Which political party is healthiest for health care?

[mizzou]

old article : http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/17/why-cant-america-care-for-mentally-ill/

In looking at the crisis of mental illness in this country...who is best suited to tackle this ominous problem?

Is it "Access" to affordable health care, a'la democrats?

Truthfully, I don't know what the republicans or independant/libertarian point of views are on this...other then it is NOT affordable health care.

After nearly 2 terms of Obama in office, I feel like the quality of mental health care in this country is getting worse, or at best not getting better.

We still have homeless roaming around the streets, and usually these are people with mental illness issues. This prevents them from getting a job and merging into regular society.

There is no "cure" for mental illness...but why does it seem like in the USA, they seem to cause so many more problems?

If you happen to work for a hospital or other first responder type jobs, or even social work level (Teachers, etc.) you are often faced with these issues on a huge level...yet it seems like there are never any options to appropriately deal with someone who has violent tendencies.

So when I head to the voting booth...who might best handle these issues?

Historically, the status of the economy might be the best indicator to see how well we are on the mental health spectrum... but if mental illness is caused by work related stress/poverty...shouldn't this be treatable in some manner? It might be more difficult to treat inherited genetic problems....or social problems like having horrible parents....but if it's just basic life needs, I'm sure there is a better plan out there then we have now.


2016: Let's have a discussion about mental health, for once in a @#%!ing time!

 

[Zaap]

Neither.

The fact that we've allowed our corrupt and idiotic politicians as much control over out health as we already have is already a collosal blunder. Diving into the same cesspool even deeper no matter which gang of twits is in charge is an even worse idea.

Neither party gives a flying shit about anyone's actual health other than how it can be used as a political football against the other team.

 

[theeedude]

You can see what Reagan did with mental health funding. Block granted it to the states, and cut it, which resulted in more untreated mentally ill on the streets and in prisons.
Now GOP wants to try the same approach with Medicaid and Medicare.

 

[Anarchist420]

physician assisted suicide should not only be legalized in Virginia, but it should be promoted to intellectually disabled people like me.

"mental health" is bullshit. you are either smart enough to be productive or you are not smart enough to be productive. you are either violent or you are not violent. the majority in every county should be independent, free, and sovereign. if you commit aggression in the county i am a Citizen of, then it should be dealt with locally by direct democracy. that is really all there is to it.

 

[werepossum]

Neither.

The fact that we've allowed our corrupt and idiotic politicians as much control over out health as we already have is already a collosal blunder. Diving into the same cesspool even deeper no matter which gang of twits is in charge is an even worse idea.

Neither party gives a flying shit about anyone's actual health other than how it can be used as a political football against the other team.

True, but the Democrats are more willing to throw money at the problem and some of that money reaches people who do care. I think a lot of homeless people are mentally ill and vice versa. If we would commit the money to institutionalize them, they might get better and at the least they wouldn't be homeless.

You can see what Reagan did with mental health funding. Block granted it to the states, and cut it, which resulted in more untreated mentally ill on the streets and in prisons.
Now GOP wants to try the same approach with Medicaid and Medicare.

Yeah, that's what happened. It was all Reagan. It's always Reagan. In this case he reached back in time to 1963 and bitch-slapped JFK to force him into changing the way mental illness is treated. Time-traveling Reagan bitch-slapped JFK so hard that it revolutionized the mental health profession.

http://www.thenationalcouncil.org/a...ciation/overview/community-mental-health-act/

President John F. Kennedy calls for a "bold new approach" and creates comprehensive community care by signing into law the Community Health Act, which authorizes federal grants for construction of public or nonprofit community mental health centers (CMHCs) to provide inpatient, outpatient, partial hospitalization, emergency care, and consultation/education services.

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/9/1/1.abstract

Abstract

In recent decades the community mental health movement has achieved a dramatic reduction in the census of state and county mental hospitals in the United States, and hundreds of federally-funded community mental health centers have been established nationwide. At the same time, national controversy has arisen in response to what in places has seemed the haphazard process of implementing “deinstitutionalization” and the fate of many chronically mentally ill persons who are without needed social services and psychological care. Despite the widespread attention that this contemporary program has received, theoretical analysis of the complex social, scientific, intellectual, and political origins of America's community mental health policy remains deficient. This article examines the background and development of the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, tracing how an important shift in national policy toward the mentally ill grew out of changing perceptions—among policymakers, professional groups, and the general citizenry in the post-World War II era—of the nature of the problem of mental illness.

