The issue with institutionalization (besides SCOTUS ruling it violates the ADA in 1999’s Olmstead v LC, rendering it illegal for anyone with a disability), is that it’s expensive. That’s why Reagan defunded them all.
To be clear, deinstutionalization was a good idea, but unlike JFK’s push, Reagan pushed for it without replacing institutions with well-funded community services. Which would be cheaper than institutions, most of which sit unoccupied and decaying, so there’s also the question of where Trump wants to put these people.
This doesn’t get said enough. Getting rid of them was a legitimately good idea, the some of the abuses in those places was hair-raising. We just didn’t replace them with anything, so the mentally ill all just turned into homeless mentally ill, which just made more people miserable, which in turn probably contributes to more individual incidents of mental illness occuring.
And many more simply died. As it turns out, releasing the disabled onto the street, surprisingly, wasn’t a perfect option.
It comes down to the same issue with the police. When you look at the effort it would take to reform what was wrong, it would be nearly impossible. A better idea would be to toss out everything and start from scratch.
Just take a look at how mental institutions were in the last moments before they were closed: https://timeline.com/willowbrook-the-institution-that-shocked-a-nation-into-changing-its-laws-c847acb44e0d?gi=187e20cd91e2
https://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2016/01/the-story-that-revealed-willowbrooks-horrors/
Im in the disability field and honestly I feel like we need something and need it bad. Not institutions, at least not like they were, but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see some people in the disability community respond positively to this with the hopes that its different this time, lord know the people who like him don’t believe his words at face value. I can also tell you thers definitely is a not insignificant amount of people in the community who have a neutral to faborable feeling on Trump.
The key here I think is that during the pandemic, even before mask mandates, we started seeing services get cut, orgs defunded, and staff reduced. So much of the disability community right now is relying on support staff and self directed program funding, which is essentially the disbursement of medicare and medicaid funding to one individual, not necessary with a medical background, to help the person with the disability with their day to day stuff and goals stated in their Individual Service Plan. The flexibility is great but its just one person at a time, they don’t even get a budget to do things typically.
A lot of people with disabilities are missing the structure of actual organizations that has the resources to do more than what a one on one support worker can, and someone on Trumps team is either smart enough to know that, or quite lucky.
Nice, I also used to work in the disability field (ID/A). And you’re right, although at least in my state we haven’t had cuts, more so just a lack of sufficient new funding.
I will say that I don’t think many in the disability will support this, but some do seem ignorant of the past and the old realities of institutionalization.
And yeah, self-directing is a double edged sword. I’ve seen it done well and I’ve seen it abused by families just to get some extra money, while not really sufficiently meeting the needs of their family member with disabilities. I also think it’s nearly inescapable in the future, given the staffing shortages we already see in direct care and the aging boomer population that will require even more staffing.
Self directed seems to be the answer to budget problems, but there should be pooled resources that all support staff can tap into if we want to even keep the same level of service we had pre pandemic, and honestly the disability community still deserves more than that bar. Hopefully we get there.
question of where Trump wants to put these people.
Decriminalize/legalize all drugs, transfer all for-profit prisons back to the government and/or not for profit charities, shuffle prisoners around to free up prisons to be converted to mental healthcare and drug rehabilitation facilities, and fund it with a taxed and regulated drug market.
Not that he thinks far enough to come up with that.
Decriminalization of all drugs is a terrible idea. Ask Oregon how that’s working out for them.
Edit For the downvoters, come on out to Oregon and see it first hand.
Most reputable sources have reported decriminalization in Oregon did not lead to an increase in overdoses, which correlates with the rest of the fucking planet and isn’t surprising.
However, your source is behind a paywall, so I can’t check it out.
I suddenly can’t see the comment chain where we were having a conversation. Did you delete your comments as after I posted the law that you said didn’t exist?
Weird. I can’t access that comment chain anymore, but I can see the comments in our history. Maybe it’s a Sync issue (the platform I’m using)
Republicans made a deal with JFK to phase out mental health hospitals and replace them with community based facilities that had a more home like atmosphere.
They did the gutting part.
Then JFK was assassinated.
Republicans decided that they didn’t have to do any more after that, and LBJ used most of his political capital to get the voting rights act passed.
That’s why our mental health system is so broken.
If republicans wanted to fix the system, they could start with funding the VA. Many of our troops wind up with mental health conditions due to their time in the service.
back when they rolled that out (Bush era) was when they really started assaulting people with vacuous catchphrases. Opposition to the Iraq was was answered with ‘support the troops!’ which made no sense… okay, I support them, I don’t want them to go get PTSD from urban warfare and killing civilians and leave their lives here to sit around in a tent in the desert at 130 degrees. Another one was if you opposed anything Bush/Cheney was doing, “Why do you hate America??”, which is obviously a ridiculously loaded question and very shitty debate tactic.
Don’t forget the Ronald Reagan angle:
Driving the news: “When I am back in the White House, we will use every tool, lever, and authority to get the homeless off our streets,” Trump said in a video posted on his campaign site in August, saying that he’ll work with states to ban urban camping.
- Trump said his administration would offer treatment and other resources for people who are “just temporarily down on their luck” or have less severe mental health issues.
- “And for those who are severely mentally ill and deeply disturbed, we will bring them back to mental institutions, where they belong,” he said, “with the goal of reintegrating them back into society once they are well enough to manage.”
So “every tool, lever, and authority” except building shelters and affordable housing. Because, of course, the homeless themselves are the problem that needs to be fixed, not a symptom of a society that needs to be fixed.
A Democrat proposes a way to help the mentally ill: HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
A Republican proposes a more expensive way to punish the mentally ill: NOW THIS IS GOOD POLICY
They flat out don’t understand how federal laws are enforced. Most of the shitty anti-welfare or anti-handout “ideas” they have would not save money. I always ask these chucklefucks if they would still support those ideas if they cost more than they saved. They can never answer that question.
Yesterday, browsing wikipedia, stumbled on articles that talked about this very thing, on how Russia took advantage of mental health systems. They started to classify nonconforming, rebels as mentally ill. A frequently used diagnosis was sluggish schizophrenia. Anyone who was socially awkward, thought differently got this diagnosis. Cuz if someone is questioning our government, they must be sick in the head
They used this heavily for decades to discredit political rivals, forcible confinement, lock them away, work camps. Think gulag archipelago.
