Stupid Ass Trump calling for Gun Legislation, Because they Were Busted with their Pants Down

[Eaglewings]

It will not mean action.

It is all smoke and mirrors ... they don't care at all who dies. They only care about their monthly check from the NRA.

.

You'll never get your gun ban....

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

 

[Eaglewings]

What Lying Trump and the GOP will do, if there is enough pressure they come up with some meaningless legislation like bullet clips are limited to 29 rather than 30 bullets and then hail it as 'peace in our time' for gun legislation.

They are hollow people and the deaths of children doesn't even register in their brains.

Exactly..you hit the nail on the head.. scumbags

.

 

[Eaglewings]

Why didn't Hussein do anything in the eight freaking stagnant years of his administration? Under Hussein's crooked "leadership" the FBI was so busy conducting illegal surveillances on political enemies that they failed to act on a tip about the Boston Marathon bombers, they dropped an investigation on the niteclub shooter just before he went viral, they failed to stop Hodgkinson and Paddock and they claimed that they couldn't find a guy when there were only nine other people in the U.S. with the same name.

As we explained in a 17 February 2017 post, this rule — which never went into effect before being rescinded ( BY the GOP and Trump) — did not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns. It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. There are now, and have been for some time, laws that seek to limit gun sales to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code. However, according to the Associated Press:

The Obama rule would have prevented an estimated 75,000 people with mental disorders from being able to purchase a firearm. It was crafted as part of Obama’s efforts to strengthen the federal background check system in the wake of the 2012 massacre of 20 young students and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

While the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, it is true that Trump signed into law the repeal of a measure that would have plausibly prevented certain classes of mentally ill people from purchasing firearms by allowing a new data source to be included the system that runs those background checks. As such we rank the claim mostly true.
FACT CHECK: Did President Trump Revoke Gun Background Checks for Mentally Ill People?

 

[miketx]

It will not mean action.

It is all smoke and mirrors ... they don't care at all who dies. They only care about their monthly check from the NRA.

.

You'll never get your gun ban....

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It is all smoke and mirrors ... they don't care at all who dies. They only care about their monthly check from the NRA.

.

You'll never get your gun ban....

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

She's on a mission with her "cause" ...keeps posting the same lame crap over and over just worded different

 

[task0778]

FYI:

Senators’ Letter To SAMHSA Is Misguided: Dr. McCance-Katz Is Doing What Congress Demanded


Chances are, you have never heard of NREPP, but it’s a big deal – a really big deal.

That’s because NREPP essentially determines which mental health and substance abuse programs are “evidence based practices” , opening the door for them to claim a piece of $2.2 billion in HHS block grant funding being doled out each year.

NREPP was created in 1997 to maintain a computer registry that rates practices according to available evidence about their effectiveness. Theoretically, it provides those who access it with helpful information about what they should be doing in their communities.

The five Democrat senators questioned why Dr. McCance-Katz chose to hit the hold button on NREPP, leaving in limbo at least 90 programs seeking “evidence based practice” ratings.

The Washington Post described her decision as a “Trump administration” effort to, “suspend a program that helps thousands of professionals and community groups across the country find effective interventions for preventing and treating mental illness and substance-use disorders.”
.
.
What Dr. McCance-Katz is doing is exactly what Congress told her to do when it passed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act as part of the 21st Century Cures Act.

The reason why Dr. McCance-Katz has closed the NREPP website is because it has been listing programs as being evidence based practices whose usefulness is questionable. It appears as if NREPP often rubber stamped any practice that popped into the heads of someone with a treatment program that they wanted to sell.
.
.
Here is part of Dr. McCance-Katz’s public statement explaining why she discontinued NREPP. These comments begin with her describing what happened when you searched the NREPP registry for a list of evidence based practices that would help your community mental health provider better treat someone with a serious mental illnesses.

“The program as currently configured often produces few to no results, when such common search terms as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as ”schizophrenia” are entered. There is a complete lack of a linkage between all of the evidence based practices that are necessary to provide effective care and treatment to those living with mental and substance use disorders, as well. If someone with limited knowledge about various mental and substance use disorders were to go to the NREPP website, they could come away thinking that there are virtually no evidence based practices for opioid use disorder and other major mental disorders – which is completely untrue.

