GMTom wrote:...nothing to do with health care coverage in the least...

You seem quite dedicated to the idea that health insurance has little to do with mental health care, or should have little to do with it, or wouldn't impact it, or something. It's a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

Ricky had mentioned psychosis intervention programs. I imagine they could take many different forms. In the USA probably one of the best forms would be something located in public schools, where minors are subject to a certain amount of being ordered around and are used to taking tests. I'm picturing one trained psychologist who can teach the teachers, administrators and guidance counselors what to look for; perform diagnostic testing/interviewing when a student is referred; provide some amount of counseling/therapy; and refer the patient to appropriate specialists as needed. Wouldn't it be nice if every large High School had someone like this? [I know some already do, but are they full-time? Are they themselves well-trained? Wouldn't such a post be about the worst possible job for a well-trained professional (as most would likely see it)?]

Health insurance might be relevant to that last activity - the referral to a specialist. Maybe the city, county or state employs enough mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and others who are competent to prescribe anti-psychotic medications (which is no simple matter), so that "insurance" per sé doesn't have to be used. You just go to the big clinic where everyone is on the public payroll, or to the local medical school or teaching hospital where senior residents in psychiatry see patients for free as part of their training. Unfortunately, the supply of such no-cost mental health care is not even close to meeting needs. So, unable to find a publicly-funded resource for the patient, mightn't the school counselor's next recourse be to ask the parent(s) of the child if they have the means to finance care themselves?

A private psychiatrist's fees to diagnose, prescribe, and monitor meds for a year probably starts at about $1,000. Some will be much more expensive. And that assumes no real therapy - just drugs. Therapy for a year from someone trained to deal with violence-prone psychotics at just an hour a week would run at least into the thousands of dollars.

In the USA we do not have a sufficient supply of government-employed professionals to even begin to meet the need. In fact, it's questionable if we even have enough when you throw in all the pros working in private practice and/or for HMOs, medical groups, private clinics, and so on.

So imagine our school specialist has informed the parents that their kid ought to see a pro, and assume the parents don't get all defensive but instead accept the recommendation. Perhaps they are affluent enough to afford the $4,000 to $20,000 or more per year the care of their kid might cost. (And I'm not even including the cost of meds - some of which are quite expensive.) Perhaps they are so poor they're eligible for Medicaid, or their kid at least is covered by some form of public coverage, and perhaps these types of expenses are covered thereunder. Or perhaps they have private insurance that includes both coverage for the kid and coverage for mental health.

Or perhaps they have none of these. Or perhaps they might be able to pay out of pocket if they scrimp elsewhere but because they are skeptical about the diagnosis, or about the mental healthcare profession in general (hardly an unknown attitude), or don't want to admit their kid isn't perfect, or see such a diagnosis as a reflection on themselves, or are just selfish about the money, they end up not getting the kid the care he needs. Ricky has suggested (at a minimum) that in some of these situations having government-subsidized health insurance instead of none might make the difference between the kid getting care and not getting care. I can't find any flaw in that assertion.

It's possible that Loughlen could have been treated quite effectively at fairly low cost. Anti-psychotic meds can be amazingly effective. Any number of factors might influence why Loughlen wasn't taking such meds, assuming they would have helped. It's entirely possible that if Ricky had been dictator of the USA for the last ten years and instituted all the taxpayer-supported health programs he wanted, Loughlen would never-the-less have shot Gifford. But it's also possible that any number of government programs, from support for schooling of mental health pros to employing them by the cartload in public health programs to subsidizing or providing insurance with adequate mental health coverage to those who don't already have it, would have made the difference. It seems to me to be silly to deny that possibility simply on the basis of holding a political philosophy that prefers less government to more. It would be more reasonable to argue that the costs would exceed the benefits, or that getting government more involved in mental health care provision puts it on a slippery slope to being able to define libertarianism as a psychosis. (wink)

MinX,

I think what Tom is trying to say is that it wouldn't have made a difference. While it varies from state to state, generally in the US you can not do long term involuntary commitment. A person can only be held for 72 hours on an involuntary committment unless convicted of a crime and then you can not hold them indefinitely.

So in the instant case, the most Loughner could have been held for prior to the shooting is 72 hours. Yes he would have been on meds for those 72 hours but after that there is no way to force him to stay on the meds.

