Sides of the Parity Question

Bringing health insurance to the parity level for mental health and substance abuse is a topic of much debate. A lot of support for such legislation has come from Congress, which has passed bills to reach this goal throughout the nineties and today. Many argue that a stigma, or negative connotation or marking, has surrounded mental illness and that inequity in insurance coverage contributes to discrimination against people who need treatment or cannot afford it. Similarly, parity is perceived by many as a necessary step in solving substance abuse problems by allowing people to get effective treatment that they otherwise would not be able to afford and therefore be treated as more of a criminal than a patient. Opposition to this type of legislation is mostly economically based; many argue that parity would cause insurance costs to skyrocket. In reality, though, parity makes economic sense. And this is not the only reason I am taking the position in support of such action; mental health is clearly, clearly just as important, if not more important, than physical illnesses! Mental health problems, from anxiety in children to substance abuse, affect millions of Americans every day. How can we deny effective, economically logical treatment to those who need it?