Skip to comments.Proposals for Mental Health Parity Pit a Fatherís Pragmatism Against a Sonís Passion
Posted on 03/19/2007 7:06:19 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, March 18 Its Kennedy versus Kennedy as two members of Congress from the same family face off over competing versions of legislation that would require many health insurance companies and employers to provide more generous benefits to people with mental illness.
Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island and chief sponsor of the House bill, has criticized as inadequate the Senate bill introduced by his father, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Representative Kennedy is trying to mobilize mental health advocates to lobby for what he describes as the stronger of the two bills, the House bill.
Both bills seek to end discrimination against people with mental disorders by requiring insurers and employers to provide equivalent coverage, or parity, for mental and physical illnesses.
That would be a huge change. For decades, insurers have charged higher co-payments and set stricter limits on coverage of mental health services. For example, insurers often refuse to cover more than 20 visits a year to a psychotherapist. And a patient may have to pay 20 percent of the cost for visiting a cancer specialist, but 40 percent or more for a mental health specialist.
The differences between the Kennedys bills reflect different views about what is possible and what is politically feasible.
Senator Kennedy said he was taking a pragmatic approach and had made a number of compromises to win the support of business and insurance groups. These compromises, he said, greatly increased the chances that a bill would become law, protecting millions of Americans in group health plans.
Insurers and employers had opposed similar proposals in the past, saying the plans would drive up costs. This year, however, Senator Kennedy invited employers and insurers to help write the legislation, along with mental health groups, and they have endorsed the...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Oh geez.. there you go again quoting a defintion.
You realize this comes from the same people who have also told the world that homosexuality isn't a disorder.. people are born with it.. even though they don't have any proof of it.
Science has also given us global warming or the thought that it's all going to doom us anyways.
Have you ever heard the line "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." If not you should check it out.
Bipolar disorder could also be described as people who refuse to take any responsiblity for their actions and their hi's and low's are the result of them failing to learn how to regulate their own moods.
So no tests can be taken to prove that bi-polar disorder is an actual problem with the brain... don't you find that interesting?
My depression that I overcame was Medical.. I'm not sure where you get that it wasn't.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I believe that Bi-polar disorder can be controlled by realizing that you have the power to change yourself.
I'm sorry that you don't like my tone. You never addressed why ritalin is a drug that the medical industry likes to say can only control ADD but there are plenty of non drug alternatives that can do the same thing.
Do you really think there are no non drug alternatives to severe depression and the like? Why does it apply to ADD which is classified as a severe mental disorder but not other types?
You can't just pray for something to happen and then it happens. Often times God won't change it because we have to change something in ourselves first.. a lesson learned usually. Once we change what needs to be fixed our prayers get answered and we are able to move forward knowing that the change was part of what allowed us to move on.
That's why we can pray for a million dollars but it never comes.. we have to prove that we are worry of money.. we have to prove that it's safe in our hands. It's when we prove that, that opportunties arise for us to seize our "dream/prayer".
You feel entitled to have to tell everyone that you have a severe illness and you may very well have an illness that cannot be correct through any sort of ability to connect with God.. only medication can help you. But just because you have that right to that opinion it doesn't mean you get to present it as fact. Because it's not.
"None of those quotes mean what you think they say. "
Of course not.
"The first is a claim of forgiveness upon all people."
No. God forgave only those that didn't know what they were doing, not those that did, or that claimed they did. He did not, as John 9 points out, forgive those that claimed they could see. Nor, did He forgive Judas.
"Jesus basically saying that all sin is forgivable if you ask for the forgiveness."
He says that in other places, and asks that one everyone forgive others, as he did. He forgives, regardless of being asked. All sin is not forgivable. Those that don't forgive others reject the Holy Spirit, and those that reject the Holy Spirit are not forgiven. Matthew 12:32
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
Re: "That's facinating. So even if they murder they get a free pass? They automatically get to go to heaven while we all have to work for it? Could you point that out in the bible for me."
"The second I'm not sure how that relates at all. "
Obviously, as I said, folks that don't have the capacity can not know. If they are blind, they are forgiven. God looks at how others judge them, and judges those folks accordingly.
"The third can actually be a claim of not knowing Christianity as well. "
God judges based on how one's own Spirit compares to the Holy Spirit. Those are forgiven as the blind are, unless they have effectively rejected the Holy Spirit.