Involuntary commitment is hardly relevant, however. After an hour's assessment by a shrink he might have been prescribed meds that would have gotten him substantially in touch with the real world and off the delusions about government control and so on. When treating the mentally ill there are many more options than either doing nothing or strapping them to a bed.

What MX suggests again has nothing to do with health care held but rather on a government program of prevention. Unless you can spot the psycho (such as MX suggests in schools) and unless you can show he is a threat, aint nothing you can do about it. And that isn't just in the USA but everywhere. Complain about health care all you want, I agree the system we have sucks, but in this situation, ones health care would not have changed the situation one little bit. Point to any country in the world and show me how they have NEVER had someone go crazy. Preventive measures are not going to stop this 100% and nothing I have seen about this guy tells me we would have found enough to have caught him either. He was odd and strange, he creeped many out, but did he show he was a danger to society? (any more so than any other ex-con type people ...or should we keep them locked up forever as well?)

The laws in Arizona allowed anyone to ask for the commitment of a suspected mentally ill person. However they were balanced with the responsibility...that is the legal cost, and the potential for liability by the person or organization seeking to commit are bornby those taking the action.
In other words the concept that society at large must be protected by people or organizations willing to risk personnally...
The college had demanded that Loughren come back to school only once he had a clean bill of mental heath but could not force him to seek help. Indeed he could have come back on campus with his weapon and shot up the campus .....
The problem with individual responsibility is:
1) people who are mentally ill do not usually think they need help. They are unable to recognize reaity, and yet they are being made personnally responsible.
2) privacy laws don't allow for organizations to comunicate their concerns about people. If the school had the ability to register its concerns with a central registry that then communicated to a gun control registry, he might not have gotten his 30 shot glock.
3) the resources don't exist becasue the need for them is recognized but the ideological constraints won't allow the cost efficient way of managing the resource.
4) personal intervention is expensive in this circumstance. When society at large is threatened, it shouldn't come down to dependence on ill informed, ill resourced individiuals acting for the good of all society. Was this particular event allowed to happen becasue his parents were expected to act, and they couldn't?
5) physcosis intervention teams don't sit in their office waiting for people who need help to come to them. They respond to the orgaization that identify potential problems and seek out these people. They are proactive..... Proaction prevents tragedies. The emphasis on personnal responsibility denies the reality that we are dealing with people who can't form the ncessities fo personal responsibility..

Whats interesting about his discussion is that everyone seeks to identify the single cause fo every event like this, and unless there is 100% proof for that cause nothing else is given validity. Improved gun control? Well, there are other ways he could have gotten his gun so lets not make any effort at all in this area. Increased funding and resources for mental health intervention by a public program? Why should my taxes pay for some one elses" health care? Lowering the tone of the political debate? Well, it din't cause this particular shooter to go off the rails...... so lets carry on.

Reasonable people can agree to seek some answers without knowing they have the definitive anwer.
There are two over riding factors to consider in this. The current health care costs in the US outstrip all other nations on % GDP, and yet provide fewer services and resources. Including in the area of mental health.
The more guns exist in a society, the more gun deaths occur. On the same day that Loughren killed 6, if the day was typical, 44 other people in the US died from gunshot.

And Tom. 100% effective? Is that the point at which one acts? If one could prevent 50% of the mass shootings by a program woul that be worth he investment? I think if you asked the parents of the 9 year old, the'd say yes.

danivon wrote:

Machiavelli wrote:No--couldn't be. Only Tea Partiers can spew hurtful rhetoric.

How many times do I have to say it doesn't really matter whether it's the Tea Party, or anyone else?

Or is 'whataboutery' your only actual defence?

Danivon, it would seem that word is your only defense.

First, the shooting was somehow linked to Palin--no matter how much you have tried to deny that was your objective. Your first post mentioned her. The article you linked mentioned her "targeting" of Giffords as a motivation for the shooter.

When that all fell apart, it became about the incivility of political rhetoric on the Right. When many examples of the incivility of the Left's rhetoric (and even target images!) were cited, well then--it's all "whataboutery.'

In other words, you have no argument. Palin's not at fault. The political rhetoric is not at fault, but you still babble on.

