Wis. lawmakers plan mental health insurance bill
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Democratic lawmakers say they'll introduce a bill to improve insurance coverage for the mentally ill and drug addicts.
The measure wouldn't mandate coverage for mental health and substance abuse problems. It would, however, require all group health plans that offer such coverage to provide it at what's known as parity. Essentially, mental illness and substance abuse coverage couldn't be more restrictive or expensive than the plan's medical and surgical coverage.
Federal law mandates mental health and substance abuse parity for health plans offered by employers with 51 workers or more.
State Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, one of the bill's supporters, says the measure will help people who work for smaller employers afford insurance.

Oct 8, 2009 at 12:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
sarahb1:
seriously, you think abortion won't be funded with democrats writing the bill and voting with a majority?
********
this is from factcheck.org:
The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."
Oct 7, 2009 at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry, I meant to type that as "scientific".
Oct 7, 2009 at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
cynicaleye: Take some "personal responsibility" and familarize yourself with scientic research regarding "addiction". It probably won't lead you to a more realistic opinion even though it should. Also, to others commenting, I'm not so sure abortions would be funded.
Oct 7, 2009 at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
ilovehockey and sarahb1:
what about abortions?
should i help fund those as well?
my point is, a national plan will be very expensive because it will be one plan that will cover everything.
and frankly, i don't want my tax dollars funding certain things.
mandating coverage for all and everything drives up costs.
Oct 7, 2009 at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
"improve insurance coverage for the ... and drug addicts"? Hey, if you're a drug addict that's your problem, not the insurance company's problem. Take some personal responsibility!
Oct 7, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
booch11: You could always opt out of your insurance plan and foot your own bill. I don't particularly enjoy paying your bills either. (Sarcasm but also serious here.) Also, I don't think the parity plan here is necessarily any different than federal legislation that was passed last year. As a nationally certified addictions registered nurse and social worker helping those with mental health issues, I agree that this legislation is very much needed.
Oct 7, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
This will NOT help people afford insurance. It will be the opposite.
Booch11 - You hope you will never use those services, but there is no guarantee! And by all means, you should have those cancer screenings, because I would rather, as part of the pool, pay for the screenings than the cost of actually having to treat the cancer!
Oct 7, 2009 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
If any of you had a mental illness you would understand that it is not a chosen thing, it is a medical condition and should be treated as such without having to jump through extra hoops just because your medication is different from those who have a heart condition or diabetes. It is a crock that mental illness is treated any differently. As a society do we really want any more mentally ill people not on their medication? Its hard enough to take these types of medication without having to add the financial hardship of insurance declining it. As for substance abuse my jury is still out on that as to whether or not it is a disease.
Oct 7, 2009 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
And so now we should not call it insurance anymore. When I was in school insurance was a betting game between and individual and the Insurance Co. the insurer would bet (money) that you would not get sick and you wagered that you would. now that we have tied the hands of Company's just how are they going to stay in operation? Why not just call as it is, A FREE HAND OUT! A free hand out on the tax payers dime..
Oct 7, 2009 at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
I wonder if this is introduced,because maybe the legislators elected need this?? Seeing they are getting caught more for abuse! The who you know mentality isn't working anymore BOY'S & GIRLS ??
Oct 7, 2009 at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
this is a microcosm of the national health plan.
"It would, however, require all group health plans that offer such coverage to provide it at what's known as parity."
parity is exactly what drives up everyone's costs.
I have to, through my insurance plan, fund everyone elses mental health coverage, abortion, pregnancies, breast cancer screenings, prostate screenings and so on - even though i will never need to use some of them.
Oct 7, 2009 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow, it's about time for Mental Health coverage!!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.