"Affordable" Care Act vent

[TranquilMind]

That's a lot like saying "No one in my family has ever had a heart attack, so I won't have one either." You never know what the future hold for yourself or your dependents. 

 

Additionally, I think perhaps you have some misconceptions about antidepressants and how they are used. I'm not going to take the time to correct them, but suffice it to say that depression strikes a large number of people, research is sadly lacking and sometimes finding the right medications requires a lot of trial and error. It isn't a matter of covering a lot of anti-depressants, it's a matter of making sure that a wide range of anti-depressants are available in the hopes that, should you need it, there will be one that works for you. When you find that medication, it needs to be affordable, or many patients will not be medication compliant, which then has the potential to drive the cost of mental health care up further through hospitalizations, more frequent office visits, etc.. 

What are we doing wrong in this country that "depression strikes a large number of people" and they all magically need ongoing medical care with expensive designer drugs?  That's what is crazy.

 

Do you think depression didn't strike a "large number of people" during the DEPRESSION?  Or during WW II, when their sons were being blown to bits on Normandy and in Germany?   I grew up around these people as our elders.  They sucked it up and went on.    There are people who endure great tragedies.  There are people who have lost everyone. 

 

They got through it and went on to have productive lives.  You have some awful days, and then you go on.   I think doctors are very quick to rush to, "Here, take this anti-depressant" for a patient, maybe one whose problems they can't figure out.   I think there is a place for short term treatment,  but as you say, half of Americans are on drugs now with no end in sight.  I have a problem with that. 

 

Let's focus on a wide range of medications to solve infections or diseases, shall we?    Let's focus on  restoring people to health instead of giving them a bandage LONG TERM (which is what I object to- long term life on drugs).   

 

You don't know what the future holds, which is why it is important to take the best care of the one body we get.  I don't happen to think that is a life on drugs, though obviously, there are a few drugs that are actually imperative, like insulin, if you don't make it yourself. 

 

I just don't like how we do medicine in this country.  It's all backwards.  But anyway, I digress.  Carry on. 

[QueenCat]

What are we doing wrong in this country that "depression strikes a large number of people" and they all magically need ongoing medical care with expensive designer drugs?  That's what is crazy.

 

Do you think depression didn't strike a "large number of people" during the DEPRESSION?  Or during WW II, when their sons were being blown to bits on Normandy and in Germany?   I grew up around these people as our elders.  They sucked it up and went on.    There are people who endure great tragedies.  There are people who have lost everyone. 

 

They got through it and went on to have productive lives.  You have some awful days, and then you go on.   I think doctors are very quick to rush to, "Here, take this anti-depressant" for a patient, maybe one whose problems they can't figure out.   I think there is a place for short term treatment,  but as you say, half of Americans are on drugs now with no end in sight.  I have a problem with that. 

 

Let's focus on a wide range of medications to solve infections or diseases, shall we?    Let's focus on  restoring people to health instead of giving them a bandage LONG TERM (which is what I object to- long term life on drugs).   

 

You don't know what the future holds, which is why it is important to take the best care of the one body we get.  I don't happen to think that is a life on drugs, though obviously, there are a few drugs that are actually imperative, like insulin, if you don't make it yourself. 

 

I just don't like how we do medicine in this country.  It's all backwards.  But anyway, I digress.  Carry on. 

 

I see your point about people who deal with tragedy, and might have a temporary depression not needing medication. Unfortunately, that is totally different from someone who has a chemical imbalance. They can't just "carry on", they need meds just like some diabetics need insulin. And some of the newer "designer" meds are more effective for some people. Additionally, one cannot predict whether or not one will eventually have one of the many mental illnesses during their lifetime. Just not possible.

 

[Joker]

What are we doing wrong in this country that "depression strikes a large number of people" and they all magically need ongoing medical care with expensive designer drugs? That's what is crazy.

 

Do you think depression didn't strike a "large number of people" during the DEPRESSION? Or during WW II, when their sons were being blown to bits on Normandy and in Germany? I grew up around these people as our elders. They sucked it up and went on. There are people who endure great tragedies. There are people who have lost everyone.

 

They got through it and went on to have productive lives. You have some awful days, and then you go on. I think doctors are very quick to rush to, "Here, take this anti-depressant" for a patient, maybe one whose problems they can't figure out. I think there is a place for short term treatment, but as you say, half of Americans are on drugs now with no end in sight. I have a problem with that.

 

Let's focus on a wide range of medications to solve infections or diseases, shall we? Let's focus on restoring people to health instead of giving them a bandage LONG TERM (which is what I object to- long term life on drugs).

 

You don't know what the future holds, which is why it is important to take the best care of the one body we get. I don't happen to think that is a life on drugs, though obviously, there are a few drugs that are actually imperative, like insulin, if you don't make it yourself.

 

I just don't like how we do medicine in this country. It's all backwards. But anyway, I digress. Carry on.

Ummm, my dd's medication only cost us $3/month (generic form). The expensive part is doctor/therapist visits.

 

Argh! It posted before I was done and I do have more to say about the rest but will wait till back home on pc.

 

ETA: I came back to add my thoughts but TechWife explained them better than I could.

[TranquilMind]

I see your point about people who deal with tragedy, and might have a temporary depression not needing medication. Unfortunately, that is totally different from someone who has a chemical imbalance. They can't just "carry on", they need meds just like some diabetics need insulin. And some of the newer "designer" meds are more effective for some people. Additionally, one cannot predict whether or not one will eventually have one of the many mental illnesses during their lifetime. Just not possible.

 

Do you honestly believe that chemical imbalances are widely occurring, and that we don't have a lot of, "Well, here, take this pill...you will feel better" when they don't know what else to do?   Well, maybe they are, due to the nonfood crap people eat in this country.  Still, it is something we as a nation could fix if we cared enough. 

[QueenCat]

Do you honestly believe that chemical imbalances are widely occurring, and that we don't have a lot of, "Well, here, take this pill...you will feel better" when they don't know what else to do?   Well, maybe they are, due to the nonfood crap people eat in this country.  Still, it is something we as a nation could fix if we cared enough. 

 

Actually, I do think that some things are over-diagnosed and/or misdiagnosed but that doesn't take away from those with real neuro-mental issues needing pharmaceutical treatment.

[TechWife]

What are we doing wrong in this country that "depression strikes a large number of people" and they all magically need ongoing medical care with expensive designer drugs?  That's what is crazy.

 

Do you think depression didn't strike a "large number of people" during the DEPRESSION?  Or during WW II, when their sons were being blown to bits on Normandy and in Germany?   I grew up around these people as our elders.  They sucked it up and went on.    There are people who endure great tragedies.  There are people who have lost everyone. 

 

They got through it and went on to have productive lives.  You have some awful days, and then you go on.   I think doctors are very quick to rush to, "Here, take this anti-depressant" for a patient, maybe one whose problems they can't figure out.   I think there is a place for short term treatment,  but as you say, half of Americans are on drugs now with no end in sight.  I have a problem with that. 

 

Let's focus on a wide range of medications to solve infections or diseases, shall we?    Let's focus on  restoring people to health instead of giving them a bandage LONG TERM (which is what I object to- long term life on drugs).   

 

You don't know what the future holds, which is why it is important to take the best care of the one body we get.  I don't happen to think that is a life on drugs, though obviously, there are a few drugs that are actually imperative, like insulin, if you don't make it yourself. 

 

I just don't like how we do medicine in this country.  It's all backwards.  But anyway, I digress.  Carry on. 

 

Again, I will say that you are not educated in mental illness nor in the way that it is treated. What's more, i do not think that there is anything that I could say that you would be willing to consider, so really, as I write this, I have in mind all of the people who will come behind us and will read this thread, because I want them to be more informed about mental illness and how it is treated. 

 

There is a big difference between situational depression, like those you have mentioned, and a depression caused by a chemical imbalance. I am sad that you have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness. I am sad that you don't see the value of people who have a  chemical imbalances being able to get out of bed, take care of themselves and their families, hold down jobs and go about their daily lives as valuable members of society. 

 

To say, as you have, that it's imperative that someone get insulin because they can't make it themselves yet not think its imperative for someone to have medication that corrects faulty brain chemistry that they can't correct themselves is inconsistent. The "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality that you are promoting is quite frankly, outdated in terms of mental illness, or any other illness for that matter.  The idea that doctors are to quick to prescribe anti-depressants is likewise outdated and does not reflect the present day care and diligence that goes into the treatment of the mentally ill. 

 

Just as no amount of preventative care will keep some people from having a heart attack or cancer, no amount of preventative care will keep some people from getting mental illness. Preventative care is an important part of our healthcare system, but no amount of care can prevent everything and to promote such an idea is foolish, IMO. For a great number of people, taking care of themselves involves treatment for a chronic illness, of which depression is one of many. 

 

I truly do hope you and/or your family members never need to access mental health care, but I am grateful that you will all  have the ability to do so. 

[TechWife]

I did not say it was a weakness.  I do not think everyone needs to pay for that coverage however, as they do hospital coverage or general medical care, or even specialists.  If you need it, buy it.  

 

You do realize that psychiatrists are specialists, right? They are medical doctors who have completed at least as much training as any other specialist. 

 

If I had waited to buy medical insurance until my son "needed it", then he would not have been insured for his illness. What good would that do? 

[TechWife]

Do you honestly believe that chemical imbalances are widely occurring, and that we don't have a lot of, "Well, here, take this pill...you will feel better" when they don't know what else to do?   Well, maybe they are, due to the nonfood crap people eat in this country.  Still, it is something we as a nation could fix if we cared enough. 

 

Yes, there are a lot of people with mental illnesses in this country. No, I don't believe that people are being prescribed medications without a lot of consideration. Yes, I do believe that many people wait until they don't know what else to do before they start taking medication - which is a shame because they could get relief so much faster if they saw medication as a legitimate part of a treatment plan. 

 

I agree that we as a nation could "fix" things if we cared enough, which is why I think funding mental health research is imperative if we are going to go forward with helping people become well. No amount of good nutrition will fix many illnesses. If it were that simple, people would have had longer life spans back in the days when diets were more "natural." Instead, we actually see the reverse. 

[TranquilMind]

You do realize that psychiatrists are specialists, right? They are medical doctors who have completed at least as much training as any other specialist. 

 

If I had waited to buy medical insurance until my son "needed it", then he would not have been insured for his illness. What good would that do? 

Yes, of course I realize that.  Naturally, some event that happened to encompass psychiatric issues would be covered, I think. 

 

I just don't think that much of what is happening in this country regarding "mental health" coverage falls into that category, and I don't think we need to pay for every birth control pill out there or every antidepressant prescribed to anyone. 

[Caroline]

Again, I will say that you are not educated in mental illness nor in the way that it is treated. What's more, i do not think that there is anything that I could say that you would be willing to consider, so really, as I write this, I have in mind all of the people who will come behind us and will read this thread, because I want them to be more informed about mental illness and how it is treated. 

 

There is a big difference between situational depression, like those you have mentioned, and a depression caused by a chemical imbalance. I am sad that you have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness. I am sad that you don't see the value of people who have a  chemical imbalances being able to get out of bed, take care of themselves and their families, hold down jobs and go about their daily lives as valuable members of society. 

 

To say, as you have, that it's imperative that someone get insulin because they can't make it themselves yet not think its imperative for someone to have medication that corrects faulty brain chemistry that they can't correct themselves is inconsistent. The "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality that you are promoting is quite frankly, outdated in terms of mental illness, or any other illness for that matter.  The idea that doctors are to quick to prescribe anti-depressants is likewise outdated and does not reflect the present day care and diligence that goes into the treatment of the mentally ill. 

 

Just as no amount of preventative care will keep some people from having a heart attack or cancer, no amount of preventative care will keep some people from getting mental illness. Preventative care is an important part of our healthcare system, but no amount of care can prevent everything and to promote such an idea is foolish, IMO. For a great number of people, taking care of themselves involves treatment for a chronic illness, of which depression is one of many. 

 

I truly do hope you and/or your family members never need to access mental health care, but I am grateful that you will all  have the ability to do so. 

 

Liking this post was not good enough.

 

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that treating mental illness is a public safety issue. Our homeless population has a lot of mentally ill people who could take care of themselves and hold down jobs if given proper treatment. Our prisons have many mentally ill people who might not be there if given proper treatment. Could treating mental illness cut down on the number of drug addicted people we have? I bet it could. We dropped the ball on treating mental illness in the 1980's. We need to pick it back up again. We need to treat mental illness in this country. 

 

Treating mental illness is not about overmedicating people. It is not about solving everything with drugs. It is about keeping people safe and healthy. It is about taking care of our fellow human beings. 

[TranquilMind]

Yes, there are a lot of people with mental illnesses in this country. No, I don't believe that people are being prescribed medications without a lot of consideration. Yes, I do believe that many people wait until they don't know what else to do before they start taking medication - which is a shame because they could get relief so much faster if they saw medication as a legitimate part of a treatment plan. 

 

I agree that we as a nation could "fix" things if we cared enough, which is why I think funding mental health research is imperative if we are going to go forward with helping people become well. No amount of good nutrition will fix many illnesses. If it were that simple, people would have had longer life spans back in the days when diets were more "natural." Instead, we actually see the reverse. 

Well, we disagree on virtually everything you posted here, especially the part about good nutrition changing things.  We don't even know what good nutrition is in this nation.

 

I had a specialist tell me that "foods consumed have absolutely no bearing on your health".  He was dead before our next appointment.  I thought he was about 80.  He was 63. 

 

People died of other causes back then, often related to lack of sanitation and lack of antibiotics, not chemical food poison. 

[TechWife]

Well, we disagree on virtually everything you posted here, especially the part about good nutrition changing things.  We don't even know what good nutrition is in this nation.

 

I had a specialist tell me that "foods consumed have absolutely no bearing on your health".  He was dead before our next appointment.  I thought he was about 80.  He was 63. 

 

People died of other causes back then, often related to lack of sanitation and lack of antibiotics, not chemical food poison. 

 

I didn't say that good nutrition wouldn't change things. I said it wouldn't "fix" everything and to promote such an idea is foolish. I do think nutrition is a piece of the puzzle for overall health, but I also am not naive enough to think that it would "fix" all of the health issues that we face today. 

 

I'd love to see any well-researched, peer-reviewed, reputable and conclusive evidence that you have that shows people are dying of "chemical food poison." 

[TechWife]

Yes, of course I realize that.  Naturally, some event that happened to encompass psychiatric issues would be covered, I think. 

 

I just don't think that much of what is happening in this country regarding "mental health" coverage falls into that category, and I don't think we need to pay for every birth control pill out there or every antidepressant prescribed to anyone. 

 

If I understand you correctly, you think that an "event" related to a psychiatric issue should be covered, but medications that treat and therefore prevent the mental instability that leads to these "events" should not be covered? Quite frankly, that's scary.  It appears that you are assuming that mental illness only affects the person with the mental illness. If so, a quick chat with a police officer, attorney, judge, coroner, funeral director or volunteer at your local homeless shelter should relieve you of that assumption. 

[TranquilMind]

Again, I will say that you are not educated in mental illness nor in the way that it is treated. What's more, i do not think that there is anything that I could say that you would be willing to consider, so really, as I write this, I have in mind all of the people who will come behind us and will read this thread, because I want them to be more informed about mental illness and how it is treated. 

 

There is a big difference between situational depression, like those you have mentioned, and a depression caused by a chemical imbalance. I am sad that you have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness. I am sad that you don't see the value of people who have a  chemical imbalances being able to get out of bed, take care of themselves and their families, hold down jobs and go about their daily lives as valuable members of society. 

 

To say, as you have, that it's imperative that someone get insulin because they can't make it themselves yet not think its imperative for someone to have medication that corrects faulty brain chemistry that they can't correct themselves is inconsistent. The "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality that you are promoting is quite frankly, outdated in terms of mental illness, or any other illness for that matter.  The idea that doctors are to quick to prescribe anti-depressants is likewise outdated and does not reflect the present day care and diligence that goes into the treatment of the mentally ill. 

 

Just as no amount of preventative care will keep some people from having a heart attack or cancer, no amount of preventative care will keep some people from getting mental illness. Preventative care is an important part of our healthcare system, but no amount of care can prevent everything and to promote such an idea is foolish, IMO. For a great number of people, taking care of themselves involves treatment for a chronic illness, of which depression is one of many. 

 

I truly do hope you and/or your family members never need to access mental health care, but I am grateful that you will all  have the ability to do so. 

Again, you can say whatever you like.  What you cannot do without objection is put words in my mouth.  I categorically did NOT say that I "have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness."    I only questioned whether it should be something that everyone should have to pay for, regardless of use.   I never addressed chemical inbalances at all, except to say that I thought they were not the majority of the cases, which I am pretty sure is still the case. That is medical orthodoxy today,but is questioned by some, as it has been discovered that  patients vary vastly in chemical levels regardless of depressed/non-depressed status.  Some have low levels of certain chemicals (serotonin, norepinephrine,etc), some high levels of the same chemicals and are not depressed.  Some have low levels or high levels of certain chemicals and are depressed.  There is little consistency.   The peer reviewed articles do not support the chemical imbalance theories unequivocally.  The drug companies benefit immensely.  All factors that cannot be ignored. 

 

Doctors are exceedingly quick to prescribe antidepressants, regardless of what you assume.  I hardly know a woman who isn't on them or been offered them (except yours truly- though now that I recall, I was offered them once about 30 years ago, after several deaths and losses).  ALL of them do not have chemical imbalances, but rather, are going through some stuff or have. 

