Y'all heathens are slipping. I saw this on Bad Astronomy. It surprised me that it had not yet been discussed here.

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/l...

Message edited by its author, Nov 6, 2009, 8:09pm.

Oh, L. Ron Hubbard, please cure me of my bunions! Amen.

Nice. Let them take prayer treatment while we'll use medicine - and let natural selection do the rest.

Message edited by its author, Nov 7, 2009, 4:54am.

Is this acceptable for our elected representatives to sneak such bad laws into a massive 1000 page bill, then rush to vote, before anyone has read the bill? Same as far as I can tell with most pieces of legislation - certainly true for the first massive bailout bill.

Is this behavior OK with us?

"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."

I personally like this blog comment:

"why is it that there is no one to check these things before massive bills are passed? If it is unconstitutional, then why would it be allowed in at all? The system is screwed up. I think that the issues we need to focus on are term limits, and campaign reform. I also think that a healthy pay cut would go a long way to making sure that those who represent us, do it for the right reasons."

Oh, deary, deary me. Government sponsored faith healing? //shakes head//

"I also think that a healthy pay cut would go a long way to making sure that those who represent us, do it for the right reasons."

There is the argument "If you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys." But, hey, if you're paying good money and still getting monkeys....

I think it matters more who is doing the paying than how much is being paid.

I like the combination of supporters - Hatch, Kerry, and Kennedy.

Message edited by its author, Nov 7, 2009, 7:02am.

I just want to know how I get the gig. I'll pray for anyone for $20 an hour.

>7 Well, maybe in a big room with 30 or 40 people all paying $20 an hour...

You normally bill out at $600 an hour? Must be some gig you've got. If you need an assistant, I'd be more than willing to pray for you for $20 an hour.

Evidently all at tax payers expense - assuming Hatch and Kerry get their way. Has anyone read the healthcare bill?

Could this be the only waste that is targeted just to reelect incumbents, and not intended to produce good health care?

Message edited by its author, Nov 7, 2009, 8:44am.

No, I don't normally get $600 an hour by myself, but without trying to get all Evangelista-ic on you, I wouldn't hit 'Reply' to answer an email to decline a contract at $20 an hour.

Anyway, surely prayer is not diluted by the number of people it is performed over.

Now, I don't believe that gov't healthcare should necessarily cover this form of alternative healthcare, but there are some misconceptions about what the church of christ, scientist (or 'christian scientists') does and believes...

They are *not* scientology. Big difference. Scientology is the science fiction religion started by LRon... Church of Christ, Scientist was started by Mary Baker Eddy. I've heard them called the 'Buddhism of Christianity' because of their philosophical nature/beliefs... (From what I remember, it's been a while since I dated the guy that introduced me to this religion) Essentially they hold that the material world we see is not real, that it is all illusory in nature. They aren't biblical literalists -- they don't necessarily care about creation nor evolution, because things that happen in the 'material world' are, well, not really real.

So what they believe is that sickness is a spiritual/mental disturbance that can be corrected by learning to correct the thinking/belief. Therefore, you go to one of their 'specialists' in a special kind of medical-like clinic and (it's been a while and I'm recalling this from memory here, so if I'm trampling all over your religion like a drunken horse, I do apologise) talk to a specialist while they talk to you and pray over the areas that are causing the distress. It was a one-to-one clinic (although I can't remember if they call themselves specialists, nurses, or doctors... and I seem to remember the impression that it sounded more like visiting a praying spiritual psychologist...) and they try to help you overcome the problematic thinking/beliefs.

This is considered the 'first medical step' for people in this religion, and if it doesn't provide relief, then of course there are the material options (only the super crazies are shown in the news though, so you'd never know that they actually do attend regular medical clinics, etc.) Also, they really believed in following any state medical laws, and a bunch of other progressive ideas... (and I know I've not really explained them very well, if you're curious -- go to wikipedia)

I can understand that people in this religion would like to have their health care covered by an insurance, but I really wouldn't want to see it be a base cover in a gov't plan, because I think while the intention is good, the idea that WHOLE GROUPS would all of a sudden open up 'health clinics' of 'preachers prayin' over the congregation at $20 / hour' ..... I think would completely bastardise this idea straight into parody territory.

I think, if anything, this should be offered in private coverage, like how acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractors, etc. are covered through 'extras' if you pay for it yourself... because then there wouldn't be the incentive of "OMFG FREE MONIES FROM THE GOVT IF WE JUST PRAY IT ALL AWAY!" ......

Do Christian Scientists at this time pay to have their clergy pray for their healing? We do not charge for healing prayer in the Episcopal Church.

I wonder what the Mormons due in this area since Hatch is involved in supporting this reelection amendment. It is not just Kerry and formerly Kennedy.

I want to know how the late Edward Kennedy supported adding this amendment to the bill if it was only done at the last minute?

Or was it really added months ago and no one noticed?

#13
If I remember corectly, it's not clergy that pray for the healing, they are people that go through a special 'practioner' program to become a 'health specialist'. Granted, it's not an accredited system, but they aren't clergy. A clergy can become a specialist and the other way around (this was my impression), but the training isn't 'automatic' and they have to choose to become a health specialist (or whatever the label is). (I seem to recall that practioners have to pay to go to these programs/schools to become a 'licensed practioner' ....)

People go to the clinic and talk/pray over what is bothering them. The only analogy I can think of is a spiritual psychologist. And as I remember, there is a 'donation' (or perhaps it was called a fee, I'm really stretching my memory here) that people give to use this service.

That would be why an insurance option would be desired -- because of a fee to use the 'spiritual health clinic'.

... I don't *believe* mormons have this same faith-healing style of practice.... (been a while since I looked into them too though...)

Message edited by its author, Nov 7, 2009, 10:00am.

If junk like this does pass through, it will cost lots more than the $20 per session. It will eventually end up before the Supreme Court after a bizillion dollars in attorney fees have been paid and then get struck down.

It is just amazing that the idiots who put these things on the bill are so narrowly focused. To me, it opens up the door for any kind of faith-healing. My local voodoo witch has been performing some real nice healings lately. Would be nice to get those paid for -- and rum is part of the prescription! ;)

It's interesting how the Christian Scientists have been effective at buying legislation for themselves. The only copyright legislation of the 20th century to affect only one person's works was to give the Christian Scientists a massively extended copyright on several of the works of Mary Baker Eddy. As the court overturning the legislation pointed out, it had the primary effect of attacking heretics and hence was unconstitutional.