"You could use it as assuming one doesn't know the different between right and wrong.. however few mentally ill people actually have that distinction. Those who are stricken with anxiety or depression still understand the difference between right and wrong."
You don't have a clue about how the mind works, and you accuse others that are born with impediments of being sinners. You're a faith healer that panders mumbo jumbo, not a physician. You don't even have the least of a rudimentary grasp of the subject, so don't play one. You've failed to even grasp what God said in the passages I wrote to you.
"Even psychopaths even know the different between right and wrong. They just don't care."
Your ignorance is glaring. It depends on the disease.
"You better come up with better stuff than that."
"No. God forgave only those that didn't know what they were doing..."
Right.. but severe depressives know what they are doing. They also know they are taking the easy way out by taking medication instead of dealing with the problem.
My point comes from what did severe depressives do 300 or 3000 years ago. They either overcame it or they scummbed to it.
Actually speaking against the Holy Spirit and "not forgiving" as you put it are two totally different things.
For instance anyone who sins is rejecting the Holy Spirit.. God says that when we take the Holy Spirit into our hearts we know that sin is bad and that we shouldn't do it.. therefore when we fall down we are ignoring that Holy Spirit.
Again you are using your quotes out of context.
So since people are born "blind" as you put it.. blind in intself means you don't have the mental capacity to comphrened then you must believe that people are born for the sole purpose not of having to live up to God's word but for the only reason to commit acts of sin against others for some greater purpose.
"God judges based on how one's own Spirit compares to the Holy Spirit. Those are forgiven as the blind are, unless they have effectively rejected the Holy Spirit."
So then there are those who are blind and then there are those who reject? There is nothing inbetween?
Actually it's who are reading passages to fit your own beliefs. Taking things out of context. If you are so against faith healers you must of been against Jesus as well. Jesus was a faith healer.
They never overcame organic disease.
"Actually speaking against the Holy Spirit and "not forgiving" as you put it are two totally different things."
Not forgiving can be a rejection of the Holy Spirit. Speaking against the Holy Spirit, means rejection of the Holy Spirit.
"Jesus was a faith healer."
No. God healed, because He had the power to. All else is in accord with the parable of Gen 3, man is to live by their own works. That includes healing.
When you can show me your medical transcripts proving that you have a doctorate in psychiatry... and proof that you are praciticing at a well-known hospital, I will listen to you.
Otherwise, you are intitled to continue on with your own ignorance. Being shown as foolish is not remotely conducive to discussion. I pity you.
Why would you need to pity me?
How could you possibly argue me as foolish?
Is it someone neive of me to think that God doesn't create anyone mentally defective?
If God creates people that have no responsiblity to their own actions would it not be reasonable to assume that this could apply to anyone? Maybe Hitler was created for some grand purpose of learning. Ted Bundy was created for another. Then we could also say that Osama was created by God for the sole purpose of uniting Christians.
Is it suddenly not fair for me to consider Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden insane? Or am I forced to acknowledge the fact that they are in heaven because their are "blind" as another poster put it.
If God helped humanity create these mental medications for good.. what about the millions of people that suffered from these diseases before these technologies existed? Are they on the outs because they were born in the wrong age? Or are more people now no longer considered "blind" because medication can help them "see".
Your arguement comes from some psycharists who have duped the world into believing homosexuality isn't a disease and that you have to spend years in therapy or taking medication or both just to cope with the world.
I don't see how my points are any less logical than others.
I've seen people suffering from bipolar disorder at work dozens if not hundreds of times. These people are, to a greater or lesser degree, disabled by what is a very real disease brought on by a chemical imbalance. It is not a matter of being irresponsible, it's a matter of being mentally unable to control the manic and depressive episodes brought on by this disorder.
While I congratulate you on your ability to overcome some of your own mental health problems, you have to understand that your experiences don't mirror those of other mentally ill individuals. For many of them drug treatments are the only way to live a normal life.
I never made such a claim. None of these people you listed had organic disease as the cause for their evil. The claim I did make, is that you don't have a rudimentary grasp of these matters.
Well that's pretty lame.
How can you assume that none of those people had an organic disease?
Are you now saying that people with "organic diseases" are not capable of evil?
Science can't even explain why a chemical imbalance occurs in the first place.
Their is no scientific proof that the chemical imbalance isn't a result of a person's own mood change.
As the person on this thread with a chemical balance already stated. There are no tests to find the disease. No way to prove the disease even exists. There is only a laundry list of symptoms in which this doctor has to compare you to in order to prescribe the right kind of medication.
