Fixing Our Mental Health System
There were 14,022 murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the U.S. in 2011. Of these, 12,706 were cleared by arrest. If we assume that 10% of these persons charged were mentally ill (based on studies of murderers and mental illness), that’s about 1270 murders by the mentally ill a year (minus a few suicides among the mass murder set). We could easily be accruing more than $3 billion a year in current and long-term costs. How much mental health care can you pay for with $3 billion?
Of course, this isn’t really fair. If we successfully divert people into the mental health system before they commit crimes like murder, we will also make substantial inroads into other social costs that are somewhat harder to quantify: fewer homeless people begging on the streets; fewer requests to local governments to fund homeless shelters; fewer homeless people making a nuisance of themselves in public libraries. And I have not even considered the other major and minor crimes committed by mentally ill people who fall through the cracks.
I found myself wondering a little while back, how is it that I grew up in California at a time when community college tuition was free, the University of California’s costs were quite reasonable, and yet it was far less wealthy of a society than today? How did they manage to provide so many services, so effectively, with relatively little revenue? I am beginning to wonder if the problems of state or local government that have developed over the last forty years might be because we are spending money trying to clean up disasters, rather than prevent them.
At what point in their effectiveness, and after what medical/judicial review,
will it become defensible to implant a mentally ill person with a 'Minder' ?
At what point in their effectiveness, and after what medical/judicial review,
will it become defensible to implant a mentally ill person with a 'Minder' ?
Considering "cost" of the debate, where you cannot even use most terms to describe a psychotic individual, the time and money for the debate phase will require a new debt ceiling bill before anything gets started.
"Terrorist"? No; Just a religious radical.
"Social deviate"? No; Just your average Democrat.
"Homicidal maniac"? No; Just your everyday hard core Democrat.
Remember never to offend anybody!
Considering "cost" of the debate, where you cannot even use most terms to describe a psychotic individual, the time and money for the debate phase will require a new debt ceiling bill before anything gets started.
"Terrorist"? No; Just a religious radical.
"Social deviate"? No; Just your average Democrat.
"Homicidal maniac"? No; Just your everyday hard core Democrat.
Remember never to offend anybody!
Clayton, why do you think this would bother anyone? We all sit idly by knowing that the majority of public service employees costs the state (read: taxpayers) more than $2.5 million for their retirement years alone. At least we get entertained by the murderers trial.
Clayton, why do you think this would bother anyone? We all sit idly by knowing that the majority of public service employees costs the state (read: taxpayers) more than $2.5 million for their retirement years alone. At least we get entertained by the murderers trial.
You can imagine what happens next. The mentally ill prey upon the elderly. And that cannot be cheap, either in terms of the cost to place such mentally ill people in the rest homes or the additional medical care required for their elderly victims.
You can imagine what happens next. The mentally ill prey upon the elderly. And that cannot be cheap, either in terms of the cost to place such mentally ill people in the rest homes or the additional medical care required for their elderly victims.
I wouldn't be looking for much interest muchless, any resolve to this problem anytime soon with todays generations. The states and thier people want nothing to do with anything that the federal government won't pay for at the same time they complain to the high heaven that government is to big, costs too much and has to much power over the states.
I wouldn't be looking for much interest muchless, any resolve to this problem anytime soon with todays generations. The states and thier people want nothing to do with anything that the federal government won't pay for at the same time they complain to the high heaven that government is to big, costs too much and has to much power over the states.
You really think that this wasn't the cause of what he did?
You really think that this wasn't the cause of what he did?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Wishkah39 here. Criminal tendencies are identifiable from an early age, largely in peoples with harsh tempers, self-centered personalities, and lacking in self-control. These sorts of people are everywhere in our society, but most are able to control themselves. Yes, genetics plays a role, but from what I have witnessed over the years, it is also poor upbringing.
I would argue that the erosion of American society, particularly in the homeplace, is largely to blame.
In regard to the article itself, I must state that I've had personal experience with institutionalized mentally ill, and their legal rights... (show more)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Wishkah39 here. Criminal tendencies are identifiable from an early age, largely in peoples with harsh tempers, self-centered personalities, and lacking in self-control. These sorts of people are everywhere in our society, but most are able to control themselves. Yes, genetics plays a role, but from what I have witnessed over the years, it is also poor upbringing.
I would argue that the erosion of American society, particularly in the homeplace, is largely to blame.
