truck driving on the internet
Wednesday, November 07, 2001
FDA OKs Clinical Testing of Ecstasy
Why this is good:
a) movement toward de-criminilization of drugs, esp. MDMA
Why this is stupid:
b) really, what good is MDMA going to do anyone at this point?
- Steve K
Why this is good:
a) movement toward de-criminilization of drugs, esp. MDMA
Why this is stupid:
b) really, what good is MDMA going to do anyone at this point?
- Steve K
Tuesday, November 06, 2001
So I've had a strange day only in the sense that I've been thinking about mental health a bit today. A chronic problem in my family, etc.
check out this NY Times article about a Senate bill that is trying to be passed in order to give more access to the mentally ill to drugs, treatment.
This article uses the word parity to an excessive degree. It means "precise equivalence; exact correspondence."
Basically the issue is that health insurance companies can set limits on mental health coverage based on Erisa, a 1974 federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. There isn't a "parity" between the way in which mental health coverage and co-payments are equitably distributed amongst HMO's and health insurance companies.
This atrocity and how it comes into play in the vast American wasteland of mental illness is pretty strange to me. A company that sets a limit at $100,000 for lifetime mental health benefits and is then considered evil is a going to be a pretty hard sell on Capitol Hill in my mind. The other problem here is that this is a classic case of the reversal of a law which focuses NOT on the wellness on the American people but ways to reduce lawsuits and compensation claims. All of which further drive most people mad.
Well, read the article and see what you think. This is certainly something to be concerned about on many levels considering the massive political and socio-economic ramifications the Department of Health and Human Services has on the US.
- Steve K
check out this NY Times article about a Senate bill that is trying to be passed in order to give more access to the mentally ill to drugs, treatment.
This article uses the word parity to an excessive degree. It means "precise equivalence; exact correspondence."
Basically the issue is that health insurance companies can set limits on mental health coverage based on Erisa, a 1974 federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. There isn't a "parity" between the way in which mental health coverage and co-payments are equitably distributed amongst HMO's and health insurance companies.
This atrocity and how it comes into play in the vast American wasteland of mental illness is pretty strange to me. A company that sets a limit at $100,000 for lifetime mental health benefits and is then considered evil is a going to be a pretty hard sell on Capitol Hill in my mind. The other problem here is that this is a classic case of the reversal of a law which focuses NOT on the wellness on the American people but ways to reduce lawsuits and compensation claims. All of which further drive most people mad.
Well, read the article and see what you think. This is certainly something to be concerned about on many levels considering the massive political and socio-economic ramifications the Department of Health and Human Services has on the US.
- Steve K
Monday, November 05, 2001