Does that sound like science to you? Guessing on the medication based on a patients and/or doctor's preceived symptoms?
I don't assume anything in the matter, I observe. I can observe they clearly made conscious decisions based on their particular reasons, which were not moral. I also can observe, that there was no organic desease evident.
"Are you now saying that people with "organic diseases" are not capable of evil?"
depends on what it is, and the severity of desease. Certainly, shizophrenia precludes rational functional use, or control of the mind. Manic depression can do the same. It forces emotional control of behavior, rather than rational, or thoughtful control based on such things as prior moral decisions, and value judgments. For very low IQs, behavior depends on what organic emotional drives are present, and what guidance they receive from others.
Good and evil are qualificaitons, that can only be judged on conscious decisions made by a rational being. When rationality is hindered, or made impossible by organic disease, that fact must be considered. No one can change the physics involved in the biology of organic disease by thinking, or praying it away. The chemistry must be addressed to remove the impediment.
Yes it can.
"Their is no scientific proof that the chemical imbalance isn't a result of a person's own mood change. "
Neurophysiology is understood enough to know what is normal, and what is not. That means the functions of neurophysiological structures and chemistry are known and understood. Even the functioning of the mind as a rational agent is. that does not mean, that what can be recognized as a problem, can be addressed at this point in time.
"As the person on this thread with a chemical balance already stated. There are no tests to find the disease. "
There are tests, and no one said there wasn't. Anyone can be examined to determine mental and affect function. If affect is inappropriate and more, or less interferes with rational drives, it can and will be observed.
"There is only a laundry list of symptoms in which this doctor has to compare you to in order to prescribe the right kind of medication."
No. That is guessing. The only way to recognize and treat disease is by knowing and understanding the biology in depth. Only by knowing and understanding it, can the disease be recognized and the appropriate corrections taken.
Based on your observations? Did you live with Hitler? Did you share a room in college?
Depends on what it is? You have got to be kidding me. Even a mentally challenged person can know the difference between right and wrong.
It can.. where is your evidence?
Point me out to articles that prove that chemical imbalances are in inherited.. or anywhere where it says it can be proved why these imbalances can occur midlife and how that happens.
You said observed.. so it's based purely on speculation.. and purely based on observed symptoms. You could of at least "I would have to agree with you Almondjoy that there are no scientific tests to find cause.. only symptoms." It would of been much easier to say that don't you think?
"The only way to recognize and treat disease is by knowing and understanding the biology in depth. Only by knowing and understanding it, can the disease be recognized and the appropriate corrections taken."
Well according to your own statements there is currently no understanding of what is currently happening with the human brain other than to "observe" what is taking place in the patient.
So basically what you are saying is anyone that has an understanding of the symptoms could fake a mental disorder.
Good job. And thanks for proving my point.
Little competition if a senate seat opens up, compared to say, MA, where there are other reps lusting after a senate seat, and then staties lusting after a US House seat.
You don't even understand the concept of observation.
"Depends on what it is? You have got to be kidding me. Even a mentally challenged person can know the difference between right and wrong."
Learn some neurophysiology.
Learn some basic science first, then you can progress to biology.
"You said observed.. so it's based purely on speculation.. and purely based on observed symptoms."
You left out knowing the susject and understand the machinery of the mind. THere's no speculation required for those who know and unerstand the matter. In order to understand what a symptom means, one must understand hte machinery quite well. That's, because the doc must differentiate, between many possible causes.
"Well according to your own statements there is currently no understanding of what is currently happening with the human brain other than to "observe" what is taking place in the patient. "
"So basically what you are saying is anyone that has an understanding of the symptoms could fake a mental disorder."
Explain to me your keen sense of observation then.
I think I'm already explaining to you neurophysiology. You don't seem to get it though.
So you can't back up your claims of science... good for you.
You understand the machinery of the mind? You must be the smartest person in the world.. far smarter than even people in the psychology field. That's amazing.
Not ridulous... proof.
The ability to observe accurately does not require that it be direct.
"I think I'm already explaining to you neurophysiology."
No. Read some books.
"So you can't back up your claims of science... good for you. "
"You understand the machinery of the mind?
Yes, fairly well.
"You must be the smartest person in the world.. far smarter than even people in the psychology field. That's amazing.
I don't place much stock in many, if not most psychologists. Psychiatrists, neurologists, and some involved in AI, amongst others, have a much better grasp of the mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.