because they are religious they won’t have to pay taxes on fees? I think we should include Tarot card readers and psychics, too. They could do the “examinations” and tell us what’s wrong. Wouldn’t that be cheaper than those expensive medical tests?
Do the faithful on here have any ideas?

quote:

Originally posted by reducetension:
Yeh, but I just can’t help thinking about how much cheaper it will be to pray away illness than put someone through the rigors of medicalization.

Very true - and all the more so because they'll die sooner by relying on such "treatment" and thus stop needing health care entirely. I'd be in favor of that. I believe people have the right to be stupid.

The problem is that too many of them eventually realize that faith ain't working, and end up getting real health care - and by starting late, they often require more expensive treatment for the more advanced and serious condition. I believe that the right to be stupid should include the responsibility to take the consequences - since too many people won't do that, the result in this case seems to be higher medical bills for us all.

You all forgot the primary question here.....

Since when did it become necessary to PAY some one to pray for you?

I find that so crass as to not bear any kind of scrutiny whatsoever!!

Crystal Cathedrals anyone??

9.99 prayer clothes??

Any and ALL such garbage that preys on many.

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
You all forgot the primary question here.....

Since when did it become necessary to PAY some one to pray for you?

...

Since the beginning of organized religion, unfortunately.

Even Jesus said "a workman is worth his pay."

Now if a Pastor, Minister or Vicar, call them what you will, is working full time he or she deserves a salary.

A MODEST salary!!!

Now a days it includes a house, phone, travel expences, health care, retirement and paid vacation.

Somewhere in the sixty thousand dollar and up range.......I DO NOT agree with that!

I then of course must listen to the Pastor describe themselves as working a full time job for part time pay.

AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!

I never made that much and have busted my butt all my flippin' life!!

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
You all forgot the primary question here.....

Since when did it become necessary to PAY some one to pray for you?

...

Since the beginning of organized religion, unfortunately.

We seem to have forgotten one other thing. For the Christian, taking pay for what is God's work is waaaaay not authorized. Scripture is very, very clear on this point. God does not share His Glory. Maybe this provision has some other group in mind, but it seems to be focused on certain practices by Christian groups. If that is the case, it is not in keeping with the very scripture they are using as their foundation.

Seems crazy to me to authorize something that is not in the manual (scripture) of the group that will use it.

I would think that anything about to be put into law would at least have some basis for inclusion.

Just my $0.02 since ReduceTension asked if any of the faithful had any ideas.

LJ

quote:

For the Christian, taking pay for what is God's work is waaaaay not authorized.

Uh-huh.... I see.

That's why there are programs set up by these people for taking money from ALL of us. Y'know... faith based initiatives.

Just the other day, my contractor friend told me about being told to go to a bad-boy's school administrator's HOUSE to do some work and bill it to the Baptists, who in turn get their money from the faith based initiatives. The man who ordered the work is a preacher.

quote:

Originally posted by all4truth:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
You all forgot the primary question here.....

Since when did it become necessary to PAY some one to pray for you?

...

Since the beginning of organized religion, unfortunately.

We seem to have forgotten one other thing. For the Christian, taking pay for what is God's work is waaaaay not authorized. Scripture is very, very clear on this point. God does not share His Glory. Maybe this provision has some other group in mind, but it seems to be focused on certain practices by Christian groups. If that is the case, it is not in keeping with the very scripture they are using as their foundation.

Seems crazy to me to authorize something that is not in the manual (scripture) of the group that will use it.

I would think that anything about to be put into law would at least have some basis for inclusion.

Just my $0.02 since ReduceTension asked if any of the faithful had any ideas.

LJ

Then why do just about all churches pass the collection plate? For the most part charitable works do not cover it. Not when the preacher drives a BMW or like car.

That is not a comment on faith, just on organized religion. The two rarely have much in common.

I was just cruising back over this thread to see who wrote what and need to probably once again clarify some thing.

When I said I never made that much in my life I muct once again state ....I have never taken a dime for anytghing I've done in ministry funerals visitation preaching weddings NOTHING!

That's not why I do it.

Christians call this a "tent making ministry". I earned my money else where.

Paul worked this way as he made his pilgrimages for his ministry that's where the term comes from.

