Universal Mental Healthcare Insurance

[MrSquished]

why doesn't someone propose this and see if the gun nuts shoot it down or not?

 

[zerocool84]

Republicans do not want universal Healthcare..... Unless it Medicare of course.

It's against their "Christian" ideals. Mental Healthcare is the same as general Healthcare so you can't have one without the other.

 

[soulcougher73]

Republicans do not want universal Healthcare..... Unless it Medicare of course.

It's against their "Christian" ideals. Mental Healthcare is the same as general Healthcare so you can't have one without the other.

Maybe Christians could roll actual free charity healthcare like Jesus did. He didnt ask for payment....

I mean if they want to be closer to god and as christ like as possible in order to get into heaven, its the logical first step

 

[MrSquished]

Republicans do not want universal Healthcare..... Unless it Medicare of course.

It's against their "Christian" ideals. Mental Healthcare is the same as general Healthcare so you can't have one without the other.

Well since they are crying for mental healthcare to prevent mass shootings, let's see if they put their money where there mouth is and then call them out on it. Purposely separate mental healthcare insurance into a proposal, and see how they come out for it or against it.

 

[interchange]

Mental Healthcare is the same as general Healthcare so you can't have one without the other.

Not necessarily. Some plans used to not include mental health coverage at all, but the ACA undid that. Still, some things may not be covered (psychotherapy, residential substance treatment, intensive outpatient/partial hospital programs, etc.), and I believe but am not sure of the boundaries of this anymore, plans may have separate deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and maximums for mental health services. I know some insurances cover psychotherapy, for instance, but reimburse at such a low rate that no one of any merit will get on their panel or be available for new patients for months if at all leaving people paying cash or out of network for supposedly covered services.

As always, mental healthcare gets the short end of the stick.

 

[pauldun170]

why doesn't someone propose this and see if the gun nuts shoot it down or not?

They will shoot it down because the "Mental Health" angle is misdirection. The mental health discussion is exactly that. A discussion. It is not meant to result in tangible results.
The ACTUAL purpose of the mental health discussion is to drive gun sales and feed the paranoia culture that Americans embrace. To say "There are crazy people out there, therefore it is imperative that you arm your self in order to protect yourself from crazy people".
It's another page out of the playbook

It has the benefit of derailing any discussion around guns using "whataboutism" and the ability to change to another emotional topic.
"What about people with mental health problems? Don't you think that that by addressing the mental health issues in this country that we could help prevent another tragedy?"
It forces the other side to address a new topic and takes away from the gun debate.

Once the mental health issue is focused on, it turns into the same old talking points about the US health system.

 

[jackstar7]

why doesn't someone propose this and see if the gun nuts shoot it down or not?

Good choice of words.

Also, "honest folks" don't trust head-shrinkers.

 

[glenn1]

why doesn't someone propose this and see if the gun nuts shoot it down or not?

Without details it's impossible to say. If you're talking about universal coverage for the severely mentally ill homeless person who is already prone to violent outbursts, that's a very different proposition from giving millions of urban yuppie DINK hours of therapy and a script for "mother's little helper" to treat her seasonal affective disorder. You're talking orders of magnitude of expense here.

 

[MrSquished]

Without details it's impossible to say. If you're talking about universal coverage for the severely mentally ill homeless person who is already prone to violent outbursts, that's a very different proposition from giving millions of urban yuppie DINK hours of therapy and a script for "mother's little helper" to treat her seasonal affective disorder. You're talking orders of magnitude of expense here.

So how do you propose we stop shooters with 'mental illness' then. Would you like to provide a profile for which folks are at risk and propose we only target them with mental healthcare reform?

 

[jackstar7]

Good choice of words.

Also, "honest folks" don't trust head-shrinkers.

Without details it's impossible to say. If you're talking about universal coverage for the severely mentally ill homeless person who is already prone to violent outbursts, that's a very different proposition from giving millions of urban yuppie DINK hours of therapy and a script for "mother's little helper" to treat her seasonal affective disorder. You're talking orders of magnitude of expense here.

There are moments that I wish I had no integrity preventing me from making money off of you people.

 

[zerocool84]

They will shoot it down because the "Mental Health" angle is misdirection. The mental health discussion is exactly that. A discussion. It is not meant to result in tangible results.
The ACTUAL purpose of the mental health discussion is to drive gun sales and feed the paranoia culture that Americans embrace. To say "There are crazy people out there, therefore it is imperative that you arm your self in order to protect yourself from crazy people".
It's another page out of the playbook

It has the benefit of derailing any discussion around guns using "whataboutism" and the ability to change to another emotional topic.
"What about people with mental health problems? Don't you think that that by addressing the mental health issues in this country that we could help prevent another tragedy?"
It forces the other side to address a new topic and takes away from the gun debate.

Once the mental health issue is focused on, it turns into the same old talking points about the US health system.

I was trying to say that to have universal mental health care you have to have universal basic health care because how do you know who needs mental Healthcare or not unless they've explicitly done something to warrant it?

 

[jackstar7]

I was trying to say that to have universal mental health care you have to have universal basic health care because how do you know who needs mental Healthcare or not unless they've explicitly done something to warrant it?

Everyone needs mental healthcare, even just a basic check-up like with physical health.

This would be a nice way to de-stigmatize it.

