RE: Mental Health

RE: Mental Health (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 6:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep not exactly; they kill each other, kill guards on occasion. you would have to keep them not only incarcerated, but incarcerated in solitude. Reminds me of a potent argument here, before the death penalty was wiped: that if you know you're going to get hanged if you get caught, you have nothing to lose by killing anyone who tries to catch you. Anyone at all, in fact. An example of 'violence breeds violence', in real social action. Well you know, if you do kill somebody and you know you are getting CP - then why would somebody stop at one? Why not try and make a run for freedom and shoot everything in your way? Bit like the old saying "one might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb" meaning that people who were poor and their families were starving stole life-stock, before they were sent to Australia they got hung for it, now you can feed a family a lot longer from a sheep than from a small lamb and if the punishment is the same... So yes, if somebody will get killed (pardon me "legally executed" is the PC term, though the result is the same) and has nothing to lose, why not take a few more with him especially if he feels that there might be a chance that he gets away... If you're going to end up dead anyway, it doesn't matter if you take 1, 2, 3 or maybe 20 others with you, what can they do? Kill you twice?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 6:51:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep not exactly; they kill each other, kill guards on occasion. you would have to keep them not only incarcerated, but incarcerated in solitude. Reminds me of a potent argument here, before the death penalty was wiped: that if you know you're going to get hanged if you get caught, you have nothing to lose by killing anyone who tries to catch you. Anyone at all, in fact. An example of 'violence breeds violence', in real social action. And if you are already facing life in prison for something, and you know that is the worst punishment you are going to get, you also have nothing to lose by killing anyone who tries to catch you. Or if you are already in prison for life, you have nothing to lose by killing a guard or another inmate.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 6:59:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet And if you are already facing life in prison for something, and you know that is the worst punishment you are going to get, you also have nothing to lose by killing anyone who tries to catch you. Or if you are already in prison for life, you have nothing to lose by killing a guard or another inmate. But you do - your privileges can be revoked, you might not be allowed to work (which is actually a really bad punishment, try to imagine 24/7 boredom), you might not be allowed to read, some comfort things like cigarettes, food, extras, books, etc might be taken away from you. You can be put in solitary confinement... You will have to worry all the time that somebody else might put ground glass in your food... I think life in prison can be made even more miserable... If you're having a very very bleak existence you might be willing to do whatever you can to not make it worse...

