Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

[Guest guest]

If anyone is seriously interested in pursuing these issues with the

insurance industry, the appropriate organization to contact would be the

HIAA (Health Insurance Association of America) which is the principal

(virtually only, if I'm not mistaken) representative of the various health

insurance companies when it comes to PR and gov't lobbying. You'll find a

few position paper type things on parity issues on their web site

(www.hiaa.org) .

However their interest is really only a second-order kind of thing. Insurers

just pass on the costs of mandated coverages to customers; they are hurt

only to the extent that such coverage jacks up costs, making insurance more

expensive for customers (who are mainly businesses buying group policies for

employees) which shrinks the market.

The real economic victims of mandated coverage for quack treatments are

consumers: businesses that pay for group health insurance, their employees,

and individual subscribers to community group plans, HMO's, etc.

--wally

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> This is a multi-faceted question. First of all, I don't believe

> insurance companies are willing to step up to the plate and argue that

> 12-step treatment is unconstitutional. They don't believe in big

> outlays for future savings. Second of all, while not paying for

> 12-step treatment would save money, the companies' emphasis seems to

> be on paying for less, not paying for effectiveness. Hence they

> would probably fight paying for any addiction treatment at all, as

> opposed to effective treatment.

>

> I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

> should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and diabetes

> and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> mandate effective treatment. I think we are way outclassed and

> outgunned in this fight, because of the very effective lobbies that AA

> advocates have. One of the most insidious things is that they are

> hidden, as Ken has pointed out before. Highly placed policy makers

> are AA members or AA advocates, and they are reaching the finishing

> tape before we even realized there was a race. This is one of the

> toughest things to fight, and given the general reverence for AA from

> many people who have not the slightest idea what it entails, it's hard

> to imagine how to mount an equally effective counterattack.

>

>

> > The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

> > staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

> > would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

> > listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

> > company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit

> in

> > and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

> > insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

> > scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

> > excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

> > could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

> > 12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be

> mandated

> > to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

> >

[Guest guest]

If anyone is seriously interested in pursuing these issues with the

insurance industry, the appropriate organization to contact would be the

HIAA (Health Insurance Association of America) which is the principal

(virtually only, if I'm not mistaken) representative of the various health

insurance companies when it comes to PR and gov't lobbying. You'll find a

few position paper type things on parity issues on their web site

(www.hiaa.org) .

However their interest is really only a second-order kind of thing. Insurers

just pass on the costs of mandated coverages to customers; they are hurt

only to the extent that such coverage jacks up costs, making insurance more

expensive for customers (who are mainly businesses buying group policies for

employees) which shrinks the market.

The real economic victims of mandated coverage for quack treatments are

consumers: businesses that pay for group health insurance, their employees,

and individual subscribers to community group plans, HMO's, etc.

--wally

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> This is a multi-faceted question. First of all, I don't believe

> insurance companies are willing to step up to the plate and argue that

> 12-step treatment is unconstitutional. They don't believe in big

> outlays for future savings. Second of all, while not paying for

> 12-step treatment would save money, the companies' emphasis seems to

> be on paying for less, not paying for effectiveness. Hence they

> would probably fight paying for any addiction treatment at all, as

> opposed to effective treatment.

>

> I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

> should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and diabetes

> and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> mandate effective treatment. I think we are way outclassed and

> outgunned in this fight, because of the very effective lobbies that AA

> advocates have. One of the most insidious things is that they are

> hidden, as Ken has pointed out before. Highly placed policy makers

> are AA members or AA advocates, and they are reaching the finishing

> tape before we even realized there was a race. This is one of the

> toughest things to fight, and given the general reverence for AA from

> many people who have not the slightest idea what it entails, it's hard

> to imagine how to mount an equally effective counterattack.

>

>

> > The reason I ask is because if a large company had a full time legal

> > staff, for instance Blue Cross, then the top lawyer for that company

> > would of course be a well paid company man who would be willing to

> > listen to someone who was working on something that would save his

> > company and his industry millions. That's were our goal might fit

> in

> > and where we, as mentioned, may have an ally. I'm sure the

> > insurance companies have wised up to the point that they know what a

> > scam drug/alcohol treatment is, but as pointed out in his

> > excellent post, they are between a rock and a hard spot. Suppose we

> > could create an alliance with them somehow and let them know that if

> > 12-step coercion is unconstitutional, then they would not be

> mandated

> > to cover 12-step treatment, and they would save millions.

> >

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

> I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

> should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and

diabetes

> and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> mandate effective treatment.

I disagree. Who determines wether a given " treatment " for a

behavioral problem is effective; for that matter, who determines what

constitutes a behavioral problem? The state??? And what if there is

*no* effective treatment? What if the state comes to believe that

religion is an effective treatment? What if I don't believe in AA, or

Psychiatry, or Chiro?, or Scientology? Should I be forced to pay the

bill for true believers?

