Now they are taking a fresh look....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 3:46 AM GMT
    Nearly 50% Of Mental Health Service Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010

    WASHINGTON -- In the past year alone, Pima County, Arizona, the site of the tragic shooting of 20 individuals including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has forced more than 45 percent of mental health service recipients off the government rolls, a service advocate tells the Huffington Post.

    The drop enrollment was protested strongly at the time, with opponents warning that the reductions would result in a spike in suicide attempts, public disturbances, hospitalizations and law enforcement encounters. But according Clarke Romans, Executive Direct of The National Alliance on Mental Illness’s (NAMI) Southern Arizona Division, the state ignored requests for relief, citing the need to implement strict budget cuts.

    Now, in the wake of this past weekend’s horrific shootings, along with subsequent reporting about the seemingly crazed mental state of the shooter, politicians, reporters and activists alike are taking a fresh look at the funding of mental health care.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 3:58 AM GMT

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30mental.html?_r=1Even without the new health care law, mental health advocates were getting ready to celebrate parity — a law requiring benefits for substance abuse and mental illnesses to be on par with benefits for medical illnesses.

    But that law, passed in 2008 and taking full effect only this July, did not cover everyone with insurance, and it offered no help to the 32 million uninsured Americans.

    Now mental health advocates are almost giddy. The law signed by President Obama last week expands parity to a much wider pool, making it possible for millions more people to get the same coverage for substance abuse and illnesses like bipolar disorder, major depression and schizophrenia as they would for, say, diabetes or cancer. There are no exact figures, but the mentally ill are more likely to be uninsured than the general population, advocates and researchers say.

    “A lot of this still has to play out in terms of how parity works,” said Michael J. Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, an advocacy group. But the new law “can change the mental health system in America and really give families and individuals an opportunity to get a level of access to care we could only fantasize about before this became law,” he said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 9:55 AM GMT
    icon_eek.gif

    I'm going to stop short at pointing the finger at a party, but this is a very GOOD reason why people NEED mental health care. Taking that killer out of college only isolated him. If he went to a mental hospital there'd be a better chance that he'd get better or at least not kill. And yes I would vote for the state to pay for it. I would pay money out of my pocket to feel like something is being done to help the mentally ill.

    Not being helped can yield the most horrifying feelings of isolation that can turn to any outlet without regard for ramifications.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 12, 2011 12:14 PM GMT
    Nearly 50% Of Mental Health Service Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010

    Welcome to Arizona healthcare
    This was a direct result of cuts in healthcare related items to remedy a governmental shortfall
    ............... those tax cuts still workin for ya republicans?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 2:47 PM GMT


    Hmmm, so where's socal and co to comment on this?
    Cutting a budget for mental health care regardless by which political party is problematic when people with serious mental health issues are living in the community. The cost turns out to be catastrophically much more than monetary in the end, doesn't it?

    -Doug
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jan 12, 2011 4:03 PM GMT
    GQjock saidNearly 50% Of Mental Health Service Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010

    Welcome to Arizona healthcare
    This was a direct result of cuts in healthcare related items to remedy a governmental shortfall
    ............... those tax cuts still workin for ya republicans?



    I sure hope your cock gets as much action as your finger does icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 4:15 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    GQjock saidNearly 50% Of Mental Health Service Recipients In Giffords' County Were Dropped In 2010

    Welcome to Arizona healthcare
    This was a direct result of cuts in healthcare related items to remedy a governmental shortfall
    ............... those tax cuts still workin for ya republicans?



    I sure hope your cock gets as much action as your finger does icon_rolleyes.gif


    lol, try and ignore the bashing of your party CuriousjockAZ. I'm curious about what fiscal conservatives think about extreme cuts to programs that keep the public safe. There are similar problems up here. The gov't closed mental facilities and released patients onto the street, where they had to use existing social safety nets without guidance. Needless to say it didn't work well.

    As a result, this is what is happening now (and btw our current 'liberal' gov't is not liberal - the conservatives (socreds) invaded and took it over after its inception as a party when theirs went down in flames.) Our government is run like a corporation.

