Intelligent Self Interest and Mental Health Care
Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords this past Saturday in Tucson, AZ. (I'm sure that isn't news to anyone reading this). What's starting to come out is that Loughner may have been seriously mentally ill.
I have people very close to me who have various serious mental illness (SMI) One thing that I have observed about our state (Arizona) mental health system is that while you CAN get meds for darn near free if you go through the hoops to qualify for disability, continuous counseling is not so readily available. Meds are only half of the solution to SMI, counseling is the other half. Without counseling, patients are left in a sort of recovery limbo. Not all SMI can be "cured" but with the right counseling/training, some patients are able to re-enter the normal work-a-day world without a casual acquaintance realizing they are ill.
Recently during the Obama healthcare debate, quite a few people held out that health care was an entitlement. The US Constitution (and its amendments) doesn't mention medical care anywhere in it, so the best proponents of free healthcare for all can do is to take the moral position that it should be free, not that there is any legal entitlement.
Nor can one make the case for the legal entitlement to free mental health care. However, what one could make is the case that it is in our best interest (hence the tie in to I.S.I.) to provide free and comprehensive care to the seriously mentally ill.
Why the difference ?
If a poor person has a bad case of the flu, they will (most likely) get over it and be able to return normal function in our society. There are also many preventative measure people can take to avoid getting sick (lifestyle choices primarily). If medical health issues typically aren't disruptive to society, then society is better off leaving individuals to be financially responsible for resolving their health issues rather than collectively attempting to fix them. Obviously, this wouldn't hold the same weight of truth when it comes to certain types of epidemic illnesses, but that isn't what I'm addressing here.
Every potential worker that has a chronic serious mental illness takes away from the overall productive potential our society. If a person hallucinates so badly on a regular basis that they cannot drive, then they are going to have a hard time holding down a job. However, if that same person is provided anti-hallucinatory drugs and counseling/training to avoid hallucination triggers, then that person can potentially re-enter working society and will require less welfare/disability $$$ over the long term. The idea is that in some cases the SMI don't have to be burdens to society for the rest of their lives and can contribute like everyone else.
That isn't to say that one's value is determined by one's ability to contribute to society. The very concept of the valuation of an individual is so subjective and abstract that I can't do it justice here.
The main point is that it is in our best interest to rehabilitate (to whatever degree possible) those with SMI amongst us. If we did that, then we might not have had the tragedy in Tucson this past Saturday.
I have people very close to me who have various serious mental illness (SMI) One thing that I have observed about our state (Arizona) mental health system is that while you CAN get meds for darn near free if you go through the hoops to qualify for disability, continuous counseling is not so readily available. Meds are only half of the solution to SMI, counseling is the other half. Without counseling, patients are left in a sort of recovery limbo. Not all SMI can be "cured" but with the right counseling/training, some patients are able to re-enter the normal work-a-day world without a casual acquaintance realizing they are ill.
Recently during the Obama healthcare debate, quite a few people held out that health care was an entitlement. The US Constitution (and its amendments) doesn't mention medical care anywhere in it, so the best proponents of free healthcare for all can do is to take the moral position that it should be free, not that there is any legal entitlement.
Nor can one make the case for the legal entitlement to free mental health care. However, what one could make is the case that it is in our best interest (hence the tie in to I.S.I.) to provide free and comprehensive care to the seriously mentally ill.
Why the difference ?
If a poor person has a bad case of the flu, they will (most likely) get over it and be able to return normal function in our society. There are also many preventative measure people can take to avoid getting sick (lifestyle choices primarily). If medical health issues typically aren't disruptive to society, then society is better off leaving individuals to be financially responsible for resolving their health issues rather than collectively attempting to fix them. Obviously, this wouldn't hold the same weight of truth when it comes to certain types of epidemic illnesses, but that isn't what I'm addressing here.
Every potential worker that has a chronic serious mental illness takes away from the overall productive potential our society. If a person hallucinates so badly on a regular basis that they cannot drive, then they are going to have a hard time holding down a job. However, if that same person is provided anti-hallucinatory drugs and counseling/training to avoid hallucination triggers, then that person can potentially re-enter working society and will require less welfare/disability $$$ over the long term. The idea is that in some cases the SMI don't have to be burdens to society for the rest of their lives and can contribute like everyone else.
That isn't to say that one's value is determined by one's ability to contribute to society. The very concept of the valuation of an individual is so subjective and abstract that I can't do it justice here.
The main point is that it is in our best interest to rehabilitate (to whatever degree possible) those with SMI amongst us. If we did that, then we might not have had the tragedy in Tucson this past Saturday.