Will Sympathy Reflect Funding?

Often, when politicians are personally affected by an issue, their perspective changes. A soft on crime victim of crime gets tough. A free wheeling legislator with a family member injured or killed by not wearing a seatbelt, becomes a seatbelt zealot, etc.

With Speaker Richardson’s mental health issues, I wonder about this.

State mental health officials have stopped accepting new patients at their largest psychiatric hospital, as officials address numerous problems with patient safety and treatment.

I suspect we might see him have a new found view of the issues involved in mental healthcare in the state.

17 comments

  1. Technocrat says:

    Why? Private Hospitals offer better care to the College Educated.
    Now if a family member gets attacked and killed by a unencarcerated impulse disordered schizo wandering the streets he might buy family members guns or tazers, PLUS warn them to avoid Religious Zealots of any denomination especially those who are also licensed Psychiatrist.

    ” study by Baylor University researchers found that clergy often deny or dismiss the existence of the mental illness. In a study published in Mental Health, Religion and Culture, researchers found that in a study of 293 Christian church members, more than 32 percent were told by their church pastor that they or their loved one did not really have a mental illness. The study found these church members were told the cause of their problem was solely spiritual in nature, such as a personal sin, lack of faith or demonic involvement. Baylor researchers also found that women were more likely than men to have their mental disorders dismissed by the church.”

    Personal Sin and Demonic Involvement?
    http://newswise.com/articles/view/545316/

  2. Game Fan says:

    from the article:
    “Georgia entered a settlement agreement with the Justice Department in January, but the federal agency has said it can no longer abide by the agreement since it believes the state is not doing enough.”

    So GA entered into agreement with the Justice Dept. and now the Justice Dept. can no longer abide by the agreement? Doesn’t actually say anything about GA’s failure to comply with the agreement, just that the Justice Department now says GA isn’t doing enough. So what was the purpose of the agreement if the Justice Department doesn’t need to abide by it?

    • bird says:

      Basically, the Justice Department is saying Georgia breached the settlement agreement, which is a binding contract. When one party breaches, the other party’s performance is excused.

      The Justice Department just put it a little more politically.

      • Game Fan says:

        bird
        I don’t know if you’re just leaning on the side of “Justice” or not. And you may be right, but the wording of the article is clear:

        “…the federal agency has said it can no longer abide by the agreement.”

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          The Justice Department believes that Georgia is not doing enough by what measure? That if they say the state isn’t doing enough they won’t have to honor the agreement and pay? Were there benchmarks that were not met?

          They walk in, say they have 3 areas of concern, and pull funding? No chance to address the concerns?

  3. Game Fan says:

    “Wilson said new patients are being diverted to the state’s other mental hospitals or community-based services when appropriate.”

    Will they need additional “community organizers”? Hey, I’m all about localism and community, but, uh, you kinda lose the point when it becomes Federalized.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    All I have to say about the mental health system is this:

    The homeless population doubled after the completion of the mental health system defederalization (begun by Nixon and finished by Reagan).

    Things like health care are not served well by the private sector. Conservatives, of all people, should be the ones that believe a human life is worth more than the cost benefit analysis put up by private firms. Though…you are the same people that believe a human life is worth $350k.

    The hypocrisy is astounding. An unborn baby is priceless, a person killed by a drunk doctor is worth $350k, a mentally ill person that may cause harm to others is not worth paying to keep in a centralized mental health system…where does it end. You people are fine with paying 10 times the life in prison costs so you can execute convicted murderers.

    I don’t get it. Sarah Palin makes up some lie about death panels and her child with down syndrome, but conservatives don’t want to foot the bill when gaurdians are no longer around to care for people who, by accident of birth and/or life circumstances, can not care for themselves.

    • BuckheadConservative says:

      Conservatives believe that the free market is the most efficient way to allocate the highest quality health care to the broadest possible audience. However, even with that some people are left out of the system and that is an example of a market failure. What conservatives fight for (or I do at least) is a system that keeps the free market principles in tact, but also ‘picks up the slack’ for those not served.

      Your whole “profits over people” line is not only ignorant, but dangerous. It’s possible to do both with minimal trade off. Those are the policies we should pursue.

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        Unfortunately, the “conservatives” aren’t fighting for anything.

        They are merely acting as obstructionists.

