One piece of "this gun violence sprang from the climate of hate, so conservatives should shut up now" drivel sounds pretty much like another, so let's quote former Mayor Paul Helmke of the Brady campaign just to give a nod to a hometown boy trying to make his mark:
We also are deeply concerned about the heated political rhetoric that escalates debates and controversies, and sometimes makes it seem as if violence is an acceptable response to honest disagreements.
I don't know if the shooter is indeed a paranoid schizophrenic, as this psychiatrist says, but it's pretty clear he suffers from some major mental illness, which means searching for a rational explanation for his actions is pretty pointless. There is a needed discussion or two to have, and maybe we can get to them once the political opportunists wind down: 1. How do we act on "warning signals" to try to prevent someone from acting out his violent fantasies without violating the rights of those who might have the signals but not the fantasies? 2. How do we do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the unbalanced without violating everyone else's rights?
Comments
Larsen:
Why can't you understand that not treating mental illness simply shifts the cost to emergency room, law enforcement, judicial, incarceration expenses, etc.? I don't know. Unless you think untreated mental illness simply goes away and has no cost if it's ignored.
While you're reducing this to an equation, please let us know what the dollar value of a human life is. Are younger humans worth more or less, depending on valuation of potential or training? Are your children any more valuable?
Or maybe, sometimes human beings do things because they're the right thing to do, not because they're cost effective.
Marx: In other words, you don't have a response. Thanks!
My point is, it didn't matter WHO the Governor was, it was a federally mandated change for the $$$$$$.
I think you're having trouble with sequencing here.
"Indiana Family and Social Services Administration spokesman Marcus Barlow said the state received an audit from the federal government to pay back $25 million because Indiana's Medicaid rehabilitation option wasn't structured property.
"The state changed the program in July to fit federal guidelines."
There was a change because the state didn't have it right in the first place. The state then decided to go with the cheap fix rather than maintain the services.
Trying to play it off like it's the fed's fault instead of owning up and admitting it was the state's fault for not going by the rules in the first place is pretty lame.
"There was a change because the state didn
Zank, it's in yours.
"...spokesman Marcus Barlow said the state received an audit from the federal government to pay back $25 million..."
You know what an audit is, right? Where they check and see if something's being done right?
Had the feds changed the rules which is why Indiana didn't pass the audit? Was this a mistake made by Indiana (and if so when?) or was this the very first audit ever performed?? Somewhere the rules changed, I'm saying you are jumping to conclusions based on a heart felt letter to the editor, therefore I don't buy it because you haven't PROVED whose "fault" it is that Indiana no longer receives the same manner of funding.
Don't make assumptions and don't expect people to believe you without proof.
Zank, you're the one assuming the feds changed something, and you're the one with no proof of this assumption. That "heart felt letter to the editor," as you attempt to dismiss it, is from people in a position to know what's going on.
Don't make assumptions and expect people to believe your whack-job, reflexive anti-Obama slant without proof.
One would have to assume you have no proof then that Daniels is to blame. One would also assume whomever writes the check for reimbursement makes the rules, and that would be the feds.
Nice try though, carry on.
Zank, conversing with you is like talking to a child. And not a very smart one.
No one said the feds didn't make those rules - what was said is that the state didn't comply with those rules in the first place, and made cheap fixes instead of complying with them.
When you have some evidence to prove that NAMI is lying, talk to us.
Michaelk42 wrote
Larsen: so wait. Aside from randomly pulling $52 billion out... and... I'm not even sure where you were going with that. Of course the subset cost of incarcerating the mentally ill is less than the total cost of incarcerating everyone. How you figure it's even less than mental health care treatment, since you have no number for that...
Yeah, that made no sense at all.
"I stand by my position that there are far more worthy goals out there than attending to mental health in relation to trying to stop a nut case from shooting someone."
What ARE those worthy goals? Why do you assume "trying to stop a nut case from shooting someone" (nice terminology there) is the ONLY reason to treat mental illnesses?
Does it occur to you *at all* that it might be a better idea to treat an illness *before* people get die?
Seriously Larsen, if you want to showcase your apparent ultra-libertarian sociopathy, just stick with the standard "Fuck You, I Got Mine." You'll save yourself some typing.
Michaelk42, in a previous post I made I suggested it would cost $75 Billion to test each of the 330 million Americans for being nuts. I believe it was your assertion that if we do not treat the mentally ill that we pay for it in the end by a combination of prisons, mental care, legal, etc. Sine we do not know who the mentally ill are, a test would have to be created and doctors trained to give the test. I estimated the $75 billion by taking the going rate for a psychiatric examination and multiplied by 330 million (roughly $225 per test). I believe this would be a bit low, but you can jump in and present your own values at any time.
The $52 Billion came out a Time magazine list of the the top thinks of the last decade. One of them dealt with the U.S. having the highest prison populations 1:100 and the cost I do believe was $52 Billion, but feel free to present your own value.
