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.

 

How to really make America great again.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Mental health is a money loser for any institution. Most who have mental health issues aren't ones with stable jobs and good insurance. We're dealing with scores of homeless, people working minimum wage jobs.


Currently hospitals are taking the load of mental health cases and spreading the cost along services that people do pay for.

That's why you'd see a correlation between the rise in medical costs and the shutting down of mental health facilities in the 80's.


Placing mental health back in control of government would actually enable hospitals to reduce operating costs and provide services at a better rate.

So if government took over mental health care, it would provide better blanket services for those who suffer issues AND reduce routine medical costs.


In my opinion.



A lot of the crazies are also in prisons driving up that cost too... the bulk of the chronic homeless also need to be in mental institutions as well.

A big problem with government and SJWs is that they are really poor at connecting dots and seeing the correlations as to how costs are increased in other areas when addressing issues in an entirely different area.

For example, illegal immigration is rarely tied the identify theft... but that is a huge component of it as illegals use fake socials. Not too mention the prison system housing a disproportionate number of illegals.

Same with homelessness... they won't connect the mental health and drug abuse.

Same with crime... won't connect the culture of single motherhood/welfare to crime

Same with regulations.... won't connect increased costs of goods and services with regulations




posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Well said.




posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Mental health is a money loser for any institution. Most who have mental health issues aren't ones with stable jobs and good insurance. We're dealing with scores of homeless, people working minimum wage jobs.


Currently hospitals are taking the load of mental health cases and spreading the cost along services that people do pay for.

That's why you'd see a correlation between the rise in medical costs and the shutting down of mental health facilities in the 80's.


Placing mental health back in control of government would actually enable hospitals to reduce operating costs and provide services at a better rate.

So if government took over mental health care, it would provide better blanket services for those who suffer issues AND reduce routine medical costs.


In my opinion.



Why would you want to "give the government control over mental health" (whatever that means)? Putting the government in charge of your mental health gives the government the power to decide whether or not you're thinking properly and to force you into thinking the way they believe you ought to. Which sounds like a very bad idea to me. Did you ever think of that? Probably not. But as usual, the people who believe this is just an amazingly good idea will disregard this objection (because they don't really care in the first place) and insist that it's paranoia. Well, paranoia builds forums like ATS. If you trust the government, go somewhere else and lobby for people to be dragged off to prison just for existing.

Frankly, I don't want my government dictating to me how I should be thinking. I don't think you're going to solve a relatively minor problem by creating a much bigger one. And putting the government in charge of our brains is a very big problem in my book. This is an idea that (whenever it has been seriously tried) literally always heralds totalitarian policies.

Go to Wikipedia and type in "Sluggish Schizophrenia" and do a search on that. While you're there, you might as well follow the links and read about all the pleasant stuff that was going on at the same time.

Here. I'll do it for you, since you've obviously never taken the initiative to do your research before you suggest these crazy ideas are going to make America so awesome

edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Mental health is a money loser for any institution. Most who have mental health issues aren't ones with stable jobs and good insurance. We're dealing with scores of homeless, people working minimum wage jobs.


Currently hospitals are taking the load of mental health cases and spreading the cost along services that people do pay for.

That's why you'd see a correlation between the rise in medical costs and the shutting down of mental health facilities in the 80's.


Placing mental health back in control of government would actually enable hospitals to reduce operating costs and provide services at a better rate.

So if government took over mental health care, it would provide better blanket services for those who suffer issues AND reduce routine medical costs.


In my opinion.



A lot of the crazies are also in prisons driving up that cost too... the bulk of the chronic homeless also need to be in mental institutions as well.


What is a mental institution and who pays for it? It's a prison for crazy people. That's what. And what you guys are suggesting would cause many people to end up in mental institutions without due process, which is unconstitutional. If there are so many people in the US who should be in prison for thought crimes, do you honestly believe the process for getting them in there is going to be fair and ethical and constitutional? No. They will just be railroaded off and left to rot. If they have no money or no one to represent them their rights will be completely disregarded. They will be treated worse than animals and you know it. If you don't know it, you haven't really thought about it and shouldn't be supporting it. Unfortunately, you'd be allowed to vote for it without thinking or caring what you were actually voting for.

edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I'm trying not to put a political spin to this.

There are people who really do need help and they aren't getting it.


Medical facilities are swamped, limited state resources are constantly pushed to their limits.


This could resolve many of those issues and honestly care for people suffering.



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I'm trying not to put a political spin to this.