It's the lawmakers who *caused* this mess. When I say lawmakers, I

am including the judicial system which is a law to it's self. Parity

raises costs of insurance, further enpowers the entrenched treatment

beurocracy, and ultimately errodes civil liberties. I have not always

held this view, however, so I can empathize with your position. Some

interesting links-J :

Health Care Law Resource:

http://www.netreach.net/~wmanning/

http://www.samhsa.gov/

--

An under-reported study prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman &

on estimates the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and

finds that, collectively, they can increase the cost of insurance by

as much as 30 percent or in dollar terms, $525 to $1,050 a year for a

family health insurance plan

As shown in Table 1, while several of the mandates studied would

increase the premium less than $35 each, mandates like infertility

treatment could increase the cost between $105 and $175 a year and

mental health parity with any physical illnesses could add between

$175 and $350 to the cost of a policy.

Taken together, the package of 12 mandates potentially increases the

cost of health insurance. Based on these estimates, Milliman-

on conclude a small business employing 25 people --- with a

standard mix of 40 percent single and 60 percent family coverage ---

could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year.

As important as this study is, there are hidden costs associated with

a health care mandate that were not included:

1. Administratively, federal guidelines are difficult to understand.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

(HIPAA) contains guaranteed issue --- i.e., the " mother of all

mandates " --- along with 500 new rules, regulations and procedures.(1)

2. Requirements for new and excessive record-keeping.

3. Insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals

established by federal bureaucrats.

4. State agencies complain legislative objectives are often vague

and, more often than not, in conflict with existing state laws.

Stop Selling the " Snake Oil "

In 1965, there were less than 10 state-mandated health care benefits,

today there are over 1,000. Mostly, these mandates apply only to

health insurance policies regulated by state health insurance laws ---

e.g., the usual policies purchased by small businesses and

individuals.

Many employees mistakenly believe their employers pay for the

insurance they provide when, in reality, employee benefits are a

substitute for wages in the employees' total compensation package.

Higher benefits often force employees to accept lower wages, whether

they like it or not.

http://www.haciendapub.com/article17.html

--

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

> I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

> should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and

diabetes

> and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> mandate effective treatment.

I disagree. Who determines wether a given " treatment " for a

behavioral problem is effective; for that matter, who determines what

constitutes a behavioral problem? The state??? And what if there is

*no* effective treatment? What if the state comes to believe that

religion is an effective treatment? What if I don't believe in AA, or

Psychiatry, or Chiro?, or Scientology? Should I be forced to pay the

bill for true believers?

It's the lawmakers who *caused* this mess. When I say lawmakers, I

am including the judicial system which is a law to it's self. Parity

raises costs of insurance, further enpowers the entrenched treatment

beurocracy, and ultimately errodes civil liberties. I have not always

held this view, however, so I can empathize with your position. Some

interesting links-J :

Health Care Law Resource:

http://www.netreach.net/~wmanning/

http://www.samhsa.gov/

--

An under-reported study prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman &

on estimates the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and

finds that, collectively, they can increase the cost of insurance by

as much as 30 percent or in dollar terms, $525 to $1,050 a year for a

family health insurance plan

As shown in Table 1, while several of the mandates studied would

increase the premium less than $35 each, mandates like infertility

treatment could increase the cost between $105 and $175 a year and

mental health parity with any physical illnesses could add between

$175 and $350 to the cost of a policy.

Taken together, the package of 12 mandates potentially increases the

cost of health insurance. Based on these estimates, Milliman-

on conclude a small business employing 25 people --- with a

standard mix of 40 percent single and 60 percent family coverage ---

could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year.

As important as this study is, there are hidden costs associated with

a health care mandate that were not included:

1. Administratively, federal guidelines are difficult to understand.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

(HIPAA) contains guaranteed issue --- i.e., the " mother of all

mandates " --- along with 500 new rules, regulations and procedures.(1)

2. Requirements for new and excessive record-keeping.

3. Insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals

established by federal bureaucrats.

4. State agencies complain legislative objectives are often vague

and, more often than not, in conflict with existing state laws.

Stop Selling the " Snake Oil "

In 1965, there were less than 10 state-mandated health care benefits,

today there are over 1,000. Mostly, these mandates apply only to

health insurance policies regulated by state health insurance laws ---

e.g., the usual policies purchased by small businesses and

individuals.

Many employees mistakenly believe their employers pay for the

insurance they provide when, in reality, employee benefits are a

substitute for wages in the employees' total compensation package.

Higher benefits often force employees to accept lower wages, whether

they like it or not.

http://www.haciendapub.com/article17.html

--

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

> I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral problems

> should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and

diabetes

> and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> mandate effective treatment.

I disagree. Who determines wether a given " treatment " for a

behavioral problem is effective; for that matter, who determines what

constitutes a behavioral problem? The state??? And what if there is

*no* effective treatment? What if the state comes to believe that

religion is an effective treatment? What if I don't believe in AA, or

Psychiatry, or Chiro?, or Scientology? Should I be forced to pay the

bill for true believers?

