> The arguments you're making could really be applied to healthcare in general. For many areas sure. Most importantly to primary care. I believe primary care s

> The arguments you're making could really be applied to healthcare in general. For many areas sure. Most importantly to primary care. I believe primary care should not be part of an insurance model. It's been brought to this for some good reasons and some bad reasons. Single-payer cannot fix over-utilization. The iron triangle of healthcare: cost, quality, access. If access is unlimited, cost will go up. (Over-utilization a term commonly understood for the use of resources for very low marginal returns). > The modal number of visits per outpatient therapy client/patient is 1 Even more sensical to make it cash pay! I would agree that cash pay in the current system probably leads to underutilization. Which is why a low(access x quality) x low(price) solution from the state would be great to help the bottom ranks and the rest can pay for it themselves. > The current zeitgeist with therapy is to taper off or terminate as soon as possible, and reinitiate as needed, at least in the US This brings another argument on utilization: if you look at it across cultures, it's going to be radically different. It's not something reasonable to insure against. Long term, freeing therapy from insurance works in the favor of therapists: as a political body I would ask tax exemptions that match what insurance companies get and be on your own. (I would recommend the same strategy to primary care doctors, and they are already doing it with the DPC model).