1.) Rules to Require Equal Coverage for Mental Ills
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/us/politics/rules-to-require-equal-coverage-for-mental-ills.html?ref=health&_r=0
2.) Category: Health
3.)Level: National
4.)Content: Insurance coverage for those with mental illness and addiction
5.)Importance: The need for coverage of mental illness is not less important than coverage for physical illness, and measure for equality should be attained.
6.) I like the reasoning behind this. For one, there is no reason why insurance coverage should be more difficult or more restrictive for people simply because they have a mental illness rather than a physical one. On top of that, anytime the insurance companies are forced to cut back on the amount of denied claims, and loop holes they can find to screw people over, I'm all for it. I
HATE insurance companies with a passion. I understand the need for insurance, but I think our government has allowed them to become incredibly corrupt and money hungry. When they tried to tell my mom that her chemotherapy treatment was not necessary, I could feel my blood boil.... I will stop at that because I'm not sure I could say much more without getting inappropriate. Another point I thought was interesting, was the mention of decreasing gun violence by those with a mental illness. The idea is, if people are able to seek the treatment they need, they will be less likely to do something drastic. It will by no means fix the problems of gun violence in this country, because lets face it, most gun related murders aren't necessarily caused by the mentally ill, and the mass murders we commonly hear about on the news don't make up a huge percentage of the total gun related murders that happen every day. That having been said, potentially being able to save a few lives is still worth it. Another area of coverage that this effects is for people with addiction. It is one area that I just don't really know what to think about. While I think people should have a decent means to rehabilitation when it comes to addiction besides just going to jail or something, I don't necessarily agree with the methods of treatment. I personally feel that all this talk about addiction being a disease and once you're an addict, you're always an addict, is completely wrong. All to often it gives people the impression that their problem is out of their hands and not their fault. In these days of no responsibility and accountability, the last thing people need is another damn excuse. It's a habit, not a disease. A real disease can't be cured by locking someone in a room to protect them from their own actions. That's not to say that the habit is not difficult to overcome, and that some form of treatment and support is needed to reverse the habit, but those in the addicted state need to know that the power to change is theirs, they can over come it, and they don't have to be an addict for the rest of their lives. Even if they feel temptation later in life again, it isn't some ingrained disease making them want it, and they have the power to be in control. Anyways, I got off on a bit of a rant there, but in the end I think they should be allowed a reasonable form of treatment and support through the insurance companies, and I hope that the requirement cuts into the CEO's paychecks a bit. ;)