 

[Indus]

Just make yearly mental health checks required for people to own guns. Sorta like how people have eye checks for driving.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would the GOP support this when they've been crazifying their base for decades?

I mean, working people have to be at least a little crazy to keep voting for trickle down economics.

 

[pauldun170]

I was trying to say that to have universal mental health care you have to have universal basic health care because how do you know who needs mental Healthcare or not unless they've explicitly done something to warrant it?

Are you going to mandate annual mental health screenings?
Will it be a requirement to for all enrollees to speak to a mental health professional on an annual basis?

When it comes to the "gun discussion" and mental health, Health care whether its part of a public plan or private plan nets you next to nothing in terms of preventing mass shootings and have minimal impact on gun deaths.

Universal health care backed by a public insurance plan should be done.
Gun violence isn't one of the drivers for why it should be done.

 

[nOOky]

Who would pay for all this?

 

[jackstar7]

Who would pay for all this?

You. And also your children.

That should cover it.

 

[ivwshane]

Who would pay for all this?

The same people who have been paying for our deficits for decades, no one.

 

[interchange]

So how do you propose we stop shooters with 'mental illness' then. Would you like to provide a profile for which folks are at risk and propose we only target them with mental healthcare reform?

I will say that my signature captures my feelings on this as a mental health provider. If I have a person that I believe is a risk to commit violence, I really cannot take any action unless there is evidence of imminent risk, including removal of firearms beyond recommendation. I also can't cure sociopathy and magically make someone have empathy for potential victims. There's no medication for that and no therapy either, really. However, I can at least be part of recognizing the humanity of someone, caring about them, and helping provide or orient to a sense of positive self worth and power that is not destructive to society. Even if someone doesn't seek services, if someone recognizes that real help could be out there and isn't rejecting, dysfunctional, expensive, impersonal, etc., then that can make a real difference. Even so, a real recognition and compassion for humanity that struggles with mental illness through something like this legislation would go far.

However, I see a lot of these proposals as a way to make something someone else's problem and to dehumanize people as crazy nut-jobs. This function is confirmed by the fact that nothing ever happens or is even proposed after these events to try and improve mental health care. All this just makes people feel more different and rejected and powerless. And that feeling is at the heart of anyone who commits these heinous acts.

 

[balloonshark]

Haven't most of these shooters been identified as crazy and/or dangerous but nobody followed up or could follow up because of current laws? If that's true then we need to fix that issue which I admit is rather delicate.

 

[interchange]

Haven't most of these shooters been identified as crazy and/or dangerous but nobody followed up or could follow up because of current laws? If that's true then we need to fix that issue which I admit is rather delicate.

Crazy? Why dehumanize?

Most? Some have mental health history. The Texas church guy was supposed to have gun rights removed but there was a failure of the military following through. The problem is not the law, though. I honestly think the current law is likely an unjustified restriction of second amendment rights. It is not that I want people with mental illness to have guns. It's just that there is very little data to justify that them having access to guns is a significant risk to society compared to those not receiving services. And if going to get help means getting your rights taken away, lots of people won't get help. I don't see that making anybody's risk lower...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As always, mental healthcare gets the short end of the stick.

And that is always the case no matter who is proposing changes.

Crazy? Why dehumanize?

That's easy but you know it. Pick someone you don't like and make them less than human. Turn them into animals and then you can put the pigs on a spit. A sarcastic generalization I've used "Everyone needs someone else to look down upon", and while it may not be literally true there is some basis as demonstrated by many.

 

[balloonshark]

Crazy? Why dehumanize?

Most? Some have mental health history. The Texas church guy was supposed to have gun rights removed but there was a failure of the military following through. The problem is not the law, though. I honestly think the current law is likely an unjustified restriction of second amendment rights. It is not that I want people with mental illness to have guns. It's just that there is very little data to justify that them having access to guns is a significant risk to society compared to those not receiving services. And if going to get help means getting your rights taken away, lots of people won't get help. I don't see that making anybody's risk lower...

If someone wants to kill a large group of people isn't crazy then please define crazy for me. I'm saying this as someone who has had depression and anxiety for many years and is still being treated.

If someone wants to harm themselves or others that should be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately. I know it was very difficult for me when I was seeking help and met great resistance. That means many who need help that don't seek it are slipping though large cracks. Healthcare and law enforcement should have the tools necessary and tenacity to help these people as the outcome is unacceptable. Or we can keep investigating murders after the fact instead of preventing them.

We need to treat our mentally ill and prisoners much better in this country as it only creates larger problems for society in the long run. Mental health issues are diseases and should be treated like any other physical disease.

 

[glenn1]

So how do you propose we stop shooters with 'mental illness' then. Would you like to provide a profile for which folks are at risk and propose we only target them with mental healthcare reform?

We probably don’t most of the time. It’s much easier to plan and commit an atrocity than to stop one. Besides the mentally ill still have due process rights and taking away rights is still a big deal. That’s a very different discussion then whether to have universal mental healthcare. Or whether universal mental healthcare would appreciably reduce mass casualty events, shootings included. Considering UMHC might cost in the tens or hundreds of billions annually, asking about the scope of “universal” coverage seems reasonable to me.

 

[Darwin333]

Who would pay for all this?

Our various lenders who we never pay back.