It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Open Letter to President Donald Trump

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Dear Sir,

Another horrible tragedy has befallen innocent people in America. Many are quick to judge. I know I have been guilty of that. Many are also quick for knee-jerk solutions that deal more with peripheral issues than the ones we face today.

But it has caused me to think about where our country is, and where it might be going.

I know that what I'm about to bring up might not have any impact on such tragedies in the future. Bad people will always find a way to do bad things.

What I want to offer is a compromise.

I am a staunch critic of socialized medicine. Universal healthcare. Call it what ever you like. I am against it for a variety of reasons.

But when it comes to mental health, I think there is a place for government to step in and offer assistance. If government ran/controlled mental health care facilities in this country, then it would take the need to profit away.

Right now, there is no profit to be made from these facilities. People with mental health issues often are living in conditions that their illness created. They, the people suffering, are victims of their own disease.

They are trapped in situations that they can't get out of.


Government, for the most part is selfish, narrow-minded, and corrupt. But there are ways to redeem that image. Show that you actually care about the people. We spend billions on other nations, billions on wars, billions on pork programs for lobbyists.

The government spends pennies, in comparison, on the people that make up this great nation.


If we can spend billions on food-stamps, billions on housing for immigrants, billions on welfare, then why can't we spend millions on something that will help so many?


Some have openly suggested banning our right to own firearms.

They don't care if the people stay mentally ill. They just want the mentally ill unarmed.

I would urge that instead, we help so that there aren't mentally ill people to cause harm.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

With most humble regards,

DBCowboy.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
So send the mentally ill back to the asylums?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So send the mentally ill back to the asylums?


Treat mental illness.

Try to make people well.

Is that something you're against?


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Pack your bags Coin!


edit on 6-11-2017 by knowledgehunter0986 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No there are other means.

I work with people with mental health issues or disabilities.

These people live in homes or apartments and I stay with them.

I can tell you that I have seen first hand the successes that can be achieved by giving people autonomy while lending a caring hand.

Its not a panacea for everything, but I think it shows there is hope for developing a system that maximizes the quality of life for people in these conditions and benefits society.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If nobody else is prepared to look after the mentally ill I think it is incumbent on government to fill that need.

A lot of mentally ill people don't even know why what they do is wrong. It breaks my heart to see so many people, equipped as they are, equivalent to children, left all alone to cope.

I agree with your sentiment.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Government would need to know who is sick, mandatory mental examination performed by the government hmmmm

If you don't like them does that makes you crazy?

Government deciding who is ill and who is fit, could end too fascist

Just add Lithium in the water to prevent craziness like they put fluoride to prevent caries, what could go wrong



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

How would you know if a person is mentally ill if they have no such record? Usually families either never knew or deny out of love or have "boiling frog syndrome".
And to what point would you consider a person mentally ill enough not to be allowed to own guns? We all suffered depression and various ailments at some points in our lives. And many people suffer depression. And some of them have records of seeing psychiatrists. Should we ban them from owning guns?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If treatment facilities are available, they'd be put to use.

Here in Oregon there is always a waiting list for the limited beds available for treatment facilities for mental illness. Usual wait lists are anywhere from 60 to 100 people constantly waiting or "on the lest" to go to a facility.


That's insane. (pardon the pun)

If someone comes in or a parent or spouse reports someone, there is a 100 people already ahead of them in line all wanting and having just as serious an issue as anyone else.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

While we are at it, someone (other than the pharmaceutical industry) needs to look into the effects of these new drugs being prescribed. Two things every mass shooting in recent memory have in common: guns and some mind altering prescription medication.

Think there is no connection? Read some of the side effects of Abilify.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Let's say the government gives more aid to the mental health facilities and the mentally ill people get all the help they want. Then what? Will we trust them enough? Will the government trust them? Should we trust the government? See that's the problem. Like my example with severe depression. We've all been there. Some people might suffer depression again to a point where they break and start harming self and others.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: DBCowboy

While we are at it, someone (other than the pharmaceutical industry) needs to look into the effects of these new drugs being prescribed. Two things every mass shooting in recent memory have in common: guns and some mind altering prescription medication.

Think there is no connection? Read some of the side effects of Abilify.


It takes (on average) 7 years for a new drug to get through all phases of the FDA pipeline.

The FDA knows good and well.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Why can't we focus on getting people well?

Why is that such an issue here?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No there are other means.

I work with people with mental health issues or disabilities.

These people live in homes or apartments and I stay with them.

I can tell you that I have seen first hand the successes that can be achieved by giving people autonomy while lending a caring hand.

Its not a panacea for everything, but I think it shows there is hope for developing a system that maximizes the quality of life for people in these conditions and benefits society.


That was actually what I was going to say.

Locking people up in mental health institutions should be the last resort in my view.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Why can't we focus on getting people well?

Why is that such an issue here?


That isn't the issue. The issue is the government involvement. And we've all seen how the government involvement in the mental health facilities. Heck we see that a lot with the VA hospitals.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

How many are armed?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because the definition of well is sketchy, 30 years ago homosexuals where considered mentally ill and in need of correction, who knows what will be considered "well" in 30 years.

Do you want your corrupt and incompetent politician deciding who gets what for being as they are?

I thought you were for smaller government, not more draconian one



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sadly it's obvious they don't care.

The corporation has no need for negative revenue commodities.

Look around for other assets being treated a similar way.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Why can't we focus on getting people well?

Why is that such an issue here?


That isn't the issue. The issue is the government involvement. And we've all seen how the government involvement in the mental health facilities. Heck we see that a lot with the VA hospitals.


I know.

That's made it difficult for me to even formulate this type of compromise.

It goes beyond the shooter and guns though. It is a wide-spread problem that is only getting worse and is being poorly addressed.

I don't like it.

But maybe it is the only viable solution.

Unless you or someone else can come up with something better?

I'd entertain anything to treat the myriad of mental health issues that plague our nation.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because the definition of well is sketchy, 30 years ago homosexuals where considered mentally ill and in need of correction, who knows what will be considered "well" in 30 years.

Do you want your corrupt and incompetent politician deciding who gets what for being as they are?

I thought you were for smaller government, not more draconian one


I am for a smaller government.

Hell, it's okay to tell me I'm nuts.

I'm just offering a possible solution. I can easily be wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join