"Affordable" Care Act vent

[TranquilMind]

I sure hope he is licensed.

I am pretty sure he is.  But I wouldn't care, if I needed someone, and felt comfortable and he could help.  It's just talking.  He isn't performing neurosurgery. 

[Joanne]

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.

I have clients who fit paragraph 2.

 

In paragraph 2 - that you'd dismiss and invalidate the real mental health needs of people YOU determine shouldn't need is scary and tragic. I have a unit full of people with brain illness that are hurting, in pain, and have a severely compromised life.

 

Less dramatically, I have private clients that need support during transitions (career, marriage, divorce, parenting, retirement ), substance abuse, and a variety of other life challenges. I hope that they have more supportive people in their lives and a minimum who share your view.

[Joanne]

I am pretty sure he is. But I wouldn't care, if I needed someone, and felt comfortable and he could help. It's just talking. He isn't performing neurosurgery.

It is NOT just talking. Having a Stephen's Minister is "just talking" with some scripture thrown in.

 

Having a therapist is having a professional use therapeutic techniques to assist the client in appropriate goals and development.

[maize]

There is hope for the ill-informed :) I remember my parents making disparaging comments about mental health issues and zoloft at one point in time. Then one of their children presented with serious mental health issues. My sister is alive and functional today because my parents were willing to look past their preconceived ideas and do whatever it took to get her appropriate treatment. They dealt with many, many therapists and medical professionals, different combinations of medication, different approaches to therapy. A combination of the right medication for her plus dialectical behavioral therapy (much, much more than "talk") and a lot of investment and hard work on her part have brought her to a point where she can function as a whole person in life. Her underlying problems have not gone away, she will spend a lifetime managing them with professional help. 

 

The availability of such help is one of the greatest triumphs of modern medicine. Psychology and psychiatry have come a very long way in the past few decades, they still have a long way to go. The human brain is incredibly complex, and there is so much we still don't understand. The concept of a "chemical imbalance" causing many psychiatric troubles is at best a vast oversimplification of processes that we are really just barely starting to understand, but it is much more useful and true than the outdated idea that mental health problems stem from moral or character deficits and can be overcome through willpower alone.

[TranquilMind]

It is NOT just talking. Having a Stephen's Minister is "just talking" with some scripture thrown in.

 

Having a therapist is having a professional use therapeutic techniques to assist the client in appropriate goals and development.

Through....talking. 

 

Ok.  I don't care enough to continue arguing about it. Amazingly, my kids and family and, well, many people still talk to me.  Imagine that. 

 

Go talk to someone, or don't go talk to someone @ $100 or $200 an hour.  I don't really care, unless I'm on the hook to pay for it. 

[TranquilMind]

I have clients who fit paragraph 2.

 

In paragraph 2 - that you'd dismiss and invalidate the real mental health needs of people YOU determine shouldn't need is scary and tragic. I have a unit full of people with brain illness that are hurting, in pain, and have a severely compromised life.

 

Less dramatically, I have private clients that need support during transitions (career, marriage, divorce, parenting, retirement ), substance abuse, and a variety of other life challenges. I hope that they have more supportive people in their lives and a minimum who share your view.

That's so funny.  You hope they have a "minimum (of people) who share your view".  Of course you do.  

 

In contrast, I hope they have a maximum of well-adjusted people in their lives (overall- no one is perfect) whom they can watch over some portion of the long run - through youth, adulthood, empty nest, retirement and being left alone when the spouse dies - and whom they can only hope to emulate.     

 

It's the best training of all. 

[StephanieZ]

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.     

 

Your mom scoured up enough money to cover a drug that cost the family's entire take home pay? For how long? Presumably, she either had some good savings, generous relatives, a friendly lender . . . or the drug wasn't needed for very many months.

 

A friend (in his early 40s, extremely healthy vegetarian lifestyle) was diagnosed with advanced rectal cancer a little over a year ago. They had just moved, and had to move right back where they came from to get in-network oncology care . . . and anyway, during one of their insurance-necessitated cross country moves, they ended up deciding to "just pay this one week's cycle of chemo in cash" due to an "outrageous" 4k/mo new insurance premium they wanted to forestall for a month before the newer better policy kicked in . . . My friend found out that ONE DAY's medicine (which was administered dozens of times over the course of chemo) was $10,000 FOR THE ONE MEDICINE out of a cocktail of several. After scraping herself up off the floor, they presumably went ahead and paid the 4k/mo for the insurance . . . (Which was probably close to half their family take home pay.) I'm guesstimating that my friend's cancer treatments cost well over a million dollars during that year. Maybe 2 or 3. Before ACA, they'd surely have hit his lifetime max by the end of the first year and had a medically induced bankruptcy, destroying the financial security they'd worked so hard to achieve. (This is a family who has always done all the right things . . .)

