Yes, indeed, Dr. Shedler.

And you ask why mental health alone should be singled out for "special" treatment. Note that Blue Cross et al. do what they do without bandying about scientific claims. Their interests and reimbursement practices are not based on any study of what helps patients but rather guided by calculations of what the market will bear.

It is the academic community in the MH field that hypes imaginary evidence of the sort you have debunked and thus provides an umbrella of legitimacy for the insurance companies. Why academic psychologists should take up the cause of these corporations is hard to say. It amounts to a collective identification with the aggressor. At the same time it caters to the public’s moral discomfort with the theoretical and procedural character of psychoanalysis and its variants. (See my John Wayne reference in the earlier post.)