They would have to try to discern which of the listed practices might be useful, but could not rely on the grading for the listed interventions; neither would there be any way for them to know which interventions were more effective than others.

We at SAMHSA should not be encouraging providers to use NREPP to obtain evidence based practices, given the flawed nature of this system. From my limited review – I have not looked at every listed program or practice – I see evidence based practices that are entirely irrelevant to some disorders, “evidence” based on review of as few as a single publication that might be quite old and, too often, evidence review from someone’s dissertation.

This is a poor approach to the determination of evidence based practices. As I mentioned, NREPP has mainly reviewed submissions from “developers” in the field. By definition, these are not evidence based practices because they are limited to the work of a single person or group. This is a biased, self-selected series of interventions further hampered by a poor search-term system. Americans living with these serious illnesses deserve better…”
.
.
In case you didn’t get the point, mental health advocate and author, D. J. Jaffe, was more blunt.

“NREPP is supposed to be a list of programs supported with evidence, but it was mainly filled with pop psychology learning modules that fail to help the seriously mentally ill,” he wrote me in an email.

Earlier, he’d published an editorial in The Hill newspaper saying much the same.

“Little of what’s in NREPP are actual treatments, and few are based on science.

For SAMHSA to list a program as being “evidence-based” it should require a program to have (a) independent proof that it (b) improves a meaningful outcome in (c) people SAMHSA is intended to serve, adults and children with serious mental illness or substance use disorders.

I discovered in my research (writing Insane Consequences: How The Mental Health Industry Fails The Mentally Ill) is that little of what is in NREPP meets those three criterion. The studies lack independence and often come straight from those who invent, sell, and profit from them. The outcomes being measured are not meaningful, metrics such as reductions in homelessness, arrests, incarcerations, hospitalizations, and suicides.

They are soft measures like satisfaction, feeling of wellness, empowerment, hopefulness, and resiliency. In fact, a program promoter could measure ten outcomes, find nine are not improved or even made worse, and then submit the one positive finding as proof the program is evidence-based. Clearly something is wrong.

The studies promoters are submitting are often not conducted among the seriously ill or substance abusers SAMHSA was founded to serve. As Twitter has proven, show the public pictures of cute cats and they smile.

Now all you have to do is tabulate the results and submit them to SAMHSA and you’ve got an “evidence-based” program that “improves mental health.” Taking people bowling could probably gain NREPP certification because it makes people happier.
.
.
Many of NREPP’s listed programs raised eyebrows during the House’s congressional probe of SAMHSA. In her testimony, Dr. Sally Satel of Yale noted that “of the 288 programs listed, four by my count specifically designated people with severe illness as their recipients.”

When I was in Florida recently giving a speech, my host told me that Weight Watchers (R) had been credited as an “evidence based practice” in their federal funding because it helped people with mental illnesses lose weight caused by medications. Should that be a priority of SAMHSA or for a local health department?

This is wherein the conflicts arise.

On one end are critics who say SAMHSA wastes money on often “feel good” programs for the “worried well” that have no scientific basis for helping alleviate a serious mental illness. On the other end are those who argue that any program that helps an individual with a mental health or substance abuse problem feel better about themselves or have more social interaction in a community should be federally funded.

I’ve simplified the argument but you get the gist.

Dr. McCance-Katz has shuttered NREPP so that she and her top aides can develop a vetting process that is not based on a single, selected report or outdated studies. She is establishing standards that must be met to earn the “evidence based practice” credentials and be worthy of our taxpayers’ dollars.

Because she was appointed by President Trump, I suspect the five Democrats are wary that Dr. McCance-Katz actions are aimed at cutting social programs. The five Senators certainly have a responsibility to monitor the job that the assistant secretary is doing, but they should wait to see what she proposes as an alternative to NREPP before assuming the worst.

I’m not certain where Weight Watchers (R) will end up when Dr. McCance-Katz is done. But what I am certain of is that she is trying to steer SAMHSA in a different direction from when it was heavily criticized during congressional hearings for being wasteful, ineffective, ignoring serious mental illnesses, and disparaging the use of medications.

