3 ms·

I think this is too fatalistic. This sets the bar far too low -- you could substitute poverty or crime in here without substantially altering the meaning. No, y

I think this is too fatalistic. This sets the bar far too low -- you could substitute poverty or crime in here without substantially altering the meaning. No, you cannot "cure" it or "fix" it, but the alternative isn't "do nothing." That's a false dichotomy. At a minimum you can look for ways mitigate the impact it has on our society. See the pieces elsewhere in this thread which discuss the cost to our society incurred by ER visits from the mentally ill and/or homeless. That's a trivial example. It might be worth discussing how other western industrialized nations approach this; I suspect that those countries which have some kind of socialized health infrastructure do more than the US than shrug their shoulders and avert their eyes.

josephlord 14y ago
Agree with the additional comment that the sufferer is part of the society the impact should be mitigated on.
angersock 14y ago
Not so much...the fatalism here is not unwarrented. If I give a pauper a million dollars, they are no longer a pauper--foolish noveau riche, perhaps, but not a pauper. If I repeal laws pertaining to various things, drugs for example, a great many criminals cease to be so. Mental illness, unfortunately, tends to stay with the person. :(
- wonderzombie 14y ago
  That's true, but again, at least we ought to evaluate what the cost of doing nothing is. What we're doing now is pretty close to nothing, and it does have a cost, in money and in more intangible dimensions (e.g. humanitarian).
  - angersock 14y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong--I'm very much for state-run healthcare and could be considered a proponent of socialism. I think that any civilization with as much resources as we do (we here being Americans, presumably) is criminal if it does not work to support its citizens cradle-to-grave. I was just disagreeing with your assessment that fatalism is unwarranted--we do it (caring for mental illness) anyway, because it simply must be done, but we ought not pretend that things will get better.

josephlord 14y ago

Agree with the additional comment that the sufferer is part of the society the impact should be mitigated on.

angersock 14y ago

Not so much...the fatalism here is not unwarrented. If I give a pauper a million dollars, they are no longer a pauper--foolish noveau riche, perhaps, but not a pauper. If I repeal laws pertaining to various things, drugs for example, a great many criminals cease to be so. Mental illness, unfortunately, tends to stay with the person. :(

wonderzombie 14y ago
That's true, but again, at least we ought to evaluate what the cost of doing nothing is. What we're doing now is pretty close to nothing, and it does have a cost, in money and in more intangible dimensions (e.g. humanitarian).
- angersock 14y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong--I'm very much for state-run healthcare and could be considered a proponent of socialism. I think that any civilization with as much resources as we do (we here being Americans, presumably) is criminal if it does not work to support its citizens cradle-to-grave. I was just disagreeing with your assessment that fatalism is unwarranted--we do it (caring for mental illness) anyway, because it simply must be done, but we ought not pretend that things will get better.