This is "least restrictive environment" are you sure you advocate restricting people more than necessary? Why don't we accept a diversity of people living in our communities? All kinds of crazies live together in Honduras, Samoa, Malaysia, etc.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
No, it is not "least restrictive environment". It is "use any excuse to toss people on the street with no support because we have no funding". Dealt with it for years.
I am not kidding. They literally dumped people on the doorstep of the hospital with nothing but the clothes on their back. In midwinter in NY. Thank you Mr. Reagan. Took years before it was made clear that that was illegal.
It is only very recently that they have stopped involuntarily discharging hallucinating people to homeless shelters (where they get robbed)
I am not kidding. They literally dumped people on the doorstep of the hospital with nothing but the clothes on their back. In midwinter in NY. Thank you Mr. Reagan. Took years before it was made clear that that was illegal.
It is only very recently that they have stopped involuntarily discharging hallucinating people to homeless shelters (where they get robbed)
I myself am on the autistic spectrum. Lots of people would lock me up if possible. No thanks to your strait jackets and lobotomies my friend. I'll take the street.
Yeah, you do not understand what I am talking about. Sorry for your ignorance. I am also on the autism spectrum, and it does not excuse wilful ignorance like yours.
Any time you want to open your closed mind, feel free. Least restrictive environment is a great idea, but was not what was implemented. What was implemented was "dump and let die".
Any time you want to open your closed mind, feel free. Least restrictive environment is a great idea, but was not what was implemented. What was implemented was "dump and let die".
I'm sorry, true, I should have understood better what you were saying about people being turned out on the street, and I'm sorry for your personal experience. Please forgive my insensitivity.
My SO had just finished the work on her MA in Psych when Reagan did that. (It took her a couple of decades to get the degree because she got seriously ill and didn't finish her thesis in time.) She still rants about what Reagan did.
But being around Psychologists, I've picked up a few things. Among them is the code of ethics for when they take action to take away someone's freedom on Psychological grounds. The criteria is when someone has been determined to be a threat to themselves or others. Before Reagan there were also facilities for people who may not be a threat to themselves or others, but were not capable of taking care of themselves and running a household for whatever particular reason and there was nobody else capable of taking care of them (such as family), so both of these groups ended up out on the streets.
The US and to a large degree Northern Europe today, family unity is often not as strong as in some more traditional cultures. There are upsides and downsides to this many situations where a family will take in a family member in more traditional cultures doesn't happen in these countries. But also a lot of family members who really shouldn't be under the same roof have cultural permission to stay apart rather than a strong cultural meme to stick together no matter what.
I have seen some families who stick to the traditional cultural norm and they end up in constant conflict.
If we were to return to the level of housing the mentally ill we had in 1980 with modern Psychology rules, the only people on the autism spectrum who would be housed in these facilities would be those who are very far over on the spectrum to a point where they struggle to communicate and may become violent with little warning. That obviously would not include anyone in this thread. There also would not be lobotomies or any of the other horrendous things institutions used to do going on. The art/science of Psychology is well beyond that today.
There are many new treatments that have come along that can dramatically help people with severe mental problems that leave them incapacitated, but these treatments must be done in a safe place.
Culturally the entire developed world made some big mistakes starting in the 1980s and it's brought us to the brink. The "greed is good" meme, the embracing of many of Ayn Rand's ideas by the right, stirring up the religious right about reproductive rights, and the end of the Cold War all unleashed a lot of ills.
The end of the Cold War in itself was a good thing, but we screwed up the peace. Russia instead of being brought into the rest of the world was allowed to be taken over by tyrants, and some differences in the west that had been suppressed instead of dealt with because of the Cold War started coming out. The legacy of Reagan was to pit the Republicans as someone's enemy. When the big bad commies were gone, they turned on the left instead of pivoting to a rational right of center party. When the Cold War was over, the left was happy to bury hatchets and move on, but the right needed a fight to keep winning elections instead of new ideas that might appeal to people.
The US wasn't alone in all this. Margaret Thatcher's UK unleashed some similar demons. The EU was not a terrible idea in general, but it too has flaws that have come to light in the last 10 years between the debt crisis and Brexit.
Europe had its far right groups, but the unleashing of the far right in the US gave European far right groups permission to start making noise too. The pressures on Europe to allow non-white immigrants in due to low birth rates as well as the instability in Africa and the Middle East driving refugees into Europe gave the far right groups a focus.
I see too many parallels between the world today and the 1930s to be comfortable. There are a lot of differences, but the way relations between different groups of people are calcifying is a similar pattern. It's unlikely, but there are forces in the US that could make the US the Germany in the modern repeat of the scenario. The US has a much stronger legal tradition, but it's being pushed to the limits. McConnell's push to ram through as many judges as possible is very unsettling. He seems desperate to get it done before something happens in the near future.
bhtooefr
Active Member
Another thing to consider, with the fears that a real UBI would cause people to not work: wouldn't that be a good thing?