T

If prayer based treatments work for strongly religious people (based on a sort of placebo effect), why would we not consider this as a valid form of treatment. I'm not implying that faith care should go up against cancer, but for instances where it does work or help, why wouldn't we want to fund it, especially if it is cheaper and healthier than regimens of expensive drugs that may do the same thing as prayer does for very faithful people?

Hi A.K.

I've known two faith healers, one of them of world renoun. I have seen them do things with my own eyes that my mind still does not want to credit.

Both of these men had one hard and fast rule as I got to know them. get all the information you can on the person's illness and speak with their doctor if possible. These were NOT tent revivalists!

Then tell the person they engaged this way, that under no circumstances what so ever were they to NOT see their doctor.

They were to continue with what ever their doctors had ordered for treatment and to tell the doctors also, that they were engaged with a faith healing.

As I said, what I witnessed was amazing, and I have sent people to one of these men who has subsequently passed on. I made sure they stuck with what he had told them.

The stats on these people, and from his records, was in the neighborhood of 80% success.

From that time to this, I have counselled people that any time someone tells them that if they consult a doctor the healing will fail, RUN for the door!! THAT is a fake, a phony, a charlatan and NOT to be trusted. Once again I repeat that advice here for some who might not know the wisest course to follow.

ANY faith healing can be, and should be, verified by competent professionals, it does NOT affect the outcome in any way to do so.

T

quote:

Originally posted by AKinNC:
If prayer based treatments work for strongly religious people (based on a sort of placebo effect), why would we not consider this as a valid form of treatment. I'm not implying that faith care should go up against cancer, but for instances where it does work or help, why wouldn't we want to fund it, especially if it is cheaper and healthier than regimens of expensive drugs that may do the same thing as prayer does for very faithful people?

How do you charge or pay for a person to have fath, What type of warrenty do you put on it if it does not work? Oh I'm sorry if it dosnt work it is because you didnt have enough fath. Will the people selling the fath based healing be able to be sued if their fath healing dosnt work. Would these groups be mandated to have malpractice ins.?
D.J.

quote:

Originally posted by donniejanuarysr:
How do you charge or pay for a person to have fath, What type of warrenty do you put on it if it does not work? Oh I'm sorry if it dosnt work it is because you didnt have enough fath. Will the people selling the fath based healing be able to be sued if their fath healing dosnt work. Would these groups be mandated to have malpractice ins.?
D.J.

I would say no warranty or malpractice, as the faithful person would be opting for this treatment on their own free will. If it doesn't work, more conventional means of medicine could no doubt be used, or if the person was too sick to live, hopefully they could die with dignity and peace of mind.

Sue God for false advertisement?

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:
Sue God for false advertisement?

Sorry Bill I cant sue G-D for mans stupidity, and right now in this country a big barrel of stupid has been opened and dumped all over the place.
D.J.

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
When I said I never made that much in my life I muct once again state ....I have never taken a dime for anytghing I've done in ministry funerals visitation preaching weddings NOTHING!

Tawodi, I do strongly respect your stand on this - but I have to note that I don't really see anything wrong with a preacher being paid a living wage for his services, either. A good pastor might spend way more than 40 hours a week performing all the various services that you mentioned, and can do so much more successfully if he doesn't have to keep a second job to pay the bills. I still stand by my opinion that such money shouldn't count as charity - but I don't see it as any less respectable than, say, paying the manager of the bar at the Legion hall.

Of course, there are other pastors that are a bit less deserving of respect. My grandmother complains frequently about her pastor, who doesn't seem interested in visiting the hospital or homes of sick parishioners, and so forth. He's much more interested in upgrading the church facilities - he seems to be trying to turn it into one of those oh-so-popular and oh-so-profitable megachurches. She'd probably leave it for another one...but it IS the church her father founded, which makes it a little harder to abandon. Besides, she's over 80, and not fond of major changes.

Bob, well said, but then again you do usually think out your responses....Thank you, we are in perfect agreement.

