Why do emotions run so high between some Republicans and some Democrats? Is there any room for compromise? Does being a member of the "other party" make a person a bad person?
I feel your pain Diane. I stopped commenting on political answers because of how some people get. It's not worth it. I feel our feelings or ideas don't matter. There are some who are very narrow minded and come across as thier opinion is the only one that counts.
I asked this question a while ago, and I surprisingly received many responses on the 'No!' side. For some reason, I was expecting more desire among people to unite - but, guess not. Plus, I think things are worse now between political parties than they have ever been, and they keep getting worse.
I, personally, think it is possible - but not till we get done learning the lessons that we obviously need to learn with this president. It seems to be his purpose to divide the masses as deeply as possible.
In my view, it is a temporary thing. Out of destruction comes reconstruction, which is a usually a 'betterment'; and I think a lot of us are alarmed at just how destructive we (BOTH sides) can get. We'll see where we are in a few years. I, for one, am rooting for the American people and the human race across the globe to grow from all the messes we have going on at the moment, ha!
I love your positive outlook. I need to hear positive stuff.
I was a little surprised at the response as well. It's almost as if the people themselves, not only Congress, insist that their way is the only way and they will refuse to compromise or work within anything different.
Some of that can be seen, I think, in your own post. Everything Trump is doing is awful, and we can only wait until we have liberals ("moderates" to you, but with a decidedly liberal bent) back in force. Where I see only a return to more conservative (as opposed to far right) values you see only disaster in everything he is trying to do and refuse to accept any changes from very liberal policies.
Mistakes do not make bad people...unless they keep doing them and believe that it is not right to be punished for those mistakes. The belief of persecution where none exists. That is bad.
Most people voting like to see stable candidates from a good background that are not overly anxious to have the position. Someone that truly desires the position would be an indicator of underlying issues that would create problems. This having been said.. the candidate portrays themselves as someone pursueing an agenda whether personal or just the best man the group has to offer. This makes them "bad", no matter the party or how righteous the cause.
It frustrates me that no conversation about government related issues can be discussed without the blame game. I read articles that have nothing to do with the government or politics and somehow, someone will steer discussion toward blaming the "other party" or a specific person in the party.
I get stressed and stop reading comments or participating in discussion. Some people have real issues and take their aggression out on the Internet.
We would all benefit from an exchange of ideas.
Bipartisanship seems to be suffering from bipolar without the euphoria. I just told whonnuwho that "Love always leaves room for compromise. Let's each hope that love of country provides for meaningful compromises."
It has been proven time and time again that the one thing liberals ACTUALLY don't ever want is Bi -Partisanship in politics . The obstructionist path to progressive politics dictates this over and over again. The mission statements of Chomsky-ism , of Alinsky-ism demand total and complete naziism of thought , Lenninism of ideology and Maoism of political cooperation . Thhe nuclearization of all and any opposition .
The lesson that should have been learned in recent American politics has been shown clearly ,although collectively ignored , Democrats have lost thousands of political offices all across the spectrum in America just in the last couple of elections - The American voter doesn't want the intended socialism of liberal ideology instilled into mainstream politics , they have seen the failures of it in the major inner cities and racial , economic , entitlement inequities , in the education systems everywhere ,
You didn't want bi-partisan politics to implement the destruction of America's inner cities ,to lower the standards of all our education systems , to politicize all the dept's pf government , to destroy the international reputation of our military , to facilitate the inequity and apathy of the gov. depts like the V.A. , to implement this totally failed socialised medicine systematic meltdown , why ask for bi-partisanship now , except to bail out the incredible 20 trillion dollar debt implemented by the great spender in Chief Obama ?
I read this question and was ready to hit it out of the park, but you beat me to it.
Well done ahorseback!
Liberals only seek bi-partisanship when it's time to pay the bills . Never at the onset of policy making , I have seen this again and again at local and state political meetings where they align policy , fiscal apathy , acquisition of media bias and cooperative brainwashing ,.............in the end , ONLY the fiscal deficits hang where actual progress was promised .