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:02:43 AM)
Maybe, LadyC

Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:03:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Murder, sense 2, WordWeb: "Kill intentionally and with premeditation". E.g. "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered" Well then it's wrong -- and also wrong -- not to mention wrong. Or something else is wrong, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The purpose of an execution is not to "reduce overall levels of violence" but to assure that a person who wrongfully kills another human beings doesn't do it again, which I think one might reasonably suppose would tend to increase the general social well-being. Yes. But that's the smallest of reasons, isn't it? You achieve the same effect by incarcerating them for life. 1. That's not the "smallest of reasons," that's the fucking reason. 2. But we dont. As in, we don't. Not to mention, we don't. Get it? But yes it would achieve the same end if we did, assuming you don't care about them killing guards and each other. As a matter of fact, I think someone mentioned life sentences without parole as a possible alternative to execution, but I forget who. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Back to the economics of life and death, eh? I'd love to hear your views on health care. Public health care is another example of a thing that is the most ethical being also the thing that is the most economically efficient, so we've found here in the UK. Well now we know where you stand on that, don't we. Thanks, and good luck with your idea of "ethics." K.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:11:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep not exactly; they kill each other, kill guards on occasion. you would have to keep them not only incarcerated, but incarcerated in solitude. Reminds me of a potent argument here, before the death penalty was wiped: that if you know you're going to get hanged if you get caught, you have nothing to lose by killing anyone who tries to catch you. Anyone at all, in fact. An example of 'violence breeds violence', in real social action. not all of the people who commit murder in prison are facing the death penalty. it happens in states where the death penalty is illegal.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:15:58 AM)
care.[/quote] Public health care is another example of a thing that is the most ethical being also the thing that is the most economically efficient, so we've found here in the UK. [/quote] Really Peon? Because I did a pretty cursory google search, and I found this article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8340975/Pensions-and-health-care-pledges-put-UK-at-extreme-risk-of-another-economic-crisis.html I think national health care is great, and the right thing to do. Whether it is economically efficient or not is anotherbstory.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:39:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Maybe, LadyC Try to put yourself in a position where you stare at the same walls for maybe 10 years or more, wouldn't you be willing to cooperate with wardens and regulations for the tiniest bit of change? Most people would possibly beg and be willing to offer a limb just for anything that's mentally stimulating. Been a while ago that I stumbled over a study regarding education in prisons, the people who got on the education programs (especially for long term prisoners) were eager to comply with orders, less likely to violate rules and regulations just to not lose that bit of mental stimulation. I can only speak for myself, but I think I would rather kill myself than being in prison for a year or two, much less 10 years or the rest of my life (the fact that I am claustrophobic doesn't really help), while I understand that it is important to keep certain people away from society, apart from being a punishment, it also seems to be pretty much like torture. The simple fact that you are losing the rights that most of us take for granted is pretty much a punishment. I spent exactly 8 or 9 hours in a holding cell once, and it was a mistake, I was called as a witness and at that time living in Germany but mainly working in the US, Italy and UK and usually came back to my flat every 3 months, so the first date I missed, wrote them and explained I am working mostly out of the country and gave them the office address, so that the letters could be sent there and I wouldn't get them ages later. Apparently the judge filed and forgot, so I missed 2 more dates. When I was actually moving to the UK and was there packing up, at 4.30 AM there was banging on the door with "Open up, police" - I went there and said "Do you have the wrong address?" They explained that they have come to take me to court as I had missed previous dates without making excuses (duh yeah, I was out of the country and only had gotten back the day before). So they drove me to the big police station and said I have to be held until the the date which was in the early afternoon, around lunch time. Cop there was really nice to me and said I don't seem to be their regular "customer" I don't fight, spit, smell of booze or call them names... I explained what happened, he laughed and said he still has to put me in a cell and I have to take my shoes off, but he gave me a clean blanket and reading material and was very considerate, came to chat with me, brought me coffee and said if I need to use the toilet to give him a shout so he won't walk past - as it was in plain view of the window in the door. I was still pretty shaken because I never experienced anything like that. I honestly can't imagine a worse place and that was only a holding cell. The funny bit was, when it was time for the trial, guess who wasn't there and hadn't showed up for all the previous ones? The accused... HOW FUNNY! Though nobody ever thought about arresting him and bringing him there... Judge asked me why I didn't show up previously, so I explained my letter to him (oh yeah, he found that one at the back of my file - how funny) and apologized, I was awarded some money for the time I spent waiting in the damned holding cell and the time it took them to figure out "Oh bummer, we forgot to have the accused summoned..." - paid for my cab home and I think breakfast. But from that experience, however brief and how funny in retrospect (well, you don't get a grovelling judge and a snickering attorney of state all that often), I can't imagine that somebody would not be scared by the idea of being locked up under even worse conditions (I knew I'd be out ASAP, no prison uniform, no horrible prison food...) - choice between that and a root canal without anesthetics, I go for the root canal!

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:48:36 AM)
I understand what you are saying Lady C, and I am sure I would feel the same way you do about being in prison. I just wonder how much impulse control the average maximum security prisoner has. But yes, I agree, there are ways to encourage, shall we say, good behavior. By the way, I never knew where that sheep/ lamb thing came from. Thanks for the explanation!

