PDA

View Full Version : House Approves Bill Requiring Equal Insurance Coverage for Mental Illness



Grendel
03-08-2008, 02:35 PM
House Approves Mental Health Bill

By ANDREW MIGA

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to require equal health insurance coverage for mental and physical illnesses when policies cover both.

The 268-148 roll call was cheered by advocates who have been fighting more than a decade for what has come to be called mental health parity.

Supporters said the measure would help end the stigma of mental illness and create greater access for people needing mental health and addiction treatment.

Opponents warned it could drive up health care costs and force some employers to drop insurance coverage.

The "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007" was named for the late Minnesota Democratic senator who championed the issue for years and who was killed in a 2002 plane crash.

"It's a historic step," said the late senator's son, David, 42. "It's a civil rights bill for people with mental illnesses and chemical addiction. It forces insurance companies to treat them as they treat others."

Forty-seven Republicans joined 221 Democrats in voting for the bill. Three Democrats voted against it.

The House vote sets the stage for talks with the Senate, which passed a narrower version of the bill last September with support from business and insurance groups.

The White House said it favors the Senate bill because it addresses the need to treat mental illnesses with the same urgency as physical illnesses but wouldn't significantly raise health care costs.

The House bill was sponsored by Reps. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who has battled depression, alcoholism and drug abuse, and Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., a recovering alcoholic who is Kennedy's Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor.

"It's about opening up the doors and ending the shadow of discrimination against the mentally ill," said Kennedy.

Former first lady Rosalynn Carter, a longtime mental health advocate, said the bill would help erase the stigma of mental illness that prevents many people from seeking treatment.

The Senate bill was sponsored by Kennedy's father, Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy, along with GOP Sens. Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.

The younger Kennedy will negotiate with his father on a compromise measure.

"We've discussed strategies and ways we can try to move this," the congressman said.

The House measure specifies that if a plan provides mental health benefits, it must cover mental illnesses and addiction disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is used by mental health professionals.

The Senate bill gives insurers more leeway on the types of mental disorders they would have to cover.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., complained the House bill would mandate coverage for such conditions as jet lag and sexual dysfunction that are listed in the psychiatric association's manual.

"Can you imagine any employer being willing to cover things like that?" said Gingrey, a doctor.

Opponents said because the House bill requires much broader coverage than the Senate bill, it would prevent some businesses from providing any mental health coverage at all.

"The House bill will put us in the awkward position of either covering everything in the professional manual — or covering nothing at all," said Neil Trautwein, the National Retail Federation's health care lobbyist.

The federation, a trade association for the retail industry, favors the Senate version.

The Senate bill was a compromise reached after negotiations with businesses, the insurance industry and mental health advocates. Business and insurance groups had fought previous versions, arguing the proposals would drive up insurance costs.Well, it sounds like this is ripe for reconciliation meetings in order to reach a compromise with the Senate bill, but it's good to see something like this gaining passage through both halves of the legislature.

Mental illness and addiction are like any other illness, tending to become more damaging and costly if left unchecked. It's about time they started being treated that way.

Luris Blear
03-08-2008, 03:01 PM
....

Right. Okay. So the government is already forcing money from us in Social Security, then deciding on ambiguous terms if someone does or does not qualify for help. Any attempts to fix that get met with AARP and, well, the welfare state getting pretty up in arms.

Private businesses, however, are being strong-armed into making agreements they do not wish to make by this same inept bureaucracy.

My perspective is that overall, the more we tie the insurance companies in with the government, the more it seems the insurers are able to get away with pulling the same terrible stunts as the government. This government has not done its job with the mentally ill, and looks to be passing the buck.

How many of the homeless who suffer from these issues do you think are honestly carrying Blue Cross?

Grendel
03-08-2008, 04:01 PM
Given the size of their lobbies, if retail and insurance had a seat at the table for the Senate version, I feel fairly secure in hazarding a guess that their interests were well-represented.

As I said before, I think this version demands reconciliation with the former. As for the government's regulatory involvement with business, I don't think there's a blanket statement that can be made, good or bad; it depends on the situation.

This issue isn't one about the homeless, it's about recognizing that, when it comes to "health," the mental and physical warrant equivalent coverage.

Absolutely, in many states, the public mental health agencies, when not excised, have been gutted. The burden has been foisted on whatever providers remain. When it comes to access, though, both the insured and the uninsured must be dealt with. Bills such as this address the former.

JerkyPuck
03-08-2008, 04:07 PM
I don't think you can strong arm a private business into ethical behavior. It is their responsibilty. Just like minorities get equal consideration when applying for a job. Mental illnesses are just like any other illness. I'm glad some awareness is being brought to this.

Grendel
03-08-2008, 04:21 PM
I don't think you can strong arm a private business into ethical behavior. It is their responsibilty.Really?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's a bit of a simplification to say it, but legislative "strongarming" is how ethical behavior has long been obtained.

JerkyPuck
03-08-2008, 05:45 PM
Really?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's a bit of a simplification to say it, but legislative "strongarming" is how ethical behavior has long been obtained.

Absolutely. I really should have said that the government "shouldn't be forced to strongarm". These companies give minorities equal considerations because it's morally ethical. And if companies don't want to behave ethically, then the government should by all means step in.

Necromancer
11-08-2009, 01:36 AM
Rather than start a new post I decided to use this one. The House of Representitives has passed a national health bill. Sorry , but I don't feel that the government should be dictating to companies nor to the public that they have to get / or provide insurance. Sorry , but the government can't even control the programs they have in place ; let alone adding new programs.

I haven't seen the actual bill that has been passed, bit I'm not convinced that this won't add to our national debt; even though they say it won't.


Here's the link : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

lunatic
11-18-2009, 11:43 AM
What we really need is tons of new mental health clinics for the people who run the country. Considering the government's involvement the chances of recovery for Washington idiots will be minimal.

Wait, did I take the medication for my mental illness this morning? Is Priapism even the mental problem?:sadbye:

Sutter Kane
11-18-2009, 12:09 PM
The government does some many thing so fuckin well it makes perfect sense to have them handle health care.

I have no real issue with universal health care, it seems like a good idea but the average taxpayer is already paying out half his or her pay to state and local taxes (all of which are claiming to be broke, I wonder where the money is going...) the idea of taxing the rich is dumb, the real issue is why can't the gov make do with all the money they take from us already?

At some point I will no longer get a fuckin paycheck, it will be shipped directly to the local and fed tax collection agencies and my money can be spent by a bureaucrat who knows better than me on the issue of where to spend my money. :mad: