17 ms·

I feel like there’s a balance between —- a thing that really helped me in life was seeing a therapist in my early twenties who really validated a lot of my stru

I feel like there’s a balance between —- a thing that really helped me in life was seeing a therapist in my early twenties who really validated a lot of my struggles and take them seriously. But also, kept me from going to far in the other direction of wallowing or being driven by a label. Part of the problem is the medical system doesn’t have great language around this, I think in America in order for insurance to pay for therapy there has to be diagnosis. My therapists solution to that was to provide a diagnosis but we didn’t really lean into it, he just explained that’s the process. But the language around diagnosis unfortunately has implicitly power. We probably should talk about mental illness much less that way.

lostmsu 11mo ago
[flagged]
- cocainemonster 11mo ago
  won't someone think of the insurance companies?
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    The sheer level of aggressive bootlicking I occasionally run into on hackernews is mind-boggling.
  - lostmsu 11mo ago
    Do you understand the consequences of insurance companies or government paying for something that does not need medical intervention en masse? Where do you think they get money to do that?
- techblueberry 11mo ago
  Where’s the fraud? I had the listed condition, but even physical diagnosis don’t have to define you. I’m plenty capable of policing my own moral failings thank you very much.
- dwaltrip 11mo ago
  Holy shit man. Get your gears check, they are grinding hard.
- dang 11mo ago
  You've broken the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread and others lately. Crossing into personal attack is particularly unwelcome. We ban accounts that post like this, and we've asked you more than once before, so that's not good. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd be grateful.
  - lostmsu 11mo ago
    I agree, that I post a lot of snarky replies and that is generally against the rules. But in this case what was the rule I broken? The parent says that they themselves had reservations about having a diagnosis associated with whatever problem they had. I merely pointed out the negative side of the coin ("wasted money") if over diagnosis is the case here (which considering the recent threads on the topic and author's own previous doubt seemed probable to me). I mentioned the author ("you") as the responsible party, because that's what needs to be considered. Otherwise it is easy to defer blame to "the system" and absolve oneselfs from personal responsibility.
    - dang 11mo ago
      There are a bunch of guidelines you broke there. If you want an example, how about ""Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."" or this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." More importantly, though, is a spirit-of-the-law place, not a letter-of-the-law place, so if you're asking for specific rule citations about a comment which obviously was not in the intended spirit of the site, we're already off track a bit.

lostmsu 11mo ago

[flagged]

cocainemonster 11mo ago
won't someone think of the insurance companies?
- array_key_first 11mo ago
  The sheer level of aggressive bootlicking I occasionally run into on hackernews is mind-boggling.
- lostmsu 11mo ago
  Do you understand the consequences of insurance companies or government paying for something that does not need medical intervention en masse? Where do you think they get money to do that?
techblueberry 11mo ago
Where’s the fraud? I had the listed condition, but even physical diagnosis don’t have to define you. I’m plenty capable of policing my own moral failings thank you very much.
dwaltrip 11mo ago
Holy shit man. Get your gears check, they are grinding hard.
dang 11mo ago
You've broken the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread and others lately. Crossing into personal attack is particularly unwelcome. We ban accounts that post like this, and we've asked you more than once before, so that's not good. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd be grateful.
- lostmsu 11mo ago
  I agree, that I post a lot of snarky replies and that is generally against the rules. But in this case what was the rule I broken? The parent says that they themselves had reservations about having a diagnosis associated with whatever problem they had. I merely pointed out the negative side of the coin ("wasted money") if over diagnosis is the case here (which considering the recent threads on the topic and author's own previous doubt seemed probable to me). I mentioned the author ("you") as the responsible party, because that's what needs to be considered. Otherwise it is easy to defer blame to "the system" and absolve oneselfs from personal responsibility.
  - dang 11mo ago
    There are a bunch of guidelines you broke there. If you want an example, how about ""Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."" or this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." More importantly, though, is a spirit-of-the-law place, not a letter-of-the-law place, so if you're asking for specific rule citations about a comment which obviously was not in the intended spirit of the site, we're already off track a bit.