If the only explanation for the lack of interest presidential candidates show for mental health parity was too many other, more general, issues to deal with, I wouldn't mind. But I suspect that our country's attitude toward mental illness has something to do with it. Most people are uncomfortable talking about mental illness at all, and certainly it's a potential minefield topic for a presidential candidate. Why support a group of people who are thought of by the rest as nuts, whiners and malingerers?
I"ll try putting this in terms that many of the presidential candidates should understand. It's bad for America and bad for business to treat mental and physical health differently and unequally. Untreated mental illness is one of the highest causes of absenteeism, lost productivity and unemployment. Ironically, it is a chronic illness that is treatable. So if you ensure that mental health care is not limited, you increase productivity among American workers. Simple, right?
And here's another thing - a group that any presidential candidate will support and praise in a heartbeat is our military. Many of them are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental and emotional disorders that they didn't have before they shipped out. Seems reasonable to assume that serving in a warzone contributed to a great extent, yet the military is discriminating against them in terms of their treatment and disability rights (I plan to expand upon this topic in the near future). After serving our country, don't these men and women deserve to get equal treatment for both their physical and mental illnesses? Or should they suffer because mental health parity is uneven?
Time will tell. We still have almost a year until the presidential election, and mental illness may become a popular issue. I think it's extremely unlikely, but stranger things have happened in election years.
< Previous Post:
Generic Wellbutrin: A Less Effective Alternative?