My worthy goals would be where my money would actually do something that results in a bigger bang for the money. My question to you is, have you ever created a budget? How do you go about prioritizing what you spend your money on? Are some categories more important to you and if push comes to shove so to speak you would cut back on a category; ie food v going to a movie? Utilities v eating at out? Rent/mortgage v dental care? Have you ever had to make a difficult decision?
Now prioritize all the bad things that take place in the U.S. such as hunger, malnutrition, basic healthcare etc and how many people are affected by these problems? Now you propose we try and find a nut case who is intent on shooting somebody and your position is (correct me if I am wrong) is to spend whatever is necessary to find this nut case before he hurts/kills a few people while we could actually save and help millions wit the same amount of resources?
"Does it occur to you *at all* that it might be a better idea to treat an illness *before* people get die?"
You actually make a very good point. Now where is the resources best spent; mental health or physical health? What dollar returns the best bang for the buck? This is where a FMEA would help a group make a decision. What you are presenting is emotion. Emotion is not the right frame of mind to make a decision.
You of course are free to donate whatever you wish of your resources to the mentally ill.
"Michaelk42, in a previous post I made I suggested it would cost $75 Billion to test each of the 330 million Americans for being nuts."
So in a previous post you didn't get the point. That's not the discussion. We're talking about the people we already know need it, and in the case of Indiana, the people who were - but now are not - receiving treatment.
That is not hypothetical. I'm not sure how many people those 38 staff were treating in this city, but over 100 is probably a safe bet. Those people are real, in this town now, and suffering.
How many of those people are a threat to themselves or others is unknown.
But from your first sentence we see that you're not even mentally in the same discussion, and your entire premise isn't just flawed, it's not even related.
Michael, you're cracking me up.
You accuse Larsen of being off topic, when it was you who originally cited lack of funding for mental health care in Indiana to somehow try and prove that this was the cause of what happened in Arizon. Are you suggesting that Loughner sought help here but was turned away? Or are you just expecting us to believe that Arizona is the same as Indiana.
And please, if you cite another article to back your position, don't use one that is as pathetically biased as the one on cold medicine laws.
In God I trust, All others bring data.
Michael, here's another tip to help pull you back to reality:
Since the evidence so far is to the contrary, the burden of proof lays upon you to prove that Loughner actually sough help for his mental illness.
If he did not seek such help, then there is no way the state could have discovered it, other than to test the entire population as Larsen mentioned.
And I still don't see what Governor Daniels has to do with any of this.
Hmm.
"It
Marx: you might want to read the reply before you continue to spout off. You're claiming I'm making some entirely different point. You might want to get back to the reality of what I actually said. Larsen certainly never even got to it.
Larsen: So in other words, you don't have a reply if you're forced to address what I actually said.
Michael,
You accuse Larsen of being selfish and of holding a
Michael,
I read it, and I responded to it. It's you who is evading the issue.
Do you have an article that explains how Gov. Daniels cutting funding for mental health care in Indiana affected a man in Arizona who appears to never have even sought help - anywhere?
Apparently not!
Michael,
I already explained how this article was biased. I could make more points to back this up, but since you failed to respond to my first point I won't bother.
I seriously don't understand why you say that no one is responding to your claims. We all have, directly. But you always just blow past that and throw out another off-topic comment. Or you simply revert to repeating a previously stated argument, even when it was already dispatched of.
Michael,
If you seriously want to test your mental acumen against me, pick one of the topics we have already engaged in. Present your position in a civil manner, devoid of any personal accusations, and I will respond in detail.
If you're unable or unwiling to do that, then engaging you would just be a waste of my time.
Phil Marx: Larsen is talking about some ludicrous fantasy where we have mandatory mental health screening for every person in the US. Where he got that from, I don't know. It's his weird idea and not something I need to, or even can, respond to.
What I know about Larsen is this: he didn't get elected to any position of authority for a reason.
"I already explained how this article was biased. I could make more points to back this up, but since you failed to respond to my first point I won
Marx:
What I actually said - taking away mental health care from people who need it, who were already getting it, isn
Michael, you say;
"...Larsen is talking about some ludicrous fantasy where we have mandatory mental health screening for every person in the US. Where he got that from, I don
Michael says:
"What I know about Larsen is this: he didn
Michal says:
"You made some vague reference to some mobile factories being discovered
Michael says:
"
Michael says:
"Then you cried about me being mean to you when I pointed out how factually stupid a line of reasoning this is, and you left for a while."
Again, I simply made a plea for you to stay on topic. My abscence was intended to give you time to reflect.
Michael also says "And after all that? Still no point about the article being biased.'
Yes, Michael, I've made that point several times. And there are other flaws with the article that could easily be pointed out. But since you keep dodging the first point I won't push any further in that direction.