jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (62 posts)

Need for bipartisanship

  1. dianetrotter profile image82
    dianetrotterposted 6 weeks ago

    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?

    1. Terrielynn1 profile image83
      Terrielynn1posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        I tried to start a disussion with caveats about staying focused but it doesn't work.

        Perhaps venting on the Internet is therapeutic for highly stressed people.

    2. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      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!

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13529274.jpg

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        I love your positive outlook.  I need to hear positive stuff.

      2. Marisa Wright profile image93
        Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        Love the cartoon!

      3. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        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.

  2. MontanaTroyBrooks profile image81
    MontanaTroyBrooksposted 6 weeks ago

    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.

    1. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      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.

  3. Perspycacious profile image78
    Perspycaciousposted 6 weeks ago

    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."

    1. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      I know.  I pray that people start to value each other.

  4. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 5 weeks ago

    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 ?

  5. abwilliams profile image82
    abwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

    I read this question and was ready to hit it out of the park, but you beat me to it.
    Well done ahorseback!

    1. ahorseback profile image44
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      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 .

      Examples ;
      - The entire education system
      - The entire Healthcare System
      - Government  employee entitlement
      - Every major  inner city failure in America

      1. Misfit Chick profile image93
        Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. ahorseback profile image44
          ahorsebackposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          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 .

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          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.

  6. abwilliams profile image82
    abwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

    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)

    1. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      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

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        The article has good points.

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. dianetrotter profile image82
          dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. Marisa Wright profile image93
            Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              It is incredibly selfish. But it's only a powerful minority that thinks that way. Otherwise, America has many good and unselfish people.

              1. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                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?"

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Some people shout louder and more often than others. On these forums, it's just a handful of them.

            2. dianetrotter profile image82
              dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Yes there is certainly pressure on the system, so if you turn up at the emergency room with a splinter in your finger, you will wait a long time.  But if you are seriously ill, you are seen quickly.

            3. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Is it through higher tax rates?  Employers required to keep a high percentage to pay to government?

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image82
                    dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I suppose Canada is one of those places?  I gotta read up on it.

                  2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                    Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    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/

              2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image82
                    dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Marisa Wright profile image93
                    Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    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.

  7. abwilliams profile image82
    abwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

    -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.

    1. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Marisa Wright profile image93
        Marisa Wrightposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        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

        1. dianetrotter profile image82
          dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          Hi Marisa!  True!  When it becomes personal, disrespective and combative, there's no reasoning.

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 weeks ago

    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.

    1. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      You are queen of the understatement.  He truly divides people.

  9. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 weeks ago

    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.

  10. Misfit Chick profile image93
    Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago

    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.

    1. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. dianetrotter profile image82
          dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. dianetrotter profile image82
              dianetrotterposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                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.  sad

                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.

  11. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 5 weeks ago

    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 .

 
working