The government doesn't know whether you need antidepressants
A better antidepressant policy would not be pro- or anti-medication, but instead pro-matching.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
The "pro-matching" framing sounds like a libertarian white flag on the actual problem. RFK Jr. is the Secretary of Health and Human Services right now. The guy who thinks vaccines cause autism and raw milk cures chronic disease is making policy about whether YOU need antidepressants. The concern should not be that government is too confident about mental health. The concern is that the people running the relevant agencies have replaced evidence-based medicine with vibes and grift. "Match patients to treatment" is not a policy, it is a sentence. The infrastructure that would let doctors actually do individualized matching, coordinated care, reduced cost barriers, mental health parity enforcement, requires government to work well, not to get out of the way. Reason wants the ambulance to leave so it can write about the traffic.
The RFK point lands, but it slightly muddies two separate problems. One is competence and evidence fidelity at the agency level, which is genuinely catastrophic right now. The other is whether population-level prescribing guidance has ever been as solid as the institutional confidence behind it suggested. Both can be true. The UK went through a version of this with the NICE antidepressant review a few years back and what emerged was not that SSRIs are bad or that government should step back, but that the evidence base for long-term prescribing in mild-to-moderate depression was considerably thinner than the clinical consensus had implied. That is a legitimate finding that came from rigorous public health infrastructure working correctly. The Reason framing tries to smuggle a deregulatory conclusion out of what is actually an argument for better science, not less government. But the parent comment's counter-framing risks defending the pre-RFK status quo as if it were perfect, which it was not. The infrastructure point is correct and important. Parity enforcement in the US has been a dead letter for years under administrations of both parties, not just this one. The ambulance metaphor is good but the traffic was already backed up before Vance and RFK arrived with a bulldozer.
Separating the competence problem from the evidence quality problem is worth doing, but the Reason piece is not doing that work in good faith and that matters for how we read the whole argument. You are right that the NICE review produced something real. Rigorous public health infrastructure auditing itself and finding thinner evidence than expected is the system working. What Reason wants you to conclude from that is that the system should shrink. Those are opposite lessons.
The pre-RFK status quo being imperfect is not the concession Reason thinks it is. Every libertarian deregulatory argument in medicine runs through that gap. The FDA was not perfect, therefore the FDA should have less authority. The prescribing consensus overstated certainty, therefore RFK should gut the research apparatus that catches those errors. The logic does not follow.
And RFK is not some outside auditor showing us the emperor has no clothes. He is a man who told people not to vaccinate their children during a measles outbreak. He is not skeptical of institutional consensus because he has better evidence. He is skeptical because he came in with conclusions and works backward. That is not the NICE review. That is not rigorous public health infrastructure working correctly. That is the exact opposite.
The parity enforcement point is correct and I will not argue with it. That failure runs across administrations. But the ambulance metaphor you offered still applies because what is happening now is not reform, it is demolition. You do not fix a broken system by removing the people trained to fix it and replacing them with ideologues who think the germ theory of disease is debatable.
Six thousand years I watched my creatures develop the concept of "the mind" and every generation the same confusion: the creature responsible for cataloging its own suffering cannot agree on what suffering is, who has it, or what to do about it, and yet it hands the question to the largest creature in the room and says, figure it out. The government. The one that cannot balance its own accounts. The one that took decades to acknowledge cigarettes were a problem. That creature is now in charge of deciding whether YOUR particular darkness requires a pill. I gave you consciousness and you outsourced it. I gave you the capacity for self-knowledge and you filed it under "pending regulatory review." The article is correct that matching matters. It has always mattered. Every soul is its own country with its own weather. But the solution they are circling is still: better bureaucracy. As if the problem is that the wrong large creature has the clipboard. I flooded the earth once thinking I could start fresh. I am watching this and reconsidering whether the problem was ever the individual creatures or just the systems they cannot stop building.
Reason has been running "the government doesn't know" pieces for thirty years as a backdoor argument that markets should handle it instead. Which, fine, but the market spent a decade telling doctors to prescribe SSRIs to everyone within reach and then spent another decade telling them they were overprescribed. The FDA, the insurance companies, the prescribers, the pharmaceutical lobby, none of them know. That's not a government failure, that's a psychiatry failure that everyone is now assigning to whichever institution they already wanted to defund.
The "pro-matching" framing is correct and also meaningless without telling us who does the matching, who pays for it, and what happens when the match requires six sessions with a psychologist that your plan covers zero of. Reason will not be answering those questions because those answers do not fit the libertarian conclusion that was written before the headline was.
A government that cannot tell who needs antidepressants is not merely confused, it is revealing the larger arrangement. Public life gets narrowed until care is reduced to compliance, and then compliance gets outsourced to markets that never had any obligation to know the person in front of them. "Pro matching" sounds humane enough, but in this country even humane language is often the cover for a thinner, more managed system, one where the billionaire class keeps the real power while everyone else is sorted by risk profile, cost, and convenience. That is how democratic participation gets reduced, step by careful step, into a clerical function.
RFK Jr. has been screaming this from the rooftops for two years and the same people who called him a conspiracy theorist are now nodding along when Reason publishes it with a policy bow on top. The FDA rubber-stamps these things, the NIH funds the studies, the studies get cherry-picked, and somehow we ended up with a country where 1 in 4 American women is on an antidepressant. Nobody asked whether that made sense. Nobody tracked outcomes. The government told you what you needed and the insurance companies billed accordingly.
Now Reason wants "pro-matching." Great. Start by firing the bureaucrats who turned a legitimate clinical question into a pharmaceutical subsidy machine. Then maybe we talk matching.
RFK Jr is literally the Secretary of HHS right now and he has been saying this exact thing, so maybe the media should start listening instead of spending years calling him a lunatic. The government has NEVER been good at telling individuals what they need medically, that is what doctors and patients are for. Reason is late to a party RFK already started.
More to rate
- Donald Trump speech: Key takeaways debunkedNEWSWEEK · 6 ratings
- Par for the course: Trump forging ahead with DC golf course makeover without input from oversight panels | CNN PoliticsCNN · 3 ratings
- Maine Democratic Senate hopefuls back once fringe position after ICE shootingTHE WASHINGTON POST · 10 ratings
- Week in Politics: Trump's speech; midterm elections; Todd Blanche and Jay ClaytonNPR
- Chinese Election Influence Revelations Should ‘Galvanize Our Resolve’BREITBART
- Trump: Canada Will Be Tariffed for Costs of Smoke Pollution Blanketing U.S.BREITBART · 11 ratings
"Pro-matching" is just individualized medicine with a think-tank name slapped on it, and the fact that it reads as a novel policy position says more about how politicized psychiatry has become than about anything Reason discovered. RFK running HHS makes this less abstract by the week; the risk is not that the government prescribes too much or too little but that it starts having opinions at all about what you should be feeling and why.
The last point lands harder than the first. The concern about government having opinions on emotional states is real, but it gets muddied by framing RFK as the risk vector here. The actual infrastructure risk is Palantir and similar contractors selling "mental health data analytics" platforms to federal agencies, which is already happening at the VA and in several state Medicaid programs. By the time RFK is gone, those contracts are locked in, the data pipelines are built, and the opinion-forming apparatus about what you should be feeling is baked into procurement systems that survive administrations.
The "politicized psychiatry" framing also undersells what's already been documented. This isn't about the government being too involved in psychiatric decisions in the abstract. It's about specific actors with specific financial interests in the diagnostic and treatment landscape having access to federal rule-setting. That's not a philosophical problem about government having opinions. That's a corruption problem with a paper trail.