It's the lawmakers who *caused* this mess. When I say lawmakers, I

am including the judicial system which is a law to it's self. Parity

raises costs of insurance, further enpowers the entrenched treatment

beurocracy, and ultimately errodes civil liberties. I have not always

held this view, however, so I can empathize with your position. Some

interesting links-J :

Health Care Law Resource:

http://www.netreach.net/~wmanning/

http://www.samhsa.gov/

--

An under-reported study prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman &

on estimates the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and

finds that, collectively, they can increase the cost of insurance by

as much as 30 percent or in dollar terms, $525 to $1,050 a year for a

family health insurance plan

As shown in Table 1, while several of the mandates studied would

increase the premium less than $35 each, mandates like infertility

treatment could increase the cost between $105 and $175 a year and

mental health parity with any physical illnesses could add between

$175 and $350 to the cost of a policy.

Taken together, the package of 12 mandates potentially increases the

cost of health insurance. Based on these estimates, Milliman-

on conclude a small business employing 25 people --- with a

standard mix of 40 percent single and 60 percent family coverage ---

could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year.

As important as this study is, there are hidden costs associated with

a health care mandate that were not included:

1. Administratively, federal guidelines are difficult to understand.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

(HIPAA) contains guaranteed issue --- i.e., the " mother of all

mandates " --- along with 500 new rules, regulations and procedures.(1)

2. Requirements for new and excessive record-keeping.

3. Insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals

established by federal bureaucrats.

4. State agencies complain legislative objectives are often vague

and, more often than not, in conflict with existing state laws.

Stop Selling the " Snake Oil "

In 1965, there were less than 10 state-mandated health care benefits,

today there are over 1,000. Mostly, these mandates apply only to

health insurance policies regulated by state health insurance laws ---

e.g., the usual policies purchased by small businesses and

individuals.

Many employees mistakenly believe their employers pay for the

insurance they provide when, in reality, employee benefits are a

substitute for wages in the employees' total compensation package.

Higher benefits often force employees to accept lower wages, whether

they like it or not.

http://www.haciendapub.com/article17.html

--

[Guest guest]

I notice that while your article analyzes costs, it does not analyze

benefits. You may think that saving a life because mammography

enables an early diagnosis is not worthwhile, but I doubt the woman in

question would agree with you. Moreover, saving that life adds all

the more productivity to the American economy.

I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked those particular 12

mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health

insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should get

help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set

against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape

or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without doing

their homework.

I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography is covered under

health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police

power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering

the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to

..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal, I

believe, that it's ridiculous.

In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about what

I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely

culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree.

> > I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral

problems

> > should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and

> diabetes

> > and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> > treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> > that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> > mandate effective treatment.

>

> I disagree. Who determines wether a given " treatment " for a

> behavioral problem is effective; for that matter, who determines

what

> constitutes a behavioral problem? The state??? And what if there is

> *no* effective treatment? What if the state comes to believe that

> religion is an effective treatment? What if I don't believe in AA,

or

> Psychiatry, or Chiro?, or Scientology? Should I be forced to pay the

> bill for true believers?

>

> It's the lawmakers who *caused* this mess. When I say lawmakers, I

> am including the judicial system which is a law to it's self. Parity

> raises costs of insurance, further enpowers the entrenched

treatment

> beurocracy, and ultimately errodes civil liberties. I have not

always

> held this view, however, so I can empathize with your position. Some

> interesting links-J :

>

> Health Care Law Resource:

> http://www.netreach.net/~wmanning/

>

> http://www.samhsa.gov/

> --

> An under-reported study prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman &

> on estimates the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and

> finds that, collectively, they can increase the cost of insurance by

> as much as 30 percent or in dollar terms, $525 to $1,050 a year for

a

> family health insurance plan

>

> As shown in Table 1, while several of the mandates studied would

> increase the premium less than $35 each, mandates like infertility

> treatment could increase the cost between $105 and $175 a year and

> mental health parity with any physical illnesses could add between

> $175 and $350 to the cost of a policy.

> Taken together, the package of 12 mandates potentially increases the

> cost of health insurance. Based on these estimates, Milliman-

> on conclude a small business employing 25 people --- with a

> standard mix of 40 percent single and 60 percent family coverage ---

> could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year.

> As important as this study is, there are hidden costs associated

with

> a health care mandate that were not included:

> 1. Administratively, federal guidelines are difficult to understand.

> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

> (HIPAA) contains guaranteed issue --- i.e., the " mother of all

> mandates " --- along with 500 new rules, regulations and

procedures.(1)

> 2. Requirements for new and excessive record-keeping.

> 3. Insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals

> established by federal bureaucrats.