You moron...Dr Crooked McCance-Katz who opposed it was a Trump nominee I understand the program well..

It’s been a few weeks since President Trump announced Elinore McCance-Katz as his nominee for the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health, and I must say, the pick serves as a reminder to all children’s mental health advocates that we have our work cut out for us.

It worked and helped so many mental health professionals

Feds freeze mental health practices registry - CNN

Bull ******* shit. So tell me, do you think Weight Watchers should be credited as an evidence-based mental health practice and therefore eligible for federal funding as such? You think this is good? I think we can do better. From TheHill.com:

In the United States, there is no licensing or regulation of education modules or talk therapies. Anyone can claim she has one that works. SAMHSA helped them by maintaining what it called a National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). It is little more than a collection of privately developed workshops and training sessions that SAMHSA essentially certifies as being evidence-based.

SAMHSA then encourages states to use their $2.2 billion federal mental health and substance use block grants

Little of what’s in NREPP are actual treatments, and few are based on science. For SAMHSA to list a program as being “evidence-based” it should require a program to have (a) independent proof that it (b) improves a meaningful outcome in (c) people SAMHSA is intended to serve, adults and children with serious mental illness or substance use disorders.

I discovered in my research is little of what is in NREPP to meet those three criterion. The studies lack independence and often come straight from those who invent, sell, and profit from them. The outcomes being measured are not meaningful, metrics such as reductions in homelessness, arrests, incarcerations, hospitalizations, and suicides.

They are soft measures like satisfaction, feeling of wellness, empowerment, hopefulness, and resiliency. In fact, a program promoter could measure ten outcomes, find nine are not improved or even made worse, and then submit the one positive finding as proof the program is evidence-based. Clearly something is wrong.

The studies promoters are submitting are often not conducted among the seriously ill or substance abusers SAMHSA was founded to serve. As Twitter has proven, show the public pictures of cute cats and they smile.

Let's take step to improve the science of treating serious mental illness

 

[pismoe]

You'll never get your gun ban....

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

She's on a mission with her "cause" ...keeps posting the same lame crap over and over just worded different

----------------------------------------------------- task sounds similar , pretty agitated and an a retired 'air force' employee to boot .

 

[task0778]

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

She's on a mission with her "cause" ...keeps posting the same lame crap over and over just worded different

----------------------------------------------------- task sounds similar , pretty agitated and an a retired 'air force' employee to boot .

You talking to me?

 

[pismoe]

no Sir , i think that i am describing YOU as i read your self posted info Task .

 

[Eaglewings]

You'll never get your gun ban....

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

She's on a mission with her "cause" ...keeps posting the same lame crap over and over just worded different

Because you dummies keep up with the crap and refuse to acknowledge that the assault rifle ban expired in 2002..

 

[SassyIrishLass]

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

She's on a mission with her "cause" ...keeps posting the same lame crap over and over just worded different

Because you dummies keep up with the crap and refuse to acknowledge that the assault rifle ban expired in 2002..

View attachment 177717

See? There ya go again. Exactly how many times will you repeat it?

You're proving my point by the way. Say it once and stop squawking like a deranged parrot

 

[task0778]

no Sir , i think that I am describing YOU as i read your self posted info Task .

Maybe you should respond to what I posted instead of the personal attack. See, I have a problem with those who lie, and what Eaglewings posted was an outright lie. And BTW I served in the USAF for 22 years as a military member, not an employee.

 

[jc456]

It means we need tougher background checks in people who want to buy guns. Those would be average liberals, young adults on antidepressants, homosexuals, Mexicans, and blacks.

You mean after they took it off a year ago...Tools to help the mental health people alert the gun registry..

BTW the worst mass shooting in America was a skinhead wannabe..

why did the FBI fail to protect the children? hmmmmmmm

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It is just more proof that the Psychocrats use gun control as a political football.
They don't really care about those kids.

 

[task0778]

These paid off congress are sweating bullets.. I wish I could march with those kids on March 2nd.. in DC #March4Life

.

Why, do you enjoy taking advantage of emotionally disturbed children being used as pawns by evil scum?

