If you don't mind, I'm going to revisit this to talk about a few things -- the very bizarre insistence on humanizing with and empathizing an abusive man while trying to bully one of his surviving victims, and the way both lines are framed as "you/he needed therapy." 
More healthcare access wouldn't have changed this. I was put in therapy very early because, you know, I had lived through violent events. My father went to therapy, and he refused to keep going or take any medication prescribed because he didn't "believe in that stuff."
Mentally ill people are statistically more likely to be abused than to abuse others. My father may have had some illnesses; in fact, I'm sure he did. He didn't choose to abuse his wife and kids because he was sick. He chose to abuse them because he was abusive.
His rage, which I got very familiar with, wasn't with injustice. It was with women. It was with queer people. It was at the brown people who he yelled "GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY" at. He was deeply invested in being Strong and being a Man and the way he did that was violence.
Again: Therapy wouldn't have helped him, and neither would political consciousness. He read Kurt Vonnegut and I think had vaguely liberal politics to the extent he had them. He wasn't hateful because he was oppressed. He was hateful because he liked hating people.
Kate Manne talks about "himpathy," our instinctive reflex to sympathize with powerful and abusive men. Here, people look at a story of a man who nearly killed a woman and two small children, and their first instinct is to find a way to humanize him or sympathize with him.
In my case, I'm also told to "go to therapy." I have, and I've been compliant with most regimens prescribed. But the implication isn't that I'm a good person who deserves compassion. It's that being abused broke me; that I am weak, or shameful, or dirty for being affected by it.
It's true that no amount of therapy will ever un-abuse me. I've still spent a lot of my life being sucked into the orbit of men with addictions or anger problems. I still have trouble trusting people. I still have anger myself. That's why abuse is bad. It changes people.
But with me, the offer of "free healthcare" is essentially a medical muzzle -- either I should "save it for the therapist" and never mention it in polite company, or "getting therapy" would take away my opinions, or it's just one more way to say I'm too "crazy" to matter.
A man who, again, harms and nearly kills his family, is just a basically good person who deserves help. The woman who survived him is a bad and basically broken person who deserves to be silenced. It's interesting how that works. And by interesting, I mean deeply predictable.
I'm all for healthcare access, by the way. My candidate has a two-year transition plan to Medicare for All; Sanders has a four-year transition plan. But "mental health" here is being used as a veil for a very different set of concerns.
When I talk about the difference between how men's anger and women's anger is perceived, and why I distrust the valorization of male anger as a good or vital or necessary thing, the breakdown of sympathies here is a big part of what I'm talking about.
What WOULD have helped is a culture that supports survivors. It would have helped if, when he broke into our home and ripped the phone off the wall, he didn't get visitation rights. If the police that came didn't pick me up and put me in his arms because "kids need a Dad."
I really don't think that screaming at women who talk about their abuse in a way that is politically inconvenient supports building that culture. Nor do I think it's a big priority to a person who looks at that kind of violence and thinks "ah, a potential brother in the cause."