- The entire education system
- The entire Healthcare System
- Government employee entitlement
- Every major inner city failure in America
What you are seeing is the inability for both sides to work together - not 'liberals' doing everything wrong. Your one-sided view only proves how brainwashed YOU are. Try watching a newscast or reading something from a different perspective.
Obamacare is a great example of both sides attempting to work together and failing. It is the COMPROMISE between the extremes of GOP 'no healthcare' and Dems '100% free healthcare'. Stop believing everything they tell you. MODERATES are not evil and neither are liberals for that matter - anymore than conservatives are. Once you all realize that, a little smidgen of progress might be made.
Bi partisan progress will have to include the end of entitlement voting of the left . The fixed ideology that includes such major selfishness as -That the leftist will to ALWAYS get whatever the entitlement ---at everyone else's expense ie. Higher Taxes .
That ain't goin to happen !
Bi- Partisanship was DOA in Senate and Congress about forty years ago , They are comfortable enough with back scratching each other's backs to keep their jobs and bennies , Good luck getting one or the other of those to bend at all ! ie." The Swamp " In Fact Trump is the best Bi partisan phenomena to come along in a while Why ? Because as you know , he's an outsider from the above . You know , The outside chance at any real progress that liberals keep resisting .
Agree with this - neither side is willing to compromise at all, and it is causing havoc. And I'll add that "compromise" doesn't mean to take what you have to to get a bill passed and then keep chipping at it for years to get it what you wanted in the first place.
Misfit - Dems have never wanted to work together. They are very good at telling the Reps what they need to do.....The Reps need to compromise, the Reps are mean-spirited, the Reps need to meet them halfway (but with Dems it's just their way, there's no halfway)
The Dems dig in their heels and they do not budge, they do not give an inch...ever. They are no longer about the good of the Country, they are ALL about Their Agenda! Their Agenda, their kind of progress, we don't need!
Because of 'in our faces 24/7' Progressivism/Liberalism, young People have never learned, while older people have lost sight of the Limited Role of Government and of from where our Rights truly come!
It is sad.
It is unfortunate.
But what's worse, it is detrimental...
As a Conservative, I am not about picking sides and pitting groups against each other, I am all about a Limited Government, Entrepreneurism and a thriving Economy for All!
On a personal level, God First, Family second and Country third.(Party affiliation doesn't even make the list)
Surely you understand that Ocare WAS a compromise between the two political extremes, as I said. Neither side got what they wanted. It was a good step forward, even if it isn't a perfect one. Completely throwing it away is just a slap to 'the majority' of the rest of us who fought hard JUST for the beginning of a reasonable healthcare solution for this country to start shaping up.
If you want to insist on believing that Dems 'made' the GOP work with them on that issue - that was what we voted them into office for. Next time it may be someone like Bernie; and it could have easily been him this time around instead of Trump.
Yeah, Bernie almost hijacked the 'compromising' Dem party with his 100% free everything stuff - just like Trump managed to hijack the GOP. Trump was NOT the person most GOP wanted in that office. As a conservative who has supposedly been paying attention, I'm sure you know that (#nevertrump).
I'm also confident that you probably know other conservatives who did not vote for Trump for the same reasons I (and other non-Trump supporters) didn't. Churches & conservatives across this country are as divided as the country, itself. So, its not like the way the opposing side thinks should be so alien to you. That fact that it is, is what concerns so many of us.
Anyone who has this black/white mentality surrounding politics is VERY brainwashed - they just can't see it. That's the way brainwashing is supposed to work. Its not like people are AWARE of it. But, not being able to see any grey is a telltale sign - and that is NOT meant to be an insult. You just need to realize the affect and wake up. No, that isn't an easy thing to do. That is also another aspect of brainwashing. Its like a mental addiction; and dang hard to get into perspective, much less think past.
What will you do if Bernie is elected next time & manages to get his 100% free healthcare AND college through? If that happens, THEN you can accuse Dems of not compromising or trying to work in a much more inclusive bipartisan way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that happens after Trump. The only thing he has managed to do, for sure, is UNITE every other opinion (which is the majority) on healthcare that doesn't have an extreme GOP view.
