Greetings:

 

Many here may be following (at least) two sides of arguments for Parity, for instance in regard to insurance provisions for mental health needs. 

 

There are of course not two points of view but a myriad, as decorously reflects diversity and individuality, the glories of difference seen as a blessing of richness. 

 

Reading Internet posts for example on e-lists where parity is sought in the form of allowances for pharmaceuticals equally in instances of mental or physical health needs - and reading posts where greater allowance of insurance benefits appears fearsome on the dimension of unwise or unneeded increased distribution of medications and inherent potential for sometimes overweening social control, increasingly one thinks of the balancing tests in law, and perhaps the grail of Aristotelian means, or, further imaging, the perennial swing between information and entropy.

 

In any event, Constitutionally, preservation of individual choice as the emblem of Liberty, and the securing of organizational benefits which de facto introduce regulation of conduct, seem to emerge as a primary dialectic.

 

How do we preserve individual choice as opposed to hyper-management from the outside, as we both seek services, and wish to remain independent ...

 

Some sidebar thoughts and queries ..

and wishing you a very fine extended holiday weekend and beyond.

 

:) LDMF.

----------
Individual e-post from:
Dr. L. D. Misek-Falkoff, Speaker, and Chronic Pain Caucus Chair of
The National Disability Party http://www.disabilityparty.com . bio (about)
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/pain-in-the-law
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/litigation-stress-central
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ChronicPainCooperate
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/poems-of-pain-and-promise
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/dismissed-as-disabled