    "# In 2009/10, the government expected to spend approximately $1.26 billion on mental health and addictions treatment in the province – an increase of more than 47 per cent from 2000/01.
    # Since January 2001, the number of adult community mental health beds/units has increased by 75 per cent, adding 3,722 new beds/units to 8,622 beds/units as of March 31, 2010.
    # The number of community addiction beds/units has increased by 192 per cent since January 2003, adding 1,676 new beds/units to 2,550 beds/units as of March 31, 2010.

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Hmmm, so where's socal and co to comment on this?
    Cutting a budget for mental health care regardless by which political party is problematic when people with serious mental health issues are living in the community. The cost turns out to be catastrophically much more than monetary in the end, doesn't it?

    -Doug

    In the other thread I commented on the need for mental health intervention regarding the Tucson shooter. Along those lines, I think because a major role of government is providing for public safety, not cutting or reinstating related programs is called for. California has a history of cutting mental health programs, and such cuts have been made with bipartisan support. So regardless of which state is involved and regardless of the past roles of either or both parties, if programs were cut impacting public safety, they should be reinstated. In addition to having the programs, proactive steps should be taken with safeguards to address situations where potentially dangerous people will not willingly seek treatment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 4:38 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove said

    Hmmm, so where's socal and co to comment on this?
    Cutting a budget for mental health care regardless by which political party is problematic when people with serious mental health issues are living in the community. The cost turns out to be catastrophically much more than monetary in the end, doesn't it?

    -Doug

    In the other thread I commented on the need for mental health intervention regarding the Tucson shooter. Along those lines, I think because a major role of government is providing for public safety, not cutting or reinstating related programs is called for. California has a history of cutting mental health programs, and such cuts have been made with bipartisan support. So regardless of which state is involved and regardless of the past roles of either or both parties, if programs were cut impacting public safety, they should be reinstated. In addition to having the programs, proactive steps should be taken with safeguards to address situations where potentially dangerous people will not willingly seek treatment.



    Thanks Socal, that was quite wonderful.
    Here's a little of what we're faced with up here:

    http://www.globaltvbc.com/world/criminally+responsible+murder+dismemberment/4092874/story.html
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jan 12, 2011 4:39 PM GMT
    meninlove saidI'm curious about what fiscal conservatives think about extreme cuts to programs that keep the public safe.




    I think it's kind of subjective at times in terms of what exactly consitutes "Programs that keep the public safe". For instance, cuts in Law Enforcement would obviously be far more directly related to "keeping the public safe" as would cuts in Mental Health Care. One could argue that cuts in the Arts could enrage a mentally unstable violinists to go on a rampage, or cuts in Education that eliminate some school sports programs could put a young athlete on a path to violence. I'm using extreme examples only to make the point that "Cuts" need to be made in budgets to try and balance them, and how those cuts may affect the public, when it comes to "Public Safety" is really kind of an unknown. Granted, cuts in Mental Health care specifically may prevent mentally unstable patients from getting the care they need, but who's to say even with care that this would have prevented any patient from acting out and committing an act of violence. Who knows if, had someone reported the shooter for his mental instability, and had he gotten some sort of help, if that would have stopped him from committing the heinous acts in Tucson. Bottomline: Budget cuts hurt, but they have to be made sometimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 4:46 PM GMT

    "Granted, cuts in Mental Health care specifically may prevent mentally unstable patients from getting the care they need, but who's to say even with care that this would have prevented any patient from acting out and committing an act of violence. Who knows if, had someone reported the shooter for his mental instability, and had he gotten some sort of help, if that would have stopped him from committing the heinous acts in Tucson. Bottomline: Budget cuts hurt, but they have to be made sometimes."

    I bolded one of your comments because I think that you've just seen what happens when they DON'T get help. And actually it does work, or there wouldn't be funding for it in the first place. Talk to a mental health professional. You must have clients or friends that are, yes?

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2011 4:51 PM GMT
    Bet that the cuts among the private prison buddy's of the great governor weren't cut were they.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jan 12, 2011 5:22 PM GMT
    meninlove saidI think that you've just seen what happens when they DON'T get help. And actually it does work, or there wouldn't be funding for it in the first place.
    -Doug



    You're projecting something that may or may not be the case. We don't know if mental health care would have changed this particular situation. We can hope it would have, but we will never know. As for mental health care working...Again, that's subjective depending on the patient. There are plenty of instances out there of mental health patients who went on to commit heinous crimes.