6 ms·

By labeling the solution as "community care" you are really not proposing a solution: what are the implementation steps for your solution? We don't need more m

by fosk 7y ago

By labeling the solution as "community care" you are really not proposing a solution: what are the implementation steps for your solution? We don't need more money, we don't need more programs. We need an implementation checklist. You see, we as a society need to take it step by step and adopt a scientifical method in dealing with this problem. The first step is to prevent the mentally ill and drug-addicted from being a danger to the community and to themselves. So bring back the institutions as that first step. Then a second step, we need to identify groups of people that we decide to re-introduce with "community care", monitor their results and keep them accountable. Each one of them will most likely respond differently to different implementations of what you call "community care". Give it a time duration too, and observe the behavior. And so on. Finally, there will be individuals fully re-introduced into society. There will also be individuals that need a little bit of extra effort to make that happen. But like with any group, statistically there will be individuals too dangerous that must stay in the institutions for their own health.

jdietrich 7y ago
> By labeling the solution as "community care" you are really not proposing a solution: what are the implementation steps for your solution? I'm not proposing anything new, I'm proposing the model that is used by most other developed countries and is being successfully used in some parts of the United States. If you think that "community care" is some vague pie-in-the-sky notion rather than an established approach to care with a proven track record, then there's very little point in continuing this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_mental_health_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_mental_health_servic...
- fosk 7y ago
  In the US “community care” sounds like a great way of collecting more tax money while ultimately not implementing any program that works. I want politicians to establish the rule of law and create a livable community by implementing a program (or community care checklist) with the tax money we are already providing. Instead we have unaccountability, poverty, illness, misery and high taxes. All at the same time. We need to abolish Proposition 47.
- briancleland 7y ago
  As a resident of the UK, I can state that community care is exactly the same ideologically-driven agenda with exactly the same real-world failings that are being ascribed to the US model. The only difference is that there are still remnants of a benefit system that provide some protection for the least fortunate, although the government is in the process of dismantling those as well.
  - hackermailman 7y ago
    It's a failure in most of Canada too, every successive provincial government decides to slash it's budget or 'reorganize' community care to the point it's just a weak pill dispensing model with no oversight and thus you get mentally ill in the street at all hours running wild with drug and alcohol addictions. I think Andrew Yang style UBI is really the only solution, a guaranteed monthly living income that's illegal to take loans against or illegal to withhold because of debts. That or some kind of accountability where we are able to personally sue politicians who have turned our cities into poorly run asylums.
DanBC 7y ago
"Community Care" is a bit of jargon that has a well established meaning. I think you're suggesting that we lock up everyone who has a mental illness, and then release the ones who aren't dangerous. About 1% of the population has schizophrenia. About 1% of the population has bipolar. Let's say about 1% of the population has a severe personality disorder. If there are about 320m people in the US you're calling for the incarceration of 9,600,000 innocent people. The vast majority of those people are not a danger to others, or themselves. What we need to do is invest in community care, have short hospital stays available if needed, and have forensic "secure units" available for the small numbers of people who pose a serious risk of harm to other people or who have committed criminal acts while mentally ill. We do this because it is cheaper; it is more effective; it is safer; and it respects people's human rights.
- fosk 7y ago
  There are two extremes: lock everybody up or let everybody be on the street. Both are wrong, and today the latter is being implemented. We need a balanced solution, but what we have today is not working (as a short walk around San Francisco - for example - will demonstrate). What I want is not “hopes” or “more funding”. What I want is a plan. Saying that all we need is “community care” is too generic and broad which means things will never change. I want 1-2-3 steps on how we are going to be dealing with these issues.

by fosk 7y ago

jdietrich 7y ago

> By labeling the solution as "community care" you are really not proposing a solution: what are the implementation steps for your solution? I'm not proposing anything new, I'm proposing the model that is used by most other developed countries and is being successfully used in some parts of the United States. If you think that "community care" is some vague pie-in-the-sky notion rather than an established approach to care with a proven track record, then there's very little point in continuing this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_mental_health_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_mental_health_servic...

fosk 7y ago
In the US “community care” sounds like a great way of collecting more tax money while ultimately not implementing any program that works. I want politicians to establish the rule of law and create a livable community by implementing a program (or community care checklist) with the tax money we are already providing. Instead we have unaccountability, poverty, illness, misery and high taxes. All at the same time. We need to abolish Proposition 47.
briancleland 7y ago
As a resident of the UK, I can state that community care is exactly the same ideologically-driven agenda with exactly the same real-world failings that are being ascribed to the US model. The only difference is that there are still remnants of a benefit system that provide some protection for the least fortunate, although the government is in the process of dismantling those as well.
- hackermailman 7y ago
  It's a failure in most of Canada too, every successive provincial government decides to slash it's budget or 'reorganize' community care to the point it's just a weak pill dispensing model with no oversight and thus you get mentally ill in the street at all hours running wild with drug and alcohol addictions. I think Andrew Yang style UBI is really the only solution, a guaranteed monthly living income that's illegal to take loans against or illegal to withhold because of debts. That or some kind of accountability where we are able to personally sue politicians who have turned our cities into poorly run asylums.

DanBC 7y ago

"Community Care" is a bit of jargon that has a well established meaning. I think you're suggesting that we lock up everyone who has a mental illness, and then release the ones who aren't dangerous. About 1% of the population has schizophrenia. About 1% of the population has bipolar. Let's say about 1% of the population has a severe personality disorder. If there are about 320m people in the US you're calling for the incarceration of 9,600,000 innocent people. The vast majority of those people are not a danger to others, or themselves. What we need to do is invest in community care, have short hospital stays available if needed, and have forensic "secure units" available for the small numbers of people who pose a serious risk of harm to other people or who have committed criminal acts while mentally ill. We do this because it is cheaper; it is more effective; it is safer; and it respects people's human rights.

fosk 7y ago
There are two extremes: lock everybody up or let everybody be on the street. Both are wrong, and today the latter is being implemented. We need a balanced solution, but what we have today is not working (as a short walk around San Francisco - for example - will demonstrate). What I want is not “hopes” or “more funding”. What I want is a plan. Saying that all we need is “community care” is too generic and broad which means things will never change. I want 1-2-3 steps on how we are going to be dealing with these issues.