You’re both right this is something to be careful about, however, the way current laws are for “parity” (mental illness gets same coverage as physical) a specific diagnosis is required by the doctor, not a description by the patient, and not all illnesses are covered, only serious ones.
For example, depression and generalized anxiety disorder are not covered, but schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychosis are. This makes sense as many lives could be saved, the patients as well as their potential victims in manic or delusional phases of those serious illnesses.
This is much better than I thought. If so, I suspect this was the compromise bill that some in the industry supported.
My point is that once the door is forced open to insurance benefits, each mental ailment is just a simple lobbying effort away from being paid for by people who choose a healthy, well balanced lifestyle, outlook, attitude, etc.
Here is an excerpt from a paper that I wrote regarding the criminal incompetence of the APA in its approach to diagnosing mental disorders:
"The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) incorporates an outline that includes an “assessment of a patient’s cultural identity… cultural explanations of the client’s illness, cultural elements of the relationship between the client and the mental health professional, cultural factors related to the psychosocial environment and levels of functioning, and the overall cultural assessment for diagnostic care” (APA, 1994, in Campinha-Bacote, pp. 40-41). However, the DSM-IV offers no guidance for the practitioner in assessing culture-bound disorders, and even cautions mental health practitioners against using DSM-IV diagnoses for non-Western patients (Marsella, 2003, in Campinha-Bacote, p. 41). For all intents and purposes, the APA caveat contained in its own diagnostic standard effectively renders the DSM-IV useless for the accurate diagnosis of disorders in the client who has a non-Western cultural background. This leaves the practitioner in a very difficult position in which he or she may be required to utilize subjective data to reach an objective, empiric diagnosis. This situation makes diagnostic clarity all the more elusive and difficult to achieve."
(Yeah, I scored a 4.0 on that paper, plus extra credit for finding that APA caveat. My Psych prof had no idea it existed until I showed it to him. It rocked his world.) Then there are the three letters "NOS." In APA parlance, it stands for "Not Otherwise Specified." What that means is that if you have a mental health problem that they can't figure out, they simply slap a diagnosis on you (that you carry for the rest of your LIFE) like "Mood Disorder," and then add "NOS."
Here's what "NOS" really means: NOS= "I don't know what the f*** I'm doing and I would have been a thoracic surgeon but was too frigging lazy to do my homework. So what if I may ruin some nutjob's life? I still make my Beamer payment."