“Improving Mental Health Care: Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home with record levels of combat stress. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. Barack Obama is a supporter of the bipartisan Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, and, as a state senator, Obama helped pass a mental health parity bill that requires coverage for serious mental illnesses to be provided on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to other illnesses
and diseases. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses is provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases. For veterans, Obama will improve mental health care at every stage of military service—recruitment, deployment, and reentry into civilian life.”

Sorry I can't help with the list of which legislators did what. I hope the above on Obama is interesting, though it doesn't really answer your question.

http://www.matria.com/resources/papers/wp_predm...

“I don't know if you've followed this effort, but it's been going on since at least the mid-1990s.”

Yes — it makes the news from time to time.

“Also – think about Walter Reed and the mental health issues facing military familes and their non-military relatives who suffer when they suffer.”

Actually this is special not because it's VA (which other than Walter Reed had for a while been considered to have been improving over the horror-story reputation it had held in the past — and functioned as an example of warning about federal health care for all, “the VA model”). What's special this time is the scandal about how the mental problems are being treated by our current federal government in a way similar to the HMOs with recission of insurance policies — the feds say that the soldiers were in fact mentally ill prior to their going to Iraq, just not exhibiting any problem behavior until exposed to combat or the occupation hazards, and as they were ill before going to Iraq, they don't qualify for benefits. You probably had learned about this in the news a while ago.

Example:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...

It's a funny thing. First of all, it's obviously not insurance, but pre-paid health care. As to its comprehensivity, it really gets silly to require such generous health plans that the high costs make it prohibitively expensive. True insurance would be for catastrophic care, period. What we have seen in places like Massachusetts has been demands for “Cadillac” or “gold-plated” plans as minimum requirements. I remember Massachusetts years ago from experience (rejected going to live and work there due to this, as well as other problems, such as ridiculous taxation), and the situation has gotten no better there.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/edito...

* * *

“I don't really see mental health parity as an election-related issue”

Originally I didn't; I just thought the Dems were being silly, not having learned from their S-CHIP nonsense, though I thought they should know they'd face problems and they were possibly just trying to make health care of all kinds an issue in this election. Then the Republicans were in the news doing something conservative, and I was convinced at least some motive must be to get issues out there before November.

I want to thank you for the content of this post.
We should be discussing the differences between Hillary and Obama on issues, instead of indulging in the day-in, day-out verbal slug fests on a good guy/bad guy theme..

I don't know how mental health figues in, but Obama's overall health plan is much more modest overall. It has the advantage of rankling the opposition less and thus having better chances at being passed into law.
On the other hand, Hillary made a sensible comment by pointing out how every proposal is likely to be nibbled to death.
At his point, I tend to favor just putting forward the best plan possible, while realizing that some compromise will be necessary down the road. That would be true for mental health as well as health care in general.

Anyway – really glad you chimed in.

But as I think about this – I forgot McCain, duh, in my post – where is he – I'll have to go back to see if he was a co-sponsor and whether he is one of the senators who wants to not meet.

Also – think about Walter Reed and the mental health issues facing military familes and their non-military relatives who suffer when they suffer.

Of course, Senator Obama and Clinton believe that the way to make healthcare afford it to let others (read rich whites) pay for it. The real question is what are the Democrats going to do when there are not enough rich whites to tax in order to fund government handouts for everyone else.

Note that this is an alternative to extending Medicare to more beneficiaries as well as to other proposals such as the “mandatory insurance” that's really a concealed taxation scheme. (And it's never been insurance but pre-paid, often-comprehensive health care.) (Even if mental and dental benefits aren't great)

Then I believe it was this morning I heard that the Republicans are trying to get some bill passed that appeals to some conservatives. I forget what the bill was about; the point is that obviously both sides in Congress are playing games to involve themselves with election-related issues and appeals to the voters.

I think the US has been absolutely medieval in how it deals with mental health issues.

The ironic thing about all of this: The House version effectively requires that the benefits be held in parity just like the healthcare plans for Fed employees provide. Net: anyone in Congress — Senate or House — who opposes the House version is essentially telling the American people they don't deserve a plan that's as robust as the one provided Fed employees and their families.

On this topic, I am NOT a moderate.