The ultra-liberal Cap Times, which is no longer a daily print newspaper, rips Woodman's for their decision to stop offering mental health benefits, in the wake of a federal law that requires companies that provide mental health benefits to do so at the same level as other health care benefits. But employers aren't required to provide mental health benefits, so Woodman's decided to stop providing them, saying they couldn't afford to do so at the same levels as the health care benefits they provide.

The Cap Times claims Woodman's "doesn't get it" has a caveman view of mental health care and is discriminating by putting one " disease" ahead of another (cancer versus schizophrenia). They call Woodman's cruel and imply readers may want to consider a boycott of their stores because of the policy.

In fact, it is the Cap Times that doesn't get it. Not everybody who takes advantage of mental health benefits is mentally ill. Mental health benefits usually include coverage for visits to a psychotherapist. Many people see a psychotherapist when they need to talk with someone. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with that, but these sessions can cost $150.00 an hour, or much more. Many plans that cover these sessions cap them at a certain number of sessions per year, 20, 25, or whatever. What if a person feels they "need" to talk to a psychotherapist every week? Should Woodman's cover that? Should any employer cover that? You'll notice this piece never goes anywhere near the cost issue. Woodman's cannot afford to provide this service anymore; so the libs who pushed for this requirement end up hurting the very people they try to help, which is par for the course.