OK, Ricky thinks it should have been caught and I guess this sort of thing would never have happened if we had a different health care system and had we had better gun control laws, like oh, maybe that of his own country Canada?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

How was Dawson College possible? A Glock 9mm was used there as well. It must have come from Mexico. No, I mean America. All guns come from here, after all.

Did Canada outlaw "Thrash Metal" as a result? What was the outcome of this incident? More info please.

Doctor Fate wrote:Danivon, it would seem that word is your only defense.

No, it's just appropriate when someone keeps trying to deflect criticism of 'A' for doing 'X' by quoting examples of 'B' doing 'X'. If 'X' is a bad thing, then it matters not who does it, surely?

First, the shooting was somehow linked to Palin--no matter how much you have tried to deny that was your objective. Your first post mentioned her. The article you linked mentioned her "targeting" of Giffords as a motivation for the shooter.

I mentioned her and the guy who stood against Giffords for November. The article said a lot - because I link to it does not mean I agree with it - but I don't mind admitting that the juxtaposition was pretty shocking.

When that all fell apart, it became about the incivility of political rhetoric on the Right. When many examples of the incivility of the Left's rhetoric (and even target images!) were cited, well then--it's all "whataboutery.'

Actually, I've said several times that it's about the incivility of political rhetoric from all sides, not just the right. You seem to be assuming that presenting examples from the left will refute me. Rather, it's more evidence of what I've been complaining about.

In other words, you have no argument. Palin's not at fault. The political rhetoric is not at fault, but you still babble on.

[/quote]The political rhetoric on all sides is still uncivil, in my view, and Palin is one of those who indulges in it. That there's no direct connection to the shooting still does not remove the eerie coincidence.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Danivon, it would seem that word is your only defense.

No, it's just appropriate when someone keeps trying to deflect criticism of 'A' for doing 'X' by quoting examples of 'B' doing 'X'. If 'X' is a bad thing, then it matters not who does it, surely?

First, I don't agree that it is a "bad thing." If all of the electorate were attuned to the issues, then such rhetoric would be immaterial. One could argue that the rhetoric distracts the electorate from the issues, but I think many voters are just too lazy to do their own research and thinking. You have not established that our over-heated rhetoric, practiced on both sides for the entirety of our history, is "bad." It might not be your preference, but it is the American norm and is not going to change because of a single event.

Second, if your goal was merely to call for reduction in the inflammatory tone of political rhetoric, then why didn't you say so in your initial post? Why mention Palin and not Democrats? Where was the balance you seem to be yearning for?

When that all fell apart, it became about the incivility of political rhetoric on the Right. When many examples of the incivility of the Left's rhetoric (and even target images!) were cited, well then--it's all "whataboutery.'

Actually, I've said several times that it's about the incivility of political rhetoric from all sides, not just the right. You seem to be assuming that presenting examples from the left will refute me. Rather, it's more evidence of what I've been complaining about.

Strangely, you provided zero examples from the Left, which is what one would reasonably expect IF what you are now claiming were true.

In other words, you have no argument. Palin's not at fault. The political rhetoric is not at fault, but you still babble on.

The political rhetoric on all sides is still uncivil, in my view, and Palin is one of those who indulges in it. That there's no direct connection to the shooting still does not remove the eerie coincidence.[/quote]

What coincidence? That Giffords was in a "targeted" district? Let me make a wager: if ANY politician in America were shot, I could find rhetoric from his/her opponent that would seem an "eerie coincidence."

So, again, your purpose in starting this forum was not about uncivil rhetoric. If it were, you would have provided balance. Yours was merely a hit on Palin. Sadly, from your perspective, the facts got in the way.

Yes, I am reading your mind--by looking at your posts. Where were the outrageous quotes from Democrats? Where was the "I don't believe rhetoric caused this shooting" comment? Why name the forum as you did?

Your motive is obvious. That you won't state it doesn't hide it.

Doctor Fate wrote:First, I don't agree that it is a "bad thing."

Of course you don't. You are hardly one to claim otherwise, frankly.

It might not be your preference, but it is the American norm and is not going to change because of a single event.

No, alas, it seems not. The cycle of hate will continue.

Second, if your goal was merely to call for reduction in the inflammatory tone of political rhetoric, then why didn't you say so in your initial post? Why mention Palin and not Democrats? Where was the balance you seem to be yearning for?