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 7:49:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet I think national health care is great, and the right thing to do. Whether it is economically efficient or not is anotherbstory. Having seen national health care in a few different countries, I don't think the NHS in the UK is very good, though it does beat having none, a few MDs said the NHS is the result of accountants instead of medical professionals running the national health system and thoroughly ruining it in the process. You might want to look at a lot of other countries, almost every country in Europe has it (can't think of one who doesn't off the top of my head), and yes, it does have a lot of positive impact on the economy, for example due to people are being able to have free to very affordable check ups, a lot of health problems can be sorted before they become chronic or force the people into retirement due to health reasons, or be treated before they require extensive surgery. As a result the economy doesn't lose as much manpower due to illnesses, in most businesses it is quite a factor. We were having the conversation about thyroid in the health forum, I know that Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and France (possibly a lot of other countries as well) have it as part of the general health check they advise everybody to have once a year, because they realized if not detected it can cause a lot of other problems, which of course cost tons of money. Think about cancer screening... Most cancers are very easy to treat in the early stages, heart problems - you really don't want to wait for strokes... Europe isn't ethical as much as thrifty - they spend a little to save more.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 8:00:34 AM)
As you probably know, ladyC, we just had the nationalized health care debate in this country, and I heard the economics argued both ways. In the end, I certainly was in favor of national health care, although not the version we ended up with. Doomed to failure. I have talked to Europeans from several countries about their systems, and in general they were pretty positive. My sister lives in Italy and she loves the system there. One of the big arguments the people opposed to health care reform here always made was that people from other countries supposedly hated national health care. I knew that argument to be false. Having said all that, being the right thing to do and economically efficient are two different things. I know a lot of countries in Europe are in economic turmoil, and I don't know to what extent national health care has contributed to their problems. Apparently, in the UK it has contributed a lot.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 8:20:39 AM)
I wouldn't say the UK system is bad, it just seems that it was mismanaged for a long time and it seems to be getting worse though they are working on issues like hygiene in hospitals. The funny thing is the old doctors all seem to wash their hands before and after examining you, very few of the young ones do. You have the additional problem that they don't require anything for you to see a doctor, you register with a doctor or a surgery and give a UK address, and they'll see you, so you do have the case of "medical tourists" who will get treatment and cause costs, don't know how much of a factor that is, but I imagine it is quite a drain on the system... In a lot of other countries you have a chip card, shows you're paying into an insurance and you are entitled to get your treatment, which seems to cut down quite a bit on the abuse of the system. Germany's health system was brilliant, then the unification of Germany happened, and you can imagine if you get an onslaught of people who never paid into the system, it also drains, so they had to scale back quite a bit, I think you are now paying 7 or 10 Euros every 3 months and that entitles you to see your doctor. I was privately insured so I didn't know, actually for me the private insurance panned out cheaper than the national one and due to income I had the choice, biggest benefit was simply not having to wait until there was an appointment available, since they could charge a lot more they were very accommodating. I think health care and economics go hand in hand, every firm wants to keep the sick days to a minimum as those are considerable costs, the healthier your workforce is, the less money you lose. In case they can't afford to see a doctor and sort a problem before it becomes a big problem, it's going to cost the company, the economy loses. When I lived in the US I always had health coverage, but from my understanding they can't deny you treatment if you're an emergency, hospitals and doctors usually don't work for free, if the person who's having a heart attack or an accident has no insurance and no money, they still have to treat him or her, in case they can't pay, how are they going to recover the costs? I think (might be wrong here) it is through taxes, also with a national health insurance you don't have the issue that they can raise your fees due to risk factors (like if you had a heart attack and it comes to renewal of your insurance, I believe they can put up the fees dramatically?) and make it unaffordable for the people who really need it.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 9:53:29 AM)
actually the us is in worse economic shape than pretty much any other western country, and you guys spend more gvt money per person on health care for your lack of a system than the other countries do for their comprehensive systems. given all that, what the fuck do you think the root of the problems are?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 10:58:20 AM)
Well, first of all, I am not sure I agree that the US is in "worse" economic shape than "pretty much" any western country. I also don't know if you are right that we spend "more gvt money per person on health care". However, if you are asking me to defend the current health care system, you are talking to the wrong girl. Personally, I thought a single payer system should have been instituted, but that created such hysteria that it obviously wasn't going to happen. So, I think "what the fuck" the problem is is: 1. That insurance companies have FAR too much control over the health care system in this country. 2. That the rising cost of insurance has made health insurance impossible for most people (I pay $550 per month, per employee and it goes up about 10% per year). 3. Therefore, most people, unless they have a generous employer, have to rely on emergency room care, which they can't afford, so medicaid has to pay for it. 4. Americans are so terrified of the prospect of "socialism" that if anyone even says the word, they can't think straight. 5. The conservatives used the word socialism a lot in the health care debate, and did a great job convincing people that universal health care was the slippery slope to socialism. quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather actually the us is in worse economic shape than pretty much any other western country, and you guys spend more gvt money per person on health care for your lack of a system than the other countries do for their comprehensive systems. given all that, what the fuck do you think the root of the problems are?