 

15 years ago, my dad had a stroke and then a brain injury in the hospital due to a fall. When I saw the bills for the surgery, that one surgery was well over $100,000. IIRC, there was 15k in just hardware in his skull. And, those weren't ALL the bills. I never saw ALL of them. I'm sure it was 200k+ for the 17 days he was in the hospital before he died. And that was 15 years ago, with medical inflation in double digits most of these years (until the ACA has slowed it down), so presumably similar course of care would be closer to 500k today.

 

So, well, anyway, IME, there are MANY accidents, illnesses, and injuries that NOONE other than the billionaires among us could possibly afford to treat without insurance. 

[SKL]

On the topic of mental problems, I do feel we are probably too ready to address them with chemicals.  I would be interested in how other countries successfully address these issues, because I do not think they use chemicals nearly as readily.  Meds always have side effects that negatively affect health in some way or other.  I really would rather people had a much higher threshold to meet before getting a prescription.

 

I do not understand how we "pick and choose" which wisdom we're willing to borrow from other countries.

[Laura Corin]

 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.  

 

You might like to watch some videos from Patrick Stewart talking about his father's untreated shell shock after WWII and the domestic violence that his mother and he subsequently suffered in consequence.  

 

ETA: This clip gives a summary, if you are interested.  The clips from his appearance on Who Do You Think You Are give more detail.

 

L

[Renee in NC]

You might like to watch some videos from Patrick Stewart talking about his father's untreated shell shock after WWII and the domestic violence that his mother and he subsequently suffered in consequence.  

 

L

 

I agree.  Or to the wife of someone whose mental health deteriorated greatly after a fairly mild head injury.  He ended up commited for more than a week after he was hunting his wife down intending to kill her and then kill himself.  If not for insurance paying for it, he would have been barely stabilized and released.

 

Mental health care is for the benefit of everyone.

[creekland]

It's kind of interesting to me to read this because I guess I don't fit in too neatly.

 

I do believe people are (too often) put on meds too quickly and without much thought.  I see this in my own medical experience in what I've been offered and turned down and from what I see around me that is shared around the lunch table so to speak (so all anecdotal really, but it leads to my thoughts).

 

BUT, I also think mental health issues are real health issues seeing them in family members and kids at school.  Some are definitely helped by meds.  In the case of a family member, I wish he would take meds as I've heard he's much better with them and would like to see for myself.  It'd be awesome if he could have a better quality of life.

 

So... I wish they were covered by our health share and would make that change if I could.  It's moving in the correct direction as none used to be shared, now some things are.

 

There are many things I don't choose for myself that I don't mind covering for others who choose differently if it's a choice.  There are many things I don't mind paying for even though it's unlikely we will ever need them.  People have done that for me, after all.

 

And I definitely think mental illnesses of various sorts are as real as broken bones (short term types) or cancers (potentially long term types that can be deadly).

 

One of the biggest injustices there is is the fact that we have the knowledge and technology to fix many things (not just mental), but people who want/need problems fixed can't afford it.  It doesn't matter to me what the problem is or how poor/middle class the person is.  I'd really love to see a system that works for all.  I'm not totally sure what that system is.  Universal health care tends to be good for the basics, but again, my IRL anecdotes (mainly associated with a Canadian step-mom, her family, and living along the Canadian border for a good part of my life) have quite a few negatives with that for certain things too.

 

Still, I don't think our current way of doing things is the best either - nor is the one it came from.

 

And for us, our best option is still health share.

 

Well, our best option might be to get filthy rich, but I haven't figured out the details for doing that yet.

[ktgrok]

I can't get past the idea that "people were miserable before, I don't see why they should try to be happy now" attitude. If we have the ability to help people that are hurting, mentally, if we can prevent their suicide or just their suffering, we should. Plenty of women used to be incredibly depressed and hopeless. Men too. Usually they self medicated with alcohol. I have ethnologies on my shelf from my days as an anthropology minor, books on housewives, physicists, etc. LOTS of untreated depression, that wasn't acknowledged back then. People were just miserable. 