 

I was always able to access various sources of treatment if I wanted and will always be able to do so, unless medical schools and graduate schools stop turning out MD's and doctorates of psychology.   The only question is who will be paying for it.  Apparently, I will be paying for it anyway regardless, so you can rest easy. 

[TechWife]

Again, you can say whatever you like.  What you cannot do without objection is put words in my mouth.  I categorically did NOT say that I "have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness."    I only questioned whether it should be something that everyone should have to pay for, regardless of use.   I never addressed chemical inbalances at all, except to say that I thought they were not the majority of the cases, which I am pretty sure is still the case. That is medical orthodoxy today,but is questioned by some, as it has been discovered that  patients vary vastly in chemical levels regardless of depressed/non-depressed status.  Some have low levels of certain chemicals (serotonin, norepinephrine,etc), some high levels of the same chemicals and are not depressed.  Some have low levels or high levels of certain chemicals and are depressed.  There is little consistency.   The peer reviewed articles do not support the chemical imbalance theories unequivocally.  The drug companies benefit immensely.  All factors that cannot be ignored. 

 

Doctors are exceedingly quick to prescribe antidepressants, regardless of what you assume.  I hardly know a woman who isn't on them or been offered them (except yours truly- though now that I recall, I was offered them once about 30 years ago, after several deaths and losses).  ALL of them do not have chemical imbalances, but rather, are going through some stuff or have. 

 

I was always able to access various sources of treatment if I wanted and will always be able to do so, unless medical schools and graduate schools stop turning out MD's and doctorates of psychology.   The only question is who will be paying for it.  Apparently, I will be paying for it anyway regardless, so you can rest easy. 

 

I'm going to stop after this. If you have a problem with people taking anti depressants, you have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness, as such, there is no reason to exclude mental illness from coverage that "everyone should have to pay for" - it's called sharing the risk. In Biblical terms (I can't remember if you're a Christian or not, so disregard if you are not), it's called caring for "the least of my brothers." 

 

I would love to know how you know that "ALL" of the women you know who are taking anti-depressants don't have chemical imbalances. 

 

The fact is that many potential treatments for many different illnesses have the potential to make a profit for someone, whether they be pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, nutritionists, exercise physiologists, physical therapists, or any number of other professions. I have never heard this argument, however, used to argue against treating or researching cancer, MS, Lyme Disease or many other illnesses, just mental illness. 

 

Additionally, while you may always have "access" to mental health treatment, realize that many people who do not have insurance coverage do not have this same access because they cannot afford to pay for it out of pocket. A big piece of access to good health care is affordability. Hence, you know, the use of the word "Affordable" in the Affordable Healthcare Act. It is the definition of "affordable" that is the biggest issue that this thread initially set out to discuss. 

[Ausmumof3]

Suicide rates during the Great Depression varied between 15-18 per 100,000 per year from some quick googling. So not everyone just got on with it. It's not some new thing it's just that we now have a means to deal with it.

 

I do hope that better screening procedures are developed to assess risks, as right now it seems to be a bit broad brush. While at the same time others don't get what they need.

[TranquilMind]

Curious - what if you can't pay for it out of pocket ?

 

One of mine has an anxiety disorder. Drugs make the difference ( as we found out after several YEARS of trying non-med treatments ).

 

I couldn't afford to pay the non-subsidised price every month. It  is subsidised for us, as everyone's taxes help pay for the low-income price.

 

What then ? Kid suffers mental illness because she has lazy, no-good parents ?

 

Others should pay for it simply because you can't afford to pay for it?   That's the criterion?

 

Geez, my Mom once covered the monthly cost of a drug that was "experimental" back in the 70's to keep my sister from rejecting yet another organ and dying (any earlier than she did). 

 

It equaled our monthly take home pay at the time. I was a young teen so I have no idea how she did it, but she did.

 

I guess I have a hard time drumming up sympathy for everyone paying for things like anxiety.   Sorry.  I have had what I guess are panic attacks, looking back.  I occasionally ran out of the room in grad school, and hyperventilated.  I still have a hard time at a doctor's office or hospital after all the horrible things I have seen.    I got over it and went on, because nobody was going to fix it for me.  It was either suck it up and go on, or drop out of school and life. 

 

Just out of curiosity, I went to a site to look up drug costs.  I clicked the first one.  30 pills of SSRI's for $8.19 a month at Target and other stores.  It was recommended to get a double dosage of what you need and cut pill in half - cost would be $4.10 a month that way.  That doesn't seem like something one cannot pay for himself. 

 

I sometimes think I come from a different planet than many on this site.     

[Pawz4me]

Again, you can say whatever you like.  What you cannot do without objection is put words in my mouth.  I categorically did NOT say that I "have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness."    I only questioned whether it should be something that everyone should have to pay for, regardless of use.   I never addressed chemical inbalances at all, except to say that I thought they were not the majority of the cases, which I am pretty sure is still the case. That is medical orthodoxy today,but is questioned by some, as it has been discovered that  patients vary vastly in chemical levels regardless of depressed/non-depressed status.  Some have low levels of certain chemicals (serotonin, norepinephrine,etc), some high levels of the same chemicals and are not depressed.  Some have low levels or high levels of certain chemicals and are depressed.  There is little consistency.   The peer reviewed articles do not support the chemical imbalance theories unequivocally.  The drug companies benefit immensely.  All factors that cannot be ignored. 

 

Doctors are exceedingly quick to prescribe antidepressants, regardless of what you assume.  I hardly know a woman who isn't on them or been offered them (except yours truly- though now that I recall, I was offered them once about 30 years ago, after several deaths and losses).  ALL of them do not have chemical imbalances, but rather, are going through some stuff or have. 

 

I was always able to access various sources of treatment if I wanted and will always be able to do so, unless medical schools and graduate schools stop turning out MD's and doctorates of psychology.   The only question is who will be paying for it.  Apparently, I will be paying for it anyway regardless, so you can rest easy. 

 

"Going through some stuff or have" can be the cause of chemical imbalances in the brain.  It's not either/or.

