"It's Easier for the Mentally Ill to get a Gun than Adequate Health Care"

The mentally ill have rights too. And those rights should not be taken away. If they have not done anything wrong, then go on about your business. If they break the law, as many non-mentally ill people do, then punish them.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Of course, health care for all is too democratic..... even socialistic, so it must remain private. Guns, of course, are another matter.

Small doses of Governmental Healthcare, within a frame of sound financing (European Models) is certainly a good idea. Another good idea is temporary gun-confiscation for political events.

But seeing those as the only solutions is too simple. Back in the 60s we started with the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and we went too far with that. It became a taboo, and offense to point out mentally ill people. This taboo likely goes back to bullies putting people down for being "retards". But things went to the other extreme and the insane were labelled "creative" and "just a little different". Thats why, if I spot someone who would need psychiatric assistance, I dont dare say so because people would say I am "stigmatizing" him. There are a lot of people running around in public and online who would require some assistance. Like a previous poster said, they themselves would be reluctant to admit it. So if they wont say so, who will...

A couple of thoughts:

1) It is not difficult to get psychiatric care, counseling, med management, etc. if you want it. Medicare, medicaid and other existing programs in most states provide these things at nominal costs. In my state, monthly prescriptions for most antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood stabilizers are .50 to 2.00 to get filled.

2) There used to be substantial in-patient psychiatric facilities in most states...funded by the tax payer. During the Kennedy administration, the "deinstitutionalization" movement caused them to be shut down. The folks that would have been safely contained and treated in those facilities were cut loose and referred into "community-based treatment" which , while providing a feel-good solution to using large state mental facilities, resulted in the homelessness and dangerousness problem we see now.

2) Loughner likely had access to pretty good health care - he just chose not to use it, and his parents and law enforcement in his community were unable (or refused) to compel psychiatric intervention.

3) The gun Loughner used during the shootings costs (new) about 600 bucks. That's not including all the other crap he spent his and his parents' money on - booze, weed, digital cameras, etc.

4) The standard now for mandatory psychiatric intervention is that of dangerousness - does the individual pose a significant risk of harm to himself or others by virtue of a disease process. The standard should be the need for treatment as assessed by a qualified clinician.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Additionally, with what some people pay monthly for mental health care, you could easily buy a couple of guns.

The converse of this statement is that, for what some people pay for a couple of guns, they could easily buy several months of mental health care.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Of course, health care for all is too democratic..... even socialistic, so it must remain private. Guns, of course, are another matter.

Small doses of Governmental Healthcare, within a frame of sound financing (European Models) is certainly a good idea. Another good idea is temporary gun-confiscation for political events.

Don't we already have these things here in the U. S.?

Reply to post by liejunkie01

Yeah you could pick up a cheap high point for less than $200 but that's about it.

They claim Loughners was $400-$500. That's about three times as much as my insurance payments without employer assistance.

Careful when going after the "cheap gun." That excuse has been used to disarm the lower class for decades. Can't let those poor people in rough neighborhoods be able to defend themselves.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms which is a totally different subject but I do believe there needs to be a better system to weed out the mentally unstable. For instance make all new gun purchasers take a MMPI test or something similiar..
MMPI ,The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is one of the most frequently used personality test in mental health. The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology.
Here in Oklahoma if one wants to become a armed private investigator or armed security guard they have to take a MMPI test.

MMPI Info

reply to post by Oklastatefan


Yes, the MMPI is one of the most useful tools ever. But I'm not sure how this could be implemented without violating one's rights.

But surely there should be more safeguards in place for these purchases. But it's figuring out how to do it, then getting people to accept it. I'm not opposed to gun ownership either, really. My father always had one. It stayed in the closet in his bedroom, and we knew not to ever touch it. I've even had shooting lessons, myself.

But other than for hunting, now that we have tasers, I don't know why anybody would want one for self protection.
(I want a taser).

Originally posted by MMPI2

Don't we already have these things here in the U. S.?

Loughner had a gun...

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by MMPI2

Don't we already have these things here in the U. S.?

Loughner had a gun...

Uh...yeah.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Yes we need fair, adquete and AFFORDABLE Health care. No one should be forced to purchase health care either. I don't see why it is such a big issue when DRS won't even see a person without payment up front or health insurance. (except for hospitals.) You can't exactly walk into the ER and get mental help either. Unless you are committing sucide they just send you home. I have had a a severe panic attack once where I could not breath and seeing blue/purple spots. I was out of there in 5 minutes. They did not prescribe me medicine or even tell me to go toa psychistrist or therapist.
If a person can't get diagnosised there is no way for that information to be found out so it would immpossible unless someone takes some sort of test prior to getting a gun.