Bear with me here. There's two reasons for this, basically.
The first is simply... everyone's worked with someone who reduces productivity, who paying them to not work would be a better outcome, but current American society feels the need to give them a job, because that's the only answer available without UBI. And, those people are going to be some of the first to quit their jobs and live off of UBI... no longer reducing productivity, no longer polluting on their commute, no longer taking up space on the roads.
The second is, a lot of people are working jobs that aren't fulfilling, because it reliably puts a roof over their head and food on their table. UBI would give them the freedom to quit their jobs and do something more fulfilling, and potentially more productive to society. (To be honest, with sufficient UBI, I myself would probably fall into this category. I spent ~2 years with only very spotty employment, on an insufficient unemployment (and no ability to stretch that further, because any odd jobs I did would come out of unemployment)... but not enough money to put any of my ideas into motion. I have money now, but not the time/energy to put them into motion.)
Bear with me here. There's two reasons for this, basically.
The first is simply... everyone's worked with someone who reduces productivity, who paying them to not work would be a better outcome, but current American society feels the need to give them a job, because that's the only answer available without UBI. And, those people are going to be some of the first to quit their jobs and live off of UBI... no longer reducing productivity, no longer polluting on their commute, no longer taking up space on the roads.
The second is, a lot of people are working jobs that aren't fulfilling, because it reliably puts a roof over their head and food on their table. UBI would give them the freedom to quit their jobs and do something more fulfilling, and potentially more productive to society. (To be honest, with sufficient UBI, I myself would probably fall into this category. I spent ~2 years with only very spotty employment, on an insufficient unemployment (and no ability to stretch that further, because any odd jobs I did would come out of unemployment)... but not enough money to put any of my ideas into motion. I have money now, but not the time/energy to put them into motion.)
Easy. Politicians do what they are paid by industry--and a few very wealthy individuals--to do with a very few exceptions (who are usually ridiculed in the press). In some cases enough phone calls, emails, and tweets from citizens can make a difference on an individual egregious bill (such as the Tesla no-service allowed bill in Texas), but there will be dozens of other bills that support corporate profits over citizens wellbeing. The political parties generally insure that no one who promotes citizen wellbeing over corporate profits has a chance of getting nominated.
In many western countries it has become a badge of honor to be "busy" with work and there is something wrong with you if you aren't busy. In some places it's a bad thing to go home on time and at the end of the day many people hang around doing make work to avoid being the first one to slink out first.
There have been some interesting analysis of what happens when work is cut back. In the 1970s the UK cut back to a 3 days week for most workers because there was a coal strike that caused an energy shortage. The pundits all thought it would be disastrous for the economy, but when the strike was over and they analyzed the drop in industrial output and found it only dropped 6% instead of the close to 50% expected.
The founder of Kellogs cereal thought his workers should have more time with their families, so he mandated a 6 hour work day. Output remained the same and his workers were very happy with the extra time. Buy when he retired new managers went back to an 8 hour work day.
I work contract for a tech company in California and due to the trade war they had to cut me back to 3 1/2 days a week last fall. Fortunately we're able to get by on that. It has messed with my work flow. Just as I get going for the week, I have to stop and then getting going again on Monday is difficult because I have to remember where I was 4 days before. But it has made life more flexible. I see up sides and downsides to it.
A lot of work can be done more efficiently, but different types of work require different work flows. Managers still think like factory bosses even though the bulk of people in the developed world don't do that sort of work.
As more and more automation comes along, we're going to have to figure out what to do with all the people put out of work by it. A lot of food preparation jobs will be going away, automated driving will eliminate a lot more jobs, and factory work is becoming more and more automated too. Millions of people are forced into fast food and things like Uber to make ends meet. What will those people do next?
And politicians, especially conservative like to blame the out of work for being lazy. "Go get a job!", but what if nobody will hire you no matter how hard you search because there is nothing for your skills, or you have an old criminal conviction? Some people have the creativity and skills to create a job, but not everyone does. The people with those talents are probably less than 1/2 the population. I know some people who are brilliant, but are too scared of the unknown to ever try creating a job for themselves. Other people don't even know where to start and don't have what it takes to make it happen.
Some people are wired to be someone else's employee and they are out of luck if nobody is hiring. Others don't have the time and energy to start what they could start because they are too busy working several dead end jobs.