In regard to the article itself, I must state that I've had personal experience with institutionalized mentally ill, and their legal rights border on ridiculous. Violent pedophiles and hallucinogenic schizophrenics wander our streets because they cannot be held if they do not wish to be. I agree there must be reform, but like most of the comments here, I believe it should be on the state level. In regard to the costs of sheltering known murderers, some legal reform to increase criminal executions would go far - particularly as a deterrent. (show less)
While there is much destructive erosion of American society that has taken place over the last 30 years, the overall murder rate is now where it was in the early 1960s.
While there is much destructive erosion of American society that has taken place over the last 30 years, the overall murder rate is now where it was in the early 1960s.
Perhaps the answer here isn't to have the government step in and run mental instutions, but for the private sector to stand up and start opening mental hospitals. All the government really needs to do is allow for relatives to hospitalize their own again.
Perhaps the answer here isn't to have the government step in and run mental instutions, but for the private sector to stand up and start opening mental hospitals. All the government really needs to do is allow for relatives to hospitalize their own again.
The reasons for the closure of government-run mental hospitals are multifactorial; your attempt to fit everything into your simple libertarian model does not work.
The reasons for the closure of government-run mental hospitals are multifactorial; your attempt to fit everything into your simple libertarian model does not work.
Private mental hospitals are a wonderful thing, and I have seen enough of how they work to agree that they should be part of any solution -- but the reason that the states need to remain players is that private mental hospitals mean that a mentally ill person has insurance that covers this. While most Americans have health insurance that provides mental health care, many of those with the most serious problems have already declined enough that they have lost their jobs, and thus their health insurance.
Private mental hospitals are a wonderful thing, and I have seen enough of how they work to agree that they should be part of any solution -- but the reason that the states need to remain players is that private mental hospitals mean that a mentally ill person has insurance that covers this. While most Americans have health insurance that provides mental health care, many of those with the most serious problems have already declined enough that they have lost their jobs, and thus their health insurance.
Just saying...
Just saying...
The other issue many parents face is the ease with which psychiatrists prescribe anti-psychotic drugs. They hand them out like candy, especially to teens who are mildly depressed. There needs to be a national database of withdrawal effects and other side effects, and parents need to start saying NO to doctors and schools who insist their kids get put on... (show more)
The other issue many parents face is the ease with which psychiatrists prescribe anti-psychotic drugs. They hand them out like candy, especially to teens who are mildly depressed. There needs to be a national database of withdrawal effects and other side effects, and parents need to start saying NO to doctors and schools who insist their kids get put on drugs (speaking of banging drums...). Unfortunately, the FDA is funded with big Pharma lobbying money that rewards doctors who prescribe them.
I think a rather small percentage of the population is dangerously mentally ill, and I agree that we as a country would do well to treat them as such.
The idea that civil liberties are at stake is valid, but it's a slippery slope that has to be navigated. Ignoring the dangerously mentally ill until they are criminals is a mistake. (show less)
Something else that a lot of people don't realize in this conversation is that the federal and state governments tend to hand more funding over to handle teaching "special needs" students.
Basically, the more kids a school district has who are on medication - the more funding they get.
There is a built-in positive feedback for that diagnosis that rewards the school district, and I do think this plays a role at some level on the pressure parents get from teachers sometimes.
Many teachers are perfectly fine with this, as it means a more pliable and controllable child.
As with asbestos and smoking, I'm afraid society has not recognized the dangers of something and allowed it to become commonplace and accepted practice - but at some point you can't... (show more)
Something else that a lot of people don't realize in this conversation is that the federal and state governments tend to hand more funding over to handle teaching "special needs" students.
Basically, the more kids a school district has who are on medication - the more funding they get.
There is a built-in positive feedback for that diagnosis that rewards the school district, and I do think this plays a role at some level on the pressure parents get from teachers sometimes.
Many teachers are perfectly fine with this, as it means a more pliable and controllable child.
As with asbestos and smoking, I'm afraid society has not recognized the dangers of something and allowed it to become commonplace and accepted practice - but at some point you can't overlook the cancer that is spreading.
Unfortunately, by that time it takes generations for the full extent of the damage to become known. (show less)
It was the oddest thing. I'd just get unreasonably angry for no real reason. Part of me knew I was mad for no reason, but I had no control over it.
Those drugs are dangerous because they can provoke that kind of reaction, and if you aren't aware of what could happen, it could be too late.
It was the oddest thing. I'd just get unreasonably angry for no real reason. Part of me knew I was mad for no reason, but I had no control over it.
Those drugs are dangerous because they can provoke that kind of reaction, and if you aren't aware of what could happen, it could be too late.