A bit of biographical history touching on why these changes were made and how things got better, then ultimately got worse. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/m...ually-lost-his-mind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Before Kennedy, mental health was a state function. After Kennedy, treatment centered on outpatient services, partially in recognition of promising new drugs and also in recognition of atrocious conditions in mental health institutions but in large part because of the civil rights and patient rights movements. At that point mental health was still a state issue, but the federal government offered grants for specified facilities and programs. Reagan changed this to block grants because it's more fair and can more easily respond to actual needs rather than building yet another outpatient facility because that's what is getting grant approval at the moment. We're in the state not only because mental health funds have been cut by a lot of Presidents (via Congress, of course - which in Reagan's time always meant a Democrat-controlled House and usually a Democrat-controlled Senate, but clearly Reagan is responsible for everything you don't like) and state legislatures, but also because as part of the civil rights movement we accepted that it is not right to lock people up unless they are a clear danger to themselves and others. Depriving someone of freedom because a doctor or family think they are not rational is not necessarily a good thing, although I do agree that we've gone too far in the other direction, so that people who cannot function also often cannot be locked up. There is however still a strong patients' rights movement arguing that locking someone up simply because they are mentally ill violates their rights. We've moved our money from inpatient care to medication, to the point that there are not enough beds for people who doctors would otherwise involuntarily admit at least short term.

 

[Zaap]

True, but the Democrats are more willing to throw money at the problem and some of that money reaches people who do care. I think a lot of homeless people are mentally ill and vice versa. If we would commit the money to institutionalize them, they might get better and at the least they wouldn't be homeless.

Democrats love to toss other people's money in unsustainable quantities at problems (while creating new problems and making the old ones even worse) and then not give a shit where it lands or even what percentage of it actually reaches the most in need vs the legions of leeches their fiscal stupidity attracts. Hell, according to Democrat "logic" we can throw open the border and toss money to the entire world's "needy". Why worry about our home grown needy? Dims want to bring in millions upon millions more because they might scam a few votes out of it at some point after granting blanket amnesty. Both parties suck, but fiscally the Dims are the last with any real solutions to anything. They're too busy creating more strife for political gain.

Getting all political hack assholes and their vote-buying/hostage setups out of the way of healthcare would be best, but were hellbent on doing things the stupid way.

Also, institionalizing someone regardless of which bunch of drunken sailor politicians Is throwing around wads of other people's cash, is way easier yapped about than done. I defy anyone to give it a try here in LA. It would be a fun exercise to teach the shut-in bleeding hearts a dose or reality. Even to try hospitalizing someone without their consent (and those that need it most are the least likely to give it) and you'd find yourself slapped with an ACLU lawsuit faster than you'll get anyone into an institution. You just can't go and commit someone just because they are homeless, and not even if they are crazy, so long as they aren't a danger to others. (Some would say "to themselves" but the reality of that is bullshit, of course a person on the street with mental issues is a danger to themselves but that won't fly by itself in a legal sense.)

 

[theeedude]

Reagan changed this to block grants because it's more fair and can more easily respond to actual needs.

That's the theory, same one the GOP is peddling on Medicaid and Medicare, and all the other things they want to block grant to the states. How did that work out with mental health? Were the actual needs of the mentally ill met?
I guess if you believe it, you can continue believing that block granting other health programs will meet the needs of those they are intended to serve.

 

[Vic]

Neither.

The fact that we've allowed our corrupt and idiotic politicians as much control over out health as we already have is already a collosal blunder. Diving into the same cesspool even deeper no matter which gang of twits is in charge is an even worse idea.

Neither party gives a flying shit about anyone's actual health other than how it can be used as a political football against the other team.

Politicians might all be scoundrels but doing nothing isn't free.

 

[Zaap]

Politicians might all be scoundrels but doing nothing isn't free.

Pretending "doing nothing" is the alternative to allowing politicians to fuck up healthcare is a strawman.

Keep political hacks and their crazy agendas out of the way of the healthcare system and leave healthcare to people who are actually experts in that field, the same way every other field should be left to experts.

The only legitimate role of politics in health should be the setting and enforcing of reasonable laws and guidelines (and even then, ONLY under the advice and counsel of experienced health experts, and based on actual research and data, not more political hack/agenda/cover-up/face-saving bullshit) and to address legal problems that occur in the system. Beyond that, keep political bullshit as far away from people's health as humanly possible.