[TranquilMind]

Suicide rates during the Great Depression varied between 15-18 per 100,000 per year from some quick googling. So not everyone just got on with it. It's not some new thing it's just that we now have a means to deal with it.

 

I do hope that better screening procedures are developed to assess risks, as right now it seems to be a bit broad brush. While at the same time others don't get what they need.

Ok?  And so?  Suicide rates have always fluctuated in good and bad economic times.  There have always been some that just got on with it and some that did not, or who drank themselves to death.   Go get something if you really need it - it is cheap enough and easy - but why does everyone else have to pay for that choice? 

[TranquilMind]

I'm going to stop after this. If you have a problem with people taking anti depressants, you have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness, as such, there is no reason to exclude mental illness from coverage that "everyone should have to pay for" - it's called sharing the risk. In Biblical terms (I can't remember if you're a Christian or not, so disregard if you are not), it's called caring for "the least of my brothers." 

 

I would love to know how you know that "ALL" of the women you know who are taking anti-depressants don't have chemical imbalances. 

 

The fact is that many potential treatments for many different illnesses have the potential to make a profit for someone, whether they be pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, nutritionists, exercise physiologists, physical therapists, or any number of other professions. I have never heard this argument, however, used to argue against treating or researching cancer, MS, Lyme Disease or many other illnesses, just mental illness. 

 

Additionally, while you may always have "access" to mental health treatment, realize that many people who do not have insurance coverage do not have this same access because they cannot afford to pay for it out of pocket. A big piece of access to good health care is affordability. Hence, you know, the use of the word "Affordable" in the Affordable Healthcare Act. It is the definition of "affordable" that is the biggest issue that this thread initially set out to discuss. 

Do you really want to get into a Biblical argument about this?  Because I can go there. 

 

Chemical imbalance sounds a whole lot more "medical" than "just going through some crap and not handling it well".  But there are no criteria on which to categorically decide one falls into one category or the other.  If drugs help short term, take them, but I sure wouldn't want to live there. 

 

I have a problem with expensive treatments of dubious worth for any condition, by the way.  Not just mental stuff. 

 

And you really do not want to talk to me about "affordability" - that is dramatically reduced for everyone, except some low income folks with pre-existing conditions. 

[TranquilMind]

Probably the people who need affordability more than most.

Sure, but is it justified to increase costs to unaffordability for those just above that level?  There are huge numbers of people who make just a tad too much to qualify for any subsidies, but too little to pay the incredible costs of a policy for their family.  They have been unreasonably burdened.  Young people are another group who have been unreasonably burdened with policy costs far too high for their risk level. 

It's a mess all around. 

[TranquilMind]

You don't know what meds or therapies a particular person needs, and what the cost is to that person or family.

 

Have you ever met a child diagnosed as suffering from anxiety disorder ? Just out of curiosity. Have you seen the havoc it can play with not only their own lives, but that of their families ? Have you seen a child suffering so badly that she would prefer to not be alive ? Have you seen a child so anxious she is using self harm skills to cope ?

 

I guess not.

 

And yes, my criterion for mental health care is that everyone deserves it, and effective treatment should not be dependent on individual incomes. When I finish studying and start working, I will be thrilled to be paying taxes for this purpose.

I've seen a few things.  I do know that there is a huge number of teens that are self-harming today and engaging in all kinds of negative, awful stuff, something we never saw in my youth, where you might have a fistfight or two in school, and a kid or two on medication for something.  Where have we gone wrong in our values ?  Are loads of teens suddenly "mentally ill" for no reason?  I'm just not buying that simplistic view. 

[Joker]

Again, you can say whatever you like.  What you cannot do without objection is put words in my mouth.  I categorically did NOT say that I "have a problem with people being treated for a life-altering illness."    I only questioned whether it should be something that everyone should have to pay for, regardless of use.   I never addressed chemical inbalances at all, except to say that I thought they were not the majority of the cases, which I am pretty sure is still the case. That is medical orthodoxy today,but is questioned by some, as it has been discovered that  patients vary vastly in chemical levels regardless of depressed/non-depressed status.  Some have low levels of certain chemicals (serotonin, norepinephrine,etc), some high levels of the same chemicals and are not depressed.  Some have low levels or high levels of certain chemicals and are depressed.  There is little consistency.   The peer reviewed articles do not support the chemical imbalance theories unequivocally.  The drug companies benefit immensely.  All factors that cannot be ignored. 

 

Doctors are exceedingly quick to prescribe antidepressants, regardless of what you assume.  I hardly know a woman who isn't on them or been offered them (except yours truly- though now that I recall, I was offered them once about 30 years ago, after several deaths and losses).  ALL of them do not have chemical imbalances, but rather, are going through some stuff or have. 

 

I was always able to access various sources of treatment if I wanted and will always be able to do so, unless medical schools and graduate schools stop turning out MD's and doctorates of psychology.   The only question is who will be paying for it.  Apparently, I will be paying for it anyway regardless, so you can rest easy. 

 

The bolded hasn't been my experience at all! When I needed them for a bit 14 years ago my physician would not prescribe them without a psychologist's recommendation.

 

When my oldest dd needed them this this year, our primary doctor referred us to a psychologist for treatment and a recommendation. The psychologist wanted her monitored by a psychiatrist as well as her regular therapy and wanted that doctor to prescribe them. The pediatric psychiatrist is the one who prescribed and monitors her medication. It wasn't easy to get and no one was quick to prescribe them.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

The bolded hasn't been my experience at all! When I needed them for a bit 14 years ago my physician would not prescribe them without a psychologist's recommendation.

 

When my oldest dd needed them this this year, our primary doctor referred us to a psychologist for treatment and a recommendation. The psychologist wanted her monitored by a psychiatrist as well as her regular therapy and wanted that doctor to prescribe them. The pediatric psychiatrist is the one who prescribed and monitors her medication. It wasn't easy to get and no one was quick to prescribe them.

That's not the experience I've heard or had at all.  Maybe it varies by location.  I don't know. 

