According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is currently the 3rd leading cause of death among young adults and adolescents 15 to 24 years of age, following unintentional injuries and homicide.  Suicide is often a desperate attempt at escaping a seemingly impossible situation or to find relief from bad thoughts or feelings.  These feelings could be rejection, hurt, shame, guilt, despair, loneliness, isolation or a host of others.  According to the National Institute of Mental Health, scientific evidence has shown that almost all people who take their own lives have a diagnosable mental or substance abuse disorder.  Those who suffer from depression and other disorders are less able to cope with situations than others and treatment is necessary to help those suffering see that there are many alternatives and better ways to deal with their problems.  In other words, the feelings that often lead to suicide are highly treatable if the help is sought by the individual or if others can recognize the warning signs.

Researchers estimate that there are between 8-25 attempted suicides for each teen suicide death and that four out of five teens who attempt suicide have given clear warnings.  There are many behavioral indicators that can help parents or friends recognize the threat of suicide in a loved one. Since mental and substance-related disorders so frequently accompany suicidal behavior, many of the cues to be looked for are symptoms associated with such disorders as depression, bipolar disorder anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug use, disruptive behavior disorders, borderline personality disorder, and schizophrenia.

Some common symptoms of these disorders include: (more…)

A brief article on the history of why the healthcare system got to where it is, and why the McCain plan is actually the only one of the two (between his and Obama’s) that can truly accomplish anything:  by putting more control back in the hands of the consumer instead of simply shifting control from EVIL Insurance companies to the ALL-LOVING Federal Government.

Mr. Jacoby is very explicit in explaining the history of the problem:

During World War II, federal wage controls barred employers from raising their workers’ salaries, but said nothing about fringe benefits. So firms competing for employees at government-restricted wages began offering medical insurance to sweeten employment offers. Even sweeter was that employers could deduct those benefits as business expenses, yet employees didn’t have to report them as taxable income. For a while the IRS resisted that interpretation, but Congress eventually enshrined the tax-exempt status of employer-based medical insurance in law.

Result: a radical shift in the way Americans paid for medical care. With health benefits tax-free if they were employer-supplied, tens of millions of Americans were soon signing up for medical insurance through work. As tax rates rose, so did the incentive to keep expanding health benefits. No longer was medical insurance reserved for major expenditures like surgery or hospitalization. Americans who would never think of using auto insurance to cover tune-ups and oil changes grew accustomed to having their medical insurer pay for yearly physicals, prescriptions, and other routine expenses.

Now, I actually don’t agree with the part of McCain’s proposal that taxes employer-based coverage.  I’m more interested in parity (making sure that individuals get the same tax cut), than I am a punitive approach.  But it at least cuts at the core of the problem: the individual has been left out of the process for far too long.  It’s actually just a little too harsh.

I preferred the plan that President Bush proposed in a State of the Union address a few years ago (seems like so long ago), and that was a tax-credit (and a pretty sizable one, if I recall) for those participating in Consumer-Driven (High-Deductible) Health Plans.  That would have accomplished a lot as far as getting more control of costs back in the hands of the consumer without giving a Democratic contender ammunition to call the Republican contender a tax-hiker.

(Mirrored on logipundit.com)

None of you really want to hear my opinions on the general bailout package passed by the Senate last night, but I felt it my duty to inform you of the implications of the added section regarding mental health (since some of you are obviously crazy).

NAHU (National Association of Health Underwriters) sent me a good summary this morning, so I’ll give you some excerpts:

Modern Healthcare (10/2, DoBias) explains that the Senate measure “includes the already agreed upon mental-health parity language that passed the Senate as part of a tax-extenders package and the House as a stand-alone bill.” According to MedPage Today (10/2, Walker), an earlier mental health parity bill, passed by the House in March, “was dead on arrival in the Senate because of language that would have required insurance companies to give equal coverage to all mental illnesses outlined in the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]. This was a far-reaching stipulation that made some conservatives squeamish,” according to Peter Newbould of the American Psychological Association’s Practice Organization. The new mental health parity language, included in the rescue plan, “removes any mention of the DSM.”

[…]

Meanwhile, the New York Times (10/1, A28) editorializes, “The bill is endorsed by President Bush, business groups, insurance companies, the medical community and mental health advocates. … But it requires a final shove because the measure is snarled in a broader legislative struggle over how to pay for tax revenues that would be reduced by this measure and others. Is there a statesman who can push this worthy parity legislation through to final passage before adjournment?

I’m not a mental health expert and I don’t even play one on TV, but “Mental Health Parity” is not something that I have always been an ardent supporter of.  It would be good for me, insurance companies, medical professionals, medical health advocates, etc.  I’m just not 100% sure that it’s good for patients.  This is most likely because I don’t believe that “medicine” is always the best approach to mental health problems, but if I talk any further I will begin to effectively display my ignorance on the matter.  I’m hoping to get some input from our “Behavioral Medicine” specialist.  If and when I do, I’ll post again or have him do so.