I completely understand that religious affiliation crosses political parties; and not every passionate Christian is a conservative - do you realize this? Can you not see how you are viewing & judging things from 'one side'? Do you really believe, deep within yourself (be honest), that everything Democrats, Moderates and/or Liberals (anyone who doesn't hold your extremist views) say, do or think is all ignorant or bad?
Most of us fall somewhere in between. We aren't liberals and we're not conservatives - although I can certainly see how stuffing us all into one category or the other makes things easier for you to understand & blame in ignorance.
Again, I did not just say that to be mean... I feel like you do, above: its sad, unfortunate and detrimental. I am not your enemy, and neither is any other moderate or variation between liberal & conservative. Blaming everything on 'the majority' who don't think like you instead of participating in any compromising fixes is a distortion that hopefully you will get past, soon.
I hate to think what Trump supporters who don't get things into perspective by the time he leaves will be dealing with on an emotional level. So many of you already have your guns in arm - ready to aim and pull the trigger; and you were ready for that all throughout Trump's campaign, crescendoeing through to the finale. Frankly, it is a godsend that Trump won the election because of it. As snarly as our country has become, the violence probably would have been much worse if Hillary had won.
I think one thing we can agree on is that God is wise beyond the telling of it; and I'm so grateful he is in control instead of so many of his blind followers.
How the Left Learned to Hate Like the Right
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/opin … right.html
Excluding for the moment, for discussion sake, the parts of ObamaCare that require person A to pay for insurance for person B, what parts of the ACA were good, and are they included in the new GOP plan?
Personally, I like the state exchange, but while that was a part of it it was merely bookkeeping, not insurance, and would have been far superior had it been extended to ALL companies rather than just a few. Offhand I can't think of a single other thing that wasn't about giving away a valuable product to those didn't pay their own way.
I think those our great questions, Wilderness. I can't keep up with the pros/cons of either.
A good friend was saying government should not be involved in providing healthcare. I have not been in the position of others who have strong opinions one way or another ... that I'm aware of.
I do understand that Americans pride themselves on being self-reliant and independent, but most Europeans and Australians would be astonished at the idea that government shouldn't look after people.
I grew up in the UK and have lived in Europe and Australia. In all those places, no one ever suffers illness or death because they are poor. We see health care and education as inalienable rights, and we see it as our duty as responsible citizens to pay our taxes so that everyone can receive them, whether they can afford it or not.
To us, the American attitude seems to be, "if someone is poor then it's their own silly fault so why should we care?" That sounds incredibly selfish.
It is incredibly selfish. But it's only a powerful minority that thinks that way. Otherwise, America has many good and unselfish people.
Honestly, you wouldn't think so from forums like this. I see lots of people saying, " why should my taxes pay for someone else's health care?"
Marisa, I hear that in places where the government insures everybody, it is hard to get an appoint and emergency rooms are crowded. Did you ever experience any of that?
Be careful - Americans are some of the most generous people in the world - they give as much or more to charity than any other society.
The difference is that other countries will take it by force and distribute it as the committee sees fit - individuals are not required to be generous or giving because the government will force it from them whether they like it or not.
Is it through higher tax rates? Employers required to keep a high percentage to pay to government?
Apparently. Reading through the posts from a UK citizen, they seem to have a total tax burden quite a bit higher than that of the US, and that seems true throughout much of Europe. A much higher percentage of GDP appears to pass through government, leaving less for the citizens.
I suppose Canada is one of those places? I gotta read up on it.
It's not easy to compare. A lot of the articles you find online are comparing executive salaries, because they're aimed at businessmen wanting to know how their income would compare if they go overseas. So they're comparing top rates of tax - rich people are not heavily taxed in the US compared to many other countries. Here's one of the few articles that bases its stats on an average salary, not an executive one:
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2015/09/h … fographic/
I'm sure there are generous people in America, like everywhere else. But, like everywhere else, there are plenty of mean people, too. And plenty of people who are too lazy and don't get around to giving.
