The Law of Unintended Consequences can be a, well, bear. Take, for example, the so-called "individual mandate" (Please!). One of the problems is that, as we've pointed out, some faiths have rather unusual definitions of "health care," which could lead to folks being forced (on pain of jail time) to buy coverage which don't serve their needs, or even go against their beliefs. One such group is Christian Scientists, and they have an issue with that mandate:
"Christian Scientists are lobbying lawmakers to include a provision that would ban discrimination against "religious and spiritual" health care and encourage private insurers to cover prayer as medical treatment."
This leads of course, directly to another Constitutional problem: the First Amendment. Certain folks are quite invested in the concept of "separation of church and state," so would likely take issue with paying for such treatments. But those who practice faith-based health care deserve their rights, as well. Of course, the Christian Scientists lack the resources and troops lined up on both sides of the public-funding-for-abortion debate; still, are their voices no less important?
"Christian Scientists are lobbying lawmakers to include a provision that would ban discrimination against "religious and spiritual" health care and encourage private insurers to cover prayer as medical treatment."
This leads of course, directly to another Constitutional problem: the First Amendment. Certain folks are quite invested in the concept of "separation of church and state," so would likely take issue with paying for such treatments. But those who practice faith-based health care deserve their rights, as well. Of course, the Christian Scientists lack the resources and troops lined up on both sides of the public-funding-for-abortion debate; still, are their voices no less important?
Posts
