Should Taxpayers be Required to Subsidize Muslim Health Care?

Catholic health care and the situation on San Juan Island is the subject of a Washington Times editorial.

From the editorial, it sounds as if the people defending tax subsidies for Catholic health care would also defend tax subsidies for Islamic health care, Jehovah’s Witness health care, Jewish health care, and health care provided according to the rules of any other religion.

For each of these types of health care, different rules would apply.  Islamic health care might start with the idea that modesty is such a crucial requirement, females can never be seen by male doctors or males never seen by female doctors.  Of course, many Muslims might disagree, but it we want to achieve parity with Catholic health care, the rules of the most conservative Imams should probably apply.

Similarly, in facilities that operate according to the rules of Jehovah’s Witness followers, we can assume blood transfusions will be disallowed.

And in Rastafarian-run health care centers, amputations would be unavailable.

Now, a question arises as to whether or not patients should be told about the restrictions.  If patients don’t need to be told that some Catholic health providers won’t provide contraception or won’t allow an abortion even after a patient has started miscarrying, it seems unfair to require an Islamic hospital to disclose its religious rules, restrictions, and requirements.  Better to let people guess.

And why would any patient need to know that blood transfusions are not available in a facility run by Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Surely, that’s something people can just be expected to KNOW, and if they don’t agree with the restriction, they can just get themselves up off the hospital gurney and go to a different hospital.

This new multi-cultural, taxpayer-subsidized approach to health care, which we’ll call “Let’s Let Religious Leaders Decide,” seems to be finding favor among the defenders of Catholic health care.

Oh wait.  I’m hearing from sources that’s not what Catholic health care providers truly want after all.  What they want is for the Catholic bishops to decide what health care we all should get and for the rest of us to pay for it.  No one said anything about extending the same “courtesy” to other religions.

After all, providing tax-subsidized health care in a bunch of different hospitals/health care settings that operate by different religious rules without any disclosure of what the rules are would be simply crazy.

Wouldn’t it?

 

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted in news on

5 thoughts on “Should Taxpayers be Required to Subsidize Muslim Health Care?

  1. Lorie Lucky

    Excellent commentary on theoretical expansion of other religions into the health care sphere, and what it could mean for women’s health care.

    Reply
  2. Keith Comess

    Another trenchantly argued and tightly reasoned response! Congratulations yet again.

    One point of major interest to many of defenders of religion in the public sphere (seemingly inextricably intertwined in the minds of some) is that of taxes and subsidies. Apparently, these can be dispensed with total abandon for some indications (religious displays of one sort or another being one of them and support for multi-billion dollar corporations being another) but these are strictly forbidden when applied to the social welfare net. This is a curious paradox when logic is applied but thoroughly understandable when the veneer of reason is removed and the actual ideological core is exposed.

    Reply
  3. carmelita reddick

    After ten years of employment I recently deceided I would rather pick up trash for a living then work for a company that didn’t believe in womans healhcare rights. It makes me so sad that out of 92 employees mostly woman that only ten of us left because we care about other woman. I still can’t believe they stayed young woman, lesbians and woman with young daughters all just for a paycheck. I have childern and I wanted my childern to know you stand up when something isn’t right and nothing makes me more angry then a bunch of men making up their own rules slapping a religon logo on it and not paying any taxes for it this whole situation is a set back for woman.

    Reply
  4. marie cisneros

    As someone who spent many years working in the health care field, before the catholic organization took it over in our town, I am of the opinion that this is why religion should be kept out of health care. Health care is not just a commodity that can be bought and sold under market justice, or at the whims of the religious community, it is a basic human right.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>