> 4. State agencies complain legislative objectives are often vague

> and, more often than not, in conflict with existing state laws.

>

> Stop Selling the " Snake Oil "

> In 1965, there were less than 10 state-mandated health care

benefits,

> today there are over 1,000. Mostly, these mandates apply only to

> health insurance policies regulated by state health insurance laws

---

> e.g., the usual policies purchased by small businesses and

> individuals.

> Many employees mistakenly believe their employers pay for the

> insurance they provide when, in reality, employee benefits are a

> substitute for wages in the employees' total compensation package.

> Higher benefits often force employees to accept lower wages, whether

> they like it or not.

> http://www.haciendapub.com/article17.html

> --

[Guest guest]

I notice that while your article analyzes costs, it does not analyze

benefits. You may think that saving a life because mammography

enables an early diagnosis is not worthwhile, but I doubt the woman in

question would agree with you. Moreover, saving that life adds all

the more productivity to the American economy.

I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked those particular 12

mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health

insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should get

help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set

against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape

or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without doing

their homework.

I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography is covered under

health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police

power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering

the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to

..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal, I

believe, that it's ridiculous.

In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about what

I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely

culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree.

> > I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral

problems

> > should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and

> diabetes

> > and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> > treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> > that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> > mandate effective treatment.

>

> I disagree. Who determines wether a given " treatment " for a

> behavioral problem is effective; for that matter, who determines

what

> constitutes a behavioral problem? The state??? And what if there is

> *no* effective treatment? What if the state comes to believe that

> religion is an effective treatment? What if I don't believe in AA,

or

> Psychiatry, or Chiro?, or Scientology? Should I be forced to pay the

> bill for true believers?

>

> It's the lawmakers who *caused* this mess. When I say lawmakers, I

> am including the judicial system which is a law to it's self. Parity

> raises costs of insurance, further enpowers the entrenched

treatment

> beurocracy, and ultimately errodes civil liberties. I have not

always

> held this view, however, so I can empathize with your position. Some

> interesting links-J :

>

> Health Care Law Resource:

> http://www.netreach.net/~wmanning/

>

> http://www.samhsa.gov/

> --

> An under-reported study prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman &

> on estimates the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and

> finds that, collectively, they can increase the cost of insurance by

> as much as 30 percent or in dollar terms, $525 to $1,050 a year for

a

> family health insurance plan

>

> As shown in Table 1, while several of the mandates studied would

> increase the premium less than $35 each, mandates like infertility

> treatment could increase the cost between $105 and $175 a year and

> mental health parity with any physical illnesses could add between

> $175 and $350 to the cost of a policy.

> Taken together, the package of 12 mandates potentially increases the

> cost of health insurance. Based on these estimates, Milliman-

> on conclude a small business employing 25 people --- with a

> standard mix of 40 percent single and 60 percent family coverage ---

> could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year.

> As important as this study is, there are hidden costs associated

with

> a health care mandate that were not included:

> 1. Administratively, federal guidelines are difficult to understand.

> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

> (HIPAA) contains guaranteed issue --- i.e., the " mother of all

> mandates " --- along with 500 new rules, regulations and

procedures.(1)

> 2. Requirements for new and excessive record-keeping.

> 3. Insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals

> established by federal bureaucrats.

> 4. State agencies complain legislative objectives are often vague

> and, more often than not, in conflict with existing state laws.

>

> Stop Selling the " Snake Oil "

> In 1965, there were less than 10 state-mandated health care

benefits,

> today there are over 1,000. Mostly, these mandates apply only to

> health insurance policies regulated by state health insurance laws

---

> e.g., the usual policies purchased by small businesses and

> individuals.

> Many employees mistakenly believe their employers pay for the

> insurance they provide when, in reality, employee benefits are a

> substitute for wages in the employees' total compensation package.

> Higher benefits often force employees to accept lower wages, whether

> they like it or not.

> http://www.haciendapub.com/article17.html

> --

[Guest guest]

I notice that while your article analyzes costs, it does not analyze

benefits. You may think that saving a life because mammography

enables an early diagnosis is not worthwhile, but I doubt the woman in

question would agree with you. Moreover, saving that life adds all

the more productivity to the American economy.

I would be interested to know why Mr. Meier picked those particular 12

mandates, many of which have always been covered under my health

insurance, and I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should get

help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set

against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way shape

or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without doing

their homework.

I would rather pay more to ensure that mammography is covered under

health insurance than, for example, paying more for increased police

power because the feds have conditioned highway funding on lowering

the BAL that triggers automatic guilt under DWI statutes from .1 to

..08. The cost/benefit analysis there produces benefits so minimal, I

believe, that it's ridiculous.

In the end, it is not worth arguing about. I have an idea about what

I consider medically necessary coverage, which is probably largely

culturally determined and with which you have every right to disagree.

