All Addictions Equal, So Pay Up

This from the Family Research Council does not surprise me, but it is nonetheless disturbing. (And think about what universal health care might cover within such a framework.)

The Democratic Leadership is rushing to the floor this week H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. The bill would place a massive new government mandate on private businesses to provide healthcare coverage for mental illness. Of even more concern, though, is the fact that rather than limit the coverage mandate to severe and debilitating illness, the bill uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as the basis for identifying conditions that must be covered. Among the more troubling diagnoses incorporated into DSM-IV are:

Circadian rhythm sleep disorder (jet lag type);
Caffeine intoxication;
Sibling relational problem;
Substance-induced sexual dysfunction;
Gender identity disorder;
Necrophilia;
Transvestic fetishism; and
Pedophilia.

Under H.R. 1424, employers offering group coverage would be required to provide benefits related to these and similar diagnoses included in DSM-IV. In addition, the bill provides no conscience clause for employers who have religious or moral objections to covering the psycho-sexual disorders, including those noted above.

I can't believe they're leaving out zoophila. With a special fund for the animals.

Comments

[DGP]

This could be great! The DSM-IV lists:

V62.89 Religious or spiritual problem

This is said to include distressing experiences related to the questioning of faith, conversion, or any questioning of spiritual values whether or not these are related to an organized church or religious institution. I'll be receiving disability payments for life! :)

[Dev Thakur]

1. It might be worthwhile for everyone to know that the DSM includes, in addition to diagnoses, codes called "V codes." There are NOT considered diagnoses, they are simply other issues that may be coded and may be an issue in the treatment of a patient.

So Religious or spiritual problem, domestic problems, malingering, etc. are NOT psychiatric disorders, but obviously they could be important in the treatment relationship so they are put in an appendix as "V codes."

2. Although I can understand not being excited about having to fund gender identity disorder treatment, I do think it's appalling that serious problems like bipolar d/o, schizophrenia, major depression, panic disorder, etc., are relegated to a separate class from "real health problems."

3. I'm honestly skeptical that the bill would actually force employers to fund treatment for pedophilia, or personality disorders, whose treatment is controversial to begin with. Did the bill really just indiscriminately throw in the entire DSM-IV, without regard to category, severity or treatability?

[DGP]

>>So Religious or spiritual problem, domestic problems, malingering, etc. are NOT psychiatric disorders, but obviously they could be important in the treatment relationship so they are put in an appendix as "V codes."

Just wait for the DSM-V. :)

[Kyralessa]

Hey, just be grateful the DSM still considers those things disorders instead of "preferences" or "orientations".

[Clifford Simon]

I'm slow today... what part of this bill is anti-family? (That it's stupid generally, I grant with less hesitation.)

[Jeff Sawtelle]

Has homophobia made the cut this time?

Jeff Sawtelle

[Clifford Simon]

No takers on my question? Pardon me, then, for speaking my mind...

The FRC's behavior alarms me.

I daresay it looks like FRC, without a pro-family cause, is only searching for a bone to pick with the Democrats - see the first sentence of this post. We seem to have just what our friend Tim laments about PACs (see Tim's comment under Tony's feminism thread).

They proceed to blame the DSM, a book which makes claims to a scientific consensus that certain things (sibling relational problems, gender identity problems, and the philias) are objectively disordered.

They proceed again to something about a religious opt-out clause. I ask you, when would we take that clause? If a man came to me, confessed he was a pedophile, and asked me where he should go for treatment (controversial though such treatment may be), then should I, as a Christian, not hope for the law of the land to provide him a broad, open way to obtain his treatment (notwithstanding legitimate concerns about how the resources for such are to be alloted)?

The comments that others have posted - that the DSM does not in fact call all addictions equal (contrary to the title of this post, clever title though it is!), and that the real problem would be when homophobia is listed as a treatable disorder - are telling.

Therefore I am alarmed that the FRC has called this a high and urgent priority.

Don't get me wrong. I'm as pro-family as everyone here. (Soon as the ladies give me a chance, I'll prove it...)

[Nick]

Clifford,

I'll have to agree with you to an extent. I don't know if I'd say alarmed. The concern over it though had absolutely nothing to do with family. I really wish they would keep concern to *family* issues. Its arguable that a family position, in good ol' blue collar Christian Democratic Party manner would be *for* the bill as it stands. Anyone with contacts at the FRC should tell them to reconsider expanding their mission to *all* Republican issues.

[labrialumn]

The DSM-1V has a number of problems with it, which is why they are working on the DSM-V. of course, the ideological may well again find its way into it, as it did in 1V, but at least some of the diagnostic errors will be cleaned up.

I didn't understand the FRCs complain. Then again, I have the nasty respiratory going around (and I had my flu shot!), so who knows, maybe it does make sense. . .

[labrialumn]

And I totally don't understand how such neurological disorders as depression, ADD, bi-polar I and II, schizphrenia, etc., have gotten confused with addictions (habituations) in the eyes of the Mere Comments writer.

[Nick]

I should carefully note that I believe the law is bad and violates good conservative principals...but I have a hard time getting worked up over a law that describes necrophilia as disturbed. FRC's notice seems to imply that this is bad. Isn't it bad that homosexuality isn't covered not the other way around? Hasn't that been a moral conservative position for a good long while?