Subsidizing spiritual healing
Non faith-based reply to Marc
Marc argues that a strong moral argument exists to require insurance companies to cover spiritual healing. He writes that, “When risk is involved, the bearer of the risk should ultimately make the decision.” Since patients in need of care bear the risk of the success or failure of the procedure, if they desire a spiritual healing, insurance companies ought to cover the cost, Marc argues. This argument fails because the insurance companies—and all the fellow members of the insurance plan—are the people covering the cost and bearing the risk.
The purpose of insurance, Marc writes, “is to prevent bad luck from having a negative impact on our life circumstances.” The way it does that is by spreading the costs of bad luck and accidents. The individual who selects a faith healing procedure does not bear the risk alone; everyone shares the risk, at least financially. Assuming that those individuals who select faith healing procedures would have the opportunity to select science-based procedures should the former fail, the end result would be higher premiums for everyone. Why should others have to subsidize other people’s religious beliefs via a science-based insurance company? If the faith healing procedures were the same price or cheaper than the science-based procedures—and people who selected them couldn’t then see a medical doctor as well—it would be a different story. But even were that the case, I don’t see why such an option should be mandated by the government.
More to the point, no one is forcing believers in religious healing to buy science-based insurance. That there isn’t a market for religious healing insurance shows that its proponents don’t want to pay for their expensive beliefs. When push comes to shove, they only want them if others subsidize them. The right to spiritual healing must be a negative one, such that the government should not infringe on people’s right to pursue that option. I don’t see how it could be a positive one, such that the government must force private companies and other individuals to subsidize the practice.
The positive right on the table is something like a right to a reasonably healthy life (such that one can exercise their autonomy, free will, etc.). And there exists a related equality argument about an equal access to healthcare (tied to the equal right to exercise autonomy, etc.). The point is that it’s about health, not about the means by which one receives health, at least essentially. And it’s about spreaing costs, to enable everyone (or the most people possible, given our other concerns) access to health. It’s not about guaranteeing people full control over the means of their healthcare, such that the government, private companies, or other citizens will subsidize whatever procedure one desires, no matter how expensive or how likely it is to succeed.
-Jake
Related posts:
- Should health care cover spiritual medicine?
- Singer on health care rationing
- Does health reform treat the obese unfairly?
- Religion and foreign aid
- Rescinding recission
ShareComments
2 Responses to “Subsidizing spiritual healing”
Leave a Reply
Thanks Jake, well said. I would just add that the state (and insurance providers) have an interest in subsidizing care that works. Our tax money has been used for decades in massive studies determined to find so-called “alternative remedies” for health problems and to this day, none have been shown to work better than a placebo. Many actually worsen conditions by preventing actual medical care from taking place. If you believe that eating carrots will cure cancer, that’s your prerogative. But you cannot deny your child medical care on that basis or force others to share in your costs.
“…a strong moral argument exists to require insurance companies to cover spiritual healing.”
Uh, excuse me but, “cover” spiritual healing? There is no cost involved in closing one’s eyes, putting one’s hands together and mumbling to an invisible Being. The cost of that is zero.