How so?

Now you are pretending to be stupid. Typical lib shill.

She's on a mission with her "cause" ...keeps posting the same lame crap over and over just worded different

Because you dummies keep up with the crap and refuse to acknowledge that the assault rifle ban expired in 2002..

That ban expired in 2004. Sunsetted. And there's this, from wikileaks:

In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence". A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes". The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.

 

[Eaglewings]

FYI:

Senators’ Letter To SAMHSA Is Misguided: Dr. McCance-Katz Is Doing What Congress Demanded


Chances are, you have never heard of NREPP, but it’s a big deal – a really big deal.

That’s because NREPP essentially determines which mental health and substance abuse programs are “evidence based practices” , opening the door for them to claim a piece of $2.2 billion in HHS block grant funding being doled out each year.

NREPP was created in 1997 to maintain a computer registry that rates practices according to available evidence about their effectiveness. Theoretically, it provides those who access it with helpful information about what they should be doing in their communities.

The five Democrat senators questioned why Dr. McCance-Katz chose to hit the hold button on NREPP, leaving in limbo at least 90 programs seeking “evidence based practice” ratings.

The Washington Post described her decision as a “Trump administration” effort to, “suspend a program that helps thousands of professionals and community groups across the country find effective interventions for preventing and treating mental illness and substance-use disorders.”
.
.
What Dr. McCance-Katz is doing is exactly what Congress told her to do when it passed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act as part of the 21st Century Cures Act.

The reason why Dr. McCance-Katz has closed the NREPP website is because it has been listing programs as being evidence based practices whose usefulness is questionable. It appears as if NREPP often rubber stamped any practice that popped into the heads of someone with a treatment program that they wanted to sell.
.
.
Here is part of Dr. McCance-Katz’s public statement explaining why she discontinued NREPP. These comments begin with her describing what happened when you searched the NREPP registry for a list of evidence based practices that would help your community mental health provider better treat someone with a serious mental illnesses.

“The program as currently configured often produces few to no results, when such common search terms as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as ”schizophrenia” are entered. There is a complete lack of a linkage between all of the evidence based practices that are necessary to provide effective care and treatment to those living with mental and substance use disorders, as well. If someone with limited knowledge about various mental and substance use disorders were to go to the NREPP website, they could come away thinking that there are virtually no evidence based practices for opioid use disorder and other major mental disorders – which is completely untrue.

They would have to try to discern which of the listed practices might be useful, but could not rely on the grading for the listed interventions; neither would there be any way for them to know which interventions were more effective than others.

We at SAMHSA should not be encouraging providers to use NREPP to obtain evidence based practices, given the flawed nature of this system. From my limited review – I have not looked at every listed program or practice – I see evidence based practices that are entirely irrelevant to some disorders, “evidence” based on review of as few as a single publication that might be quite old and, too often, evidence review from someone’s dissertation.

This is a poor approach to the determination of evidence based practices. As I mentioned, NREPP has mainly reviewed submissions from “developers” in the field. By definition, these are not evidence based practices because they are limited to the work of a single person or group. This is a biased, self-selected series of interventions further hampered by a poor search-term system. Americans living with these serious illnesses deserve better…”
.
.
In case you didn’t get the point, mental health advocate and author, D. J. Jaffe, was more blunt.

“NREPP is supposed to be a list of programs supported with evidence, but it was mainly filled with pop psychology learning modules that fail to help the seriously mentally ill,” he wrote me in an email.

Earlier, he’d published an editorial in The Hill newspaper saying much the same.

“Little of what’s in NREPP are actual treatments, and few are based on science.

For SAMHSA to list a program as being “evidence-based” it should require a program to have (a) independent proof that it (b) improves a meaningful outcome in (c) people SAMHSA is intended to serve, adults and children with serious mental illness or substance use disorders.

I discovered in my research (writing Insane Consequences: How The Mental Health Industry Fails The Mentally Ill) is that little of what is in NREPP meets those three criterion. The studies lack independence and often come straight from those who invent, sell, and profit from them. The outcomes being measured are not meaningful, metrics such as reductions in homelessness, arrests, incarcerations, hospitalizations, and suicides.