There have been some interesting analysis of what happens when work is cut back. In the 1970s the UK cut back to a 3 days week for most workers because there was a coal strike that caused an energy shortage. The pundits all thought it would be disastrous for the economy, but when the strike was over and they analyzed the drop in industrial output and found it only dropped 6% instead of the close to 50% expected.
The founder of Kellogs cereal thought his workers should have more time with their families, so he mandated a 6 hour work day. Output remained the same and his workers were very happy with the extra time. Buy when he retired new managers went back to an 8 hour work day.
I work contract for a tech company in California and due to the trade war they had to cut me back to 3 1/2 days a week last fall. Fortunately we're able to get by on that. It has messed with my work flow. Just as I get going for the week, I have to stop and then getting going again on Monday is difficult because I have to remember where I was 4 days before. But it has made life more flexible. I see up sides and downsides to it.
A lot of work can be done more efficiently, but different types of work require different work flows. Managers still think like factory bosses even though the bulk of people in the developed world don't do that sort of work.
As more and more automation comes along, we're going to have to figure out what to do with all the people put out of work by it. A lot of food preparation jobs will be going away, automated driving will eliminate a lot more jobs, and factory work is becoming more and more automated too. Millions of people are forced into fast food and things like Uber to make ends meet. What will those people do next?
And politicians, especially conservative like to blame the out of work for being lazy. "Go get a job!", but what if nobody will hire you no matter how hard you search because there is nothing for your skills, or you have an old criminal conviction? Some people have the creativity and skills to create a job, but not everyone does. The people with those talents are probably less than 1/2 the population. I know some people who are brilliant, but are too scared of the unknown to ever try creating a job for themselves. Other people don't even know where to start and don't have what it takes to make it happen.
Some people are wired to be someone else's employee and they are out of luck if nobody is hiring. Others don't have the time and energy to start what they could start because they are too busy working several dead end jobs.
MikeQ
Member
Another issue is that many homeless shelters require you to be drug free or enter into a substance abuse program in order to get housing.
MikeQ
Member
Obama did something harmful like this too with homeless shelters. Not as direct an action but bad policy led to bad results. In order to receive federal aid, homeless shelters had to agree to take in drug addicts. Many shelters that were geared toward families ended up closing because they couldn't meet the requirement without putting families at risk.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
He literally did not inhale. If you take a sip of water and spit it out, did you drink?
Off Shore
Off Topic Member
Oh, they get nominated. They even win election. They just don't get a *majority*.
The corporate donors often pay the minimum that they need to to retain power. They only buy just enough Congressional seats to retain control. In fact, all they need at the federal level is 51 Senate votes, with the best bang for the buck being in the lowest-population states. The more democratic and representative the election system, the more money they need to spend -- the more gerrymandering and malapportionment, the less they need to spend.
....for services covered by the province. In which province is it illegal to provide medical care which is not covered by the Canadian Medicare system, such as dental care in some cases?
Because I have a well-founded worldview based on over 100 years of evidence and massive research, and you're a fool spouting idiocy I've read a thousand times before, and debunked 20 years ago.
I know that there are plenty of idiots like you. I am really really really really sick of you fools. I know idiots like you don't believe what I say. Because you're idiots.
You people have caused actual and substantial injury to large numbers of people I know by your deranged and unhealthy opposition to socialized healthcare. You are hurting real people, and you are hurting them repeatedly. You deserve hostility. If you want to keep hurting people, keep right on with your capitalism-worshipping, people-killing policies.
War out. I'm done with you on this topic. When you stop promoting destructive policies which hurt people, we can talk.
Not to be rude, but you started the conversation with a bunch of unreferenced assertions. There are a wide range of participants here from all over the world and I'm doubtful many of those with single payer healthcare would claim it's a bad idea.
regarding the whole socialist/capitalist argument - remember that America is socialist for roads, water, many retirement programs, etc, etc. The argument is not socialist v capitalist in absolute terms, it is which specific programs fall under each umbrella.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Actual data does not support your claim. One example:
How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker
A more detailed list of countries, Canada is #30, so room for improvement, but US is #37
World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems
Last edited:
Neroden started the thread, I just responded to it. Whether one healthcare system is better than others depends entirely on what your criteria are. I was arguing about overall societal cost, efficiency and quality of care. Obviously national systems provide better healthcare access to poorer people. But you could deliver the same outcome of low income access with better competitive price transparency and a voucher or insurance system.
And yet we have lots of toll roads, lots of people won’t drink tap water, just bottled water, and retirement systems are going towards self directed, self saving systems through tax breaks while the government run ones are insolvent.
Nonetheless, your overall point is correct, healthcare in particular is very complex. As such, it is disappointing to be called a fool after such a slight push back with no attempt to tease out common areas of agreement or disagreement.
- Status
Similar threads