The weakness of relying on generous people to take care of the poor is obvious. It means the mean people and the lazy people never have to pull their weight - they can sit back, hoard their money and let the kind people bear all the burden. Whereas if the government forces everyone to pay their fair share, there is more money in the pot and the burden is more evenly spread.
You are correct; there will be some that refuse to donate. And you are also correct that if some of the people take up arms and take from others in order to have more money they can give away there will be more to give.
All they have to do is ignore the morality of theft and rationalize that because their cause is just they can take whatever they wish from whomever they wish. It is rather a conundrum; do we take by force from those that don't wish to give of their belongings or do we strip ourselves of more of what WE have in order to satisfy our goal of providing a comfortable lifestyle for those that either can't or won't do it for themselves?
America has taken one path and the UK (and much of Europe) has taken another. Personally, I'm thinking that America will join Europe - the greed of the "have-nots" is too great as is their political power in a democracy.
There are also people poor by choice and others poor because of circumstances beyond their control. Those poor by choice are those who do not choose to get educated and strive to do better. I include those who had bad parents that didn't raise them properly.
The mentally ill and physically disabled have challenges most beyond their control. I have seen disabled people with jobs in canteens (if they still have those) in Federal buildings. Whatever they make is not enough to meet their financial needs.
How can we help those that legitimately need and deserve help as opposed to those who don't.
How can we help? Provide food, shelter and clothing. Teach them to the limits of our and their abilities. Love them, treat them with kindness. Notice that nowhere there is any indication that we should force anyone else to do it FOR us - it is up to those that wish to be human and kindly - to force others to provide for the needy against their will makes us no better than they are, or worse.
Require anyone getting help to also help themselves to the limit of their ability to do so.
We are such poles apart that there is little point in debating.
No one is taking up arms and stealing from anyone. Instead, society as a whole is saying, "we believe that we all have a duty to care for our poor and helpless, and we all need to contribute to enable that to happen."
I do not regard taxes as my government stealing from me. We may occasionally complain about how much we're paying, but fundamentally people in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the whole of Europe don't question the fact that it's our civic duty. That's why we find the American system so selfish and cruel, because it seems to leave it all up to chance.
Marisa, when I began teaching school, I was introduced to the lost generation. In the 1970s, there was more openness to "shacking" and having children without being married. Women that had these childrens started receiving public assistance. As their children grew older, they didn't get the parental support they needed because their parents did not know how.
As a result, kids come to school - not prepared to learn. After watching the movie Freedom Writers, I allowed my students to do the "Line Game." It was to show students that they had more in common than they thought. Previously they were divided by race.
While going through the game, students of all races went to the line for molestation by mom's boyfriend, family member killed in gang violence, family member in prison (one or both parents), etc. The kids came to school hungry, homeless, scared and with other emotions going on. They cannot concentrate on learning when they have these issues going on. That is the real reason schools are failing. Trying to hold teachers responsible is unfair.
I asked a beautiful young lady in my choral class, who is very talented, "What will you do to have a better life?" She said, "Get my county check ......." I told her that county checks are paid for by taxpayers and there was no guarantee she would get one. This is the life she knows and she, and other students, are not supported mentally and emotionally by people who can help them get a vision for a better life. When I tried to talk to students about issues like this, I was accused of being a racist.
Bottom line, many (50%+) of these students are unable to read and have no marketable skills when they are socially promoted out of high school. So they try McDonald's and retail stores. Automation is causing many of those jobs to go away. No job = unemployment. They still need to eat, have somewhere to live and get medical care. They have no business have children they can't raise properly.
If it sounds like I'm all over the map, I guess I am. I like to deal with the issues - not whether I'm liberal or conservative, generous or stingy, etc.
Yes and no, Marisa. Most certainly arms are taken up and wealth confiscated, at gunpoint if necessary. Try not paying your taxes and refusing to be arrested if you don't think that is true.
Yes, society has decided. And they have decided for everyone, not just those that agree. They have decided that everyone shall pay the cost of supporting those that don't do it for themselves. Whereupon, the "take up arms" comment.