[maize]

One thing I have wondered about developing a universal healthcare system, or any truly affordable healthcare system, in the US is if it would necessitate a massive change in the way doctors are trained. My understanding is that our system of medical training (years of undergraduate premed, years of med school, years of internships and residencies and specialized training...) is both longer and significantly more expensive than medical training in many other countries. Dr. compensation is generally higher here as well--it has to be to make the massive debt most doctors graduate with worthwhile (and to cover expensive malpractice insurance...)

 

I think more than just the way insurance is handled is going to need to change if we are going to truly provide decent healthcare to everyone without bankrupting the country.

[maize]

I can't get past the idea that "people were miserable before, I don't see why they should try to be happy now" attitude. If we have the ability to help people that are hurting, mentally, if we can prevent their suicide or just their suffering, we should. Plenty of women used to be incredibly depressed and hopeless. Men too. Usually they self medicated with alcohol. I have ethnologies on my shelf from my days as an anthropology minor, books on housewives, physicists, etc. LOTS of untreated depression, that wasn't acknowledged back then. People were just miserable.

And it's not just a matter of feeling miserable, it impacts their ability to function in life and massively impacts their families. A person sitting in fetal position in a corner all day unable to go to work or school or even shower, unable to carry on a conversation or reciprocate affection, is incapacitated by their illness.

[whitestavern]

Part of the issue for my family is that neither my dh nor I have an employer. He is a small business owner, and I have been primarily a stay at home mom or a part-time employee for the past 14 years. So we have no employer health insurance offered, and this has always been a hardship. After ACA, it is more of a hardship than ever. I actually had hope that the legislation would help my family, but this was not the case at all. Quite the opposite.

Same situation here. This was the primary reason my dh re-entered the corporate world again -- couldn't afford the insurance. It was going to be over $1000 a month after ACA.

[whitestavern]

I will also add that while I don't necessarily think we shouldn't pay for mental health coverage, I was shocked to find out in my mom's group several years ago just how many moms were on antidepressants....and none of them were "depressed". Most said they were sick of yelling at their kids all the time. When I relayed this conversation to my mother, she noted that many of her friends were on them as well, and none of them were depressed...just not as happy as they wanted to be.

 

I do not doubt there are many legitimate mental health diagnoses, but I think there are way too many instances were medications are given where they're not medically necessary.

[texasmama]

Treating depression is a first world issue.  Although I do agree that SSRIs are overprescribed, they do not typically have terrible side effects.  If someone feels depressed and wants to try an SSRI, doing so will not break the bank or cause many side effects.  Some people have more side effects than others.  The most bothersome ones are typically sexual in nature.  If people's serotonin levels are truly not in an abnormal range, taking an SSRI will not have much effect on them.  SSRIs are contraindicated for people with underlying Bipolar Disorder.

 

I have personally taken SSRIs several times in my life during times of great personal difficulty, and they have turned me back into a functional person.  I do not have a typical tendency towards depression, but after going through several devastating experiences one after another many years back, I was clinically depressed and unable to care for my young children as I needed to, which caused me to seek out antidepressants.  No regrets.  Zoloft gave my kids their mom back.  I have also sought out therapy, and I have been able to find low cost counseling options through churches.

 

Related to mental health care, my father developed a UTI several years ago which caused him to completely lose his mind.  I had to take him to an ER with a psychiatric inpatient unit and have him admitted there.  He was there for 5-6 days until his UTI was treated.  During that time, he was treated with antipsychotics, and he needed these drugs.  This is not an uncommon issue in the elderly population, btw, for a UTI to cause confusion, agitation and issues which present as mental health problems.  By the time I realized how badly he was doing and that he needed to go to the ER, he had threatened to kill me and my family.  This was not strictly a mental health treatment, but he did require inpatient, lockdown psychiatric care during that time.  If he had been on a health share program at that time, I suspect that it would have paid for his treatment, as it was caused by an underlying physical problem.

 

I am grateful that we have access to affordable and helpful medications to treat depression.  Even if someone has mild to moderate depression, it can negatively impact their life and family.  No one need suffer through without help.  Many, many people are on antidepressants for a short course (a year or less).  Some people need them for a lifetime due to an underlying biological, genetic depression.  Not everyone wants to go to therapy.  Not everyone has the support they need to make it through with no medication.  It is a good thing to have these options. 

 

That antidepressants may be overprescribed does not mean that many people do not benefit from them at a relatively low financial cost with few side effects.

[TranquilMind]

Your mom scoured up enough money to cover a drug that cost the family's entire take home pay? For how long? Presumably, she either had some good savings, generous relatives, a friendly lender . . . or the drug wasn't needed for very many months.

