senate healthbill has coverage for faith healing

[crb]

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,0,2239900.story

And this, is why big government healthcare fails, because politicians are too in the pockets of lobbying groups and special interests.

What you need is competition, not the false competition of private vs. public, the real competition of private vs. private free from universal mandates.

Insurance costs can differ widely from state to state, this is not because people in one state are that much sicker, it is because individual states have passed varying mandates on coverage, and those mandates drive up the cost of insurance.

What happens is some professional or special interest group lobbies lawmakers to mandate coverage for their service. Chiropractors, or accupunterists, or various "new age" hippy doctor people with lightbulbs and herbs, or colon cleanser people, or what have you. Because politicians like money and campaign donations, and hate saying "no" to anyone, they agree, so you get a mandate, driving up cost of insurance.

If we allowed people to buy across state lines it would create competition between states to reduce unneeded coverage mandates, thus providing us with lower cost health insurance.

If, on the otherhand, we get some big ass federal plan, that just gives the lobbyists a consolidated target for their work, and there will be no hope of competition on this issue, and prices will go up for everyone.

So there you go, faith healing paid for by your tax dollars, faith healing mandated for everyone in the country. That should be enough to piss off every atheist liberal and every small government conservative. Only the big government statists and the religious zealots should be for this shit.

[Warriorbird]

Faith based birth control... faith healing... I'm not seeing much of a seperation.

[Kuyuk]

<<Insurance costs can differ widely from state to state, this is not because people in one state are that much sicker, it is because individual states have passed varying mandates on coverage, and those mandates drive up the cost of insurance. >>

Tell that to the fat bastards in the south who just eat steak [texas] or fried chicken.

Then tell it to the hippies in california/vermont who eat tofu and salad.

[Kuyuk]

Also, no one state is healthier than the other?


http://www.americashealthrankings.org/2008/dando.html

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You are lumping Chiropractors in with the others? I feel they have merit as a "healing" profession.

[Cephalopod]

That should be enough to piss off every atheist liberal and every small government conservative. Only the big government statists and the religious zealots should be for this shit.

I'm an athiest liberal, and this does piss me off.



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.


One more reason to dislike Orrin Hatch. It bums me out that Ted Kennedy's name is here, because that makes it more likely this provision will stay IN a final bill.

[crb]

You are lumping Chiropractors in with the others? I feel they have merit as a "healing" profession.

Some do, some don't.

Chiropractors who fix musculoskeletal issues involving your spine are okay.

Chiropractors who insist you don't need vaccinations if instead you get regular spinal manipulations, not okay.

In general the profession suffers from a serious case of hubris. They have one tool in their toolbox and any patient that walks through the door can of course be cured of that one tool. They try to diagnose and treat things they have no business diagnosing or treating. They also, consequently, cannot prescribe medicine, cause of course, they didn't go to medical school.

If you want you can go and see a DO, they are the exact same as an MD (take the same classes, the same residencies, like the exact same, not equivalent, the same, a DO can sit next to an MD student in school, or a DO resident can work with an MD resident at a hospital, people in areas without DO schools tend not to realize this). The only concrete difference is DO's also learn manipulation, so basically if you need your back cracked, they can do it. BUT... because they're also real doctors if they see something else wrong with you (which they could, because medical school involves rotating through every specialty and learning every facet of medicine, not just where you eventually specialize), they can treat that, or refer you to a specialist, or send you in for more tests. When was the last time you saw a chiropractor say "We need a consult from a spinal surgeon here."? They can also prescribe medicine if need be, a chiropractor can suggest you go home and pop some tylenol, that isn't a prescription.

Finally, chiropractor billing practices are suspect. Asking you to come by 3 times a week for the rest of your life isn't curative medicine.

I would never tell someone to go to a chiropractor for an injury. Tell them to go to a real doctor who'll be able to tell if it is more serious. Then have them ask the real doctor if manipulation from a DO, chiropractor, or physical therapist would be appropriate, and if so, get the referral. (or just go to a DO to begin with (though, not all of them do manipulation once they graduate)

And then, if you do it and it doesn't help you, long term, stop.

So no, I don't think chiropractors should be mandated as coverage for everyone. If people want chiropractor insurance, let them buy it ala carte. Or, require a doctor's referral for it to be covered. Like with physical therapy.

The only things mandated should be primary care coverage for men (at a dr licensed to practice medicine, define it by someone with a DEA license to prescribe medications if you like) with 1 wellcheck yearly. Specialists with referrals, urgent care clinics at a higher copay, and hospital/er care with a higher-yet copay. For women all the same but add in 1 ob/gyn check yearly.