> > I do believe in the parity issue, that is, that behavioral

problems

> > should be afforded the same kind of coverage that cancer and

> diabetes

> > and so forth command. The hitch is not only finding effective

> > treatments, but convincing lawmakers, and not insurance companies,

> > that they are effective, because lawmakers are the people who can

> > mandate effective treatment.

>

> I disagree. Who determines wether a given " treatment " for a

> behavioral problem is effective; for that matter, who determines

what

> constitutes a behavioral problem? The state??? And what if there is

> *no* effective treatment? What if the state comes to believe that

> religion is an effective treatment? What if I don't believe in AA,

or

> Psychiatry, or Chiro?, or Scientology? Should I be forced to pay the

> bill for true believers?

>

> It's the lawmakers who *caused* this mess. When I say lawmakers, I

> am including the judicial system which is a law to it's self. Parity

> raises costs of insurance, further enpowers the entrenched

treatment

> beurocracy, and ultimately errodes civil liberties. I have not

always

> held this view, however, so I can empathize with your position. Some

> interesting links-J :

>

> Health Care Law Resource:

> http://www.netreach.net/~wmanning/

>

> http://www.samhsa.gov/

> --

> An under-reported study prepared by the actuarial firm Milliman &

> on estimates the costs of 12 of the most common mandates and

> finds that, collectively, they can increase the cost of insurance by

> as much as 30 percent or in dollar terms, $525 to $1,050 a year for

a

> family health insurance plan

>

> As shown in Table 1, while several of the mandates studied would

> increase the premium less than $35 each, mandates like infertility

> treatment could increase the cost between $105 and $175 a year and

> mental health parity with any physical illnesses could add between

> $175 and $350 to the cost of a policy.

> Taken together, the package of 12 mandates potentially increases the

> cost of health insurance. Based on these estimates, Milliman-

> on conclude a small business employing 25 people --- with a

> standard mix of 40 percent single and 60 percent family coverage ---

> could see its premiums rise by $20,000 a year.

> As important as this study is, there are hidden costs associated

with

> a health care mandate that were not included:

> 1. Administratively, federal guidelines are difficult to understand.

> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996

> (HIPAA) contains guaranteed issue --- i.e., the " mother of all

> mandates " --- along with 500 new rules, regulations and

procedures.(1)

> 2. Requirements for new and excessive record-keeping.

> 3. Insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals

> established by federal bureaucrats.

> 4. State agencies complain legislative objectives are often vague

> and, more often than not, in conflict with existing state laws.

>

> Stop Selling the " Snake Oil "

> In 1965, there were less than 10 state-mandated health care

benefits,

> today there are over 1,000. Mostly, these mandates apply only to

> health insurance policies regulated by state health insurance laws

---

> e.g., the usual policies purchased by small businesses and

> individuals.

> Many employees mistakenly believe their employers pay for the

> insurance they provide when, in reality, employee benefits are a

> substitute for wages in the employees' total compensation package.

> Higher benefits often force employees to accept lower wages, whether

> they like it or not.

> http://www.haciendapub.com/article17.html

> --

[Guest guest]

I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

> is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should

get

> help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set

> against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way

shape

> or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without

doing

> their homework.

I wish those politicians who mandated funding depression would have

done their homework. Depression is a clinical term for sadness; there

is nothing pathological about it. I hate to think that the insurance

I pay for has a high premium because people who have not done their

homework think sadness is an illness. As a matter of fact, I think

government should not mandate any coverage in any kind of insurance at

all. If what you want ain't in the contract then don't sign it. If

you want a policy which covers sadness, then I'm sure there will be

companies that are willing, for a certain price, to sell you one.

That I should be forced to pay higher premiums to cover ficticious

illnesses just because you believe in them is tyrannical.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

> is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should

get

> help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set

> against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way

shape

> or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without

doing

> their homework.

I wish those politicians who mandated funding depression would have

done their homework. Depression is a clinical term for sadness; there

is nothing pathological about it. I hate to think that the insurance

I pay for has a high premium because people who have not done their

homework think sadness is an illness. As a matter of fact, I think

government should not mandate any coverage in any kind of insurance at

all. If what you want ain't in the contract then don't sign it. If

you want a policy which covers sadness, then I'm sure there will be

companies that are willing, for a certain price, to sell you one.

That I should be forced to pay higher premiums to cover ficticious

illnesses just because you believe in them is tyrannical.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

I'm also curious to know how you believe a person who

> is depressed (leaving alcohol and drug addiction out of it) should

get

> help if insurance won't pay. As far as funding AA, I am dead set

> against it, but I don't consider it medical treatment in any way

shape

> or form. I certainly hope no one ever funds Scientology without

doing

> their homework.

I wish those politicians who mandated funding depression would have

done their homework. Depression is a clinical term for sadness; there

is nothing pathological about it. I hate to think that the insurance

I pay for has a high premium because people who have not done their

homework think sadness is an illness. As a matter of fact, I think

government should not mandate any coverage in any kind of insurance at

all. If what you want ain't in the contract then don't sign it. If

you want a policy which covers sadness, then I'm sure there will be

companies that are willing, for a certain price, to sell you one.