Yes you are. You want to get the government involved in something it has no business doing. Also, you obviously did not read anything on the page I linked to because you posted your reply almost instantly. So you're not even listening or thinking. Not that I am surprised.

What you are suggesting is (in plain English) basically concentration camps. If that's really what you support then you should say it in plain English and see if you can live with it. All so the nice, compliant wage slaves can do their daily work commute without having to see these people.



edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I've had family members that were put in insane asylums and had electric shock therapy. (for things we'd consider mild these days)
It haunts my family to this day.
Right now I do believe prison or the streets are probably a better, but I know what you are saying.

We need more mental healthcare. Not necessarily asylums, maybe ongoing preventative care so it doesn't end up like that.
What people don't want to accept, maybe there are some broken people that aren't fixable and they can't function in normal society. There does need to be a place for them. Where is that place?
edit on 22-9-2018 by JAGStorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: DBCowboy

I've had family members that were put in insane asylums and had electric shock therapy. (for things we'd consider mild these days)
It haunts my family to this day.


That's exactly the kind of thing that I worry about. But there's a lot more to it than that. I don't like the idea that people would end up in what amounts to a prison for thoughtcrimes with little or no due process. I think a lot of people would end up there for no reason other than people didn't like them or something. That would be a massive step backwards.


We need more mental healthcare. Not necessarily asylums, maybe ongoing preventative care so it doesn't end up like that.
What people don't want to accept, maybe there are some broken people that aren't fixable and they can't function in normal society. There does need to be a place for them. Where is that place?


The way I see it, if you have millions of people who do not fit into your idea of what is normal, maybe there's something wrong with your idea of what is normal.

Also, lack of use of birth control is a big reason why we have so many people who society just sees as useless objects who are in the way. And yet when you try to make abortions and birth control more available and more widely used and accepted, you get into serious arguments with the same types of people who want to throw all the homeless people into asylums.

Where do they think these people come from? Thin air? Nope. They come from people who shouldn't have had any kids to begin with.


edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

1. I suspect the home sizing issue is based in construction regulations. There is probably a certain size that it's just not profitable to build because of various regulations, licenses, etc. But without digging into all the regs and zoming laws and really knowing, I'm not certain, and I suspect the excuse that Americans want to live in McMansions is largely a product of marketing more than a desire to live in a large home. I know I neither want nor need a large home.

I also suspect some of this is spurred by a planning desire on the part of our "masters" to force many of us into Agenda 21-type planned communities where we are all apartment living above and around zoned retail and not in our own homes with yards where we can even think about things like gardening like you mention later on.

If the available housing is too expensive for most to afford, then they have no option but to live as the social masters deem appropriate in urban packed spaces.

2. Breaking the back of insurance and pharma would require that people stop expecting for insurance to cover every single expense for them. Let's look at auto and home insurance. I know you complain they're too expensive, but compared to health insurance, they're very affordable. However, does your auto insurance cover every routine repair and maintenance your car needs? No. It doesn't. You expect to pay for oil changes, new tires and brakes, etc., but if you see your doctor for a routine exam or even something minor like a sprain or small stitches, insurance has to pay for it. No one wants to pay anything at all out of pocket.

In order to break insurance, middle-man stranglehold and reverse course on cost, we have to accept that you *do* have to pay the doctor directly for some things, and some of those things might be a bit expensive as in a couple hundred dollars.

If the role of insurance was confined to truly catastrophic things like auto insurance is - major surgeries, catastrophic illness, chronic illness, etc.

Health insurance should be like life insurance that you pick up as policy very, very young and the policy can stay with you through your life. In fact, perhaps your parents start the policy and you carry it as an adult, transferable to you. If it's only expected to cover the really big stuff, then it should cost much less.

Education funding should be tied to zip code. It should be tied to the child and follow the child. If the government of an area decides that every child is to have X amount spent on them/year, then it shouldn't matter where they go so long as the school's students are being educated enough to be accredited by the state.

There is more than one way to educate a child, and not every child will learn under every system available. It's time we recognized this and put some of the responsibility on parents to find what works for their children. I know some parents won't take advantage, but how is that different from now?

I'm not sold on mandatory service so much as the idea that kids should be offered an system of apprenticeships. Kids don't know what they want to do after high school? Maybe if they had a range of things to try. Maybe if businesses offered paid apprenticeships where kids could get their feet wet in fields that interested them, or fields they think they are interested in. Perhaps the programs could be for a signed term with some of the money they earned going toward a potential scholarship fund or schooling program if they decide they really do want to continue on?



posted on Sep, 22 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Easy....keep voting Trump.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join