opelmanta1900 wrote:Who do you think the majority of that money would benefit? If I had to guess I'd say it would be
1. Homeless people
2. Hard drug abusers
3. Alcoholics
Not my own view, but I can see why people don't want their money going to people who have put themselves in a hole through repeatedly poor choices... Feels like you're just throwing money away at that point...
Assuming we did have great mental health care available to all, how would people like Stephen Paddock and Ian Long encounter it? I have nothing to base this on, but my gut says you could've given those guys a card with a name and number of a great mental health professional willing to provide free care, and they still wouldn't have called...
much of the original tidal surge in homelessness followed severe budget slashing that led to closure of many State and other mental hospitals. Thousands were released to the streets.
drug and alcohol addiction are not necessarily mental conditions, but rather illnesses quite often. Unable to cope, many families (parents, spouses etc.) have the addicted one removed from home. Again, not many alternatives unless one can afford The Betty Ford...over and over again.
if the budget were to be restored and money flowed to those areas we might actually make a dent in these scourges. Both treatment after the fact and preventive measures might have even more success than they did years ago as we know a lot more about these illnesses.
and if only some were eligible for at least partial insurance coverage...