 

[trenchfoot]

Pretending "doing nothing" is the alternative to allowing politicians to fuck up healthcare is a strawman.

Keep political hacks and their crazy agendas out of the way of the healthcare system and leave healthcare to people who are actually experts in that field, the same way every other field should be left to experts.

The only legitimate role of politics in health should be the setting and enforcing of reasonable laws and guidelines (and even then, ONLY under the advice and counsel of experienced health experts, and based on actual research and data, not more political hack/agenda/cover-up/face-saving bullshit) and to address legal problems that occur in the system. Beyond that, keep political bullshit as far away from people's health as humanly possible.

In some ways what you say makes sense. However, the largest part of the health care industry is in the business of making as much profit as possible from the sick, the infirm, the elderly and the unfortunate in lieu of providing health care for those who can't afford it. Thus, the gov't is forced to step in where the for-profit health care providers absolutely refuse to go.

The idea of providing health care for all is anathema for those health care corporatists who are in it to milk the sick and injured for every penny they can get out of them.

If left to their own devices, these opportunistic profiteers would have the citizens who cannot give them a profit just park themselves on a deserted curb somewhere and die.

Unfortunately, here in the USA, the profit motive speaks much louder than any of the higher callings for compassion, for helping our fellow citizens who are victims of circumstances and for advancing the larger goal of protecting our way of life through having a healthy population that can better defend and promote democracy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In some ways what you say makes sense. However, the largest part of the health care industry is in the business of making as much profit as possible from the sick, the infirm, the elderly and the unfortunate in lieu of providing health care for those who can't afford it. Thus, the gov't is forced to step in where the for-profit health care providers absolutely refuse to go.

The idea of providing health care for all is anathema for those health care corporatists who are in it to milk the sick and injured for every penny they can get out of them.

If left to their own devices, these opportunistic profiteers would have the citizens who cannot give them a profit just park themselves on a deserted curb somewhere and die.

Unfortunately, here in the USA, the profit motive speaks much louder than any of the higher callings for compassion, for helping our fellow citizens who are victims of circumstances and for advancing the larger goal of protecting our way of life through having a healthy population that can better defend and promote democracy.

The real problem lies in your sig.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's the theory, same one the GOP is peddling on Medicaid and Medicare, and all the other things they want to block grant to the states. How did that work out with mental health? Were the actual needs of the mentally ill met?
I guess if you believe it, you can continue believing that block granting other health programs will meet the needs of those they are intended to serve.

You are either lying or ignorant. Problems were exacerbated by funding problems, but the problem with institutions was institutionalized bureaucratic disregard for conditions which existed and that's what you embrace. The courts found that the whole system so perverse that inmates were released wholesale just to get them away from it. The story of mental health treatment is an atrocious testament of what happens when a bureaucracy becomes a power unto itself and the consequences thereof. Whether it's private or not didn't matter, and something you embrace. You want Byberry back.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Clearly, it's the party that supports healthcare companies that opperate for profits.

Because that is what someone who needs medical attention (mental, physical, whatever) should be subjected to; will treating this person yield less profits for the company?

If yes, don't treat them, or give them services and treatment that is subpar,... even if they ARE paying $750 a month.

 

[theeedude]

You are either lying or ignorant. Problems were exacerbated by funding problems, but the problem with institutions was institutionalized bureaucratic disregard for conditions which existed and that's what you embrace. The courts found that the whole system so perverse that inmates were released wholesale just to get them away from it. The story of mental health treatment is an atrocious testament of what happens when a bureaucracy becomes a power unto itself and the consequences thereof. Whether it's private or not didn't matter, and something you embrace. You want Byberry back.

The mentally ill being in prison, homeless, or killing themselves and others is so much better.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You are either lying or ignorant. Problems were exacerbated by funding problems, but the problem with institutions was institutionalized bureaucratic disregard for conditions which existed and that's what you embrace. The courts found that the whole system so perverse that inmates were released wholesale just to get them away from it. The story of mental health treatment is an atrocious testament of what happens when a bureaucracy becomes a power unto itself and the consequences thereof. Whether it's private or not didn't matter, and something you embrace. You want Byberry back.

