Universal mental Health coverage?

[RetiredGySgt]

Who supports the idea of Universal mental Health cover?

Other questions to ask or talk about.

Should there be a point even when non violent that a mentally ill person should be committed against their will?

The definition for losing ones rights under law due to mental illness requires a judge to rule on the matter. This includes involuntary commitment.

A local authority can involuntarily commit someone but within a specific time frame ( based on State and federal law) that person must be seen by a judge and further commitment so ordered by a Judge after a hearing.

If a mentally ill person refuses to medicate should the Government have the power short of a Judges order to force compliance?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who supports the idea of Universal mental Health cover?

Other questions to ask or talk about.

Should there be a point even when non violent that a mentally ill person should be committed against their will?

The definition for losing ones rights under law due to mental illness requires a judge to rule on the matter. This includes involuntary commitment.

A local authority can involuntarily commit someone but within a specific time frame ( based on State and federal law) that person must be seen by a judge and further commitment so ordered by a Judge after a hearing.

If a mentally ill person refuses to medicate should the Government have the power short of a Judges order to force compliance?

Just a question. Where do we send them? folks on the net keep telling me Reagen closed most of the mental hospiitals in the U.S. in the 80's.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who supports the idea of Universal mental Health cover?

Other questions to ask or talk about.

Should there be a point even when non violent that a mentally ill person should be committed against their will?

The definition for losing ones rights under law due to mental illness requires a judge to rule on the matter. This includes involuntary commitment.

A local authority can involuntarily commit someone but within a specific time frame ( based on State and federal law) that person must be seen by a judge and further commitment so ordered by a Judge after a hearing.

If a mentally ill person refuses to medicate should the Government have the power short of a Judges order to force compliance?

Just a question. Where do we send them? folks on the net keep telling me Reagen closed most of the mental hospiitals in the U.S. in the 80's.

I never said we should send anyone anywhere, BUT there are hospitals both private and State. Just not as many beds anymore.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who supports the idea of Universal mental Health cover?

Other questions to ask or talk about.

Should there be a point even when non violent that a mentally ill person should be committed against their will?

The definition for losing ones rights under law due to mental illness requires a judge to rule on the matter. This includes involuntary commitment.

A local authority can involuntarily commit someone but within a specific time frame ( based on State and federal law) that person must be seen by a judge and further commitment so ordered by a Judge after a hearing.

If a mentally ill person refuses to medicate should the Government have the power short of a Judges order to force compliance?

Just a question. Where do we send them? folks on the net keep telling me Reagen closed most of the mental hospiitals in the U.S. in the 80's.

I never said we should send anyone anywhere, BUT there are hospitals both private and State. Just not as many beds anymore.

but to push your topic. all we are doing now for the most part is throwing them in jail and letting them deal wih it. these mental folks need help not thrown in jail so they become worse. just my thoughts because I have been there and know.....

 

[Katzndogz]

We need to reopen the asylums. Get these people off the street and tell the ACLU to fuck off.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Idk, I have been to jail and I wittnessed alot. what were doing to the mentally ill is not right, we are hoping they fade away and just die I think.

 

[barry1960]

Who supports the idea of Universal mental Health cover?

Other questions to ask or talk about.

Should there be a point even when non violent that a mentally ill person should be committed against their will?

The definition for losing ones rights under law due to mental illness requires a judge to rule on the matter. This includes involuntary commitment.

A local authority can involuntarily commit someone but within a specific time frame ( based on State and federal law) that person must be seen by a judge and further commitment so ordered by a Judge after a hearing.

If a mentally ill person refuses to medicate should the Government have the power short of a Judges order to force compliance?

Just a question. Where do we send them? folks on the net keep telling me Reagen closed most of the mental hospiitals in the U.S. in the 80's.

Ronald Reagan closed most of the state facilities when he was governor of California. Having a mentally ill son, I have concerns as to what will happen to him when i am gone. There is a great prejudice against mental illness in this country. An example is how our troops who have post-concussion brain injuries or stress syndrome are treated compared to military amputees.

 

[whitehall]

Who is in charge of determining if a (non-violent) person is mentally ill? Anyone want the government rounding up civilians and placing them in a gulag for disagreeing with government policy?