Why mention Palin (and Kelly) and not Democrats? Because...

As far as I was aware, no Democrats had put out messages which mentioned Giffords by name and put a crosshair against her district.

Strangely, you provided zero examples from the Left, which is what one would reasonably expect IF what you are now claiming were true.

Do I need to? I only needed to provide one example from any side to show what I meant. That there were two examples, but only from one side does not mean anything, other than that those were the most pertinent examples relating to the particular incident.

What coincidence? That Giffords was in a "targeted" district? Let me make a wager: if ANY politician in America were shot, I could find rhetoric from his/her opponent that would seem an "eerie coincidence."

Which is precisely the problem, if you are right.

So, again, your purpose in starting this forum was not about uncivil rhetoric. If it were, you would have provided balance. Yours was merely a hit on Palin. Sadly, from your perspective, the facts got in the way.

It was not just Palin I referred to in my first post, but Giffords' opponent from November. My starting point was the attack on Giffords, seeing as that was the main event.

Hey, guess what, Palin is not the main victim in all this. There are six dead and more than a dozen others who are far more entitled to sympathy, frankly.

I am not subject to any 'Fairness Doctrine' (what you would abhor if it were imposed on the US broadcast media), and I don't actually think it is necessary to point out more than one example of a thing when saying that that thing happens.

Yes, I am reading your mind--by looking at your posts.

You seem to be deriving your ESP readings from what isn't there, rather than what is. I didn't say a huge amount of things, but it's hard to prove anything from any of them.

Where were the outrageous quotes from Democrats?

You and your fellow whatabouterers provided those, in short order. I didn't see any about Giffords though, not that were as clearly linking the use of guns to removing her from office at any rate.

Where was the "I don't believe rhetoric caused this shooting" comment? Why name the forum as you did?

Personally, I think that there is a general link between the overall temperature of US politics and the anger of this young man. We've had a long period when people on both sides have been claiming that when the other side is in power they want to take away your rights, control you, kill the innocent, etc etc, and that sometimes, the only way to deal with it is to take things into your own hands. And you have an odd lad who is not exactly totally disconnected (in touch with the internet enough to post videos) and has somehow picked up a lot of strange ideas about the government - some of which are similar to those expressed by some really extreme people, way out from the Tea Party or mainstream politics. Who can say definitively that there is no way he picked up anything from what was going on over the last few years?

Seems to me, the cycle of hate is being heated up by the Democrats and Liberals. Why else would this crosshair "issue" be raised over and over? We seemed to agree that this was not a message to kill the congresswoman, we seem to agree it was a simple way that we all link a target to a bullseye or crosshair and it meant nothing more. So why continue with the suggestions (in bold) that it meant something ...[i]more[/] But excuse me, Danivon will simply say he clearly said she meant nothing so his accusations are therefore meaningless?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:First, I don't agree that it is a "bad thing."

Of course you don't. You are hardly one to claim otherwise, frankly.

Says Mr. Kettle. I mean come on! If you were Mr. High-minded Rhetoric, it would be one thing, but you sling mud with the best of them. In fact, if you claimed the mud-slinging title, you would have a compelling case.

It might not be your preference, but it is the American norm and is not going to change because of a single event.

No, alas, it seems not. The cycle of hate will continue.

As it has since virtually the beginning of the Republic. Btw, I don't think all heated rhetoric is "hate." Some of it is exaggeration to make a point. Very little of it results or is linked to actual violence. Free speech means tolerating heated rhetoric.

Second, if your goal was merely to call for reduction in the inflammatory tone of political rhetoric, then why didn't you say so in your initial post? Why mention Palin and not Democrats? Where was the balance you seem to be yearning for?

Why mention Palin (and Kelly) and not Democrats? Because...

As far as I was aware, no Democrats had put out messages which mentioned Giffords by name and put a crosshair against her district.

Disingenuous. The entirety of your first post:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... ng-arizona

Horrific. One of the dead is a nine year old girl, born on 9/11.

It's more shocking that before this, her political opponent and Sarah Palin both used the imagery of guns as part of the election campaign.