That I should be forced to pay higher premiums to cover ficticious

illnesses just because you believe in them is tyrannical.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

" Federal law requires providers of medical insurance to include

'addiction treatment' as one of the 'illnesses' for which benefits

will be paid. This law should be scrapped. Medical insurance is now

more expensive, because those of us with genuine diseases have to pay

for the provision of bogus 'treatment' for bogus 'diseases'. Of

course, insurance companies should be free to include addiction

treatment, or voodoo for that matter, but they, and we their

customers, should have a choice.

Addiction is not a disease and therefore cannot be medically

'treated'. As a matter of fact, there is currently no addiction

'treatment' that has been proved effective. But of course, people

should be entirely free to preach the doctrine that addiction is a

disease and to offer their 'treatments', gratuitously or for payment.

Just as we don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize The Psychic

Hotline, so they should not subsidize 'addiction treatment', which is

just about as scientific. "

Schaler,

" Addiction is a Choice "

I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

depression/sadness.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

If you cannot acknowledge that medications have helped people with

depression, then first, you have never been depressed, and second,

never known anyone who was clinically depressed. The difference that

antidepressants make is nothing short of miraculous, and keeps people

who otherwise might just be a drain, productive.

> " Addiction is a Choice "

>

> I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> depression/sadness.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

I haven't been reading 12 step free for some time now and I have no idea about this discussion but I must say that antidepressants have saved me a lot of grief. I have a philosophical objection to changing the way I think yet I gave in and do feel better. I have had a problem with real depression since I was a shy teenager. That is why I started drinking in the first place. Zoloft and counseling have kept me from going back to that one liter of vodka a day habit.

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

If you cannot acknowledge that medications have helped people with depression, then first, you have never been depressed, and second, never known anyone who was clinically depressed. The difference that antidepressants make is nothing short of miraculous, and keeps people who otherwise might just be a drain, productive.> "Addiction is a Choice"> > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from > depression/sadness.> > Tommy

[Guest guest]

>

> > " Addiction is a Choice "

> >

> > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > depression/sadness.

> >

> > Tommy

[Guest guest]

>

> > " Addiction is a Choice "

> >

> > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not

mean

> > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > depression/sadness.

> >

> > Tommy

[Guest guest]

I can't decide if I disagree with Tommy or with you. I think depression is a

complicated issue. I have been depressed. I tried three different

medications, none of which I responded to well. Prozac was the worst for me.

I felt manic ( I am not " bi-polar " ). I finally gave up the idea of

medication all together. I have not been depressed for some time. A member

of my family has experienced depression, too, and has responded very well

to Prozac - and that's almost an understatement. It has really helped this

person.

I understand that depression is very real. I also understand that it isn't

an exact " thing " , like being diabetic or having a brain tumor. It is

somewhat subjective.

When I did not respond to medication and went on to not be depressed, many

people, particularly family members who were witnessing the marked

improvement of our other kin who was responding to medication, came to the

conclusion that I must not have really been depressed or that I just was

unaware of my depression (sound familiar?). This bothered me a great deal,

because I knew I how I had felt, how I did feel presently, and what I had

experienced.

When I read Tommy's post, I wasn't exactly sure

what I thought about comparing depression treatment with the psychic

hot-line. But at the same time, your response reminded me of the response I

got from my family ( not to mention the connections in my mind to a

particular group with whom I no longer desire contact or communication-

regarding a different subject, of course). I don't mean to offend you. I

just think that, perhaps, Tommy is engaging in a discourse that does not

necessarily require such vehement reactions like the one you provided.

Plenty of people understand or know someone who has been depressed.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> If you cannot acknowledge that medications have helped people with

> depression, then first, you have never been depressed, and second,

> never known anyone who was clinically depressed. The difference that

> antidepressants make is nothing short of miraculous, and keeps people

> who otherwise might just be a drain, productive.

>

>

>

> > " Addiction is a Choice "

> >

> > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > depression/sadness.

> >

> > Tommy

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I can't decide if I disagree with Tommy or with you. I think depression is a

complicated issue. I have been depressed. I tried three different

medications, none of which I responded to well. Prozac was the worst for me.

I felt manic ( I am not " bi-polar " ). I finally gave up the idea of

medication all together. I have not been depressed for some time. A member

of my family has experienced depression, too, and has responded very well

to Prozac - and that's almost an understatement. It has really helped this

person.

I understand that depression is very real. I also understand that it isn't

an exact " thing " , like being diabetic or having a brain tumor. It is

somewhat subjective.

When I did not respond to medication and went on to not be depressed, many

people, particularly family members who were witnessing the marked

improvement of our other kin who was responding to medication, came to the

conclusion that I must not have really been depressed or that I just was

unaware of my depression (sound familiar?). This bothered me a great deal,

because I knew I how I had felt, how I did feel presently, and what I had

experienced.

