Again I go back to the cost in comparison to incarceration and/or victim care. And maybe care of our mentally needy should rank a higher priority. ESPECIALLY those who WANT to get better and be productive. And no you may not ask how old I am….I have no need to tell you, I can tell you, I am old enough to have a bit of knowledge. And with our healthcare bill putting this generation in debt to pay for the uninsured, you are going to say money is a factor? How about maybe smart budgeting….oh wait, what is that? We haven’t had one of those in how long? And I should say, nobody is suggesting warehousing patients, that is a ridiculous claim, and rather simplified on your part. You act as if I am saying round everyone up and stick them in a box….please!!!!
Please take a moment and think about this statement plleeeease. The reason why we have a revolving door justice system is because our justice system is understaffed, under-funded, and our jails are constantly over populated this is irrefutable fact. So what your saying let me get this right is mentally ill rank higher then criminals on the human chain so money should be taken from the justice system to pay for a new system where the mentally ill are hunted down and force fed medication to prevent crimes they probably wouldn't have committed in the first place. In the mean time there would be less lawyers/prosecutors so less criminals are tried and convicted, less cops so less criminals are captured, and less money for jails so even more criminals are released onto the street....yeah that wouldn't work. You're right it was wrong of me to ask how old you are that was rude of me and I sincerely apologize, I simply ask because you appear to be very naive, under-informed, and miss-informed. Then again so is 90% of the country so i don't hold that against you. If I had to guess tho I'd bet money that you're near 20 and it wasn't all that long that you graduated highschool. I myself am 28 with a bachelors degree and a ton of experience with all the bull this grand country has to offer. I agree completely we do need smart budgeting badly but I don't think that will ever happen so long as both parties use it as a political footbal, once again money and greed get in the way. The health care bill doesn't put our generation in debt >.< that's just wrong, Ill explain more to that affect later but for now know that is just right wing propaganda that has no basis in reality. I also know that your not saying that we should warehouse the mentally ill however you should be aware of the fact that there is no possible way to forcibly medicate the many homeless mentally ill without warehousing them.
Try the UK under the Mental Health Act of 2007. Canada is looking into it. Those name 2, but if you look there are more out there.
That is mostly incorrect and is even talked about briefly in the same article in the statement I posted that you quoted above this. Yes the Mental health Act of 2007 does state that those seeking medical attention must take the medication given to them, however the citizens of the UK still maintain the right to refuse medical treatment so if they don't take their medication they receive no health care and are sent home or turned just turned away. That is not forced medication.
Forced medication is what China does, they have agents visit the homes of those with homes and force them to take drug tests to make sure they have been taking their meds if they fail to or if they lose their home they are institutionalized and reeducated if they are capable of returning to the work force. If their illness prevents them from returning to work they either never leave the institution again or most likely simply just executed and disposed of to conserve resources.
I didn’t fail to understand your point…mine was that a disorder is a disorder, no matter the cause or the timing. And if you go to a hospital, and a doctor says you need medication, they don’t turn you out onto the streets and say “see ya”…no there is follow up. You point is not logical. We have a mental health system….and you are muddying the waters. I will not discuss James Holmes mental condition because we know less than nothing about his time prior to this crime. And other than the timing, I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. He is not a single case…..he may or may not be the most recent. You are totally ignoring all the other examples out there. But AGAIN for the sake of argument….what say you about Jared Lee Loughner. Leave Holmes out of the discussion, he has no place in it yet.
Yeah actually they do turn people away all the time infact they've been known to turn people away for less
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/3-hospitals-cited-turning-away-er-patients/2012-04-23. My point is logical and it's that there is no possible way to find and forcibly medicate every single person in the US who has a mental disorder, and even if we could it still wouldn't do any good. What defies all logic is how you think without providing a feasible means as to how that we some how could and not only could we but despite numerous studies proving otherwise that it would do anything other than waste resources and strip us of our god given rights. Yes we do have a mental health system but it is a broken system that more often than not fails and adding forced medication to the mix will not and cannot fix it.
"muddying the waters." That is at least the second time in this thread you've used that statement and you didn't exactly use it correctly so here is the definition to help you in the future.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muddy+the+waters. I didn't bring up anything that was irrelevant. I brought up Holmes because he is no different than Loughner. You say we know little to nothing about the mental state of Holmes, well guess what we still know less than nothing about the mental state of Loghner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner He was assessed by a mental illness specialist and was found to not be a threat to himself or others. Bringing up Holmes was also relevant because in both cases there is no evidence that either individual needs, needed medication, or if they had it that it would have made a difference. What was muddying the waters tho was you bringing up and insulting by bringing up the dead to try and justify a failed argument that otherwise had no legs. They aren't relevant to this discussion that's why I haven't so much as acknowledged them until now because I'm not about to muddy the waters and spit on their graves to try and make a point. Holmes has more place in this discussion than the victims so really who should be left out? and who is really muddying the waters?