They are soft measures like satisfaction, feeling of wellness, empowerment, hopefulness, and resiliency. In fact, a program promoter could measure ten outcomes, find nine are not improved or even made worse, and then submit the one positive finding as proof the program is evidence-based. Clearly something is wrong.

The studies promoters are submitting are often not conducted among the seriously ill or substance abusers SAMHSA was founded to serve. As Twitter has proven, show the public pictures of cute cats and they smile.

Now all you have to do is tabulate the results and submit them to SAMHSA and you’ve got an “evidence-based” program that “improves mental health.” Taking people bowling could probably gain NREPP certification because it makes people happier.
.
.
Many of NREPP’s listed programs raised eyebrows during the House’s congressional probe of SAMHSA. In her testimony, Dr. Sally Satel of Yale noted that “of the 288 programs listed, four by my count specifically designated people with severe illness as their recipients.”

When I was in Florida recently giving a speech, my host told me that Weight Watchers (R) had been credited as an “evidence based practice” in their federal funding because it helped people with mental illnesses lose weight caused by medications. Should that be a priority of SAMHSA or for a local health department?

This is wherein the conflicts arise.

On one end are critics who say SAMHSA wastes money on often “feel good” programs for the “worried well” that have no scientific basis for helping alleviate a serious mental illness. On the other end are those who argue that any program that helps an individual with a mental health or substance abuse problem feel better about themselves or have more social interaction in a community should be federally funded.

I’ve simplified the argument but you get the gist.

Dr. McCance-Katz has shuttered NREPP so that she and her top aides can develop a vetting process that is not based on a single, selected report or outdated studies. She is establishing standards that must be met to earn the “evidence based practice” credentials and be worthy of our taxpayers’ dollars.

Because she was appointed by President Trump, I suspect the five Democrats are wary that Dr. McCance-Katz actions are aimed at cutting social programs. The five Senators certainly have a responsibility to monitor the job that the assistant secretary is doing, but they should wait to see what she proposes as an alternative to NREPP before assuming the worst.

I’m not certain where Weight Watchers (R) will end up when Dr. McCance-Katz is done. But what I am certain of is that she is trying to steer SAMHSA in a different direction from when it was heavily criticized during congressional hearings for being wasteful, ineffective, ignoring serious mental illnesses, and disparaging the use of medications.

You moron...Dr Crooked McCance-Katz who opposed it was a Trump nominee I understand the program well..

It’s been a few weeks since President Trump announced Elinore McCance-Katz as his nominee for the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health, and I must say, the pick serves as a reminder to all children’s mental health advocates that we have our work cut out for us.

It worked and helped so many mental health professionals

Feds freeze mental health practices registry - CNN

Bull ******* shit. So tell me, do you think Weight Watchers should be credited as an evidence-based mental health practice and therefore eligible for federal funding as such? You think this is good? I think we can do better. From TheHill.com:

In the United States, there is no licensing or regulation of education modules or talk therapies. Anyone can claim she has one that works. SAMHSA helped them by maintaining what it called a National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). It is little more than a collection of privately developed workshops and training sessions that SAMHSA essentially certifies as being evidence-based.

SAMHSA then encourages states to use their $2.2 billion federal mental health and substance use block grants

Little of what’s in NREPP are actual treatments, and few are based on science. For SAMHSA to list a program as being “evidence-based” it should require a program to have (a) independent proof that it (b) improves a meaningful outcome in (c) people SAMHSA is intended to serve, adults and children with serious mental illness or substance use disorders.

I discovered in my research is little of what is in NREPP to meet those three criterion. The studies lack independence and often come straight from those who invent, sell, and profit from them. The outcomes being measured are not meaningful, metrics such as reductions in homelessness, arrests, incarcerations, hospitalizations, and suicides.

They are soft measures like satisfaction, feeling of wellness, empowerment, hopefulness, and resiliency. In fact, a program promoter could measure ten outcomes, find nine are not improved or even made worse, and then submit the one positive finding as proof the program is evidence-based. Clearly something is wrong.