 

A friend (in his early 40s, extremely healthy vegetarian lifestyle) was diagnosed with advanced rectal cancer a little over a year ago. They had just moved, and had to move right back where they came from to get in-network oncology care . . . and anyway, during one of their insurance-necessitated cross country moves, they ended up deciding to "just pay this one week's cycle of chemo in cash" due to an "outrageous" 4k/mo new insurance premium they wanted to forestall for a month before the newer better policy kicked in . . . My friend found out that ONE DAY's medicine (which was administered dozens of times over the course of chemo) was $10,000 FOR THE ONE MEDICINE out of a cocktail of several. After scraping herself up off the floor, they presumably went ahead and paid the 4k/mo for the insurance . . . (Which was probably close to half their family take home pay.) I'm guesstimating that my friend's cancer treatments cost well over a million dollars during that year. Maybe 2 or 3. Before ACA, they'd surely have hit his lifetime max by the end of the first year and had a medically induced bankruptcy, destroying the financial security they'd worked so hard to achieve. (This is a family who has always done all the right things . . .)

 

15 years ago, my dad had a stroke and then a brain injury in the hospital due to a fall. When I saw the bills for the surgery, that one surgery was well over $100,000. IIRC, there was 15k in just hardware in his skull. And, those weren't ALL the bills. I never saw ALL of them. I'm sure it was 200k+ for the 17 days he was in the hospital before he died. And that was 15 years ago, with medical inflation in double digits most of these years (until the ACA has slowed it down), so presumably similar course of care would be closer to 500k today.

 

So, well, anyway, IME, there are MANY accidents, illnesses, and injuries that NOONE other than the billionaires among us could possibly afford to treat without insurance. 

Yes, for several months.  I think we sold a bunch of things, but again, it was in the 70s, and I don't recall everything.  Some of it I don't want to recall.   You have to remember that this was back in the (better) days when you received a bill only after it went all the way through the insurance process, sometimes months later.  Then you were just billed regularly, and if you were making payments at all, they let you continue paying.  None of this instant harassment within 1 day of a missed payment stuff.  No bills waiting when you got home from the hospital right away.   Even back then, her bills exceeded one million dollars. 

 

So I agree that it can wipe almost anyone out. 

[TranquilMind]

I will also add that while I don't necessarily think we shouldn't pay for mental health coverage, I was shocked to find out in my mom's group several years ago just how many moms were on antidepressants....and none of them were "depressed". Most said they were sick of yelling at their kids all the time. When I relayed this conversation to my mother, she noted that many of her friends were on them as well, and none of them were depressed...just not as happy as they wanted to be.

 

I do not doubt there are many legitimate mental health diagnoses, but I think there are way too many instances were medications are given where they're not medically necessary.

This is exactly what I was talking about.  They hand them out like candy to moms who are having a bad week. 

[texasmama]

This is exactly what I was talking about.  They hand them out like candy to moms who are having a bad week. 

 

Depression is a subjective experience, but there are tools for a professional to evaluate a person's level of depression. (Beck's Depression Inventory is a common one.)  But ultimately, unless a person is moderately to severely depressed and has a blunted affect, weight loss, poor hygiene and other ways of presenting that are obvious to others, depression may not be clearly obvious to others.  A professional will take a person's word on how she feels and experiences life at the time. 

 

I can say that I have known many moms on antidepressants, but I have not had the experience that "they hand them out like candy to moms who are having a bad week".  The moms I've known on antidepressants have needed them.

 

SSRIs are not mood-altering.  There is no payoff or "high" from taking them if your serotonin level is not in need of adjusting.  Some people may seek out SSRIs because it is a trendy thing to do or they have a mistaken idea of what the medications are used for, but a good physician can easily give information to correct this.  I do think that the reason that doctors are not too hesitant to try an antidepressant for a patient is because these drugs have low risks.  Overall, they are safe, heavily used, well-studied medications.  The risk of serious side effects is very low.  Additionally, doctors generally start patients off at a low level of meds and titrate up as needed.

 

Again, I hope I make sense because my head feels like it is stuffed with cotton!

 

[SKL]

I just have to ask - how many here believe the American population is happier now than they ever used to be?

 

I know many people who are either currently on what they often call "personality pills," have been on them but dropped off due to cost or side effects, or are resisting recommendations to go on them.  I mean many, many people.  So one would think I'd be surrounded by happiness or at least mellowness, but I'm not seeing it that way.

