> Republicans: mental health is definitely an issue that needs to be solved
If this were true, they would have proposed legislation to fund healthcare.
If this were true, they would have proposed legislation to fund healthcare.
Any comparison of the parties can't be done in good faith.
‘Defund the police’ is what you see on the signs at democrat protests.
When you get in a discussion, it’s not quite what they mean, but that just means it’s a stupid slogan where you have to redefine every word to get at what you mean.
Human politics and all…
But it's a great way to lie about your political opponents to keep anything rational from being done about gun violence or other issues.
Plenty of prominent Democrats quotes here that say otherwise.
It's very clear that Republicans don't actually believe that improving mental health or mental healthcare is actually a solution to gun deaths, but only use it as a distraction from improving gun regulations that are desired by over 80% of Americans, including a majority of gun owners.
Democrats on the other hand actually do understand that mental health issues are a part of the gun problem, and therefore provide solutions to tackle it both by improving mental health care access, as well as improving background checks to prevent those with mental health issues from accessing lethal weaponry easily.
Everybody deals with hassle, they just need to get paid for it. People that need mental healthcare have no money to pay for it. Why would smart, capable people go to work in a field where the pay is not commensurate to quality of life at work?
Simply doing something like paying people in mental healthcare competitive wages would help. Why would it not? Money serving to incentivize is the basis of our society.
We can't throw our hands up in the air and claim it's impossible because there's more than 1 problem. We have to fix both problems.
If government insurance were to create a shortage of mental health care workers, then one way or another we need to get to more mental health care workers. It would be nearly impossible to wait for a proper number of employees before giving everyone coverage. You'd end up with an excess of supply.
There's already a lack of supply.
The US spends more than any other country on public health care per capita than any other country in the world. Over 50% more per capita public expenditure than the runner up Norway. [1]
I don't know if money is the problem
[0] https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spen...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health...
Medicaid requires you basically give up your house - and most health plans normal people have come with deductibles too high to actually use. So poor folks don't seek preventative care until it's too late, pushing up prices for everyone.
The whole thing is unconscionable, and the price tag you point to is a function of massive structural inefficiency and not something to be proud of. Canada provides healthcare to 100% of the population for half the per-capita cost. Norway, 66% of the per capita cost.
There is no true free market for healthcare, anywhere. A free market requires voluntary agreement between buyer and seller, but regional monopolies saying 'pay up or I'll let you bleed out on the floor' ain't it.
Certainly, there are huge issues with laws around involuntary commitment to mental institutions also and the legal costs there, but I figure the first step is creating the quality mental health institutions in the first place.
It is also possible this is simply an intractable problem (I think the needed expenditures are far too big to be politically palatable), so we will just trend towards a situation where those that can afford to, erect walls and security and whatnot around their lives, like other countries with large gaps in poor and rich.
In general, “fund x” means a wealth transfer from wealthier people to poorer people to pay for “x”, and Repubs have no track record of this outside of military/police/security ventures.
If Republicans believe that healthcare for working adults is best covered by the private sector, then the government doesn't need to do anything to fund that. If the government did take it over, there is no guarantee it would include mental health aspects or if it would just expand sick care to all. There are a lot of assumptions that a government funded plan will be the exact plan everyone wants, but that is very unlikely, because everyone wants something different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
ACA only happened because of Democrats pushing for greater access to healthcare, but also had to heavily compromise to win the votes of a couple senators who had insurers’ interests at heart.
Republicans didn’t vote for it largely as a political strategy to not be seen as giving Obama a “win”.
But the other poster is right that the ACA was essentially the “free market” conservative version of universal healthcare.
And certainly, if Repubs had control of Congress in 2008, they would have never passed ACA, or any other broad wealth transfer mechanism like it.