In a way it is indeed "up to chance" when it is not enforced. The chance that those that wish to contribute will either not have enough money or will quite contributing when they decide they've given enough. The big difference is that a strong, armed majority will decide what "enough" is, and take resources from a small minority far more than anyone else, and far more than they may be willing to pay. That it is indeed "legal" theft is not a consideration to those that willingly force others to pay for support of yet a third party. It goes back to the will of the majority, which is something the US constitution went to great lengths to limit, to protect that powerless minority that is being forced to foot the bill.
Personally I have a real problem when someone tells me I must give them thousands of dollars, dollars that I earned and have a use for, in order to buy things for a stranger that doesn't buy them for themselves. I, not a bureaucrat in government, shall decide who I wish to help, who I don't, and how I shall dispose of my possessions. The morality of demanding I support anyone that is deemed "poor" (yet richer than I've been for much of my life) is set aside, ignored, and the claim that I am obviously selfish and cruel inserted, presumably to soothe a conscience.
The US gives around $35 billion in foreign aide to 96% of the countries.
But, the US is "selfish and cruel"? We even give blood.
We need more emotions to use in the forums.
Actually, our foreign aid, as a percentage of GDP isn't particularly high. But Americans as individuals are generous; we give as much or more than other countries to charities. Fair enough; other countries give more of what we would consider "welfare"; charity funneled through government and meeting government politics.
I'm not talking about foreign aid.
Go to any European country, the UK or Australia, and you will never see anyone turned away from hospital because they lack money or insurance. The idea of a culture that finds that acceptable is abhorrent to me.
So no one in America is being turned away from health care , with the ability to pay or not ,they haven't been for decades .
Why are your chances of coping with serious illness, such as Cystic fibrosis, so much lower in the US than elsewhere, then?
I have used this stat before but it is striking:
Canadians have a 44 percent lower risk for death than U.S. patients receiving continuous Medicaid or Medicare, a 36 percent lower risk than those receiving intermittent Medicaid or Medicare coverage, and a 77 percent lower risk than those with unknown or no health insurance.
Privately insured US citizens do as well as Canadians.
Overall, cystic fibrosis sufferers live ten years longer in Canada, where there is universal health care, than the US.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases … 030717.php
I disagree with you so deeply that I'm not even going to attempt to argue the point. We live in different worlds.
With this I can agree - we live in different worlds. Mine is a world where personal responsibility for self is required, where ownership is acknowledged and where individualism is a fact.
Your's is a world where the group is responsible for individuals, where ownership is acknowledge only so long as the group doesn't want it and where individuals are first and foremost a member of the group and an individual only second.
I prefer mine, you prefer yours, and as long as the society around each agrees all will be well. But my society is changing (deteriorating IMO) into yours and I don't like it.
-I've never called you my enemy and I never would.
-If Trump falls short, I'll only be disappointed for a moment in time, I'd never allow it to affect my emotional level.
-The Tea Party may have had a rebirth, if Hillary had been elected, but it would have been as before...non-violent and resolute.
-Resorting to an Article about 'Hate' is about as polarizing as it can get and is definitely a conversation ender.
You say you've never called me your enemy; but within so many of your posts, you label anyone who doesn't think like you as 'always' or 'never' doing the opposite of the way you think things should be - which isn't true.
And while I have personally never seen you directly threaten anyone [who doesn't think like you do] with a gun - there were at least three different people within the HP forums who were doing that before the actual election - as well as afterwards when all the rigging accusations were flying around (though haven't seen them around in a while - I'm guessing they got banned).
So you KNOW there are more out there like them (go read comments beneath political articles if you have doubts - ugly threats aplenty from BOTH sides)... and IF there was ever to be a civil war, I'm pretty sure we all know whose 'side' you would be on.
The difference between us is that I (and many others) see the GOP & Trump as intentionally deepening and widening the divide to CAUSE a fight; and of course, if they manage to accomplish this PROFITABLE task - they will blame it all on 'liberals' like they always do.