 

I know life wasn't all roses and butterflies at any time in the past, but people weren't all curled up in a fetal position either.

[texasmama]

I just have to ask - how many here believe the American population is happier now than they ever used to be?

 

I know many people who are either currently on "personality pills," have been on them but dropped off due to cost or side effects, or are resisting recommendations to go on them.  I mean many, many people.  So one would think I'd be surrounded by happiness or at least mellowness, but I'm not seeing it that way.

 

I know life wasn't all roses and butterflies at any time in the past, but people weren't all curled up in a fetal position either.

 

If by "personality pills" you mean antidepressants, that is a very dismissive way to refer to what are life-saving medications for some people.  Antidepressants don't make people "happy".  They return people to their baseline level of functioning, whatever that may be.  The restore appropriate levels of serotonin in the brain.  Prior to antidepressants, a lot of people suffered silently, drank alcohol or took pills to cope, or were not very functional.  A lot of people still do these things.  And yes, I'm sure there were plenty of people "curled up in a fetal position".

 

I think it is very rude to refer to people with clinical depression in that manner, and it demonstrates an ignorance of the disorder.  As I stated upthread, I have needed antidepressants and was glad to take them.  They made me a functional person because I was just about to the state at which I had "curled up in a fetal position" and was unable to help myself or my family.  It is a terrible place to be, and I don't wish it on anyone.

 

 

[Joanne]

I just have to ask - how many here believe the American population is happier now than they ever used to be?

 

I know many people who are either currently on "personality pills," have been on them but dropped off due to cost or side effects, or are resisting recommendations to go on them. I mean many, many people. So one would think I'd be surrounded by happiness or at least mellowness, but I'm not seeing it that way.

 

I know life wasn't all roses and butterflies at any time in the past, but people weren't all curled up in a fetal position either.

I find the assumptions and world view represented in paragraph 2 and 3 so insulting and under informed with regard to mental health that I will not respond beyond this post. We would not be having a reasonable conversation on the same topic.

[TranquilMind]

Depression is a subjective experience, but there are tools for a professional to evaluate a person's level of depression. (Beck's Depression Inventory is a common one.)  But ultimately, unless a person is moderately to severely depressed and has a blunted affect, weight loss, poor hygiene and other ways of presenting that are obvious to others, depression may not be clearly obvious to others.  A professional will take a person's word on how she feels and experiences life at the time. 

 

I can say that I have known many moms on antidepressants, but I have not had the experience that "they hand them out like candy to moms who are having a bad week".  The moms I've known on antidepressants have needed them.

 

SSRIs are not mood-altering.  There is no payoff or "high" from taking them if your serotonin level is not in need of adjusting.  Some people may seek out SSRIs because it is a trendy thing to do or they have a mistaken idea of what the medications are used for, but a good physician can easily give information to correct this.  I do think that the reason that doctors are not too hesitant to try an antidepressant for a patient is because these drugs have low risks.  Overall, they are safe, heavily used, well-studied medications.  The risk of serious side effects is very low.  Additionally, doctors generally start patients off at a low level of meds and titrate up as needed.

 

Again, I hope I make sense because my head feels like it is stuffed with cotton!

 

Well, my wording was hyperbolic, of course.   We all go through good times and bad ones, if we live long enough. That's just life.  Annie's got it right: "The sun will come up ...tomorrow."   Sometimes tomorrow is a little further away than we like but it is always coming. 

 

I do hope you heal quickly!  Being sick is awful. 

[TranquilMind]

I just have to ask - how many here believe the American population is happier now than they ever used to be?

 

I know many people who are either currently on "personality pills," have been on them but dropped off due to cost or side effects, or are resisting recommendations to go on them.  I mean many, many people.  So one would think I'd be surrounded by happiness or at least mellowness, but I'm not seeing it that way.

 

I know life wasn't all roses and butterflies at any time in the past, but people weren't all curled up in a fetal position either.

 

I know you will offend the sensitive with your wording about the pills, but the truth is that your question is a relevant one that should not be dismissed lightly.

 

  ARE Americans happier than they used to be, now that there are so many drugs available and so many people are on them?  

 

[side note:  I've had a couple of surgeries now, to fix something courtesy of an original surgery - and I cannot BELIEVE how much space they allow for you to list ALL the drugs they expect everyone to be on, when you fill out forms.  They seem shocked when I don't have anything to put there.  Surely NO ONE in her 50's isn't on half a dozen medications, I have heard.    ..what???]

