# Could a Christian-Science business refuse to offer health insurance? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 9, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678 "2014-07-09T00:15:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678/21 "2014-07-09T15:27:02Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Amazing how quickly this thread went off the rails. Of the 15 responses only 3 or 4 addressed the OP. I infer that the answer is yes. A closely held corporation whose owners were sincerely Christian Scientists could refuse to participate. > > IMHO, this isn’t freedom of religion, it is freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others. Do you understand that Congress passed a law that says, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability…?” Do you understand that the same law says (in case that line wasn’t clear): > [@](#): > > This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution. So the RFRA prevents the federal government from burden the religious exercise of anyone. It does not prevent Joe from burdening Sam’s religious exercise. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678/22 "2014-07-09T15:39:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think it depends on the answers to the question I listed in Post #4. I could have sworn I’ve seen them answered, and said answers responded to by you, in this thread. So your response to the OP is…? ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678/23 "2014-07-09T18:31:25Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > IMHO, this isn’t freedom of religion, it is freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others. It’s not, and here’s why: 1. Prior to the health care act, if the owner(s) of a business could choose to offer limited insurance coverage or, if they could not not find an insurance policy that covered (or did not cover) specifically what they wanted, for whatever reason (beliefs, cost, whatever), there was always the option of not offering insurance at all. “Hey, insurance through us is not a benefit we offer, sorry!” 2. The government enacted legislation that requires businesses of a certain size to offer health insurance or pay a large fine. Opting out is no longer a viable option. Whether that, in and of itself, is wise is a whole 'nuther thread. 3. The legislation went one step further and mandated that the insurance offered by the employer must cover “X, Y and Z” specifically. Now limited coverage is not an option, regardless of my personal beliefs or the ability of the business to afford the benefit. 4. Now the owners are left in a bind between fulfilling a government mandate, violating their personal beliefs, or shutting down the business. IMHO, that choice should not have to be made. This is not a result of imposing any belief on others, it is a case of government cobbling together a massive, ill-conceived (pun intended) piece of far reaching legislation and (surprise!) not thinking through the effects. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678/24 "2014-07-09T23:34:22Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I could have sworn I’ve seen them answered, and said answers responded to by you, in this thread. So your response to the OP is…? Neither you nor the OP answered those questions. **jtgain** did. Are you adopting his answers? I noted that his answer to #7 was potentially based on an error of fact. But let’s go: 1. What’s the religious belief? _The belief is that God heals and we don’t need modern medicine. Using modern medicine is sinful (I think that’s how it goes)._ 2. Is it sincere? _Yes._ 3. Does the government burden that belief? _Yes, at least as much as Hobby Lobby’s were._ 4. Is the burden substantial? _Yes, at least as much as Hobby Lobby’s were._ 5. Is the government’s interest a compelling one? _Yes, providing health insurance to people is compelling._ 6. Is the government’s scheme to promote that interest narrowly drawn to achieve that interest? _Probably._ Wait – if the government’s interest is in providing health insurance to people, then it’s not narrowly drawn in this case. You need to either re-state the government’s interest or acknowledge that a narrower method is possible than mandating employers cover health insurance. 7. Is the scheme the least restrictive one available? _No. Just like in Hobby Lobby, the government may provide health insurance through the existing Medicaid system._ That’s not what the Court pointed out. They pointed to the existing accommodation for religious employers and how it shifted responsibility to the TPA as an example of a less restrictive approach. So these answers need a little modification. But going generally by what’s been said, a Christian Science employer could shift his health insurance to his TPA by advancing a similar claim as what’s discussed above. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678/25 "2014-07-10T01:50:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wait – if the government’s interest is in providing health insurance to people, then it’s not narrowly drawn in this case. You need to either re-state the government’s interest or acknowledge that a narrower method is possible than mandating employers cover health insurance.[/color] > > 1. Is the scheme the least restrictive one available? > _No. Just like in Hobby Lobby, the government may provide health insurance through the existing Medicaid system._ > That’s not what the Court pointed out. They pointed to the existing accommodation for religious employers and how it shifted responsibility to the TPA as an example of a less restrictive approach. > > So these answers need a little modification. But going generally by what’s been said, a Christian Science employer could shift his health insurance to his TPA by advancing a similar claim as what’s discussed above. 1. This is the age old definition of how broadly do we define something. Do we define gay sex as homosexual sodomy, prohibited since ancient times or the private sweet mystery of life, private choices within the bedroom? Do we define employer health care as the sine qua non of the U.S. healthcare system, or is it simply a discardable means to an end? 2. Yes, I was in error above, but my point stands. The government is in the healthcare business. It could provide contraception or any other healthcare through the TPA or Medicaid. Both are less restrictive that forcing John Smith, private individual, or John Smith, LLC, or John Smith, Inc. from providing the same. ---
**Author:** ![The\_wind\_of\_my\_soul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@The\_wind\_of\_my\_soul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_wind_of_my_soul)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678/26 "2014-07-10T20:50:18Z")
I grew up in Christian Science, and I was exempted from the public school requirement to get immunization shots. So if nothing else, I can tell you that the government (or at least my local government) does recognize medical care in general as against some people’s religious beliefs. Also, just so you know, when Christian Scientists are sick, they normally work with a Christian Science practitioner, which, as **MsRobyn** mentioned, is often covered by insurance. So it is quite likely that a Christian Science business would argue that medical care is against their religion but health insurance is not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-a-christian-science-business-refuse-to-offer-health-insurance/692678.md?page=1)