Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Aka Most of the population. Even good health insurances deny mental health because it's not an illness.
State-run health care
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
- Status
Aka Most of the population. Even good health insurances deny mental health because it's not an illness.
Amen.
That depends on the insurance company. I moved from working in Health Care to working in Health Insurance almost a year ago, and I'm loving it; I get to help a lot of people. We cover Behavioral Health no differently than anything else. Also, we have no restrictions regarding pre-existing conditions, either for Behavioral Health or Medical. Of course, the company I work for is a non-profit, so maybe that's the answer. 
The trend I have seen for as long as I've been on insurance (which is, admittedly, only a few years) is that mental health is becoming more acceptable as something worth covering. At my last job, you could have something like 30 therapy sessions per year, paid at 50%. They bumped it to 80% within a couple years. And then the company switched to Anthem and I'm not sure it was covered at all... but that was right when I got laid off, so I don't know.
The insurance I have now--although hardly anyone takes it--has two categories of "mental health" coverage. There is "biologically based," which is covered at 100% for inpatient services, with $15 copays for outpatient. Then, "non-biologically based" is also covered at 100%, however it is deducted from your allotment of 60 partial hospitalization sessions. So, I guess that means you can get inpatient mental health care for up to 60 days at no additional cost, it just means you can't be hospitalized for anything else if you use up the full 60. Likewise, outpatient mental health services that are "non-biologically based" are $15 copays.
I am not entirely sure what the biological/non-biological distinction is, but I understand some insurers will not pay for anything that is non-biologically based.
The insurance I have now--although hardly anyone takes it--has two categories of "mental health" coverage. There is "biologically based," which is covered at 100% for inpatient services, with $15 copays for outpatient. Then, "non-biologically based" is also covered at 100%, however it is deducted from your allotment of 60 partial hospitalization sessions. So, I guess that means you can get inpatient mental health care for up to 60 days at no additional cost, it just means you can't be hospitalized for anything else if you use up the full 60. Likewise, outpatient mental health services that are "non-biologically based" are $15 copays.
I am not entirely sure what the biological/non-biological distinction is, but I understand some insurers will not pay for anything that is non-biologically based.
Yes I did oh great Euro-enlightened Madamoisele! I know I am only a mere American peasant who can only aspire to the "greatness" of France...but yes...I do try.
I don't want admiration, I don't care about that. Your comment is totally useless and inapropriate.
BTW, you're still misspelling the word "mademoiselle".
Fine...
There was an online poll somewhere with over 100 respondents, guess how many people voted for 'i live in a country with UHC and I don't like it'? Go on, guess.
ZERO!
I'm not quoting all this post, it has already been done but I like it
People who live in countries with universal health coverage are, by all measures I have seen, happier with this arrangement than we Americans are with ours.
77% of Americans support at least the choice of a public option.
But, no, all those brainwashed Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc. would clearly prefer to go back to a system that lets you go bankrupt, lose your home, lose your job, suffer needlessly, and die prematurely. If only we'd ask them, they'd surely tell us they feel oppressed and unfree.
Oh, but wait. They live longer, are healthier, and apart from a few disgruntled agitators who by no means represent a significantly-sized movement, are quite satisfied with their public health care systems.
Now, someone tell me--if we are so happy with our system, why do one half to three quarters of us want a public option available? Hmm!
77% of Americans support at least the choice of a public option.
But, no, all those brainwashed Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc. would clearly prefer to go back to a system that lets you go bankrupt, lose your home, lose your job, suffer needlessly, and die prematurely. If only we'd ask them, they'd surely tell us they feel oppressed and unfree.
Oh, but wait. They live longer, are healthier, and apart from a few disgruntled agitators who by no means represent a significantly-sized movement, are quite satisfied with their public health care systems.
Now, someone tell me--if we are so happy with our system, why do one half to three quarters of us want a public option available? Hmm!
Brainwashing by the commie-liberal MSM that want to destroy America and lead you down the path of nazisocialist slavery of white people obviously.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Addictions?
It varies from state to state and has very little to do with accepted clinical definitions of mental illness. It has more to do with economic factors. Since there are insurance parity laws that require biologically-based mental illness to receive the same weight as any other physical ailment, states have defined what that term means--usually on the basis of whatever pressure insurers have placed on them.
From family experience over the last decade, no, it doesn't. If you're not happy with whoever's care I would look for alternatives.
That depends on the insurance company. I moved from working in Health Care to working in Health Insurance almost a year ago, and I'm loving it; I get to help a lot of people. We cover Behavioral Health no differently than anything else. Also, we have no restrictions regarding pre-existing conditions, either for Behavioral Health or Medical. Of course, the company I work for is a non-profit, so maybe that's the answer.
"Non-profit" is code for "scum sucking commie socialist conspiracy to take away my guns and kill grannie!!"
It's true. I saw it on Glenn Beck.
What? There are limited supplies of vaccine because it takes time to produce. It is private companies producing it, you realise? And they simpyl aren't able to produce 300 million+ doses at the drop of a hat, it's only been ready to go for about a month. So vaccine is rationed to the most at risk which stocks will allow.
Also, since we've known about this for over a year and a half, there has been plenty of time for the PRIVATE producers to make and store vaccine, but they didn't becuase, by their own admission, there is no PROFIT IN IT. Profit trumps lives. At least here.
If you want mental health coverage you have to go to an expensive health care plan, something most people can't afford.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
It really does. There are so many clauses and by clauses and small print about mental illness that it is ridiculous. It's almost like a premium premium
So... then why do you believe that people have trouble getting mental care? Why do you believe that your family experience trumps the experience of others?
Biologically based means things like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Non bio would be something like family counseling. Substance abuse problems, including alcohol, are covered under bio. My company covers both, the only difference being that non-bio usually has a benefit limit, usually 24 visits per year.
And I don't deny it for a minute. Bwahaha."Non-profit" is code for "scum sucking commie socialist conspiracy to take away my guns and kill grannie!!"
It's true. I saw it on Glenn Beck.
That cost would vary from state to state. I admit I was very disappointed to see my tax dollars subsidize mental health for citizens in Mass when it would be better used to pay for housing and twinkies for illegal aliens.
Premium insurance is a benefit of a good job. Sorta like something to work hard and strive for. But if it's too complicated to work your way through, I would suggest finding a mental facility that helps you through all that. Mine certainly did. I was lost and clueless and they helped every step of the way. That's not a function of insurance, that's a function of the provider.
I never said I believed people had trouble getting medical care. I mentioned my experience as at least some proof while the statement made was devoid of any.
But let's not forget - Progressive Universal Health Care: So good you'd rather get it than go to prison.
You should have to work hard and strive to have access to basic medical care?
Are you kidding me?
Proof of what?
The fact that some people are lucky enough to be able to get the care that they need does not change the fact that there are other people who cannot. Ignoring the problem because it doesn't happen to affect those close to you... if that's what you want to do, then fine, but don't pretend it's something else. And on a related note:
There are people on this very forum who are unable to get any form of coverage. Why? Because all the providers, including the ones provided by their employers, reject them due to preexisting conditions. Healthcare is not something to strive for... it is a basic necessity that everyone needs, just as clearly and obviously as everyone needs air. The system in the US rejects the very people who need it the most. And you know... that's bad.
- Status