Originally posted by MMPI2

Uh...yeah.

I dont think you should be allowed to take a gun into speeches, events, talks, gatherings involving political figures.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by MMPI2

Uh...yeah.

I dont think you should be allowed to take a gun into speeches, events, talks, gatherings involving political figures.

Within the state I live, you are not allowed to carry a sidearm into a political rally, event, public (government) rally or speech, into a church, school, library, courthouse or other publically owned/maintained building. This is true even if you have a concealed weapons permit.

My guess is that this law is pretty standard, and Loughner would have been prohibited by law from having a firearm at the rally in the safeway parking lot. The law failed though.

Many good points here.

Mental illness 2000 years ago till even now by some was aligned with a punishment from God for a "sin". By the 20th Cen it morphed into having a connection to bad parenting. Perhaps this tragedy will refocus discussion of mental illness, such as Mr. Loughner's apparent schizophrenia, as a disorder of the brain, treatable as a physical disorder.

Yes, when CA closed their institutions under Ronald Reagan's term as governor, both liberals and conservatives were happy. Liberal thought viewed the system as deplorable conditions and violation of rights. Conservatives washed their hands of state run institutions, applauding a less costly community based system, which quickly lacked resources, and forced the burden of care on the family (resulting in, for example, the police system coming to the aide of an 80 lb elderly mother whose 300 lb son barricaded himself in a bathroom refusing to take his meds).

And of course the growing pharmaceutical industry loved the income from their pills that would "cure" the problems of the old system.

Discussing mental illness still remains taboo, resulting in some surprising ignorance. My co-workers at the lunch table believed that someone mentally ill, like Loughner, couldn't have the mental process to come up with a plan to commit a crime. Such thinking can lead to prisons being the new institutions for mentally ill people.

Ignorance also will deny the fact of Mr. Loughner's descent into personal hell and the effect on the family. People could have good things to say about him in younger years and say it was all due to mind control, etc.

When a family gives birth to a sweet, darling baby, there is no thought that mental illness could one day surface. Too often the family hides in shame and embarrassment when mental illness strikes. We show compassion and helpfulness when children suffer physical ailments, but are reluctant to show that same caring when it comes to mental suffering.

Mental illness is not a "sin" or the result of potty training gone wrong. Let the discussion begin by asking those friends/family you know how they handled mentally illness of those they love. Ask with compassion and you will get some surprising answers.

Until such discussion takes place, society will remain ignorant about mental illness and unable to offer effective help to those in need...or prevent another tragedy.

reply to post by MMPI2

1) It is not difficult to get psychiatric care, counseling, med management, etc. if you want it. Medicare, medicaid and other existing programs in most states provide these things at nominal costs. In my state, monthly prescriptions for most antidepressants, antipsychotics and mood stabilizers are .50 to 2.00 to get filled.

These statements are true. In Theory.

After many psychiatric hospitalizations were found to be unconstitutional in the early 70's, (Wyatt vs. Stickney, 1972, I can't believe I remember that -- but I guess we were "force-fed" this information, because that's when the criteria for involuntary commitment came out) there were "local mental health centers" springing up to provide follow up services to those discharged.

Problem: The MHC in my city serves five counties. They are state funded, and money for MH services doesn't seem to be high on agendas lately.

People toss around the words "Medicaid and Medicare" like they are easy to get. Just stroll into the Medicaid office and pick up an application. Right. Easier said than done. The criteria for meeting those agencies services are steep. Very steep. Firstly, you need to be diagnosed with a major mental illness, and secondly, how will you become diagnosed if you can't afford to see a psychiatrist in the first place?

The MH center in my city stays so booked, patients have to call two months in advance to see someone. Now, if you walk in the door with a 38 pointed to your skull, or someone else's, they might work you in.

But sure, mental health services are plentiful. Provided you have the money to pay for it.

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

 

Yes, a stigma does exist and mental illness is a taboo in most, if not all, countries on this big blue planet. The statement by the good doctor is relevant to the direction our society continues to head in. I have engaged in nonsensical conversations with board members who believe equal health care is a step towards Socialism and shouldn't be considered a right. Health care is as much a right as is education and the right to bear arms falls a long way down the list. Education and health care advances society, not guns.