 

 I'd contend that they are people are not happier today,  having lived a long time, as well as seeing the adjustment of several generations now.  And no - they were not curled up in a fetal position back then.   

 

Nor are we healthier overall, despite the myriad of interventions for every single thing. 

[Joanne]

Well, my wording was hyperbolic, of course. We all go through good times and bad ones, if we live long enough. That's just life. Annie's got it right: "The sun will come up ...tomorrow." Sometimes tomorrow is a little further away than we like but it is always coming.

I do hope you heal quickly! Being sick is awful.

The illness of depression is not situation specific, is not about "hard times" or challenges or bad times.

 

Your viewpoint about depression is ill and under informed and assumes that lack of coping skills or fortitude is associated with maladaption to life.

[TranquilMind]

The illness of depression is not situation specific, is not about "hard times" or challenges or bad times.

 

Your viewpoint about depression is ill and under informed and assumes that lack of coping skills or fortitude is associated with maladaption to life.

And you assume the opposite end of the spectrum, that every couple of bad days requires medication and doctors. 

[SKL]

If by "personality pills" you mean antidepressants, that is a very dismissive way to refer to what are life-saving medications for some people.  Antidepressants don't make people "happy".  They return people to their baseline level of functioning, whatever that may be.  The restore appropriate levels of serotonin in the brain.  Prior to antidepressants, a lot of people suffered silently, drank alcohol or took pills to cope, or were not very functional.  A lot of people still do these things.  And yes, I'm sure there were plenty of people "curled up in a fetal position".

 

I think it is very rude to refer to people with clinical depression in that manner, and it demonstrates an ignorance of the disorder.  As I stated upthread, I have needed antidepressants and was glad to take them.  They made me a functional person because I was just about to the state at which I had "curled up in a fetal position" and was unable to help myself or my family.  It is a terrible place to be, and I don't wish it on anyone.

 

"Personality pills" is what some of my close acquaintances call the pills they take.  If they would like to put a bit of lightheartedness into the situation, so be it.  Must everything be doom and gloom?  Must we be so sensitive about every word?  How is this really making the USA a better place?

 

But my question was, does anyone think America is a happier place with all the meds than it was before?  I really want to know.

 

[texasmama]

"Personality pills" is what some of my close acquaintances call the pills they take.  If they would like to put a bit of lightheartedness into the situation, so be it.  Must everything be doom and gloom?  Must we be so sensitive about every word?  How is this really making the USA a better place?

 

But my question was, does anyone think America is a happier place with all the meds than it was before?  I really want to know.

 

 

You need to know that your choice of wording is rude and offensive to those with clinical depression. Your acquaintances can call them what they want.  I've not ever had any friend on antidepressants refer to them as "personality pills".  Being insensitive to those with mental illness is not making the USA a better place.

 

What a silly argument this is.

[SKL]

You need to know that your choice of wording is rude and offensive to those with clinical depression. Your acquaintances can call them what they want.  I've not ever had any friend on antidepressants refer to them as "personality pills".  Being insensitive to those with mental illness is not making the USA a better place.

 

What a silly argument this is.

 

OK, I edited my post to clarify that "personality pills" is the term used by my friends who take the pills, not used by me to insult people.

 

It is a serious question.  I honestly think Americans are more depressed and anxious than ever before.  It is in stark contrast to people in less developed countries who have no access to meds but usually figure out ways to live fully.

 

I seriously believe we are damaging our population by medicating it so much.  And I don't understand why nobody is willing to even consider whether more is always better.

 

[Joanne]

And you assume the opposite end of the spectrum, that every couple of bad days requires medication and doctors.

You have absolutely no basis on which to make that assumption.

 

NONE.

 

And even your accusation against me belies an inaccurate view of mental illness; not to mention a complete disregard for anything I have EVER posted on the topic.

[Pawz4me]

"Personality pills" is what some of my close acquaintances call the pills they take.  If they would like to put a bit of lightheartedness into the situation, so be it.  Must everything be doom and gloom?  Must we be so sensitive about every word?  How is this really making the USA a better place?

 

But my question was, does anyone think America is a happier place with all the meds than it was before?  I really want to know.

 

 

I don't understand your question.  The purpose of anti-depressant medication isn't to make America a happier place.  I can't imagine that anyone who had even an elementary school level understanding of mental health issues and anti-depressant medication would sincerely believe that.

[maize]

 

But my question was, does anyone think America is a happier place with all the meds than it was before? I really want to know.