[Caroline]

I've seen a few things.  I do know that there is a huge number of teens that are self-harming today and engaging in all kinds of negative, awful stuff, something we never saw in my youth, where you might have a fistfight or two in school, and a kid or two on medication for something.  Where have we gone wrong in our values ?  Are loads of teens suddenly "mentally ill" for no reason?  I'm just not buying that simplistic view. 

 

In the past we just locked them away in institutions. That was way more expensive than a few antidepressants. 

[Jane in NC]

That's not the experience I've heard or had at all.  Maybe it varies by location.  I don't know. 

 

Which is why policy should not be dictated by anecdotal information.

 

Gently.  You have assumed that the diagnoses received by some are not valid because they are not within your experience or because of your interpretation of information (or reading of friends and relatives medical charts??)  From your posts, I gather that you do not trust medical professionals. 

 

Frankly I trust my doctors more than the Internet.  Which is why I, as a non-medical professional, would have a hard time negotiating my personal health care insurance policy as some have suggested. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

In the past we just locked them away in institutions. That was way more expensive than a few antidepressants. 

Do you think we locked vast numbers of teens away in the old days?  I don't.  I agree that warehousing is more expensive. 

[Joanne]

I've seen a few things. I do know that there is a huge number of teens that are self-harming today and engaging in all kinds of negative, awful stuff, something we never saw in my youth, where you might have a fistfight or two in school, and a kid or two on medication for something. Where have we gone wrong in our values ? Are loads of teens suddenly "mentally ill" for no reason? I'm just not buying that simplistic view.

Self harm is a coping skill. It is a poor one, but one nonetheless.

 

Nothing to do with "values".

 

Just like there are different and more forms of cancer and other autoimmune due to the complex biochemical world we live in, brains are also compromised In ways they were not in earlier, less environmentally risky times.

[TranquilMind]

Which is why policy should not be dictated by anecdotal information.

 

Gently.  You have assumed that the diagnoses received by some are not valid because they are not within your experience or because of your interpretation of information (or reading of friends and relatives medical charts??)  From your posts, I gather that you do not trust medical professionals. 

 

Frankly I trust my doctors more than the Internet.  Which is why I, as a non-medical professional, would have a hard time negotiating my personal health care insurance policy as some have suggested. 

Good for you. 

Let's just say I fall squarely into the "Trust, but verify" category, and for good reason.  But I also research to find the best options, and do not leave that critically important work to others only.  I take copious notes in medical settings, and know a great deal about a subject if it is relevant to me.  It is rare that a doctor tells me anything I don't already know because I do my homework prior to (or thereafter, if it just came up, but prior to a subsequent meeting). 

 

I have assumed only what the literature finds - that there is no consensus on the whole "chemical imbalance" thing at all -the whole chicken or egg thing.  I am asserting nothing other than what is already out there. 

 

You should have a say over your health care policy as it directly affects your quality of life, both physically and financially.   We should have options that make sense.  No woman should have to pay for prostate care.  No man should have to pay for maternity care. 

[Joanne]

Good for you.

Let's just say I fall squarely into the "Trust, but verify" category, and for good reason. But I also research to find the best options, and do not leave that critically important work to others only. I take copious notes in medical settings, and know a great deal about a subject if it is relevant to me. It is rare that a doctor tells me anything I don't already know because I do my homework prior to (or thereafter, if it just came up, but prior to a subsequent meeting).

 

I have assumed only what the literature finds - that there is no consensus on the whole "chemical imbalance" thing at all -the whole chicken or egg thing. I am asserting nothing other than what is already out there.

I am (at work) in a psychiatric ER as I type. You are wrong - mental ILLNESS is well documented as various malfunctions of the brain by mainstream, peer reviewed, research supported professionals.

[ktgrok]

What are we doing wrong in this country that "depression strikes a large number of people" and they all magically need ongoing medical care with expensive designer drugs?  That's what is crazy.

 

Do you think depression didn't strike a "large number of people" during the DEPRESSION?  Or during WW II, when their sons were being blown to bits on Normandy and in Germany?   I grew up around these people as our elders.  They sucked it up and went on.    There are people who endure great tragedies.  There are people who have lost everyone. 

 

They got through it and went on to have productive lives.  You have some awful days, and then you go on.   I think doctors are very quick to rush to, "Here, take this anti-depressant" for a patient, maybe one whose problems they can't figure out.   I think there is a place for short term treatment,  but as you say, half of Americans are on drugs now with no end in sight.  I have a problem with that. 

 

Let's focus on a wide range of medications to solve infections or diseases, shall we?    Let's focus on  restoring people to health instead of giving them a bandage LONG TERM (which is what I object to- long term life on drugs).   

 

You don't know what the future holds, which is why it is important to take the best care of the one body we get.  I don't happen to think that is a life on drugs, though obviously, there are a few drugs that are actually imperative, like insulin, if you don't make it yourself. 

 

I just don't like how we do medicine in this country.  It's all backwards.  But anyway, I digress.  Carry on. 

 

Mental health care isn't just about drugs. Or even mostly about drugs. A GP can prescribe an antidepressent. What people need mental health care coverage for is to talk to a therapist, learn new behaviors, heal from PTSD or domestic violence or have someone help them through a bad spot in their marriage. How on earth someone can predict if they will say, be mugged and need some therapy to deal with PTSD, I don't know. 

[Jane in NC]

Good for you. 

Let's just say I fall squarely into the "Trust, but verify" category, and for good reason.  But I also research to find the best options, and do not leave that critically important work to others only.  I take copious notes in medical settings, and know a great deal about a subject if it is relevant to me.  It is rare that a doctor tells me anything I don't already know because I do my homework prior to (or thereafter, if it just came up, but prior to a subsequent meeting). 

 

I have assumed only what the literature finds - that there is no consensus on the whole "chemical imbalance" thing at all -the whole chicken or egg thing.  I am asserting nothing other than what is already out there. 

 

You should have a say over your health care policy as it directly affects your quality of life, both physically and financially.   We should have options that make sense.  No woman should have to pay for prostate care.  No man should have to pay for maternity care. 