Well first we have to have someplace to live and something to eat just to sustain our life, and as you can see all around you, we do not, and soon will not, only the very wealthy will survive and we will die like they want us to. But I wonder WHO THE HECK will do all the tedious work for them?
They don't give a damn about us as long as they have what they need.

Reply to post by Skyfloating

While we're at it somebody should pass a law that makes murder illegal.

Oh yeah, it has been for the whole of western civilization.

Without forming a lock tight perimeter and strip searching everyone who wishes to pass it no law is ever going to stop anyone from doing what Loughner did.

The law you want is in place for schools. Never had a school shooting prior to that law funny that. After the law...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Paying to get help is very expensive and going to get help is just the beggining of the battle. Sometimes it takes years and years of testing medications on a person to find the right one. When you are hospitalised they send you to a facility and make you take all things that would hurt you away and they tend you put you in a room with bars and nothing but a bed and a bathroom with no door lock where you share a room with one other person. Then they tend to keep you drugged up to make sure you dont combat the staff. Sometimes they dont check your physiology to see how much your body can take as some people are more sensitive to drugs than others. You get a feeling of being a criminal in there. And you hope you get a good doctor that will understand you.

reply to post by FutureIsWild


I can see that someone has been watching too many B movies or has an overly active imagination... I have worked in both private, state and federal and have been a patient numerous times in psychiatric hospitals, I have never seen rooms with bars any of them.... You are very likely to be placed on numerous different drugs and charged outrageous amounts of money in a private facility.. They are often times where rich people send their delinquent brats to prevent them from serving jail time and expensive lawsuit or criminal charges... The treatment received in government ran facilities have much more effective treatment programs but the food sucks.... Funny how rich kids who's families have been milked dry by the private care units after their insurance played out and sent to a state hospital end up leaving in far better shape than they would with a much longer stay in a private facility.... What happened in the 80s after Reagan was elected was that those people that had chronic conditions were moved to private or corporate owned facilities that hired former state employs that had been laid off when the patients were shuffled out... That was hell for both the patients and staff and the tax payers took a bad screwing also... The only time that veterans have ever received decent treatment has been when a Democrat was in the White House even if Fox News says otherwise and veterans buy into it.... The reason I have rambled the way I have is to point out that people were able to afford to get care for mental health care before 1980 or get into a state hospital without having to hurt or kill somebody or even be committed if they weren't so messed that they didn't know they needed to be.... The health care system we have now isn't working except for those that are getting filthy rich exploiting the sick... Until everyone is able to get medical care we can expect incidents like what happened in Tuscon to be repeated.

Originally posted by hypervigilant
reply to post by FutureIsWild

 

I can see that someone has been watching too many B movies or has an overly active imagination... I have worked in both private, state and federal and have been a patient numerous times in psychiatric hospitals, I have never seen rooms with bars any of them.... You are very likely to be placed on numerous different drugs and charged outrageous amounts of money in a private facility.. They are often times where rich people send their delinquent brats to prevent them from serving jail time and expensive lawsuit or criminal charges... The treatment received in government ran facilities have much more effective treatment programs but the food sucks.... Funny how rich kids who's families have been milked dry by the private care units after their insurance played out and sent to a state hospital end up leaving in far better shape than they would with a much longer stay in a private facility.... What happened in the 80s after Reagan was elected was that those people that had chronic conditions were moved to private or corporate owned facilities that hired former state employs that had been laid off when the patients were shuffled out... That was hell for both the patients and staff and the tax payers took a bad screwing also... The only time that veterans have ever received decent treatment has been when a Democrat was in the White House even if Fox News says otherwise and veterans buy into it.... The reason I have rambled the way I have is to point out that people were able to afford to get care for mental health care before 1980 or get into a state hospital without having to hurt or kill somebody or even be committed if they weren't so messed that they didn't know they needed to be.... The health care system we have now isn't working except for those that are getting filthy rich exploiting the sick... Until everyone is able to get medical care we can expect incidents like what happened in Tuscon to be repeated.

edit on 17-1-2011 by hypervigilant because: (no reason given)

Try alverado childrens mental hospital yes they do have bars on the window and they do drug you up i know cause i went there when i was little so dont tell me i have an over active "imagination" Some of the staff acted ruthless and some were good. I relate some of the staff to act in the same manner as cops with power. Some of the staff would tease these kids and if you spoke back you would get a bad notch on your status. Depending on your behavior would determine how long you would stay before going to out patient.