Aa
Who in the election will fight for our cause?
I didn't know how to title this post...
Without getting into a big political debate, can someone tell me, which candidates, on each side, will best be helping the Hep C research funding? It doesn't matter to me, whether you are saying Democrat/Republican/Indep., or whatever, I'm just curious if anybody knows from past history, researching this, or anything like that??? I'm not saying which party I'm affliated with, that doesn't matter in the general election anyway because you can vote across party lines in that election if you so choose. Anyway, I'm really curious about this. I'm also wondering if there's some website that might tell me where the various candidates stand in their past support of HIV, since I figure that if they have a good history with supporting HIV/AIDS research that they might care about HCV. Anyway, any info would be appreciated. I hope that this will not end up being a debate because that's not what I'm looking for.
Happy Holidays everyone.
Susan
Without getting into a big political debate, can someone tell me, which candidates, on each side, will best be helping the Hep C research funding? It doesn't matter to me, whether you are saying Democrat/Republican/Indep., or whatever, I'm just curious if anybody knows from past history, researching this, or anything like that??? I'm not saying which party I'm affliated with, that doesn't matter in the general election anyway because you can vote across party lines in that election if you so choose. Anyway, I'm really curious about this. I'm also wondering if there's some website that might tell me where the various candidates stand in their past support of HIV, since I figure that if they have a good history with supporting HIV/AIDS research that they might care about HCV. Anyway, any info would be appreciated. I hope that this will not end up being a debate because that's not what I'm looking for.
Happy Holidays everyone.
Susan
Adding to this; He was terrified b/c most of the patients slept on the floor near the nurses station, so they would not be hurt in the night. County hospitals just don't have the help or budget to staff the amount of people who are 5150'ed or want help. My son was only 18 and there was no way I was going to leave him in place like this to be hurt, although he wanted the help. So out on the streets he went (stayed with me, but when manic I couldn't stop him) and now just did a three year stint in the Pen for exstacy. Seems that a well staffed hospital like Napa (govt. run) would have been a lot better than a county run facility
I remember when it happened. Reagan did sign the bill. Not sure if his congress could even override the veto...don't remember. But I do know that once it happened there is no way to put it all back into place. Even for the volentary patients. What is really sad is a 5150 that only lasts for THREE days! Then they are thrown back out on their sick way. Believe me, I have dealt with this. You say Reagan was part of the nationwide lead, but he IS the one who did it. We actually have had many many more republican govenors than you think during these 30 years. I can't even remember one....But all I know is once it is taken apart, how is it even going to be put back together. I understand your concerns about locking up those that don't want to be, but what about the ones that commit crimes? Do they belong in real prison instead? Also how were local counties, already strapped supposed to take care of all these people? I was on the phone 8 hrs a day trying to get help. This was for a teen. ONce he was 18, there was nothing I could do, except talk him into getting help. When I did, these great county facilities were so understaffed and inadequete that I had to pick him up. He was terrified!
What I said is that Reagan emptied the mental institutions...he also raised taxes...you can tapdance all you want, that's what I said...and that's what happened. You said he didn't. I put up urls that stated the same thing.
" For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone" where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign. You don't want to believe that? fine. done with this.
" For you to imply that any problems within the California mental healthcare system are to be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan alone" where did I say this? I didn't. I said he emptied the mental institutions here in his reign. You don't want to believe that? fine. done with this.
I'm not going to keep at this with you, no, he shut down mental institutions here, they didn't simply analyze who needed to go and who didn't....my psychiatrist who is famous in California, have had long discussions about this very issue, he ran a few state institutions, and begged the Governor to not let out everybody in some of these institutions (particularly those in dire need) but he said Reagan turned a deaf ear to him and other leaders in this field...no one has to believe me on this, since this is anecdotal...but the effect was overnight - crazy people were all over the streets, news programs focused on the phenomenon...yes, some of it was thought to be an advocacy of their "rights" but here in California especially, it just went way too far and has never recovered...
once these people were let out, there was no back up for them. Counties didn't and don't hav the resources to deal with the sheer amount of people requiring mental hospitalizations, many long term. This was not duplicated in any other state, particularly of this size.
From the California healthcare foundation.
http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/article/C26/63_background/
In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed a landmark bill—the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act—that had bipartisan support. LPS effectively emptied the state’s mental hospitals. Public care of adults and children with mental illnesses was delegated to a system of community-based programs created under the Short-Doyle Act in the 1950s. Reagan proudly announced that he was closing several state mental facilities and eliminating 1,700 staff jobs.
once these people were let out, there was no back up for them. Counties didn't and don't hav the resources to deal with the sheer amount of people requiring mental hospitalizations, many long term. This was not duplicated in any other state, particularly of this size.
From the California healthcare foundation.
http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/article/C26/63_background/
In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed a landmark bill—the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act—that had bipartisan support. LPS effectively emptied the state’s mental hospitals. Public care of adults and children with mental illnesses was delegated to a system of community-based programs created under the Short-Doyle Act in the 1950s. Reagan proudly announced that he was closing several state mental facilities and eliminating 1,700 staff jobs.
