I'm a Hokie. When I say that, I don't mean in the sense of the "We're all Hokies" sentiment that prevailed after the Tech shooting tragedy. I acutally went to VA Tech.
As you also know, I have had experience with community service boards when trying to get C., my son, the therapy services he needed when we first moved to Colonial Heights.
The aftermath of the Tech shooting is getting more and more ugly the further we get away from the horror of that April morning in Blacksburg.
Per a recent Times-Dispatch article, Del. Bell, a Republican from Charlottesville, has pointed out that the local mental health, or community services board, is responsible for outpatient treatment plans for mentally ill individuals.
I understand the law is pretty clear in this regard. Here's the problem. Almost every community service board in every community is understaffed, underpaid, and under-motivated. While the New River Valley mental health board should have been involved with Cho, there is very little doubt that they would have been very ineffective in managing his case as their caseload is probably overwhelming.
This is a case of a good intentioned law that when put in to practice can't be executed correctly. I feel that this is a good example of why the government is one of the most inefficient means of getting most things done, a core problem with liberalism. Obviously, in this instance, the government needs to be involved in enforcing a judgement by the court, but they can't even do that correctly, how can they be relied upon to efficiently administer social programs when they can't get true governance correct?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
perhaps the problem is that our government creates all sorts of mandates then refuses to fund them. I think the key is in your statement that they're undefunded and understaffed and therefore under-motivated.
in my mind, it's the anti-tax folks who bear some of this blame, for they refuse to raise taxes while simultaneously refusing to end mandates. you can't have it both ways
I disagree. The other side to that coin is that there are too many programs that cannot possibly be funded by the state and federal government.
The most efficient way to get things done is to involve the local government or to engage the private sector.
The requests upon a community services board's limited staff creates a vortex of inefficiency. They don't pay their staff well, so they don't keep their staff very long. The turnover creates a situation were the public is not served in a timely or effective manner.
I don't look to "have it both ways." I belive the federal government should be much more minimalistic than the behemoth that we've created over the past couple of decades.
Let's let the local church, community, and govt. handle the things that directly effect the local communities.
Chris,
The mental health of citizens, like the physical health of citizens, it arguably extremely important to the overall health and well being of our society, our economy, and our commonly shared quality of life. And I argue it is not that different from having a well-developed highway system, or national defense, or infrastructure, or public education system – all of which are directed and funded by the common purse.
We don’t seem to appreciate the value of health – physical and mental – to the ability of individuals to contribute more closely to their potential. And certainly having our citizens perform closer to their potential would benefit all. As a society, we certainly don’t give parity to mental illness – out of stigma and out of ignorance.
Having lived abroad for almost ten years – almost three in the Netherlands, I don’t fall so easily for the witch hunt hysteria surrounding so called socialized medicine. My experience in Holland was that medical care was far better, and far less expensive. There were not five-minute visits only resulting in a new expensive prescription being written. There was essentially no paper work – ever. Mental illness did have parity. And physicians took a more holistic and engaged approach to patients.
This argues, for me, for a reinvention of medical care in America – and a universal assurance that all Americans receive physical and mental heath care just as we have unfettered access to police and fire protection, and to other commonly shared needs.
Here is one area where the health system has evolved into the health industry and the result is a continually growing emphasis on the profitability of this industry rather than the good health of the common populace. Some form of universal health care is not only smart – it is humane.
Bill,
I'm sorry I haven't replied sooner as I've been somewhat under the weather. Ironic, huh?
I agree that our health care system doesn't look at the full picture of health but at fixing what is wrong now with the newest and greatest pill out there.
However, I don't think universal coverage for all would fix that for our country as I think the mindset of the health care profession would stay the same.
Post a Comment