 

Just to clarify--I do my research in part to have expectations before arriving in a doctor's office--or in determining whether I need to go to a doctor's office.  Apparently your diagnosis skills are beyond mine.  For example, I have a corneal defect.  There is no way that I would have been able to diagnose this on my own.  Nor can I give myself a root canal. 

 

Further, if you are able to self diagnose, that is one thing.  But apparently you are diagnosing others as well by stating that they have been given unnecessary treatments.  If reading medical journals is your hobby, I stand in admiration. 

 

[maize]

Mental health care isn't just about drugs. Or even mostly about drugs. A GP can prescribe an antidepressent. What people need mental health care coverage for is to talk to a therapist, learn new behaviors, heal from PTSD or domestic violence or have someone help them through a bad spot in their marriage. How on earth someone can predict if they will say, be mugged and need some therapy to deal with PTSD, I don't know.

I'm pretty sure PP would say the person dealing with PTSD after being mugged should just get over it.

 

I do hope she keeps a small chink open in her mind in case someone close to her ever suffers from mental illness.

 

ETA: TranquilMind, as I read your posts you seem to be denying the real medical, physiological truth of mental illness as it is understood by the best scientific research of our time. That mental illness is in fact a physiological illness is really not disputed in the scientific community. Specific mechanisms are not well understood, but an ill brain is a legitimate medical issue. Trauma (say, being mugged) can cause real disfunction in the brain just as it can cause real damage to other parts of the body (broken bones, etc.); both are legitimate medical problems needing proper attention.

[Renee in NC]

Nevermind. 

 

[texasmama]

Speaking in generalities but based on professional experience, the pediatric population is treated differently for mental health issues than the adult population.  Pediatricians are more likely to refer out for a psychological evaluation or to a psychiatrist for medications than to simply prescribe an antidepressant in this population, in my experience.  Adults with unipolar depression can often find a GP to prescribe an affordable SSRI that has a fair chance of providing the needed relief.  Children and adolescents are more likely to receive treatment by specialists such as psychiatrists or neurologists when it comes to the prescribing and ongoing management of psychotropic medications.  I happen to think this is a good thing, but it does tend to make the mental health care for children and adolescents potentially more expensive and complex.  It can also be difficult to get an expedient appointment with a psychiatrist (particularly one board certified in child and adolescent psychiatry) or even to find a psychiatrist taking new patients.  This is true for adults but even more so for children.  Adults with chronic and persistent mental illness such as schizophrenia can be very complex and expensive to treat over a lifetime.  Even with medications and support, many are not able to join the workforce or live independently.  In the absence of family able and willing to care for them (and act as legal guardians, if needed) this responsibility falls to paid caseworkers or to no one at all.  Some of this population are chronically homeless even with the best of supports.  There are no simple answers, but these are people who legitimately need complex and expensive lifetime care in every way possible.

 

I hope that is clear.  I have a killer head cold, and I feel like I am living at the bottom of a well with my head stuffed with cotton.

[QueenCat]

In the past we just locked them away in institutions. That was way more expensive than a few antidepressants. 

 

Yep.... and I'd prefer effective meds over institutions.

[FaithManor]

So I guess when my son sets up in bed in cold sweat having just dreamed about the accident, reliving the crash, he should just suck it up buttercup" and not seek or receive help though appropriate intervention is available.

 

NOT!

 

Thank heaven for his very well trained PTSD counselor.

 

Kudos to all of you who have so patiently attempted to explain this to the poster.

[TranquilMind]

I am (at work) in a psychiatric ER as I type. You are wrong - mental ILLNESS is well documented as various malfunctions of the brain by mainstream, peer reviewed, research supported professionals.

Chemical imbalance, I said.   I didn't say "mental illness". 

 

I've already closed out other windows, so I'm not going back there. 

[TranquilMind]

So I guess when my son sets up in bed in cold sweat having just dreamed about the accident, reliving the crash, he should just suck it up buttercup" and not seek or receive help though appropriate intervention is available.

 

NOT!

 

Thank heaven for his very well trained PTSD counselor.

 

Kudos to all of you who have so patiently attempted to explain this to the poster.

He should do whatever he, you, and his doctor decide to do. That's your business.  I don't recall ever telling you to tell him to suck it up.  You can decide how to handle it, short term and long term. 

[Joanne]

So I guess when my son sets up in bed in cold sweat having just dreamed about the accident, reliving the crash, he should just suck it up buttercup" and not seek or receive help though appropriate intervention is available.

 

NOT!

 

Thank heaven for his very well trained PTSD counselor.

 

Kudos to all of you who have so patiently attempted to explain this to the poster.

I have PTSD from my accident. Had to quit a job as a result of it. It is better now, but not gone. It has impacted my kids, especially my dd. I am unable to complete teaching her how to drive.

 

This, from a strong, hard working , uber functioning soul.

[TranquilMind]

I'm pretty sure PP would say the person dealing with PTSD after being mugged should just get over it.

 

I do hope she keeps a small chink open in her mind in case someone close to her ever suffers from mental illness.

 

ETA: TranquilMind, as I read your posts you seem to be denying the real medical, physiological truth of mental illness as it is understood by the best scientific research of our time. That mental illness is in fact a physiological illness is really not disputed in the scientific community. Specific mechanisms are not well understood, but an ill brain is a legitimate medical issue. Trauma (say, being mugged) can cause real disfunction in the brain just as it can cause real damage to other parts of the body (broken bones, etc.); both are legitimate medical problems needing proper attention.

If you are talking about me, than you haven't read a word that I said.  I never said that victims of crimes should just get over it with no short term help if they happen to need it. 

 

 I never said that the brain could not be damaged by trauma.  ??

 

I love how everyone is putting words into my mouth by reaching to far extreme margins of what I am saying in order to reject it out of hand.

[TranquilMind]

Just to clarify--I do my research in part to have expectations before arriving in a doctor's office--or in determining whether I need to go to a doctor's office.  Apparently your diagnosis skills are beyond mine.  For example, I have a corneal defect.  There is no way that I would have been able to diagnose this on my own.  Nor can I give myself a root canal. 

