An Argument Against the New Mental Health Parity Law
This is Megan McArdle at her blog:
I am very sympathetic to the plight of the mentally ill. Unfortunately, most of the people who will tap the benefits are not severely ill people who need intensive care; they’re people who are unhappy. Unhappiness is not a condition for which psychotherapy, or antidepressants, have been shown to be very effective. (Severe clinical depression, yes. But contrary to the belief of people who felt awfully down the time their boyfriend left them, these two conditions are not the same thing.) Since the moderately unhappy and dissatisfied are much more prevalent than those with serious disorders, that’s most of what we’ll be paying for: someone to listen to complaints. That’s what Senators are supposed to be for.
On a more serious note, I feel like we could have achieved the laudable goal of ensuring that serious mental illnesses are not left untreated (at least, in cases where the patient wants to get treatment), without guaranteeing cheaper psychotherapy for America’s ennui-laden affluent classes. Of course, then we’d have to recognize the fact that this stuff has to be paid for, rather than pretending that benefits can somehow be magically generated for free with just a wave of the regulatory pen.
Nice to see someone on the left show some sense on this issue.
Megan McArdle has an interesting perspective: she separates those who are merely unhappy from those who are clinically depressed. Unhappiness could have many causes (some self-induced, others due to externalities). By contrast, clinical depression is often a malfunction of brain chemistry.
Should unhappiness be clinically treated if there is no underlying medical condition? By extension: should insurers and taxpayers be forced to cover counseling to alleviating the resentment of a lifetime of poor choices, bad decision-making and missed opportunities? Or should clinical treatment be confined to those with actual physiological conditions. These are all interesting questions.
I think she is right on.
There’s also the issue of drug and alcohol rehab which is another goodie in the basket of “comprehensive healthcare reform”. I don’t know what the success rates are of some of the private programs but I do know that success depends upon the motivation and compliance of the individual. And, wasn’t it declared that alcoholism is a disease (instead of a moral failing)? Oh the federal dollars this disease will receive—in therapy, drugs, disability payments, etc. should we ever succomb to nationalized healthcare. And, how about all those meth and crack abusers? And certainly all those overeaters… Rehabilitation for all on the taxpayer dime.