When I read Tommy's post, I wasn't exactly sure

what I thought about comparing depression treatment with the psychic

hot-line. But at the same time, your response reminded me of the response I

got from my family ( not to mention the connections in my mind to a

particular group with whom I no longer desire contact or communication-

regarding a different subject, of course). I don't mean to offend you. I

just think that, perhaps, Tommy is engaging in a discourse that does not

necessarily require such vehement reactions like the one you provided.

Plenty of people understand or know someone who has been depressed.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> If you cannot acknowledge that medications have helped people with

> depression, then first, you have never been depressed, and second,

> never known anyone who was clinically depressed. The difference that

> antidepressants make is nothing short of miraculous, and keeps people

> who otherwise might just be a drain, productive.

>

>

>

> > " Addiction is a Choice "

> >

> > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > depression/sadness.

> >

> > Tommy

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I can't decide if I disagree with Tommy or with you. I think depression is a

complicated issue. I have been depressed. I tried three different

medications, none of which I responded to well. Prozac was the worst for me.

I felt manic ( I am not " bi-polar " ). I finally gave up the idea of

medication all together. I have not been depressed for some time. A member

of my family has experienced depression, too, and has responded very well

to Prozac - and that's almost an understatement. It has really helped this

person.

I understand that depression is very real. I also understand that it isn't

an exact " thing " , like being diabetic or having a brain tumor. It is

somewhat subjective.

When I did not respond to medication and went on to not be depressed, many

people, particularly family members who were witnessing the marked

improvement of our other kin who was responding to medication, came to the

conclusion that I must not have really been depressed or that I just was

unaware of my depression (sound familiar?). This bothered me a great deal,

because I knew I how I had felt, how I did feel presently, and what I had

experienced.

When I read Tommy's post, I wasn't exactly sure

what I thought about comparing depression treatment with the psychic

hot-line. But at the same time, your response reminded me of the response I

got from my family ( not to mention the connections in my mind to a

particular group with whom I no longer desire contact or communication-

regarding a different subject, of course). I don't mean to offend you. I

just think that, perhaps, Tommy is engaging in a discourse that does not

necessarily require such vehement reactions like the one you provided.

Plenty of people understand or know someone who has been depressed.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> If you cannot acknowledge that medications have helped people with

> depression, then first, you have never been depressed, and second,

> never known anyone who was clinically depressed. The difference that

> antidepressants make is nothing short of miraculous, and keeps people

> who otherwise might just be a drain, productive.

>

>

>

> > " Addiction is a Choice "

> >

> > I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> > that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> > depression/sadness.

> >

> > Tommy

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I gather, then, that you believe FDA studies that show antidepressants

are significantly more effective than placebo are flawed. Have you

studied this? What do the flaws consist of?

I take it, as well, that you have never met a person who spoke in what

is called " word salad, " nor tried to communicate with that person? If

you have, and you believe it is that person's choice to

communicate in that fashion, what, in your opinion, can that person do

to remedy that choice?

My insurance coverage is supplied by General Electric, where my

husband works. GE is self-insured, which means that they pay benefits

out of their own pocket, though the health plan is administered by an

insurer. Thus to ensure that you do not pay for my health benefits,

you would have to boycott GE products altogether.

This is not as easy as it sounds. Some products are labelled " GE " but

presently have nothing to do with GE. , for example, is

either a spinoff from GE or bought a spinoff from GE, and part of that

deal is that they would have the right to label certain products as GE

products for a specified number of years. GE is also one of only two

manufacturers of large components for both fossil fuel burning and

nuclear electric generating plants (the other being Babcock and

Wilcox). Chances are that part of your utility bill funds my health

insurance. Honeywell and B.F. Goodrich are the only manufacturers of

brake and wheel systems for large commercial aircraft. GE is

acquiring Honeywell. So chances are that when you pay for air fare,

you are funding my health insurance. GE makes aircraft engines. You

gonna inquire whether they made the one for the one you're gonna fly

before you decide to step on the plane? What kind of light bulbs do

you buy, by the way?

I assume that you also have health insurance of some kind. Do you

refuse to use it to reimburse for certain prescriptions, because you

think insurance shouldn't pay for them? How do you decide what should

be covered by health insurance and what should not? If you believe

that health insurance shouldn't cover anything, have you righteously

given up your own?

I assume, too, that if you have health insurance, I am funding it

somehow in the same way you are funding mine. You may have VA

benefits (I don't remember the precise details of your separation from

the Coast Guard), in which case I, as a taxpayer, am certainly funding

it. Otherwise, see again my 4th paragraph.

