How Would Christian Scientists fare Under Universal Healthcare?

As I understand it, the CS Church posits that all physical ailments (diseases, illnesses) are the result of incorrect thinking-and therefore, medical treatment is not necessary. CS people who are ill are treated by CS “practicioners”-people who pray for thos who are ill/out of sorts.
My question: in countires where universal healthcare is offered, are CS people exempt from it?
Finally, how well to CS people fare (if they depend on practicioners)-do they live as long as the rest of us?

It’s Universal Health Care, not Mandatory Health Care. It’s available to everybody who doesn’t have health care through work, but no more people will see medical care enforced on unwilling CS’s than currently happens.

However, as taxpayers, they will still be paying for it. They just don’t have to use it. (Exceptions for minor children, which leads to another whole can o’ worms)

Every health plan I’ve ever had has paid for Christian Science practitioners. This is not because the HMOs or other insurance providers think it works, it’s just at Christian Science practitioners are a lot less expensive than regular doctors and all those tests

Not necessarily their kids.

Not every Christian Scientist refuses to see a doctor, however.

I think the first prayer is covered 100%, but that’s all that’s allowed. They call it a “single prayer plan”, very popular in Canada, I’m told.

That’s a stupid argument. If you don’t own a car you don’t use the highways, you still pay taxes for it. Hell, if you’re an expat you don’t use any of the services your tax dollars pay for but you still pay taxes. Why would it matter whether they use it or not?

I believe the recent Massachusetts (where Christian Science is based) universal health care plan did indeed have exceptions for peoples religious beliefs.

Surely you still use the highways if you ever use public transport, or if you buy virtually anything?

In Canada it is almost universal and is a monopoly for what is covered (you can get supplementary health insurance either through work or on your own, but it covers things that the provincial healthcare plans do not cover). I say almost universal because unless things have changed in the past few years it is possible at least in Alberta to opt out of it, but you have to do that explicitly and then you don’t have any basic health insurance (since the provincial plans are monopolies). That’s about to become irrelevant for Alberta because provincial healthcare premiums are going away in the new year so there won’t really be anything to opt out of.

Just like Quakers pay for the military. And Johovah’s Witnesses pay for blood transfusions given to others. And Republicans pay for education.

We all have to pay for things contrary to our religious beliefs. We just don’t have to use the services provided.

And anyway, it’s not like we’re billed separately for each line item. We all contribute to a big pile of money that then get apportioned out, and we all have various opinions about the different spending priorities. It all comes out in the wash.

Yes, and a Christian Scientist benefits from the rest of the population who sell them things and prepare their food not being sick. They benefit from a societies productivity and wealth increasing as a result of a healthy populace. If you want to include secondary benefits the rationale holds and becomes stronger.

Christian Scientists still see doctors for physical injuries, don’t they? If they fall and break their leg, do they try to pray it straight?

Some do, some don’t.

Our dear luci. Is there a pun you won’t make?

**Liberal **made me do it. I didn’t want to, I was against it.

First, no, they would not be covered and would have to pay out of pocket (as anyone who prefers “alternative” providers not covered by their insurance knows…I paid out of pocket for the home births of both my children, rather than go to an obstetrician and a hospital rather than my midwife)

Well, my grandmother was a Christian Scientist for many years and she lived to be 100, despite heavy smoking and moderate drinking and debatable dietary habits. She saw Drs only in her last years, and only as a result of her daughter, my aunt, caring for her and insisting.

Pissed my aunt off that Drs would examine her and say, well, not a thing wrong with her except age, and she’s very well off in that respect, or stopping smoking at this point would probably do more harm than good. (my aunt was seeking support in her campaign to reform Granny’s habits)

Who knows? Without all those flu vaccines in her last years, she might have lived another decade, lol.

As for exemptions from mandatory medical care (and yes, under most proposals for a universal system, there ARE mandates regarding regular check-ups, tests, vaccines, etc… you would have to get an annual check-up, for example, at the very least, to be allowed to participate) I assume they would be the same as what currently exists.

Adults have the right to refuse any treatment and usually have the right to refuse it on behalf of their minor child, but that can get tricky (I know, being a parent to a child who reacted very badly to his first and only vaccines at 2 mths old with 6 hrs of seizures and other symptoms and I’ve had to go head to head with Drs. and others over my refusal to allow him to to get more doses…even with a valid exemption, it still becomes an issue with every medical contact, even though he is now 16 and has never been as sick as he was after those shots :rolleyes:)

And most recognize religious exemptions to medical procedures (I had the head of an ER tell me once that their policy was to respect such wishes, even in the case of a child dying for want of a blood transfusion where the parents objected to it on religious grounds…May be the policy, but in reality, they would either do it and deal with the flak later or get a judge to step in in such a case.)

But then again, I don’t think we CAN assume the same rules would apply, since we are talking about a group “health plan” and it will have certain requirements for participation included. Not that anyone will hold you down and give you a mammogram or colonoscopy against your will, (oh, you know you love it:D) but if you refuse the required tests/treatments, you could very well be booted out of the plan. (and/or prosecuted for failing to keep your minor children enrolled and in “compliance”)

This is an important question for those of us who take our rights to choose our own providers and opt out of certain procedures seriously.

I generally support a universal, single-payer, basic health care plan, but I cannot support something that would not allow for individual freedom in this respect. Exemptions would have to be clearly spelled out and respected.