Mental health policies explained

---

@Till23 wrote:

Even though average fees are quoted in the document - you would need to know who is included in theee figures. All figures can be massaged. Hence we are now quoted the unemployed and the under-employed. Because the definition of employed is you work one hour or more a week!

---

I know. In many ways, tables like these leave more questions then answers, don't they?

Looking over the document again, I am staggered by how much those figures vary from electorate to electorate! Why do some people (electorates) pay so much more for therapy then others? The government discount is, presumably, equal across all postcodes, so the only explaination I can think of is that therapists in some electorates charge a lot more then others?

I'd love to know how this gets justified.

It's shocking, what you say about one hour a week being considdered "employed". The way these politicians and beaurocrats pad out their numbers... what chance do we have?😓

Whilst I welcome any effort/funding put into the mental health sector, it majorly p*sses me off that not one of the initiatives mentioned involves prevention.

A bandage for a wound is great. Not getting the wound in the first place is even better.

We, as a society, are just too scared to look at broader issues that cause mental health problems: cost of living, housing issues, loss of community, social media, wage stagnation, just to name a few.