 

[PaulS1950]

The health care provider, the individual doctor, is a mandatory reporter. He must report any patient who is a clear and present danger to him/herself or others to the police or judicial system. Then they can be held in a facility until the trial is heard. If they are found to be a "clear and present" danger to themselves or others they are involuntarily committed until such time as the mental health professionals deem them fit to return to society.
For some people it is a life sentance for others it is just until they are stabilized on drugs. Once released there is no way to mandate their drug therapy and no way to check on them. It is also the patient's responsibility to pay for the drugs. The problem is finding gainful employment so they can find a place to live and have money for living expenses as well as their drugs. They usually become homeless indigents that can become violent without notice.
Is it the duty of government to care for these individuals? Not really. Families used to take care of their members and churches took care of their members and those that were left were cared for by charitable organizations. Families have ben broken up and raised to think of themselves first, churches no longer have facilities to take care of the mentally ill because of requirements set down by the governing bodies and there are very few charitable organizations that will take on the legal responsibility for the mentally ill. We are left with two choices; care for our family members ourselves or have the government care for them. The government can't do anything as cheaply and as efficiently as we can. Would I want the government taking care of my parents? Not just no but HELL NO! The government has proven many times over that they can't or don't care about anyone but themselves. They are incapable of "caring" for anyone.

 

[itfitzme]

First off, we are the government, though it is extremely difficult to be effectively active. During economic peaks, we are a bit busy. During economic down turns, we tend to lack the funds. They key is that if you are working tben contribute moneterily and if youbare not, contribute your time.

People have a fundamental right to be "mentally ill" if they "choose" to. The exception is when their behavior is interfering with the equal right of others, especially if their behavior is a danger to others.

The court system and medical community are not some dissembodied nebulous entity. They consist of real people that live and worknin your community. they are just your local law enforcement professional, you know, the woman that pulled over that guy for speeding, or your local fireman (you may have seen them at the grocery store with the hook and ladder parked outside). The difference is what they specialize in. Whether they are doctors, social workers, or judges, they live in your town andnare someones neighbor. They often specialize in the assessment of the mentally ill. And, I am sure, if you really want to be informed, they would be happy to spend time answering questions. (Though you might need to be persistent as I am sure they are a) busy and b) not used to people actually giving a ****.)

Mental illness is not a one size fits all issue. It ranges from people that just cannot be in the general public to people best served by being in a more typical living situation where they have support yet are expected to do all they can to take care of themselves.

Often, the problem is the result of years of an environment that has made them worse. Often, they do improve in the right environment. Sometimes they don't and typically they never achieve an average level of functionality. In some cases, individuals with mental illnesses are quite functional, though sensitive.

Now, on taxes, if your thing is that you don't think your taxes should go to paying for an imperialistic military and think it should be spent on helping the mentally ill don't worry about it (too much), they don't. I can guarantee that for every hard left wing liberal, there is a hard right wing conservative that thinks all his taxes should go to protecting our county. Your taxes pay for mental health services and his taxes pay for the military. In the end, it all kinda balances out.

 

[oldfart]

Who supports the idea of Universal mental Health cover?

Since I support universal health care, I support universal mental health care to be consistent.

Should there be a point even when non violent that a mentally ill person should be committed against their will?

Closer call, but I say yes. If someone is not sufficiently competent to be responsible for their actions I believe some form of commitment is warranted.

A local authority can involuntarily commit someone but within a specific time frame ( based on State and federal law) that person must be seen by a judge and further commitment so ordered by a Judge after a hearing.

In Florida it called a "Baker Act commitment". Any person can be held for 72 hours of psychiatric evaluation. After that they must be released or brought before a judge is the psychiatric professional believes they pose a threat to themselves or others. All suicide attempts must automatically have a Baker Act evaluation, as a lot of teenagers have discovered to their dismay (especially when they find out they are not allowed tobacco or alcohol during the 72 hours!).

If a mentally ill person refuses to medicate should the Government have the power short of a Judges order to force compliance?

No. I think mandatory treatment has to be subject to a judicial process that protects the rights of the citizen being evaluated.

Peace.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Live in NC believe they have a week to hold you before a Judge is required. I attempted Suicide in 1999 was of course sent to the nut house. My Doctor released me and certified I did not need to see a judge. spent about 5 days in the Health Facility.

The problem in our society is mental health is either seen as a scam or we are taught to ignore it. No one wants to face it and now we have a medical profession out of control. They are claiming all kind of minor crap as mental conditions.

The Local facility went from having a Geriatric section an Adult section and a very small children section to almost completely children. Parents and doctors are to quick to claim an event growing up is mental condition.