Insuring Mind and Body

After over a decade of debate, the House passed a bill on mental health parity last month requiring health insurance companies to provide full, and seemingly unrestricted, coverage for mental health issues. Disorders ranging from stuttering to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) would be covered by the House bill. Insurance companies would have to "offer mental health benefits to cover treatment for the hundreds of diagnoses included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

In the true spirit of bipartisan cooperation, Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), chief sponsor of the House bill, and Representative Jim Ramstead (R-MN), a main Republican sponsor, not only supported the new measure, but also offered their own personal narratives as fully-insured members of Congress who have struggled to cope with mental illnesses. "I am fortunately getting the best care this country has to offer because I am a member of Congress," said Rep. Kennedy, who has suffered from depression and drug dependence. Rep. Ramstead, a recovering alcoholic, also added, "I am living proof that treatment works."

Proof-schmoof. Despite the bipartisan success in the House, however, the White House refuses to support the mental health parity bill, insisting that the bill "would effectively mandate coverage of a broad range of diseases” and will increase health insurance premiums. But really President Bush, who will notice the extra cash with our surmounting war deficit?

Honestly, though, is it possible to draw a line for mental illness? How does a patient know if he/she has been adequately diagnosed? Doctors make mistakes all the time; that's why medical malpractice insurance is skyrocketing. Will the stigma surrounding mental illness recede if this House bill becomes a law?

And who will ultimately profit if this bill becomes law: the patients or the health insurance companies? Some doctors over-diagnose to make more money. Will patients begin to think they're crazy? Perhaps. But at least the patient won't have to pay for being crazy.

Big Business holds hands with Bleeding Hearts

Today's New York Times Magazine includes an article about an interesting twist in the politics of health care - a surge in the popularity of universal health insurance among not only liberal elements, but also among corporate head honchos.

The movement for universal health care has long been seen as a liberal cause. Current proponents include such lefties as Senator Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon, and Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union. What's curious is the unexpected allies the movement has recently found in leaders of big business.

Steve Burd is one of these new allies. Two years ago, the chairman and CEO of Safeway supermarkets became notorious for his hard line denial of increased medical benefits for California's grocery workers. Yet for the past year, Burd has been collaborating with Wyden on a near weekly basis to formulate the Senator's proposal for universal health insurance. Standing alongside Senator Wyden in a news conference, Burd said the following:

Our nation is facing a crisis that requires immediate attention. Working together, business, labor, government, consumer groups and health-care providers can collectively solve this problem.

Burd's not alone. Lee Scott, CEO of Wal-Mart, The Business Roundtable, one of Washington's most influential business groups, and Howard Schultz, the chairman of Starbucks, have all come out in support of universal health care. Burd is determined to see the plan through and has even formed a non-profit called the Coalition to Advance Health Care Reform, which is comprised of various companies and corporations. The group goes public this spring.

While the marriage of liberal and traditionally conservative elements is unorthodox, the motivations behind it are hardly a mystery. With small profit margins and rising insurance costs, businesses are looking to rub the responsibility for employee health care off onto the government. Who knows? With presidential candidates Edwards, Romney, Clinton, and Obama all presenting platforms with universal coverage, something may actually come of these strange bedfellows in the coming years.