Posted on 10/01/2008 5:34:38 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Congress is within a whisker of passing a sound and fair-minded bill to require that group health insurance coverage for mental illness and substance abuse be provided on the same terms as coverage for physical illnesses. It would be a shame if the legislation, which caps more than a decade of struggle to achieve mental health parity in insurance coverage, were allowed to die while Congressional energies are focused on the all-consuming economic crisis.
The bill would not require employers or health plans to cover mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse. But if they do, the treatment limits and financial requirements could be no more restrictive than those that apply to medical or surgical benefits. A 1996 law had required parity in setting annual and lifetime spending limits, but insurers found ways to circumvent it. The new bill closes loopholes by requiring parity in deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses — and in setting treatment limitations, such as the maximum number of doctor visits and days of coverage allowed.
The bill is endorsed by President Bush, business groups, insurance companies, the medical community and mental health advocates. Both the House, in a stand-alone bill, and the Senate, as part of a broader tax relief bill, have approved it by large margins. But it requires a final shove because the measure is snarled in a broader legislative struggle over how to pay for tax revenues that would be reduced by this measure and others. Is there a statesman who can push this worthy parity legislation through to final passage before adjournment?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
McCain and other Republicans have advocated letting people buy health insurance across state lines to lower insurance premiums by avoiding costly state mandates on coverage. Why on earth are they creating new mandates at the Federal level? Liberals wants to make private health insurance unviable to pave the way for socialized medicine. Republicans are helping them.
Simple. Cover for Dems who vote for the bill.
BTW...when John McCain gets in all this spending horror may be the catalyst he needs to get some massive spending cuts done. JMHO.
Do you smoke? Do you eat unhealty foods? are you genetically prone to Alheimers?
Where does it stop?
I heard this morning that this is being included in the Senate’s Wall St. bailout re-do to lure some minority Dems to change their vote in the House.
This would be too rich...including a mental health entitlement to the bail-out bill because one would have to be crazy to vote for it.
President GW Bush is asking that every child be given mental exams and the drugs that follow... Hmmmmmmmmm. I wonder how many bucks follow?
Mental health coverage of this kind is an open invitation to abuse. It’s what “soft-tissue trauma” is to the personal injury industry. It pains me to say this, but a close member of my family who I love very much has incurred more than $50,000 in health care expenses which were covered by insurance. His illness? He’s weak and he’s lazy.
If his treatment were not covered perhaps those of us who love him most would have been forced to make him confront his character flaws. Instead, he talks to therapists who have a vested interest in convincing him that he is sick.
Why should health instance be an “entitlement”? Why should we pay for others? Isn’t that a socialist principle?
“Do you smoke? Do you eat unhealty foods? are you genetically prone to Alheimers?
Where does it stop?”
Employers should be allowed to charge individuals higher premiums for things that are under their control, such as whether they smoke or are obese. Genetic tests are different.
I’m with him - those with riskier health habits should not be socialistically covered by those who make other decisions.
In other words, premiums should be evaluated individually.
Mental illness is on the same level as physical illness and in fact you sometimes cannot separate between the two. Substance abuse is an entirely different issue.
Nonetheless, Congress has no business telling employers what types of insurance they have to purchase for their employees. If this goes through, more employers will drop insurance coverage for the employees, creating a bigger cry of socialized medicine.
When government screws up the health care industry, part XXXIIIVCFFF.
Yup, typical NYT. Let’s get congress to allocate even more funds that we don’t have. Darn, I have lost my intellect, cannot do science any longer, and want to go into an easy profession (journalism). Please, NYT, send me some $$ so that I can get some help.
A very apt analogy!
The more that the "Cure Industry" organizations convince Congress to expand mandates addressing their narrow interests, the more everyone suffers!
The fact that health insurers are bound by federal and individual state mandates to provide "X", the higher premiums go. Of course it is far too radical a concept to allow health care consumers CHOOSE what coverages they want!
Oh, and how is that?
The same risk is present.
Let's also add skydiving and rock climbing to the list of 'risk behavior'.
Something I have never seen discussed on FR: False Memory Syndrome. Basically psychologists ‘recovered’ false memories of child abuse from adult patients through hypnosis. Many men were falsely imprisoned, many families torn apart. Often, young college age girls covered under their parent’s generous health insurance policies were the patients, with all of the treatment and hospitalization covered by these overly generous policies. Some developed multiple personality disorder. I, for one, would not like to see less limitations on mental health coverage.
This is still an “if.” They don’t have to cover mental illness and substance abuse.
I’m not sure why substance abuse needs to be on a par with depression and schizophrenia, however.
And there’s no way in hades that this needs to be attached to the bailout bill.
Here’s the other thread, where we’ve been talking about this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2094706/posts
Also, I have been impressed by how he has been pounding privatized health care.
With Palin by his side there's a chance for some movement in these areas.
Any of these will make a huge difference.
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.