 

For those I know who have been or are on antidepressants it is not a matter of being happy or unhappy but rather of being able to function in life or not--being able to hold down a job, manage in school, relate to the world around them, to not drown in a sea of despair on a daily basis. Depression is debilitating, it is not just a state of "not happy"-ness.

 

I think that appropriate medication makes it possible for a lot of people to function in life who would otherwise not be able to. When my grandmother suffered from depression decades ago she ended up spending most of a year in bed. When my husband's great-grandmother suffered from what was most likely post-partum depression she ended up institutionalized. Most likely both could have been effectively treated and lived life normally given the medication and therapy that is now available.

 

I do think it is possible that depression itself is more widespread now than it once was: a sedentary, indoor lifestyle, combined with disrupted sleep patterns brought on by artificial lighting and electronics and a mobile society with tenuous social ties and support could I think wreak havoc with mental health. I don't know that we have any reliable ways to make comparisons with the past, however, as mood disorders and mental illness in general have been so little recognized and poorly understood--a problem which is quite clearly ongoing.

[maize]

OK, I edited my post to clarify that "personality pills" is the term used by my friends who take the pills, not used by me to insult people.

 

It is a serious question. I honestly think Americans are more depressed and anxious than ever before. It is in stark contrast to people in less developed countries who have no access to meds but usually figure out ways to live fully.

 

I seriously believe we are damaging our population by medicating it so much. And I don't understand why nobody is willing to even consider whether more is always better.

 

On the one hand you think Americans are more depressed and anxious, on the other you think we are overmedicating. Not sure how those two ideas are compatible or where you are getting your data from.

 

And I am very curious to know what your source is for claiming people in less developed countries are mentally healthier. Can you cite some comparative studies of depression rates in different countries?

[SKL]

On the one hand you think Americans are more depressed and anxious, on the other you think we are overmedicating. Not sure how those two ideas are compatible or where you are getting your data from.

 

Really?  Your comment makes it sound like medication is always the #1 answer to mental health problems.  Sometimes medication causes mental health problems, sometimes it masks problems that need to be addressed, sometimes it contributes to physical problems that in turn compromise overall well-being.  Medication also contributes to financial worries.  Some medications are very addictive, which adds another issue one needs to battle.

[texasmama]

Really?  Your comment makes it sound like medication is always the #1 answer to mental health problems.  Sometimes medication causes mental health problems, sometimes it masks problems that need to be addressed, sometimes it contributes to physical problems that in turn compromise overall well-being.  Medication also contributes to financial worries.  Some medications are very addictive, which adds another issue one needs to battle.

 

You need to research antidepressant medications, particularly the SSRIs, before continuing on with this discussion.  They are not addictive.

 

We are not anywhere close to being on the same page with basic knowledge and information.  It is not possible to have a meaningful dialog on this topic.

 

[Joanne]

Really? Your comment makes it sound like medication is always the #1 answer to mental health problems. Sometimes medication causes mental health problems, sometimes it masks problems that need to be addressed, sometimes it contributes to physical problems that in turn compromise overall well-being. Medication also contributes to financial worries. Some medications are very addictive, which adds another issue one needs to battle.

Antidepressants are not drugs of abuse.

 

They are also not expensive - I do not understand the financial comment.

[SKL]

You need to research antidepressant medications, particularly the SSRIs, before continuing on with this discussion.  They are not addictive.

 

We are not anywhere close to being on the same page with basic knowledge and information.  It is not possible to have a meaningful dialog on this topic.

 

 

I'm not only talking about antidepressants, but I'm including antidepressants.  I think we over-medicate many things, if not just about every thing.  All kinds of meds have effects on mental health.

 

[SKL]

They are also not expensive - I do not understand the financial comment.

 

So then why is it important that they be covered by insurance?

 

I know people who dropped antidepressants because they could not afford them (and are actually in a better place now).

[texasmama]

I'm not only talking about antidepressants, but I'm including antidepressants.  I think we over-medicate many things, if not just about every thing.  All kinds of meds have effects on mental health.

 

 

But we were discussing depression and antidepressants.  All medications cannot be lumped into the same category/discussion.  I do urge you to research antidepressants. 

[SKL]

Well anyway.  I think the medication side of things is an area where we differ from other comparable countries and we could be a little more inquisitive about whether we're on the right path.

[SKL]

I found some stuff online that mentions what I'm talking about.

 

Here's an example.