The studies promoters are submitting are often not conducted among the seriously ill or substance abusers SAMHSA was founded to serve. As Twitter has proven, show the public pictures of cute cats and they smile.

Let's take step to improve the science of treating serious mental illness

The program that I worked on was a internet based program that you enter in the assessment, while the doctors make the diagnosis for mental illness.. which having both addiction and a mental illness is called a dual diagnosis.

The people who use the program are all trained licensed by the state professionals. All who have been trained in addiction, and or mental illness.

This bullshit crap from a doctor who wants to work for Trump is where the bullshit lies.. and you go looking for those lies while millions of doctors and counselors disagree with you.

This program was a tool that the whole professional community used..One Trump doctor backed up the reason to hack it..

The programs that SAMHSA recommended were fact based amongst the professionals.. and have proven to work.

.

 

[pismoe]

no Sir , i think that I am describing YOU as i read your self posted info Task .

Maybe you should respond to what I posted instead of the personal attack. See, I have a problem with those who lie, and what Eaglewings posted was an outright lie. And BTW I served in the USAF for 22 years as a military member, not an employee.

--------------------------------- volunteer military are simply employees , paid on Fridays Task and those that advertise are living off their glory days . Sorry though , i just generally dislike those that advertise their official government past as if its special Task .

 

[TNHarley]

Eagles, you got to get off that ssi gun bullcrap.
This kid was cleared by the fbi and fl children services agency.
Please, tell me what kind of law would have stopped him besides banning guns?

Harley, Trump and the gang are only blaming the FBI. Yes the FBI blew it but these kids were let down by many things not just the FBI.
Trump and the GOP can't take responsibility for anything. Their actions are at fault too..

The GOP also got rid of this, in place since the 1980's..I trained on it and it was a excellent tool . they got rid of it because it alerts the extreme mentally ill who are getting guns now.

Trump Administration Halts Registry Used by Mental Health Professionals

So did the DCS
Please tell me what law would have stopped that kid

Here is my other thread..the ban on assault rifles expire in 2002. Reagan helped to get it in place.in 1992.the NRA has made sure that it was not renewed
Reagan Had an Assault Rifle Ban put in Place..It Expired in 2002, Paid Off Congress

Im asking you what kind of law would have stopped this kid.
Bannging the type of gun he used is ridiculous logic.
What law would have stopped this kid?

These assault guns were harder to get since the ban...the 2002 expiration allowed the massive sale of these assault rifles.

making it easier for these mentally ill to get ahold of.. You can even buy them online I have heard.

He was of legal age to buy one..yet the lawat the GOP rolled back would have helped to red flag that he was a nut.

I would like to know how he got these guns?

.

The law had nothing to do with him. He was CLEARED by thr fbi and passed a mrntal evaluation by the state.

 

[task0778]

no Sir , i think that I am describing YOU as i read your self posted info Task .

Maybe you should respond to what I posted instead of the personal attack. See, I have a problem with those who lie, and what Eaglewings posted was an outright lie. And BTW I served in the USAF for 22 years as a military member, not an employee.

--------------------------------- volunteer military are simply employees , paid on Fridays Task and those that advertise are living off their glory days . Sorry though , i just generally dislike those that advertise their official government past as if its special Task .

There's a difference between a civilian employee who works a 40 hour week and goes home and a military member who works however many hours in wherever they send him/her and under whatever circumstances exist. A little respect might be in order, you jackass; I see no reason why I shouldn't be proud of my service and if you don't like it then that's tough shit. Again, if you want to argue against what I say then fine, but if you want to take a cheap shot at me or any other military person on active duty or retired then I only got one thing to say: **** YOU.

 

[task0778]

FYI:

Senators’ Letter To SAMHSA Is Misguided: Dr. McCance-Katz Is Doing What Congress Demanded


Chances are, you have never heard of NREPP, but it’s a big deal – a really big deal.

That’s because NREPP essentially determines which mental health and substance abuse programs are “evidence based practices” , opening the door for them to claim a piece of $2.2 billion in HHS block grant funding being doled out each year.

NREPP was created in 1997 to maintain a computer registry that rates practices according to available evidence about their effectiveness. Theoretically, it provides those who access it with helpful information about what they should be doing in their communities.

