In 1633, about the time Galileo was in hot water for writing that the Earth revolves around the sun, French philosopher Rene Descartes made a critical distinction that today, nearly 400 years later, still is reflected in most health insurance policies. Roughly speaking, Descartes' idea was that there is a difference between mind and matter, between the physical and the mental. In philosophy, the concept is referred to as dualism.

That idea's legacy lives on in the disparities between co-pays and coverage limits that health insurance policies apply to physical illnesses and mental illnesses.

Policies rarely make distinctions between coverage for, say, injuries to the leg and injuries to the arm. But even people with comprehensive coverage can be required to pay more of the cost for treating a mental illnesses than for physical ones. For example, many policies will cut off coverage after just 10 days of psychiatric hospitalization per year.

This approach may be about to change. Although the health-care issue that has grabbed most of the recent headlines is the renewal and expansion of the S-CHIP children's health program, last week the Senate quietly passed a landmark bill that offers true parity for physical and mental illness. The House is considering an even more sweeping bill. It would require that group health insurance policies for employees provide the same coverages for mental illness that members of Congress receive in their policies.

We'd like to see those more generous benefits in place, but they are opposed by employer and insurance groups who worry about the cost. Those same groups support the Senate bill, which gives it a more realistic chance of being enacted — and sick people need the help now.

Congress passed a parity bill in 1996, but it was riddled with loopholes.

The thrust of most psychiatric research in recent years has been on the physical basis for mental illness. Using sophisticated new technologies such as functional MRI, researchers have taken pictures of abnormalities in the brains of people with schizophrenia and other serious disorders. Thanks to these and other forms of research, medical science can successfully treat and control many forms of mental illness.

Descarte was a great philosopher. It was he who wrote, "I think, therefore I am." He didn't know much about health policy and mental illness, though. It's time to end health insurance's separate and unequal coverage standards. Mental health parity is a matter of basic fairness.

— St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Both the U.S. House and Senate recently moved to block funding for a pilot program that would allow trucks owned by Mexican companies to operate in the United States for one year. In doing so, Congress appears to have succumbed to protectionist fears hiding under the cloak of safety and environmental concerns. At the same time, it is seriously undermining the cooperative spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which requires such open borders.Under the program proposed by the Bush administration, 600 big rigs would have been allowed to carry goods between Mexico and the United States. The trucks slated for the program would be newer vehicles subject to the same safety inspections and environmental regulations that apply to U.S. trucks.Nevertheless, critics, especially the Teamsters Union and the Sierra Club, have used overblown fears of unsafe and dirty trucks to scare enough senators and representatives to approve measures blocking the funding in transportation bills in each house. That's shortsighted and, frankly, insulting to a good neighbor.Trade with Mexico has quadrupled under NAFTA, to $332 billion in 2006 from $81 billion in 1993, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. About 70 percent of that trade is carried on the highways of the two countries.All trucks — U.S., Mexican and Canadian — that travel North America's highways should be safe and should meet environmental regulations. To assume that trucks from any particular country fail to do so just because they're from that country won't do much for promoting cooperation and free trade. And it's wrong.In recent years, Mexican trucks crossing the border were no more likely to be taken out of service because of safety or other violations than American trucks, according to a review of Texas records cited in a recent New York Times article.Under the provisions of NAFTA, Mexico can retaliate against the United States for failing to adhere to the treaty's requirements. To avoid such a result, Congress should stop listening to those practicing the politics of fear and open the door to safe trucks from all countries.<B><I> — Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</I></B>