Also in 2014, mental health and substance use disorder services will be part of the essential benefits package, a set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, including all insurance policies that will be offered through the Exchanges, and Medicaid.
I guess not much else needs to be said. If everyone is required to have health insurance, problem pretty much solved yes? Secondly, as I stated before, you are paying for it anyway. And Thirdly, if your excuse is you can’t afford it, with Obamacare, that excuse is no longer applicable.
Actually there are a few things to be said about this blatant misinformation. First being thank you for proving me right that you have yet to actually read the bill here is the link to the actual bill so that you can actually for the first time in your life read it and understand what is actually in it
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/. Second being a bit obvious is that it's
2012 and not
2014. So when I said it DOESN'T add it I was 100% correct because the law in it's current form doesn't add it, the section of the bill that takes affect in 2014 isn't part of the current bill and won't even be voted on until 2014 even then there is a chance that it will be voted down and not added to the bill. Third after you actually read the bill you'll realize that were not really paying for anything because our taxes aren't really going towards it all the bill does financially is give tax breaks to the insurance companies. So it really doesn't fix anything at all or pay for anything the way you think. Research is FUN! Also there is no guarantee that Obama will be our next president and him being our next president is the best chance there is of the 2014 update of actually taking affect because if Romney is elected he is going to repeal Obamacare
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/romney-says-he-will-repeal-obamacare-if-elected/ Again Research is FUN!
They have to prove they are insane before that defense can be sought. It isn’t as if the prosecution is saying “oh yeah, you should go for the insane defense”. Nope, doesn’t work that way. So if they are found insane, does logic not equate, that they would in fact BE insane? And your point about them not staying in jail long anyways, is well it is a fallacy. They get out, go off their meds, end back up in jail. And jail is such a safe environment for the mentally insane yes? Much better than the streets, and or a hospital right?
Once again completely and utterly wrong. Pretrial mental examinations are used only to determine if the person on trial is capable of standing trial, not whether or not they are insane. It is up to the defense to prove their client is insane with various evidence and experts and it is up to the jury to decide if they are infact insane and it is up to the judge to determine sentencing. Once again you struggle with logic, by your logic someone would have to prove they are innocent before trial could begin, and that just doesn't happen. It's not a fallacy its fact that can be proven by public record, all you have to do is go down to your county courthouse and ask to see trial logs from cases involving people found to be insane and you can all the details involving sentencing and with that ya can find the nearest facility that they are sent to and then ask one of the guards just how long most actually stay there. What is an actual fallacy tho is your false belief that once they are found insane that they are sent to actual prisons with other prisoners which couldn't further than the truth. They are sent to facilities for the criminally insane which are nothing more than mental wards with barbed wire.
I have thought this through about as much as most people. Of course I have not made a living through postleizing about it. No, it crossed my mind, the day of the Colorado shootings after hearing a gripe about who was to blame, and a doctor said, it isn’t surprising considering the disservice we have done to our mentally disabled. Which, had you read my OP, you would have seen it crossed my mind on Friday….
Secondly, I am not doing your homework for you. There are countries with Psychiatric wards still in service.
And lastly on this topic, out of the many citizens of various countries, we are the only country that as a rule, places individual rights over the health of the whole.
It's that kind of sheep mentality that gets us all in trouble. Mind you that I'm not saying your a sheep or have sheep mentality. It's just that most people only think things to a certain point and they rarely get further than their own preconceived notions. People rarely dig any deeper or try to find a different perspective so that they see things for what they really are. It's because of this that so many people fell for the lies and propaganda and voted for Bush and we all know how that turned out. I did read your OP infact I answered your OP on the page before this but I don't think you saw it. That's also partly why I brought up holmes before because he inspired this thread, and also why I was perplexed by you previous statement that he didn't belong here and his presence was muddying the waters. Thanks but I don't need you to do my homework, in fact I need you to do your homework because I've been doing both yours and mine all night ;P. We put our rights first as a rule because of the sacrifices made by those that came before us, those that died for those rights, those that gave up everything forming and defending this great nation. The constitution was formed around the idea that the whole is healthiest when our rights are in tact which I fully believe and support. There will always be death and disease and unpredictable villains and enemies that exist both domestically and abroad. However as long as we maintain our rights we are better able to defend ourselves from those threats.
I am asking the difference in the rights we have lost up until now, and the rights of a few for the safety of the whole. A whole bunch of examples have been brough forth, which I noticed you have not made note of any of those. And you can stop simplifying this to a single event. It happens more than just once. It would not cost anyone any freedoms. If you are ill, take your medicine. If you are not willing to take your medicine, you don’t get the right to reek havoc among society. Everyone has an obligation to promote well being, and if you aren’t willing to do your part, I just don’t see how the single is more important than the whole.
Oh and by the way, there is no need to get nasty while disagreeing on things. If you can’t maintain your emotions and stay civil, don’t debate…simple as that.