T

Hey Bruce,

Thinking about yours and Bob's latest posts, I have to admit to being over paid! I took a job with a small Methodist Church as Maintenance. They had no budget, no openning for Clergy but needed help with over 200 members. In the last 2 weeks I have personally: Repaired 3 roofs, re-wired the main sound system, preached twice, ministered to many people in nursing homes (1 day a week, Tuesdays), visited many people in hospitals, Wednesdays), Re-paired electrical wiring, septic leach-lines, and the hot water system. Repaired numerous water leaks, and trouble-shot HVAC for a family of 7 with no father and an overworked mother. I facilitated long term financial help for the family thru county agencies, used MHMR for their health needs, while holding hands with the younger family members during numerous CPS visits, and finally formed a local coalition of Inter-Denominational churches and non-profit agencies to help other families in similar situations. I've also been to 3 death scenes, including the murder of a 22 year old female. 2 massive early morning home fires, both losing everything, and the aftermath of the rape of a 14 year old girl.

In my spare time, myself and 2 volunteers have started the demo of office buildings in a very small under-privilaged church in the worst part of town to build a new youth room. The local Pastor is a close friend and needed help. Tonight I accepted the position of Trustee on our board. I also co-teach Sunday school every week, and am taking Decipleship on Wed. nights after work. I sing in the choir when not preaching the services. You could probably say I'm busy... This pay check will net less than 800.00 for this last 2 weeks. It appears I finally found something that pays less than civil service but bonuses so much more that I consider it's gains to be priceless!

IMHO it's our perspectives that determine value.

Just some thoughts...

CJ

C.J.

I hope you noticed that Bob and I had just such as you in mind, when commenting on hard working Pastors who are worth their salary and then some!

I don't think that Bob may realise that salary comes from the membership of the church and charity offerings are an entirely different source stream from and to the various places they are designated for.

What people pledge annually and give as plate offerings, are not considered charitable giving.
At least I never knew people who did so.

Good description by the way of what it is, we who just lay around and do "nothing" are doing...... while doing "nothing"!!!

Of course now that you have mentioned it, you will be accused of blowing your own horn!!

Can't win for loosing some times can ya??

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I don't think that Bob may realise that salary comes from the membership of the church and charity offerings are an entirely different source stream from and to the various places they are designated for.

What people pledge annually and give as plate offerings, are not considered charitable giving.

I was thinking more in terms of the classic "tithing" - which may or may not go directly to the church's operating funds. I don't know how many people are still giving 10% of their income off the top, but surely they're claiming it as a deduction.

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:

quote:

For the Christian, taking pay for what is God's work is waaaaay not authorized.

Uh-huh.... I see.

That's why there are programs set up by these people for taking money from ALL of us. Y'know... faith based initiatives.

Just the other day, my contractor friend told me about being told to go to a bad-boy's school administrator's HOUSE to do some work and bill it to the Baptists, who in turn get their money from the faith based initiatives. The man who ordered the work is a preacher.

Hello BillBright,

I know of unauthorized practices. It does not make them right.

Now I am not talking about honest wages for work done. I am writing about the subject at hand 'taking pay because they are praying for God's power to heal illness and disease". This action would not be taking pay for honest work or labor done through the power of the human being.

Hopefully this clarified my open ended post.

LJ

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by all4truth:

quote:

Originally posted by thorin001:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
You all forgot the primary question here.....

Since when did it become necessary to PAY some one to pray for you?

...

Since the beginning of organized religion, unfortunately.

We seem to have forgotten one other thing. For the Christian, taking pay for what is God's work is waaaaay not authorized. Scripture is very, very clear on this point. God does not share His Glory. Maybe this provision has some other group in mind, but it seems to be focused on certain practices by Christian groups. If that is the case, it is not in keeping with the very scripture they are using as their foundation.

Seems crazy to me to authorize something that is not in the manual (scripture) of the group that will use it.

I would think that anything about to be put into law would at least have some basis for inclusion.

Just my $0.02 since ReduceTension asked if any of the faithful had any ideas.

LJ

Then why do just about all churches pass the collection plate? For the most part charitable works do not cover it. Not when the preacher drives a BMW or like car.

That is not a comment on faith, just on organized religion. The two rarely have much in common.

Hi Thorin001,

Thank you for your clarification on the difference between faith and religion. I would have substituted the word relationship for faith in this instance, but that is just me.

I do not agree with extravagance in general. But that is a decision of mine. The problem is when the preacher is using 'Church funds' not his own wages as a pastor to buy anything. They should live within the means of the salary that is provided. A lot of churches are used as personal treasuries for officials of the church.

To be clear I am not against a preacher driving a BWV, Mercedes or any other luxury vehicle. I am against misuse of funds by anyone.

LJ

quote:

Originally posted by BobApril:

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
I don't think that Bob may realise that salary comes from the membership of the church and charity offerings are an entirely different source stream from and to the various places they are designated for.

What people pledge annually and give as plate offerings, are not considered charitable giving.

I was thinking more in terms of the classic "tithing" - which may or may not go directly to the church's operating funds. I don't know how many people are still giving 10% of their income off the top, but surely they're claiming it as a deduction.

Hi BobApril,

Guilty as charged (in my past life). Tithes and offerings. A thorny subject among Christians today.

It depends on the Church and/or the denomination. The practices are different. Scripture is not strictly instructive about these other than 10% off the top and then an offering according to what you desire in your heart. But whatever you give, give freely and without coercion.

The problem is the last word in my previous statement 'coercion'. Too many officials of our churches use threats, insults, embarrassment and other means to get the tithes and offerings out of its members and communities that they serve. After twisting the arms to get the contributions, they then turn right around and misuse the funds gotten. All of this is ill gotten gains, IMHO.

But you discussed classic "tithing" and yes it still is a bed rock of most churches.

In my new life I strictly hold to my understanding of both tithes and offerings. But that is a choice of mine that is not influenced by anyone else other than me.

LJ

Thanks Bruce,

If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness... 2 Cor 11:30,31

CJ

2 Corinthians 11:30-12:14 (King James Version)

30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.

31The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
+++++++++++++++

That's a bit of a crock, isn't it? Let's reword that into something a contemporary person can understand:

If I need sucking up to, I will be sucked up to for my weaknesses. God knows, that ain't no lie.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it? A bit of preacherly mumbo-jumbo. It says things like, "I'm really bad at math, and I'm proud. And you should admire that." Or... "I have lactose intolerance and I can't help but f art in church. God knows you'll love that?"

Or, did Paul like to make jokes?

I realize 10 and 11 are both about boasting, saying that the only one around who can boast is Gawd. ... It's just more subjugation instruction. It's saying that Gawd and his family are the only ones with any power, so the rest of you should kowtow.

I've never done it very much, but I suppose if a person studied all the bygone religions they'd find similar 'moral' lessons coming from Gilgamesh, Jupiter, Aten, others; lessons that tell what turds mere mortals are and how great Gawd (Jupiter, et al) is. Dictators of old needed this malarkey to keep people in line because they couldn't be everywhere at once, so people had to fear that the king had some great being with all seeing vision who would be watching.

I'm sorry. My spirit isn't healed by this. So, let's keep it out of State.

Bob the tithe is given to the church that is correct.

The methodist church I attend has paid this year in mission funds (general to the world organization as directed in the U.M.Bokk of Discipline over sixteen thousand dollars for missions around the world. this is from pledges plate offerings and tithes.

The salary of the pastor his healthcare, building maintenance all church expenses come from those funds.

Our mission comittee though that I mentioned has given the amounts previously stated by me from different streams of income.

Sooo there are some areas that in oujr church that might seem to the outsider to need attention but really are fairly well under control and closely monitored.

T

Bill the intent of Paul's statement is to show that even with infirmities God strengthens us to do as we must and come out better for it.

That is where the glory is....in spite of ourselves people generally do pretty well under pressure.

T

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Bill the intent of Paul's statement is to show that even with infirmities God strengthens us to do as we must and come out better for it.

That is where the glory is....in spite of ourselves people generally do pretty well under pressure.

T

I'll reread when I get a chance. That's not what I got from it.

Bill;

Paul often referred to "the thorn in his side".

Nobody knows what that is, some have thought and said the he may have been epileptic, using that as the source of his vision and conversion on the Damascus road. Others have surmised other ailments. One thing is certain sure, what ever it was it kept him human, in his outlook, his understandings of his place in life and faith, and his relationship to God, Jesus and mankind.

It really isn't any more complicated than that.

T