</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
sorry, didn't realise this thread was reserved for dancing and the like.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> is there some clog dancing going on? </font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
wasn't my comment related to implications of parity? i don't see how it was off topic... you can ignore my posts if they aren't to your tastes... thanks.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> this thread is about current status of senate bill which could affect state parity laws dealing w/ insurance and medical coverage....not a let's discuss DSM and what goes where........our interpretation? an update for the voting population and those interested in how legislation affects mental health treatment coverage.

as a person who has dealt directly w/ unequal coverage or limited coverage by insurance companies for mental health we view this as a very positive step for the US Congress to move toward parity. if the bill lists the nitty gritty of categorization and dissection of DSM then we apologize as we've not yet read full text of S 558.