The link to the article I left wasn't a meanspirited link - although I can certainly see how you can read the title and judge it that way. It talks about how 'the right' has been acting the way 'the left' has about Trump - for years with regard to Dem presidents. With the way conservatives have always whipped themselves into fearfilled frenzies by demonizing them - especially Obama. It talks about how Trump has become 'our version of a demon' - and why anti-Trump people are rising up in anger & hate as right-wing conservatives have been doing for a long time, now.
So many of Trump's non-Christian supporters keep insisting these divisions are NEW - but those of us who have been in this fight for a while (on both sides) know they are NOT.
It really might help you to actually read the article; and stop judging every damn thing you see coming from the opposing side as being 'bad'. Truth always stings at least a bit when it is trying to heal. And frankly, you'll feel a LOT better inside when you get people - and how God relates to EVERY SINGLE ONE of us ALL - into perspective. You can't do that while you're still brainwashed into believing everyone who doesn't think like you is 'black' while you and your ilk are nothing but 'white'. Like I said above, 'conservatives' don't have a monopoly on this - conservatives are as divided as the rest of the country; and many of them have the same concerns I do about Trump.
Individuals falling into brainwashing is the difference - not religions nor political party. You can either choose to continued to be offended by what I've been trying to say in here; or you can take into consideration that I just MIGHT be someone who is trying to build a bridge between the two extremes. Make your decision, then use whatever good or bad excuse you want to empower it.
This makes some great points. It's not just people on forums either, it's in government too unfortunately. You can see that some people (on both sides) have become completely closed-minded.
They're no longer capable of engaging in meaningful discussion - which means listening to the opposing views carefully, acknowledging any good points, making cogent arguments on points they disagree with, exploring to see if there is any room for agreement or compromise. It's getting to the point where nothing ever gets done because it's all about point-scoring, not governing the country.
They only know how to do a debate, which nowadays means fighting to the death for your opinion - and listening to the opposing side's views only to identify the weak points to attack. The idea of finding common ground is long gone. So is the idea of trying to persuade the opposing side to moderate their views or compromise. It's all attack, attack, attack, I'm right and you're wrong
People on both sides have expressed strong feelings and accusations for a long time. The difference right now is that the elected head of our government is a polarizing figure - so people's reactions are more extreme than ever before.
Marisa: You nailed it. And there are corporate needs of all citizens that cannot be met by private charities, such as hospitals, research, and transportation.
You know, I'm not sure there is a way to separate the two; and I don't think the people who don't want to help themselves are in the majority. If someone doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves, there is a reason for that - usually a mental one. We hardly do anything for people who need healing for their brain. In those cases, I wouldn't necessarily call them lazy - just in headspace that isn't supporting them to begin with for whatever reason. Its not normal.
Most people who are not addicted to drugs and have a well-balanced head on their shoulders LOVE the feeling of satisfaction that comes from supporting themselves as most people do. We need to get enough money into the right places so that homeless people who are so far down on their luck - do to their own stupidity or accidental circumstances, doesn't matter - back on their feet. We can't even begin to get a leg up at this point until we can get money all the way down into the cracks of the system - and of course, improve the system, itself, because we need to figure out ways to help people not become homeless in the first place.
I'm sure that can be done... I have a next door neighbor who doesn't work and was on food stamps. She complained & carried on one day about a new rule that popped up: they told her that she HAD to get either a part-time job or volunteer at one of the approved places on a list or lose her food stamps. She is an older, 'middle-aged' someone with emotional issue who appears to be able to work at least a little bit. And really, she can volunteer for a few hours a week, at least. I was kind of glad about it as she was ranting on and on about how 'unfair' it was to her (while nodding my head compassionately, ha!).
Admittedly, they didn't give her any warning at all - which was a big part of the problem, just cut her off. Apparently that 'no warning' thing became an issue for a lot of people because she ended up suddenly getting one more month of stamps. But, she still has no job and is not volunteering (she has a serious social phobia). She's going to food banks now. That was over a year ago. There are always improvements that can be made.