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2010/Jun/1408_Morgan_Prescription_drug_accessibility_US_intl_ib.pdf

[maize]

I am all in favor of research to find better ways to address mental health. If we can eventually untangle and resolve the underlying root causes, maintenance medications may become unnecessary. In the meantime, however, they have proven effective for many people. Medication plus targeted therapy works even better than medication alone, and in many cases therapy alone is effective. Unfortunately it is therapy not medication that is the truly expensive part of the mental health equation.

 

What is not effective is pretending that mental health problems are not valid medical issues.

[SKL]

I am all in favor of research to find better ways to address mental health. If we can eventually untangle and resolve the underlying root causes, maintenance medications may become unnecessary. In the meantime, however, they have proven effective for many people. Medication plus targeted therapy works even better than medication alone, and in many cases therapy alone is effective. Unfortunately it is therapy not medication that is the truly expensive part of the mental health equation.

 

What is not effective is pretending that mental health problems are not valid medical issues.

 

I wasn't saying that.  Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "medical issues."  I think mental health is a big issue in the USA and we need to get to the bottom of it (to the extent possible).  I actually don't think it's being taken seriously enough.

[maize]

I wasn't saying that. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "medical issues." I think mental health is a big issue in the USA and we need to get to the bottom of it (to the extent possible). I actually don't think it's being taken seriously enough.

Medical issues: physiological problems affecting the human body. Things like diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, Parkinson's disease, broken bones, depression, kidney stones, personality disorders, arthritis, hypothyroidism, anxiety, amyloidosis, etc.

[TranquilMind]

You have absolutely no basis on which to make that assumption.

 

NONE.

 

And even your accusation against me belies an inaccurate view of mental illness; not to mention a complete disregard for anything I have EVER posted on the topic.

I have as much substantive basis as you do to make the repeated accusations about how little I understand of mental health.  You don't know what I understand, what I have experienced, what I have seen, or what educational level and degrees I have obtained because I keep my business to myself.  Let's just say that my perspective differs vastly from yours, as I believe people can generally -there are notable exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions - handle their own lives and not require the direction of mental health professionals for every single issue in everyday life.   People should be able to get what they need without everyone having to pay for everything for everybody.  We are all different.  Some of us are deeply into and promote intervention of all kinds; some stay far away from medical situations unless death is imminent.  I guess it is no surprise that I fall into the latter category. 

 

We aren't going to move much closer together on this, so I will decline from supporting my case with statements that have been made. 

 

We are on opposite ends politically as well -not surprisingly at all - from what I recall, and that is FINE.    You've stated your case repeatedly on this issue and that's wonderful, but other people have vastly different perspectives and that is fine as well.    When the whole crowd is on one side of an issue, I can't help pointing out that there is a different perspective, and generally, I'm the one holding that different pespective, along with a few outliers.  ;) 

[TranquilMind]

But we were discussing depression and antidepressants.  All medications cannot be lumped into the same category/discussion.  I do urge you to research antidepressants. 

One repeatedly mentioned side effect of antidepressants is SUICIDE or thoughts of harming self or others.   That seems counterproductive. 

[Laura Corin]

When my husband's great-grandmother suffered from what was most likely post-partum depression she ended up institutionalized. Most likely both could have been effectively treated and lived life normally given the medication and therapy that is now available.

 

 

My aunt suffered from post-partum depression.  She was given the medication available at the time (late Sixties).  I only remember her in a clearly drugged state - unable to function normally.  She finally overdosed (deliberately).  I am so glad that better drugs and therapies are available now.

 

L

[shage]

Attitudes about psychotropic medications are a lot like feminism. Some people refuse to acknowledge the efficacy and the history because they feel it has gone too far.

 

The reality: There is no turning back the clock on either one.

 

Hallelujah.

[Ausmumof3]

These issues existed in the past. Remember that lady in the Laura Ingalls books with the new baby where Laura went to board. She sat in her chair and rocked all day while her baby cried. Lots of older fiction books talk about people going into "a decline". Women who were so unhappy they wouldn't eat, couldn't sleep, couldn't function. The doctors would recommend a sea change or something similar for those who were financial. Those who weren't just suffered. As for less developed countries.... Apparently one method for dealing with mental issues is excorcism. Maybe we should try that....

 

Yes there can be over diagnosis. Yes sometimes things could be better dealt with in other ways. Not everyone has the support network to deal with things in other ways, or the time or the money. And the "mums having a bad week" comment... The mums I know who used antidepressants weren't having a bad week. They were throwing up every meal they ate and not sleeping.

 

There are some things about our society that do make mental stuff more difficult. Lack of connection and caring between people etc. People having to work more than ever to provide enough for their family.