March 05, 2008
Democrats: More money for the psychiatric lobby!
Good news! In our slow-motion rush toward socialized medicine, the Democratic-controlled Congress has expanded government-mandated coverage for caffeine highs, insomnia and a whole host of made-up, un-verifiable psycho syndromes.
WASHINGTON — After more than a decade of struggle, the House on Wednesday passed a bill requiring most group health plans to provide more generous coverage for treatment of mental illnesses, comparable to what they provide for physical illnesses.
The vote was 268 to 148, with 47 Republicans joining 221 Democrats in support of the measure.
Shame on those "Republicans." Probably the same ones who voted for the Americans With Disabilities Act, another attempt to legislate away the unfair hand fate has dealt to some.
The Senate has passed a similar bill requiring equivalence, or parity, in coverage of mental and physical ailments. Federal law now allows insurers to discriminate, and most do so, by setting higher co-payments or stricter limits on mental health benefits.
“Illness of the brain must be treated just like illness anywhere else in the body,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.
So many places to go with Pelosi's quote.
Heh.
The protections of the House bill apply to people who need treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, as well as mental illness.
Under the bill, if an insurer chooses to provide mental health coverage, it must “include benefits” for any mental health condition listed in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.
E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation, a trade group, said: “Businesses will be faced with the choice of covering every single mental or substance abuse disorder listed in the diagnostic manual, or nothing at all. Neither choice is appealing.”
Among the conditions listed in the manual, critics noted, are caffeine intoxication and sleep disorders resulting from jet lag.
Perfect.
If I was running a business and was faced with this all-or-nothing choice, I'd certainly take a moment to do the math.
"Nothing" costs a lot less than "all," making it less expensive to provide healthcare to my workers for illnesses that I know aren't a bunch of psycho-babble bull if I opt for nothing.
Forcing employers to cover the myriad of quirks, ticks, oddities and weirdness that fill the DSM-IV -- or is that V, VI or VII? -- strikes me as ... crazy.
Posted by Mike Lief at March 5, 2008 10:16 PM
| TrackBack