The five Democrat senators questioned why Dr. McCance-Katz chose to hit the hold button on NREPP, leaving in limbo at least 90 programs seeking “evidence based practice” ratings.

The Washington Post described her decision as a “Trump administration” effort to, “suspend a program that helps thousands of professionals and community groups across the country find effective interventions for preventing and treating mental illness and substance-use disorders.”
.
.
What Dr. McCance-Katz is doing is exactly what Congress told her to do when it passed the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act as part of the 21st Century Cures Act.

The reason why Dr. McCance-Katz has closed the NREPP website is because it has been listing programs as being evidence based practices whose usefulness is questionable. It appears as if NREPP often rubber stamped any practice that popped into the heads of someone with a treatment program that they wanted to sell.
.
.
Here is part of Dr. McCance-Katz’s public statement explaining why she discontinued NREPP. These comments begin with her describing what happened when you searched the NREPP registry for a list of evidence based practices that would help your community mental health provider better treat someone with a serious mental illnesses.

“The program as currently configured often produces few to no results, when such common search terms as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as ”schizophrenia” are entered. There is a complete lack of a linkage between all of the evidence based practices that are necessary to provide effective care and treatment to those living with mental and substance use disorders, as well. If someone with limited knowledge about various mental and substance use disorders were to go to the NREPP website, they could come away thinking that there are virtually no evidence based practices for opioid use disorder and other major mental disorders – which is completely untrue.

They would have to try to discern which of the listed practices might be useful, but could not rely on the grading for the listed interventions; neither would there be any way for them to know which interventions were more effective than others.

We at SAMHSA should not be encouraging providers to use NREPP to obtain evidence based practices, given the flawed nature of this system. From my limited review – I have not looked at every listed program or practice – I see evidence based practices that are entirely irrelevant to some disorders, “evidence” based on review of as few as a single publication that might be quite old and, too often, evidence review from someone’s dissertation.

This is a poor approach to the determination of evidence based practices. As I mentioned, NREPP has mainly reviewed submissions from “developers” in the field. By definition, these are not evidence based practices because they are limited to the work of a single person or group. This is a biased, self-selected series of interventions further hampered by a poor search-term system. Americans living with these serious illnesses deserve better…”
.
.
In case you didn’t get the point, mental health advocate and author, D. J. Jaffe, was more blunt.

“NREPP is supposed to be a list of programs supported with evidence, but it was mainly filled with pop psychology learning modules that fail to help the seriously mentally ill,” he wrote me in an email.

Earlier, he’d published an editorial in The Hill newspaper saying much the same.

“Little of what’s in NREPP are actual treatments, and few are based on science.

For SAMHSA to list a program as being “evidence-based” it should require a program to have (a) independent proof that it (b) improves a meaningful outcome in (c) people SAMHSA is intended to serve, adults and children with serious mental illness or substance use disorders.

I discovered in my research (writing Insane Consequences: How The Mental Health Industry Fails The Mentally Ill) is that little of what is in NREPP meets those three criterion. The studies lack independence and often come straight from those who invent, sell, and profit from them. The outcomes being measured are not meaningful, metrics such as reductions in homelessness, arrests, incarcerations, hospitalizations, and suicides.

They are soft measures like satisfaction, feeling of wellness, empowerment, hopefulness, and resiliency. In fact, a program promoter could measure ten outcomes, find nine are not improved or even made worse, and then submit the one positive finding as proof the program is evidence-based. Clearly something is wrong.

The studies promoters are submitting are often not conducted among the seriously ill or substance abusers SAMHSA was founded to serve. As Twitter has proven, show the public pictures of cute cats and they smile.

Now all you have to do is tabulate the results and submit them to SAMHSA and you’ve got an “evidence-based” program that “improves mental health.” Taking people bowling could probably gain NREPP certification because it makes people happier.
.
.
Many of NREPP’s listed programs raised eyebrows during the House’s congressional probe of SAMHSA. In her testimony, Dr. Sally Satel of Yale noted that “of the 288 programs listed, four by my count specifically designated people with severe illness as their recipients.”

