paperbackwriter said:

Great!  Let's hear his mental healthcare platform.  I'm all fucking ears.

---

hostileuniverse said:

paperbackwriter said:

Great!  Let's hear his mental healthcare platform.  I'm all fucking ears.

---

Maybe we can go back to the days of locking them up in institutions...

---

What do you mean back in the day?

http://nicic.gov/mentalillness

hostileuniverse said:

We only seem to lock them up AFTER they commit crimes, used to be some preemption involved...

---

Diploid said:

You can't just "lock people up" because there isn't always an obvious sign that they need to be locked up. There are many forms of mental illness from simple depression to psychopathic killer, and not all of them merit locking up.

What is needed is ready, easy, free access to mental health services. This isn't even available to people with otherwise full health insurance coverage. Most health plans I've seen provide for broken legs and flu shots, but if you're depressed, you're on your own. Your broken leg doctor will tell you to contact the country health department or some such cop out because your plan doesn't cover psychiatry.

And if you don't have insurance, you can't even self-pay; psychiatrists won't take you as a patient. I have a friend who recently tried to get help for ADD that's causing him trouble at work. He called several psychiatrists. Each call started with him being asked which health insurance company will pay. When he answered that he has no coverage for mental health, they refused to take him even as a self-pay, which as it happens he couldn't afford anyway. The first visit to a shrink alone is often several hundred dollars and that doesn't cover testing, meds, and all the rest.

Until our society gets over the baggage that comes with the phrase "mental illness" and we realize that part of the cost of calling ourselves civilized is taking up the bill to keep our citizens physically and mentally healthy, crazy people will continue to wig out and kill. We need to decide which expense is the greater: massacres or free mental health treatment for all.

Obamacare, for all the good it has done people who would otherwise have to just live sick, fails miserably on mental health.

---

paperbackwriter said:

Diploid said:

You can't just "lock people up" because there isn't always an obvious sign that they need to be locked up. There are many forms of mental illness from simple depression to psychopathic killer, and not all of them merit locking up.

What is needed is ready, easy, free access to mental health services. This isn't even available to people with otherwise full health insurance coverage. Most health plans I've seen provide for broken legs and flu shots, but if you're depressed, you're on your own. Your broken leg doctor will tell you to contact the country health department or some such cop out because your plan doesn't cover psychiatry.

And if you don't have insurance, you can't even self-pay; psychiatrists won't take you as a patient. I have a friend who recently tried to get help for ADD that's causing him trouble at work. He called several psychiatrists. Each call started with him being asked which health insurance company will pay. When he answered that he has no coverage for mental health, they refused to take him even as a self-pay, which as it happens he couldn't afford anyway. The first visit to a shrink alone is often several hundred dollars and that doesn't cover testing, meds, and all the rest.

Until our society gets over the baggage that comes with the phrase "mental illness" and we realize that part of the cost of calling ourselves civilized is taking up the bill to keep our citizens physically and mentally healthy, crazy people will continue to wig out and kill. We need to decide which expense is the greater: massacres or free mental health treatment for all.

Obamacare, for all the good it has done people who would otherwise have to just live sick, fails miserably on mental health.

---

I agree and I'd love to see the GOP put together a platform that would insure everyone gets the mental healthcare they need.

Sadly I think they're just scapegoating the gun control issue.

---

paperbackwriter said:

On the subject of the op I disagree with Carson.  Antisemitism, military training, and military technology would have been enough for ww2 to go down the way it did rather or not the Jews had been armed.

Likewise if the might of the US military was turned on us we wouldn't stand a chance.  Maybe it was the intent of the founding Fathers but military technology has far surpassed what civilians can afford let alone legally own.

As time goes on and drone technology is used more the gap gets wider.

---

hostileuniverse said:

Dems seem to be pretty good at "health" mandates, you know us gop'rs, "if it ain't about money, then it ain't about me"

---

Quote:

Gun control? Every measure I've seen put forward, wouldn't have prevented the mass killings, surely you mean "gun confiscation"

---

hostileuniverse said:

I think you overestimate the govts ability turn the military against us, I've discussed this with many servicemen, even if only half of them refused, that would be more than plenty to mount an offensive against your liberal socialist Marxist tyrannical govt...

---

paperbackwriter said:

hostileuniverse said:

Dems seem to be pretty good at "health" mandates, you know us gop'rs, "if it ain't about money, then it ain't about me"

---

That's kinda my point.  If the issue is mental health as the gop claims then they can put together a platform for it.  Otherwise it's just scapegoating.

Quote:

Gun control? Every measure I've seen put forward, wouldn't have prevented the mass killings, surely you mean "gun confiscation"

---

You're strawmanning, either intentionally or not.  I know many liberals that own guns and support gun control.  Gun control is not gun confiscation.  That's a strawman argument being pushed by the NRA.

What it does mean?

Banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and extended clips.  If you already own it, great.  Eventually it will end up in the trash or a museum as you're not legally allowed to sell it.

A better system for background checks and closing the gun show loophole.

Personally I would like to see guns regulated like cars.  If you commit a violent crime you can not purchase a gun for a period of time as your gun license is suspended.  If your gun is used by someone else to commit a crime you can be held accountable.  Gun licenses would have a waiting period of at least a month.  This waiting period could be reduced by successfully completing a gun safety course and showing that you've purchased a gun safe for your weapons.  If you commit a crime using a gun you should lose your gun license permanently.

Guns should be heavily taxed.  These taxes should mostly work as an incentive to encourage the purchase of gun safes, trigger locks, and the completion of gun safety courses via point of sale tax breaks.  Tax revenue for guns should go towards public awareness campaigns that teach people how to be responsible gun owners as well as the aforementioned gun safety courses.

---