And the solution to those problems was to dump them all on the street (see Reagan)?

 

[werepossum]

Clearly, it's the party that supports healthcare companies that opperate for profits.

Because that is what someone who needs medical attention (mental, physical, whatever) should be subjected to; will treating this person yield less profits for the company?

If yes, don't treat them, or give them services and treatment that is subpar,... even if they ARE paying $750 a month.

Funny, I'd have sworn that the entity who stands to lose that profit if you are dissatisfied and go elsewhere would be a lot more responsive that the entity who is not affected one whit by your dissatisfaction because your patronage is made mandatory by men with guns.

 

[werepossum]

And the solution to those problems was to dump them all on the street (see Reagan)?

Idiot. That did not start with Reagan, it started with Kennedy, and the reason was not to dump them on the street but to afford better, more compassionate treatment with outpatient options and medication in line with the civil rights movement of the day, moving away from merely locking up mentally ill people and keeping them from harming (or irritating) other people. Reagan's change was to change the federal government doling out grants as it wished (which also largely started with Kennedy, in order to move away from institutionalization as a standard practice) to block grants to the states, with the states deciding what they needed.

Everybody concentrates on the unfortunate mentally ill homeless people, but to those with a mental illness treatable by medication, not being locked up for life and forgotten is a godsend.

 

[Vic]

Pretending "doing nothing" is the alternative to allowing politicians to fuck up healthcare is a strawman.

Keep political hacks and their crazy agendas out of the way of the healthcare system and leave healthcare to people who are actually experts in that field, the same way every other field should be left to experts.

The only legitimate role of politics in health should be the setting and enforcing of reasonable laws and guidelines (and even then, ONLY under the advice and counsel of experienced health experts, and based on actual research and data, not more political hack/agenda/cover-up/face-saving bullshit) and to address legal problems that occur in the system. Beyond that, keep political bullshit as far away from people's health as humanly possible.

Your ideology is lovely but reality is somewhat different.
In reality, the people most in need of health care services (the sick and the elderly) tend to be the least able to afford it.
In reality, if a person can't pay their medical bills, they file for bankruptcy and the doctor still doesn't get paid.
In reality, the health care industry wants government dollars, because they know that their best clients can't pay (just ask Rick Scott).
In reality, the people want government involvement in health care, because they don't want to trip over the sick and dying on the street (or end up as one of those).

Let me know when you're interested in a little pragmatism.

 

[Zaap]

Your ideology is lovely but reality is somewhat different.
In reality, the people most in need of health care services (the sick and the elderly) tend to be the least able to afford it.
In reality, if a person can't pay their medical bills, they file for bankruptcy and the doctor still doesn't get paid.
In reality, the health care industry wants government dollars, because they know that their best clients can't pay (just ask Rick Scott).
In reality, the people want government involvement in health care, because they don't want to trip over the sick and dying on the street (or end up as one of those).

Let me know when you're interested in a little pragmatism.

Everything is a screeching extreme in your goofy little world. "Everyone will die in the streets!!!! Doctors' best clients can't pay them!!!! SCREEEEECH!!!"

You need to get out of your basement and into reality and then maybe you'll stumble on an actual argument that isn't just you screeching out random political terms that you barely know the meaning of.

 

[brianmanahan]

physician assisted suicide should not only be legalized in Virginia, but it should be promoted to intellectually disabled people like me.

cmon son

thats messed up

 

[Vic]

Everything is a screeching extreme in your goofy little world. "Everyone will die in the streets!!!! Doctors' best clients can't pay them!!!! SCREEEEECH!!!"

You need to get out of your basement and into reality and then maybe you'll stumble on an actual argument that isn't just you screeching out random political terms that you barely know the meaning of.

Ok.. you're an idiot.

 

[brianmanahan]

Ok.. you're an idiot.

either that, or he is just using a clever saved by the bell reference :awe:

 

[Incorruptible]

Ok.. you're an idiot.

Wrong. You want government involvement in healthcare and are against the free market so you're the idiot.

 

[Vic]

Wrong. You want government involvement in healthcare and are against the free market so you're the idiot.

No, what I said is that both the people and the healthcare industry want government involvement in healthcare.

 

[Incorruptible]

No, what I said is that both the people and the healthcare industry want government involvement in healthcare.

Doesn't matter. It violates freedom and isn't the role of government. If people want more restriction on free speech do we just accept it?