When I was in Florida recently giving a speech, my host told me that Weight Watchers (R) had been credited as an “evidence based practice” in their federal funding because it helped people with mental illnesses lose weight caused by medications. Should that be a priority of SAMHSA or for a local health department?

This is wherein the conflicts arise.

On one end are critics who say SAMHSA wastes money on often “feel good” programs for the “worried well” that have no scientific basis for helping alleviate a serious mental illness. On the other end are those who argue that any program that helps an individual with a mental health or substance abuse problem feel better about themselves or have more social interaction in a community should be federally funded.

I’ve simplified the argument but you get the gist.

Dr. McCance-Katz has shuttered NREPP so that she and her top aides can develop a vetting process that is not based on a single, selected report or outdated studies. She is establishing standards that must be met to earn the “evidence based practice” credentials and be worthy of our taxpayers’ dollars.

Because she was appointed by President Trump, I suspect the five Democrats are wary that Dr. McCance-Katz actions are aimed at cutting social programs. The five Senators certainly have a responsibility to monitor the job that the assistant secretary is doing, but they should wait to see what she proposes as an alternative to NREPP before assuming the worst.

I’m not certain where Weight Watchers (R) will end up when Dr. McCance-Katz is done. But what I am certain of is that she is trying to steer SAMHSA in a different direction from when it was heavily criticized during congressional hearings for being wasteful, ineffective, ignoring serious mental illnesses, and disparaging the use of medications.

You moron...Dr Crooked McCance-Katz who opposed it was a Trump nominee I understand the program well..

It’s been a few weeks since President Trump announced Elinore McCance-Katz as his nominee for the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health, and I must say, the pick serves as a reminder to all children’s mental health advocates that we have our work cut out for us.

It worked and helped so many mental health professionals

Feds freeze mental health practices registry - CNN

Bull ******* shit. So tell me, do you think Weight Watchers should be credited as an evidence-based mental health practice and therefore eligible for federal funding as such? You think this is good? I think we can do better. From TheHill.com:

In the United States, there is no licensing or regulation of education modules or talk therapies. Anyone can claim she has one that works. SAMHSA helped them by maintaining what it called a National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). It is little more than a collection of privately developed workshops and training sessions that SAMHSA essentially certifies as being evidence-based.

SAMHSA then encourages states to use their $2.2 billion federal mental health and substance use block grants

Little of what’s in NREPP are actual treatments, and few are based on science. For SAMHSA to list a program as being “evidence-based” it should require a program to have (a) independent proof that it (b) improves a meaningful outcome in (c) people SAMHSA is intended to serve, adults and children with serious mental illness or substance use disorders.

I discovered in my research is little of what is in NREPP to meet those three criterion. The studies lack independence and often come straight from those who invent, sell, and profit from them. The outcomes being measured are not meaningful, metrics such as reductions in homelessness, arrests, incarcerations, hospitalizations, and suicides.

They are soft measures like satisfaction, feeling of wellness, empowerment, hopefulness, and resiliency. In fact, a program promoter could measure ten outcomes, find nine are not improved or even made worse, and then submit the one positive finding as proof the program is evidence-based. Clearly something is wrong.

The studies promoters are submitting are often not conducted among the seriously ill or substance abusers SAMHSA was founded to serve. As Twitter has proven, show the public pictures of cute cats and they smile.

Let's take step to improve the science of treating serious mental illness

The program that I worked on was a internet based program that you enter in the assessment, while the doctors make the diagnosis for mental illness.. which having both addiction and a mental illness is called a dual diagnosis.

The people who use the program are all trained licensed by the state professionals. All who have been trained in addiction, and or mental illness.

This bullshit crap from a doctor who wants to work for Trump is where the bullshit lies.. and you go looking for those lies while millions of doctors and counselors disagree with you.

This program was a tool that the whole professional community used..One Trump doctor backed up the reason to hack it..

The programs that SAMHSA recommended were fact based amongst the professionals.. and have proven to work.

.

I'll ask you again: So tell me, do you think Weight Watchers should be credited as an evidence-based mental health practice and therefore eligible for federal funding as such? You think this is good?