I'm sorry to hear about your son and his troubles. I also have a close relative that has chronic long term depression. He takes gobs of pills every day. Pills to get up, pills to control his depression, pills to go to bed. He usually cannot hold a job down and sleeps about 12 hours a day. He's not "toys in the attic" crazy, but he is largely disabled as a result of his depression (it ebbs and flows over time). I don't know what would happen to him if he stopped taking his drugs or if my relatives did not look after him the way they do. He'd probably end up on the streets, and he did end up in jail for a short stint as a result of 2 DWI's already. He had been self medicating with alcohol because his anti-d's work so poorly.
The bottomline is that when it comes to people with serious emotional disturbances there simply aren't any easy answers, and there aren't any easy villains either. The drugs and treatments they have for the mentally ill are usually lacklustre and in many cases effectively don't work. Or their side effects are so bad, the patient often feels like stopping the meds is the lesser of the two evils (and that's just what they do). I'm quite certain that a hundred years from now people will look back on this era as the stone age when it comes to treatment of the mentally ill. But unfortunately that's where we're at right now.
But getting back to the homeless, I used to have long chats with some of the homeless people that lived near me when I was lived in the city (some of them really smelled though ;-). I used to ask them specifically if they wanted to be institutionalized and many of them said they already had been and didn't like it. They preferred life on the streets and living life on their own terms (as crazy as that may seem to us). I also could see that most of them self medicated either with alcohol or other drugs as a way of dealing with their emotional problems. And frankly, the more I learn about modern psycho-active drugs (including my own experience with them during my tx), the more I wonder if they're really any better in certain ways than alcohol or other illicit drugs. It's just a crying shame is all I can say, but that's a part of our collective human experience today, like it or not. That collective experience is something humanity has been struggling with since we started walking upright, and I'm sure we'll be dealing with it for many many more years to come.
The bottomline is that when it comes to people with serious emotional disturbances there simply aren't any easy answers, and there aren't any easy villains either. The drugs and treatments they have for the mentally ill are usually lacklustre and in many cases effectively don't work. Or their side effects are so bad, the patient often feels like stopping the meds is the lesser of the two evils (and that's just what they do). I'm quite certain that a hundred years from now people will look back on this era as the stone age when it comes to treatment of the mentally ill. But unfortunately that's where we're at right now.
But getting back to the homeless, I used to have long chats with some of the homeless people that lived near me when I was lived in the city (some of them really smelled though ;-). I used to ask them specifically if they wanted to be institutionalized and many of them said they already had been and didn't like it. They preferred life on the streets and living life on their own terms (as crazy as that may seem to us). I also could see that most of them self medicated either with alcohol or other drugs as a way of dealing with their emotional problems. And frankly, the more I learn about modern psycho-active drugs (including my own experience with them during my tx), the more I wonder if they're really any better in certain ways than alcohol or other illicit drugs. It's just a crying shame is all I can say, but that's a part of our collective human experience today, like it or not. That collective experience is something humanity has been struggling with since we started walking upright, and I'm sure we'll be dealing with it for many many more years to come.
I think you're missing the point. The point is, is that there was a NATIONWIDE trend towards releasing mentally ill people who did not want to be institutionalized for the reasons mentioned in my last post and in mr liver's post previously. And the cuts in mental health facilities (or general lack of funding) was something that was going on nationwide under the leadership of both liberal and conservative local and national politicians. It wasn't something that was just going on in California alone (again spearheaded by JFK's policy implemented in '63). So again, you've solely associated sinister funding withdrawals by the "evil republican" as the primary reason for these mass releasings of the mentally ill, when the complete reason for their release is much more complicated than that (as described in my previous post). And again the main reason is that many of these people had been institutionalized against their will prior to the early 1960's. And no surprises, many of these people wanted out of asylums when it became possible to do so (both because they understandably wanted their freedom and frankly, because they were crazy too). Many of the mentally ill people you previously didn't see wandering around the streets were warehoused in asylums against their will prior to that. That's why they had been warehoused years and years prior to that in the first place, because people didn't want them wandering around the streets! Then, after these policies were implemented you start seeing them again and knee jerkingly (even all these years later) interpret it as being solely caused by Reagan cuts. That's absurd.
Furthermore, according to your own link Reagan was confronted with a tough budgetary issue to contend with. Looks like he had to make some tough choices and cut spending across the board, including even raising taxes (no mean feat for a republican). But he only cut 10% percent "across the board", so that of course retains 90% of funding. So he didn't close all mental institutions as you claimed earlier when you said "When we talk about Reagan closing down the mental institutions..." above. Sounds like the mental institutions simply analyzed who they had in their custody and released the ones they were legally obliged to release anyway (as a consequence of the laws defending and protecting the mentally ill from being unjustifiably incarcerated recently passed just a few years prior to this event).
Furthermore, according to your own link Reagan was confronted with a tough budgetary issue to contend with. Looks like he had to make some tough choices and cut spending across the board, including even raising taxes (no mean feat for a republican). But he only cut 10% percent "across the board", so that of course retains 90% of funding. So he didn't close all mental institutions as you claimed earlier when you said "When we talk about Reagan closing down the mental institutions..." above. Sounds like the mental institutions simply analyzed who they had in their custody and released the ones they were legally obliged to release anyway (as a consequence of the laws defending and protecting the mentally ill from being unjustifiably incarcerated recently passed just a few years prior to this event).
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis Social Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