As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

" Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. " Are you so young

that you don't see the proliferation of homelessness that occurred

right after everyone was cut loose from public psychiatric facilities

based on Szasz' ideas? Do you never have to walk past people begging

on the streets of your town? What do you think about them? That they

should just " snap out of it " ? Did you know that the United States had

virtually no homelessness problem until this occurred?

Those of us here who have been duped by AA have been truly duped. The

idea that we should have known better immediately, in the face of

social and therapist support for AA, is dogshit. You may be able to

claim superiority because you knew from the beginning that it was

crap. But I'd like to see you carry your beliefs through to their

logical conclusion and try to live without the rest of society. Out

in the wilderness, no tools, not even Swiss Army knives, allowed.

> >

> So what are you saying, Kayleigh, that if I cannot " acknowledge "

> what YOU " know " then I have never been what YOU call depressed and

> what I call sad? And no, Kayleigh, I have never known a witch, a

> mentally ill person, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or any other

> entity that I do not believe in. If medications make you feel

better

> or more productive, then help yourself. You should know by now that

I

> believe in a free market in drugs and THAT is your freedom. It is

NOT

> your freedom to force money from my pocket to underwrite the

> propagation of what YOU believe. I don't care what you believe. I

> don't care what medications you take, and by all means I hope you

> succeed in your pursuits or happiness, chemically, spiritually or

> whatever. Just don't fuck with my pursuits of happiness by

demanding

> my hard earned money, or limiting my freedom to enter contractual

> agreements with the insurance company of MY choice.

>

> Tommy

>

[Guest guest]

> When I did not respond to medication and went on to not be

depressed, many

> people, particularly family members who were witnessing the marked

> improvement of our other kin who was responding to medication, came

to the

> conclusion that I must not have really been depressed or that I just

was

> unaware of my depression (sound familiar?).

Quite familiar! Good point, Joan. I think it all boils down to

" different strokes for different folks " . It should be our own

personal choice.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayleighs,

> As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

like this point you've made here.

I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

are hidden by others.

The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

us is " God's will for us. "

See you,

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > So what are you saying, Kayleigh, that if I cannot " acknowledge "

> > what YOU " know " then I have never been what YOU call depressed and

> > what I call sad? And no, Kayleigh, I have never known a witch, a

> > mentally ill person, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or any other

> > entity that I do not believe in. If medications make you feel

> better

> > or more productive, then help yourself. You should know by now

that

> I

> > believe in a free market in drugs and THAT is your freedom. It is

> NOT

> > your freedom to force money from my pocket to underwrite the

> > propagation of what YOU believe. I don't care what you believe.

I

> > don't care what medications you take, and by all means I hope you

> > succeed in your pursuits or happiness, chemically, spiritually or

> > whatever. Just don't fuck with my pursuits of happiness by

> demanding

> > my hard earned money, or limiting my freedom to enter contractual

> > agreements with the insurance company of MY choice.

> >

> > Tommy

> >

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > > >

> > > So what are you saying, Kayleigh, that if I cannot " acknowledge "

> > > what YOU " know " then I have never been what YOU call depressed and

> > > what I call sad? And no, Kayleigh, I have never known a witch, a

> > > mentally ill person, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or any other

> > > entity that I do not believe in. If medications make you feel

> > better

> > > or more productive, then help yourself. You should know by now

> that

> > I

> > > believe in a free market in drugs and THAT is your freedom. It is

> > NOT

> > > your freedom to force money from my pocket to underwrite the

> > > propagation of what YOU believe. I don't care what you believe.

> I

> > > don't care what medications you take, and by all means I hope you

> > > succeed in your pursuits or happiness, chemically, spiritually or

> > > whatever. Just don't fuck with my pursuits of happiness by

> > demanding

> > > my hard earned money, or limiting my freedom to enter contractual

> > > agreements with the insurance company of MY choice.

> > >

> > > Tommy

I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, period.

They don't produce anything. Instead, they suck money out of the economy. We

could get along fine without them. If it were up to me, I'd force them either to

start making something or to go out of business. Health care would cost less in

total if there were no insurance companies. People would choose the health care

they could afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged

more than what people were willing to pay. What exactly is wrong with

fee-for-service health care?

-------------------------------------------------------

Get your free, secure email at http://www.medmail.com -

the e-mail service for the medical community

[Guest guest]

>

> I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a

profit, period.

And what is wrong with that. Do not barber shops go into business to

profit.

> They don't produce anything.

No, they provide a service that some people want.

> Instead, they suck money

out of the economy.

I'm not following you here.

We could get along fine without them.

We could get along fine without barber shops, but some people would

rather pay a professional than cut their own hair.

> If it were

up to me, I'd force them either to start making something or to go out

of business.

Hope you're just kidding. Don't you think they have a right to exist.

Health care would cost less in total if there were no

insurance companies. People would choose the health care they could

afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged

more than what people were willing to pay. What exactly is wrong with

fee-for-service health care?

That could happen even with insurance companies if government would

get out of the regulation business and just enforce the contracts.