For instance, if we could get this lady a therapist who would help her with her social phobia - she might get back to the point where she wants to work again (she used to be an english teacher). Then she wouldn't be quite a burden on society. But, unless you are suicidal - there isn't much help out there if you are mentally crippled. I've worked within some of these systems - trust me, there isn't enough money; and Ocare coverage is suseptible to whether practicing therapists accept Medicare - most don't aside from children. Same with dentists, although I think there are more dentists who accept it - again, especially for children.
We're lucky in Seattle, we have really good community healthcare (http://countrydoctor.org/) that can even provide mental healthcare - every other Wednesday evening of the month with a few timeslots available. (That's what it used to be, anyway.) That is a luxury for this city.
In other words, if we had the money to help people (like my next door neighbor) before they get to a suicidal state - things might also be cheaper in the long run; even though more cost might be needed up front for more therapists.
I certainly agree on those that have mental health issues. I have a sister who is bipolar (forgot the other words) and drug abuse. The State Hospital intak person said people who have mental illness usually abuse drugs or take illegal substances. I was told that they could do nothing to help unless she hurt herself or someone else.
She killed her friend at our family home. She went to prison. I was happy because I thought they would give her help. The prison psychiatrist said there was nothing they could do if she wouldn't cooperate. She came out and is just as she was before she went to prison.
She is applying for SSI because of her knees and feet. She will not admit to bipolar issues. She did watch cars passing down the street and reflect on her life. She feels badly, after graduating from college, she has been homeless her whole adult life.
How can someone like this be helped? There are many, many similar cases.
Mental illness is, I think, a very special case and I'm not at all sure there IS an answer.
We don't help (by force) unless there is a danger to the person or someone else, and that's as it should be - we are not in a position to decide FOR someone that they "need" help if they don't want it.
But that leaves thousands of people that desperately need help while refusing to accept any. What do we do? What CAN we do, outside of setting ourselves up as little God's forcing psychiatric care and drugs onto someone to change who and what they are, all because WE think they need help?
And they also commit crimes. Some commit violent crimes, even killing parents or others who try to help them.
I went to the hospital and was told I had an obstruction. The doctor wanted to insert an ng tube. I've had that problem before and said, "Oh no!" in panic. The doctor said they would not do it if I didn't want to because it is considered assault.
Life is complicated. We are talking through this. Thank you! I don't think there will ever be a perfect solution because our perfect world ended with Adam and Eve and that forbidden apple.
I appreciate civil discussion.
Well, I see a solution for violent mental patients that refuse treatment as being locked up, away from anyone they might injure. A terrible fate when the "crime" is being ill, but when the alternative is to forcibly administer drugs that change who that person is, against their will...
I'm pretty adamant that our mind, our self, is inviolate and must not be tampered with without our permission. Maybe that's naive, but it's what I believe.
When Ronald Reagan was president, many, many mentally ill people were realized to the street. It is better for them to be helped before the first person dies. My sister did her time. While on parole she did stuff to violate like drink and take drugs. She was not sent back to prison.
1. Keep them in forever and it is considered cruel and unusual. Taxpayer pays for them to be imprisoned. OR
2. Let them out and they can do it again. This time it is you or your relative.
Just so. We cannot let them out to harm others. But a lifetime in prison is absolutely "cruel and unusual punishment", doubly so when the only sin is being sick. No answers, then.
Some mental illness we can "cure" temporarily with drugs. Is it acceptable to do that and then ask if they wish to continue the drug regimen? I have no answer there, either.
I don't see liberals professing fiscal responsibility , When I see that change , I would be willing to compromise . It's always someone else's money they demand . I understand and fully appreciate any compromise but liberals always demand more fiscal input from those around them than are willing to sacrifice themselves .
by My Esoteric9 hours ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with...
by Scott Bateman11 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
One of Hillary's former aides is now backing Romney:http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-hab … 48251.html
by Tim Lajoie16 months ago
Trump is not a conservative...so what? His positions have changed over the years...so what? My parents were liberals and became conservatives who voted for Ronald Reagan. People hold views that change...
by My Esoteric7 months ago
Congressional Republicans just promised to deny Hillary Clinton any honeymoon period and will continue their stated "Party over Country" policy of total obstruction of our Democratic President. To make...
by Greensleeves Hubs8 months ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.