No one could reasonably infer from that post that your goal was to illustrate the evil of over-the-top rhetoric from both political parties--the purpose you retroactively have claimed once your nonsensical linkage to Palin was disproved.

Strangely, you provided zero examples from the Left, which is what one would reasonably expect IF what you are now claiming were true.

Do I need to? I only needed to provide one example from any side to show what I meant. That there were two examples, but only from one side does not mean anything, other than that those were the most pertinent examples relating to the particular incident.

Maybe--IF you'd stated your thesis as you NOW do. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and then changed the thrust of your argument. Where is the evidence that your original intent is as you NOW claim?

Hey, guess what, Palin is not the main victim in all this. There are six dead and more than a dozen others who are far more entitled to sympathy, frankly.

I'm sure you listened to the interview I heard with the nine-year old girl's father. Oh wait. That was on the evil Fox News, so it doesn't count. I was amazed he could even talk one day after the shooting. It was so sad. As the father of two girls and the grandfather of two more, I cannot imagine being able to get through such a thing. I have no lack of empathy for the victims. I am praying for Giffords to recover and am delighted by the progress she is making.

Palin is not a victim. She is, however, a "target" of the vitriol of the Left.

I didn't say a huge amount of things, but it's hard to prove anything from any of them.

There is a startling lack of evidence that your intent is what you now claim.

Where were the outrageous quotes from Democrats?

You and your fellow whatabouterers provided those, in short order.

Right. So, I should have just looked at your first post and accused you of "whataboutery" with regard to Palin. That's how brilliant your insights have been.

Where was the "I don't believe rhetoric caused this shooting" comment? Why name the forum as you did?

Personally, I think that there is a general link between the overall temperature of US politics and the anger of this young man. We've had a long period when people on both sides have been claiming that when the other side is in power they want to take away your rights, control you, kill the innocent, etc etc, and that sometimes, the only way to deal with it is to take things into your own hands. And you have an odd lad who is not exactly totally disconnected (in touch with the internet enough to post videos) and has somehow picked up a lot of strange ideas about the government - some of which are similar to those expressed by some really extreme people, way out from the Tea Party or mainstream politics. Who can say definitively that there is no way he picked up anything from what was going on over the last few years?

This is pathetic. Is it "Tea Party" or "mainstream" to look favorably on the Communist Manifesto? How about this:

"I'm in a terrible place," he added. "This is the school that I go to. This is my genocide school, where I'm going to be homeless because of this school. I haven't forgot the teacher that gave me the B for freedom of speech."
Loughner is accused of firing into a crowd outside a grocery store in Tucson on Jan. 8 during a public event held by Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
"This is Pima Community College, one of the biggest scams in America," Loughner later says on the recording. "The students are so illiterate that it affects their daily lives."
In the video, Loughner also mentions "mind control," "illegal transactions" and says that "they are controlling the grammar."

He has views that are far right, far left, far up and far down. He has views from Pluto. He has views from all manner of places, but it is pretty tortured logic on your part to suggest that it's up to me (or someone else) to disprove this: "Who can say definitively that there is no way he picked up anything from what was going on over the last few years?"

What kind of standard is that? Shouldn't you have to prove the link? It's more of your argumentation by oblique implication and it's utterly dishonest.

Poll indicates that 13% of Tea Party members think violence is justified against the current American government. http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/1/14. No risk of inflaming that group with violent rhetoric, right?

Doctor Fate wrote:No one could reasonably infer from that post that your goal was to illustrate the evil of over-the-top rhetoric from both political parties--the purpose you retroactively have claimed once your nonsensical linkage to Palin was disproved.

Well, clearly you can't. What I intended was indeed to illustrate the potential danger of over-the-top rhetoric. Who it came from (and there are more than two political parties in the USA, by the way) was less important than that it occurred. I mentioned neither party in that post.

This is pathetic. Is it "Tea Party" or "mainstream" to look favorably on the Communist Manifesto?

Umm, you seem to not have read what I wrote, or to be very vehemently agreeing. I was saying he was influenced from "really extreme people, way out from the Tea Party or mainstream politics".

You mention the Communist Manifesto as being a book he liked. It was not his only favourite. He also listed some Orwell, Plato, Hitler... Some are pretty well read books, popular amongst many people. One or two are pretty extreme. He may have been merely posing with that list anyway.