Reread the original post. I am asking about the rights of an individual verses the safety of the whole. Mental health is an example.....keep it as such
My answer is the rights we've lost up until now are unacceptable losses. Before we do anything else we need to work towards getting those rights and all our rights back in balance. The problem with rights is that they are given to everyone equally at birth so you can't take away the rights of a few to protect the whole because the moment you decide to take them they are lost by all. The reason why I haven't mentioned previous examples because they are nothing more than propaganda and aren't worth mentioning. There is no justification for the loss of rights, no amount of examples can prove otherwise. The moment we give into fear and propaganda and give up our rights we turn our backs on our ancestors and the sacrifices they made for us. Don't be mistaken they had it a thousand times worse than us, they had far greater dangers and far greater risks but they managed to fight to the death to defend our rights. It's because of that that we were the greatest nation in the world. Then we started giving in to the fear and slowly gave up rights for the greater good, now look at us a shadow of our former self. No more I say, no more.. We have to learn from history and not make the same mistakes again. You say I simplify this to a single event but that's just not true, you are the one simplifying things. You simplify things so much that you actually believe this one non-solution, one that you know absolutely nothing about, you don't know how it would be implemented, who would be running it, or really how it would be paid for and somehow it would solve a problem that is both unpredictable and unrelated to the solution. It's complete nonsense. You say it wouldn't cost any freedoms even tho its been well established earlier and even admitted by you previously that it would cost freedoms. That tells me you don't know enough about your freedoms, and ya certainly don't know enough about those that died defending those freedoms. If ya did you would have come to a different conclusion completely. I don't know what country you live in but here in America the only obligations we have are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and defending those rights from all threats both foreign and domestic. What you're talking about is communism and if you want to be a communist I suggest you move to china where they believe the whole is more important than the single. See how that works our for ya, maybe we'll see ya in a drum line in the next Olympics with a lobotomized look on your face.
By the way I wasn't being nasty. If you want to see nasty go to reddit.
Tho it is true that I may have been crass, rude, brash, and insensitive but I was being completely honest and maintained civility the entire time. I also assure you that the only emotion I felt this entire time was joy because this has been a fun and spirited debate. However you have irked me but that doesn't detract from the joy or make me think less of you.
It's also very important that you know that I mean you no disrespect. I have the utmost respect for you, I believe you are a very intelligent person with boat loads of potential it just so happens that like most people you also suffer from being under-informed and miss-informed, but that's not your fault and can easily be remedied.
I'm sorry if you've felt insulted but really you brought that on yourself. I've never called you stupid or incompetent again I think you are a highly intelligent person, that's why it irks me so that you can be so entirely wrong. I may have implied that you've practiced pore logic but that doesn't make you dumb. I've also said your wrong simply because you were and I tried my best to provide evidence proving so. Whether or not you can accept that depends on you and your own preconceptions. Again I know I was crass but if I wasn't you wouldn't have learned anything, you probably would have just ignored everything I've said.
Again I hope you know I have nothing but respect for you, if I didn't I wouldn't have bothered pushing you at all. I would have left you alone to wallow in ignorance. You truly don't know what you believe until your told your wrong. Also and finally everything I've said has been on point with the OP and in response to what you have said. You've led this conversation so if it's gone off track it's because you've taken it there.
- - - Updated - - -
Hi, just wanted to correct this. The Republicans, while holding Congress and the White House (Reagan), closed all Federal mental health hospitals. This was based on a Supreme court ruling, I can't recall which, that made it clear providing care for State citizens was the responsibility of the States (it was largely instituted due to the abuse posed at the Federal facilities). As such, while the Federal facilities were closed, the States were required to cover the slack. While some States didn't bother, even though they are mandated, most States stepped up and instituted mental health facilities at the State and County levels, including programs for care housing, etc. While not the perfect system, at least the mental health persons do receive treatment and are stabilized before being released (they are not allowed to be released until such is the case, which means they can be held for a very long time).
The problem is, non-compliance. Most drugs associated with care of mental disorders have some rather nasty side-effects and persons who are on those drugs don't "recall" anything odd about their behavior prior to the medication (or other treatments), so don't see the point. In response to this, some facilities began a program of videotaping the patients prior to treatment so they could show the patients how they are when not taking their meds. This program has been marginally successful, but not successful enough to warrant the expense and potential liability issues.
As to mental health patients on the streets, that is more due to a change in laws pertaining to mental health (Baxter being one of them) that prevents a person from being institutionalized if they do not exhibit DS, DO, or CS (mentioned earlier). That, in my opinion, is a good thing although I do agree the backlash to this is that there are more mentally disordered persons sleeping in shelters or under causeways. However, this display is misrepresented because there are far more people living in the streets who are not mentally disordered. That has more to do with with the escalating disparity in wealth that, for all effective purposes, started during the Reagan era.
I'l leave the rest for debate.
I'm sorry but to correct your correction Regan did close down mental health facilities when he was governor. I even have documentation from a vetted journalist.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ronald-reagan-the-bad-and-the/ Your post is no doubt very nice revisionism but it's not the complete truth.