Wam Bam What a Plan

Currently, congress has endured a whirlwind of pressure by the public about the economic crisis. Who will bail out big corporations and wall street? And what type of measures will be the best fit to re-energize our failed economy? These questions are just a few that force the government to contemplate a solution to the bigger picture, where can we pull more money from? Consequently, this question works against a proposed bill by the house to require mental health parity for individuals with group health insurance.
Let me break it down for you. The bill if passed would not require that insurance companies cover mental illness, drug, and alcohol abuse, but if the insurance company does partake in mental illness coverage than the bill would require mental parity or equality. To help push equality, a law was created in 1996 that required insurance companies to provide parity in annual spending limits and lifetime spending limits. The result was not a successful as people had thought, as insurance companies found paths to navigate around the new law, by increasing co-payments, deductibles, and in setting the number of doctor visits and treatments significantly lower than physically ill members. For example, if one were to break their leg, and was treated in a local emergency room, one would pay about fifty dollars for the co-payment. Depending on the individuals specific insurance plan, say the same individual had a mental break down and were admitted into a emergency mental facility. Their co-payment might be one hundred dollars. Similarly, if one were diagnosed with depression, the maximum number of therapist visits per month might be four, but if one were to be diagnosed with cancer the maximum number of doctor visits might be 10 per month. Essentially the new bill would plug up loopholes requiring insurance meet the same medical provisions for physical and mental illness.
One assumption that the argument relies on is that people view mental illness the same as they do physical illness. Not all people view cancer in the same ball park as schizophrenia. In cases of drug or alcohol dependency some people conclude that it is a choice, and not medical because the individual brought it upon themselves. Another assumption is that mentally ill patients will abuse the increased medical benefits. Maybe one claims to be chemically dependent on Caffeine, or sleep disorders related to jet lag, both of which would be covered under their provider. That is where some argue against the new bill, that will include a immense configuration of mental health conditions listed in the updated version of Diagnostic and Statistical of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association. This argument is meant to encourage more people to support mental health equality and inform the public on mental health coverage. Prominent agendas introduced by the author drive the reader to ask questions about their medical insurance coverage. It Forces the reader to also be aware of the diminished concern insurance companies have for medical equality.
This argument is constructed with several underlying values, one the more prominent and complex being the mind and body. Democrat of California and speaker, Nancy Peloski, simplifies this value in New York Times article saying “Illness of the brain should be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body”. Despite what Peloski thinks, not everybody feels the same way. The standard attack method used is the separation of mind and body, a notion that they are not connected. Another underlying value is formed by insurance companies who argue that mental illness is hard to diagnose. How can one be diagnosed with depression? Depression can’t be revealed in blood tests or cat scans, its something that is based on purely observation alone, and insurance companies are taking that into much consideration. I believe the evidence that supports the argument is the effects of the 1996 law requiring insurance companies apply equally fixed annual and lifetime spending limits of both physical and mental illness. Simply the evidence is clear, concrete, and logically makes sense. The law created a problem with insurance companies who did not want the extra cost, and they maneuvered around it. Yet another underlying value is government hesitation to back the bill because of reduced tax revenue. What I understand is that insurance companies pay taxes to the government reflected by how much they make. If the insurance company profits two billion a year then more taxes would come out than if they were to profit one billion a year. If the bill passes then insurance companies would pay out more for both mental and physical coverage, and therefore would not profit as much, and be taxed less. Government backing is critical to ensure that people that suffer with mental illness be no longer treated unfairly. Although it will hurt the government financially it will hurt the public even more. And it can be evolved in this point to what is morally right and wrong. Should we as citizens ask the government to sacrifice monetary?
One fantastic conclusion one can draw is that if the bill is enacted then all people with group health insurance that provide mental illness coverage will be backed by the same coverage as physical. The argument does convince me because it is not overly ambitious, when looking at how many people have or know someone with a mental illness. Before reading this editorial I took the side of the insurance companies grateful that they were paying for hundreds of dollars worth of my medical expenses. I’ve seen the medical bills and thankfully the proportion is very lopsided with the insurance always carrying the hefty load. Now I think that insurance companies are discriminating against the medically insured, like someone would discriminate about race. People can be stricken with depression just as they can be stricken with the flu. We all should be concerned because mental illness can hit you at anytime, and we should feel the same security as we already do with physical health coverage.
This argument makes a big difference to everyone who has health insurance, and more significantly to the people in that group who suffer from mental illness. In a broader sense it could reduce the records of people living with mental illnesses, such as bulimia, depression, and sociological disorders by treating them effectively. Having unlimited visits to Dr. John as oppose to three or four before the bill passed, will likely help patients overcome illness. It will finally end the battle over physical illness and mental illness fairness and equality.
A couple of political implications arise over this proposed bill in the form of Senate Vs. House. The senate also propose a similar bill but the difference is the limited mental health illness that insurance would cover, most likely outing caffeine addiction, what some could call a minor illness, and for example, bulimia. On the other hand the house proposed bill would include everything listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical of Mental Disorders, here it is all or nothing. Both groups are part of the chain created by our governments system of checks and balances, where in this case the senate is checking the house. Its political significance is to prove that the traditional version of democracy “ people-power” still exists. Sometimes it seems as though government may not be doing what benefit’s the citizens but themselves. By backing the bill government would give people the security and civil rights that everyone wants. Because of this argument existence it furthers my belief that the government may not be always benefiting the people. My reasoning is that other tax breaks could be reduced elsewhere like the big oil companies profiting billions more than what they already pull before government tax breaks. The government would be receiving the scarce resources meaning money here from taxing insurance companies; the reason for them not being in total agreement. If the house wins the people will win. If the senate wins the people will win also but with reduced mental health coverage.