If people want better insurance, let them buy it. But do not mandate a minimum that is above it. You can tweak deductibles, copays, and out of pocket limits, whatever, but for coverage minimums, do only the above.

[Mabus]

The Sensational Alex Harvey Band - Faith Healer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhrxVUXx_6g&feature=related)

[Latrinsorm]

Don't believe the hype, people.

"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."

What the Senate is ensuring is that people aren't discriminated against for their religious beliefs. If you want to impose a particular religion (or atheism) on everyone, then you should be riled up. Otherwise, not so much.

[Rocktar]

The only things mandated should be primary care coverage for men (at a dr licensed to practice medicine, define it by someone with a DEA license to prescribe medications if you like) with 1 wellcheck yearly. Specialists with referrals, urgent care clinics at a higher copay, and hospital/er care with a higher-yet copay. For women all the same but add in 1 ob/gyn check yearly.


I disagree with some of what you have said about Chiropractors. Continued care might be useful, though likely not at the level they want you to pay for. After all, you car needs alignment and takes about the same abuse as your skeleton. I would add basic dental cleaning twice a year and x-rays once a year to the coverage along with well kid care.

[Ker_Thwap]

I heard the following one sided telephone conversation from a chiropractor once.

"What's that, you have a nasty cold?
Come on in this afternoon at two thirty...
I'll give you an adjustment and it will be gone within the week."

Ka-ching!

[TheRunt]

The only things mandated should be primary care coverage for men (at a dr licensed to practice medicine, define it by someone with a DEA license to prescribe medications if you like) with 1 wellcheck yearly. Specialists with referrals, urgent care clinics at a higher copay, and hospital/er care with a higher-yet copay. For women all the same but add in 1 ob/gyn check yearly.

If people want better insurance, let them buy it. But do not mandate a minimum that is above it. You can tweak deductibles, copays, and out of pocket limits, whatever, but for coverage minimums, do only the above.


After all, you car needs alignment and takes about the same abuse as your skeleton. I would add basic dental cleaning twice a year and x-rays once a year to the coverage along with well kid care.

Just my 2 cents, but I don't think there should be any mandatory minimums. Part of the reason health care costs are so high is because of them, people do not need to shop around for the best price so there is no competition. IMO costs for preventative care would drop quite a bit if no insurance company covered them. Compare a DVM visit to a MD visit for cost, my Vet charges $35 for a visit my Dr. $105 and the Vet spends way more time on average in the room than the Dr. both take 8 years of college to get a degree and it is statistically harder to get into a Vet school as there are only 27 in the US. Why is the Dr so much more expensive?

Or for something a bit more expensive when my Mom had cataract surgery done I think the total cost for both eyes was right about $7k, a friend of mine was checking into having it done for their cat, they were told I think about 2-2.5k for both.

Or take the cost of going in for a Tetanus shot, my Drs office is $145 I think that is what they quoted me, or the local health department $25 for the same shot given by the RN there.

[crb]

Don't believe the hype, people.

"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."

What the Senate is ensuring is that people aren't discriminated against for their religious beliefs. If you want to impose a particular religion (or atheism) on everyone, then you should be riled up. Otherwise, not so much.

You don't have a problem with your tax dollars being used to pay for someone else's spiritual care?

What happened to separation of church and state?

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and you've posted some whoppers.

If people want to use faith healers fine, TAX DOLLARS SHOULDN'T PAY FOR IT.

You're free to spend your money enriching charlatans all you want.

Calling it discrimination, so very very retarded. If the government is going to pay for healthcare it should only pay for scientifically proven healthcare.

Paying for faith healing would be like paying an psychic to walk through the capital building dispelling negative energy before a vote.



We have freedom of religion in this country, but that doesn't mean we can ask our neighbors to pay for our faith. It just means we're free to pay for it ourselves.

And yes, the IRS needs to get rid of any faith mumbojumbo on their rolls as well.

[Latrinsorm]

Here is what I recommend for you:

1. Take a deep breath.
2. Resolve to put out of your mind any and all preconceived notions.
3. Reread the following two statements:
a. "if the care is recognized by the IRS as a legitimate medical expense."
b. "It does not mandate that plans provide spiritual care."

Here is what has happened to the separation of church and state: it is impossible to legislate fairness in a positive way; by declaring each and every way a citizen's religion can be used to discriminate against him or her (and further declaring each of these illegal, obviously). The better choice is to legislate fairness in a negative way; by making a citizen's religion as invisible as possible to the eyes of the state. Thus, if a legitimate medical expense also happens to qualify as spiritual care, the second fact is (and ought to be) irrelevant to the government.

Don't allow yourself to be so easily inflamed by other people - read, learn, react as you would like to the actual facts of the matter.