 

Further, if you are able to self diagnose, that is one thing.  But apparently you are diagnosing others as well by stating that they have been given unnecessary treatments.  If reading medical journals is your hobby, I stand in admiration. 

 

No, of course you cannot perform a root canal.  You don't have the equipment, nor the training to do so.  But you certainly have the ability to diagnose the multiple symptoms you were experiencing and determine if a root canal is a likely procedure in this case.  I know I've done that - not for me, but for my husband, and I researched, and then called the best guy to get him in.  You might not be able to diagnose a corneal defect, but you likely could identify your symptoms of that and figure out that it was one possibility of several that show up.  I figured out - only barely quickly enough, when I couldn't see my son in the passenger seat beside me because I had no peripheral vision that direction - that I had a retinal detachment.  I couldn't fix it myself and insert the needle in the appropriate location (ewww) , but I sure hightailed it over to a retinal specialist the same evening and she saved that eye! 

 

I don't pretend to know if any individual is given unnecessary treatments, but it is definitely true that in this country, far too many drugs and procedures are needlessly done.  Sometimes there is just no other option, but I sure want to minimize the possiblity of being a victim of unnecessary procedures or treatments.  I've seen it.  It's bad.    

[TranquilMind]

Mental health care isn't just about drugs. Or even mostly about drugs. A GP can prescribe an antidepressent. What people need mental health care coverage for is to talk to a therapist, learn new behaviors, heal from PTSD or domestic violence or have someone help them through a bad spot in their marriage. How on earth someone can predict if they will say, be mugged and need some therapy to deal with PTSD, I don't know. 

That's what I needed my mom for, to talk about things (I miss her).  Best advice ever -better than anyone I could have paid. 

 

We used to call them friends, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles.  Now we pay people to talk about learning new behaviors, or picking better partners next time.  Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?  (Probably am).    Yes, we can exclude the serious cases like PTSD after combat or abduction or something.  That isn't the usual case in the general population. 

 

No you can't predict muggings, but is talk therapy "medical"?     Not convinced.     

 

Anyway, this was a vent thread so I vented my clearly unpopular opinions.  That's ok. I'm still hanging in there after 50+ years. 

[Joker]

That's what I needed my mom for, to talk about things (I miss her).  Best advice ever -better than anyone I could have paid. 

 

We used to call them friends, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles.  Now we pay people to talk about learning new behaviors, or picking better partners next time.  Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?  (Probably am).    Yes, we can exclude the serious cases like PTSD after combat or abduction or something.  That isn't the usual case in the general population. 

 

No you can't predict muggings, but is talk therapy "medical"?     Not convinced.     

 

Anyway, this was a vent thread so I vented my clearly unpopular opinions.  That's ok. I'm still hanging in there after 50+ years. 

 

I will thank God daily that it isn't up to you to be convinced. My dd talks to me and I am forever thankful she came to me with her problems. I am also thankful than I am more open minded than you and was able to get her the help she needed. I pray for those who aren't so lucky, and believe it or not I'm glad you've never been one of those who needed professional help because I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

[TechWife]

I love how everyone is putting words into my mouth by reaching to far extreme margins of what I am saying in order to reject it out of hand.

I just can't resist this. In a last ditch effort here - we are taking your viewpoints and brining them to their logical conclusion. If you think that's extreme, good. You need to understand where the misinformation and erroneous beliefs that you have lead people - it isn't pretty.

[TranquilMind]

I will thank God daily that it isn't up to you to be convinced. My dd talks to me and I am forever thankful she came to me with her problems. I am also thankful than I am more open minded than you and was able to get her the help she needed. I pray for those who aren't so lucky, and believe it or not I'm glad you've never been one of those who needed professional help because I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Yes, you are a much better person than me in all respects.

 

;)

 

A trained therapist at our church has put out a flyer that he is meeting for people as a ministry. So at least some people can get some free help.  I'm sure he isn't the only one in the country. 

[TranquilMind]

I just can't resist this. In a last ditch effort here - we are taking your viewpoints and brining them to their logical conclusion. If you think that's extreme, good. You need to understand where the misinformation and erroneous beliefs that you have lead people - it isn't pretty.

No, you are taking the outlying possibility and assuming it is a normal outcome - the fallacy of appealing to illogical extremes. 

 

That's what people do when confronted with uncomfortable truths - or opinions, if you like.   

[Joanne]

That's what I needed my mom for, to talk about things (I miss her). Best advice ever -better than anyone I could have paid.

 

We used to call them friends, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles. Now we pay people to talk about learning new behaviors, or picking better partners next time. Am I the only one that thinks this is weird? (Probably am). Yes, we can exclude the serious cases like PTSD after combat or abduction or something. That isn't the usual case in the general population.

 

No you can't predict muggings, but is talk therapy "medical"? Not .

Yes, medical and needed. Qualified and well done therapeutic intervention helps re-wire the brain and improves life.

 

It baffles me that anyone would discourage, disparage, or present a barrier to that.

 

Of course, there is no stigma for me in terms of seeking help. I don't assume character issues with mental health any more than I do cancer, diabetes or gum disease.

[Joanne]

Yes, you are a much better person than me in all respects.

 

;)

 

A trained therapist at our church has put out a flyer that he is meeting for people as a ministry. So at least some people can get some free help. I'm sure he isn't the only one in the country.

I sure hope he is licensed.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, medical and needed. Qualified and well done therapeutic intervention helps re-wire the brain and improves life.

 

It baffles me that anyone would discourage, disparage, or present a barrier to that.

 

Of course, there is no stigma for me in terms of seeking help. I don't assume character issues with mental health any more than I do cancer, diabetes or gum disease.

Well, that is your opinion that it is medically necessary- and I'm sure that we all should pay for it for everyone, even though relatively few will ever use it or need it. 

 

I think of it as an option that might make sense after being captured by a serial killer or escaping from the beach in Normandy after seeing your friends blown to bits.  Different perspectives.