        I agree that a trade off can be made…that is one of the central tenets of social capitalism. The paradigm will need to shift though. Modern conservatives are only interested in market capitalism and have shown to only be interested in allowing private firms to operate under a “profits over people” scenario.

        This is why pensions really do not exist anymore. This is why most people in the US will not be able to retire. This is why Walmart does not offer healthcare to its store level employees. Social capital has been eliminated at the expense of the super-majority, but for the profit of a few wealthy investors.

        Profits over people is an ignorant and destructive way of thinking…I agree entirely. It is also the conservative philosophy. Social capitalism was the economic philosophy espoused by liberals at the turn of the 20th century. It wass the economic philosophy espoused by liberals such as Jefferson and Franklin. It continued through the 20th and even drew conservatives such as Goldwater and Irving Kristol. With the end of the cold war (technically the election of Reagan), the need for social capitalism no longer existed.

        Social capitalism is the economic philosophy that kept socialism out of the US, it is the philosophy that calmed the masses of labors and middle managers. Once communism was “defeated,” the elite capitalist regime that is the investment class ran a market capitalist system with reckless abandonment.

        There is a reason that all recessions since 1980 have revolved around the finance and banking systems being gamed to the point of structural failure. Same thing in 1929, but that is where the recession similarities ended. All recessions between the depression and Reagan revolved around commodity shortages or international political disputes.

        • BuckheadConservative says:

          You keep portraying it as one or the other. In a market economy it’s not “profits over people” or “people over profits”…it’s more like “profits for people” Economic growth isn’t a zero sum game. You worry too much about how the pie is sliced. I’m trying to make a bigger pie.

  5. B Balz says:

    Both Buckhead Conservative (BC) and Goldwater Conservative (GC) echo sentiments of hope and frustration, respectively, for fiscally conservative individuals .

    When citizens who ‘play by the rules’ , make responsible choices, and act in a right-minded manner find themselves struggling, or even worse thwarted, from their ‘pursue of happiness’ the government has broken its’ social contract (Our Constitution). I did not say the GOP or the Dems broke the social contract , mind you.

    I said the government is not upholding its’ duty to all of us.

    GC is completely correct about the decentralization of mental healthcare. It is both a sin and a travesty that a rich and good Nation turns its’ back on those who are a danger to themselves or others. Fiscal conservatives ought to shudder at the ill advised human and economic cost of this decision.

    BC for whatever reasons (avarice, pride most likely) over the last 30 years Big Gov’t and Big Business have given more Americans the shaft than in any time in our history. During that time, both parties poorly rewarded many of those who ‘did right’.

    Yet, I admire and agree with your hopeful statement: ” …What conservatives fight for (or I do at least) is a system that keeps the free market principles in tact, but also ‘picks up the slack’ for those not served…”

    Who pulling the rope for the poor ol’ tax payer? When has this ‘slack picking up’ occurred in the last eight years?

    One of the biggest reasons for personal bankruptcy is not having or actually receiving health insurance benefits. To many people bankruptcy is so demoralizing, it goes beyond filing papers, it is defeat, plain and simple.

    Americans have had their life savings decimated by gaming of financial markets. Throughout US history from Tea Pot Dome, 1929 to Junk Bonds/Milliken/Boesky to Enron/Arthur Anderson/Lehman Bros. to derivatives/credit default swaps and dear Mr. Madoff (may he contract a painful sore on his nose) people have had their life savings decimated.

    And who protects us? Are the new ‘unwashed masses’ simply good folk that ‘live right’ and make a few bucks only to get clipped by the next scam?

    I don’t have the answers. I know this is not the America I want. I know I can make a difference, and I have a responsibility to do so.

  6. B Balz says:

    This just in from the “Pigs get fat, hogs get ‘et” Department:

    Says Buckhead Conservative: “…You worry too much about how the pie is sliced. I’m trying to make a bigger pie…”

    If the pie is larger, so are the slices, yet the ratios do not change.

    Though the idea sounds both egalitarian and noble, I want to know how why it isn’t just more of the same old, “what good for Big Business” is good for America?

    What is good for corporations is not ALWAYS good for America. Any objective person knows this to be true.

    The ‘coupon clipping class’ is not the same as the “TBill coupon clipping class”

  7. seenbetrdayz says:

    Big corrupt business cannot exist without the power of big corrupt government.

    Big corrupt government cannot exist without the funding of big corrupt business.

Comments are closed.