Amish exempt from health care mandate? For religious reasons.

If this is the standard that the Amish church has followed for more than five minutes then, no, the government has no right to try to force them to change. In essence they are acting as their own insurance company. IMO, any organized religion that has a track record of providing for the medical care of it's members as part of it's religious beliefs should have that belief respected. We cannot, as a society, dictate even bits and pieces of any established church doctrine.

This sounds something like the system we have in Britain ... except that the National Health Service (or the Government) take responsibility for the health care of its subjects. If the American Government provided free health care, though, I suppose it would also have to pay unemployment benefit to an awful lot of insurance workers.

When I first started reading your post, before I was finished, I was thinking they were probably asking for this exemption because they possibly don't believe in conventional health care. I found an article that happens to be from a newspaper from a town not far from me. Here's an excerpt from that article: “There is a religious exemption in the bill,” said Roseanne Placey, spokeswoman with the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, “which would apply to them, since they believe the religious duty of communities is to provide for one another when they are sick.” Josh Drobnyk, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-10 of Dimock, confirmed the existence of the exemption, which would release an Amish person or Old Order Mennonite from the individual mandate. “The bill uses the same religious exemption that was used for Medicare, which exempts certain groups if they have religious objections and belong to a recognized religion,” Drobnyk said. Many Amish and Old Order Mennonites refuse Medicaid and Medicare coverage, Placey said. The groups were granted exemptions from paying Social Security in 1965 — which will likely be a requirement for exemption from the health care mandate, said Donald B. Kraybill, professor and senior fellow for the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College. “It has to be a long-standing historical exemption based on religious beliefs,” Kraybill said Thursday. To qualify for the exemption, a person will have to prove he is a member of a qualifying religious group that has been in existence continuously since 1950, Drobnyk said. : http://www.dailyitem.com/0100_news/local_story_002213131.html According to this it won't do any good for other religions to try to claim this same exemption unless it's been a "long-standing historical exemption". I guess this isn't really anything new since they've been exempt from paying into Social Security and Medicare since 1965, which is certainly new to me. I'd say if the church covers its members for health care, they technically have "insurance", it's just not provided by a greed, corrupt insurance company. At least these members won't be getting subsidies from the government to help them make more profits, right? Nor will they be among the uninsured who would continue to cost us all more money by using the ER as their primary physician knowing they can't pay the bill. Annie

Hi lilwonders, I'm not sure just what to think on this one. I suppose that since it is part of their religion that the church pays the medical bills and if they can prove that is what they do and have always done then I suppose it is ok. It would seem to me though that the church itself should have insurance and it seems that they should want it. I mean if they are paying all the members medical costs, wouldn't it only make sense for the church to take out a group policy much like what an employer would have for his employees? In that way the church could prove what members are covered and which ones are not. It would probably in the long run save the church much money as well.

I would argue this if I felt there would be a benefit from this argument. But instead what is going to happen is, government will agree and demand the amish pay for something they don't use. So instead, I'm all for as many people being exempt from this nightmare legislation as possible.

Hi lilwonders456. When the bill first came out, I was looking for exemptions in the bill. I am sure there will be other religious groups that will fit the criteria. Perhaps Christian Scientists, maybe Jehovah's Witnesses. What bugged me though along this line is it made provision for groups, not individuals. I'm independent Pentecostal. Pentecostal is a movement, not a group. Hundreds of fellowships and denominations take the description "Pentecostal." After almost 40 years in Lord I personally feel I have to trust Him and only Him. But, I'm not exempt from this bill if put into law. Aside from "religion," there are people who for no religious reason would prefer they handle their health care on their own. Some prefer naturopathy, some aromatherapy, reflexology and you can imagine the rest. Therefore I wholeheartedly agree with your comment to a respondent above when you wrote... We should get the same respect. We should have the choice. I agree that the Amish should not be made to buy insurance....but neither should the rest of us.

My grandmother's church does the same thing in a sense... I mean they don't just pay medical bills but if something happens and someone needs help with medical bills they church lends a hand... We have a lot of Amish around where I live and I never heard of this about their society, I know they go to doctors and many to the hospital to deliver their children, and they did not get health insurance. Of course the Amish in my area do quite well financially. The do a lot of building houses and furniture, the women sell quilts and baked goods and even have cleaning and childcare businesses of their own and they can afford most anything and everything. When you think of all they save by not having electric or gas or auto bills that probably frees up a lot of money... Anyway I'm rambling... I know that the mandate is unconstitutional no matter who it is on and it's especially wrong for mandates to be on some and not others.

This case can be seen as a case for uniform civil code. Laws and regulations should not be different for people of different religions. In India too this is a problem. The muslims in India have their own personal code. These laws are based on the sharia, but the sharia is not followed completely.Only some laws regarding marraige are included. Governments are supposed to be blind to religion, they should not ackowledge the exsistence of religion,especially while making laws. Such a govrnment will be a secular one.

It sounds perfectly reasonable that Amish are not forced to abide by this garbage. It sounds even MORE reasonable for NONE OF US to go along with this garbage. I shouldn't have to be Amish, or part of a union that funds democrats to be exempt from this garbage. It's unconstitutional. Everyone knows it, but the left just doesn't seem to care about the constitution anymore. It's not a guide for them, but rather a roadblock they have to avoid whenever possible.