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 11:05:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Well, first of all, I am not sure I agree that the US is in "worse" economic shape than "pretty much" any western country. I also don't know if you are right that we spend "more gvt money per person on health care". However, if you are asking me to defend the current health care system, you are talking to the wrong girl. Personally, I thought a single payer system should have been instituted, but that created such hysteria that it obviously wasn't going to happen. So, I think "what the fuck" the problem is is: 1. That insurance companies have FAR too much control over the health care system in this country. 2. That the rising cost of insurance has made health insurance impossible for most people (I pay $550 per month, per employee and it goes up about 10% per year). 3. Therefore, most people, unless they have a generous employer, have to rely on emergency room care, which they can't afford, so medicaid has to pay for it. 4. Americans are so terrified of the prospect of "socialism" that if anyone even says the word, they can't think straight. 5. The conservatives used the word socialism a lot in the health care debate, and did a great job convincing people that universal health care was the slippery slope to socialism. I should have put that link in much earlier, it shows the health care costs per capita in the different countries http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita Compared to life expectancy of the population, that's quite a difference http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_yea_tot_pop-expectancy-birth-years-total-population

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 11:22:48 AM)
Thank you LadyC. Looks like that statement about the US paying more for health care per person is true. Which makes it even more amazing that the conservatives were able to convince the public that health care reform was not in their best interests. I still can't believe it.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 11:31:30 AM)
Add to that the guy who originally came up with that plan was a Republican who is now vehemently against it. How the hell does that work? I never got the whole crazy idea why national healthcare is socialism or else the rest of the free and civilized world would be socialism and the US would be the last bastion of capitalism... Another part that will possibly feature into the high prices is, the different health insurances negotiate their own prices, now with a bigger buying power, prices could be reduced a lot, then you also have the lovely ambulance chasers who are very eager to sue doctors for crazy amounts of money, which puts up the insurance costs for doctors, which again then reflects on the health insurance the end user has to purchase.... Just a few ideas... PS: You forgot the mythological death panels we apparently have in Europe - oddly enough nobody ever encountered them, how strange is that?

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 11:35:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Murder, sense 2, WordWeb: "Kill intentionally and with premeditation". E.g. "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered" Well then it's wrong -- and also wrong -- not to mention wrong. I cited accurately, Kirata - mine was quoted directly from WordWeb. The Online version has it as sense 1 of the verb, here: http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=murder I also think you might be getting thrown by the word 'lawful'. 'Lawful'. For instance, WordWeb, sense 2: "According to custom, rule or natural law". http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=lawful "Lawful" has a much wider meaning than 'legal'. Once again, the neither the State, nor its institutions, and least of the legal business, isn't the 'owner' of the word, and there's no reason why we should talk as though it is. At a more fundamental level, in a democratic system the legal system answers to us, the citizens. It answers to us, not vice versa. I do think it's crucial to remember that. It really is probably the most fundamental principle of democracy.

PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 11:39:43 AM)
quote: 5. The conservatives used the word socialism a lot in the health care debate, and did a great job convincing people that universal health care was the slippery slope to socialism. Gawd, yes. The negative power of that word in the USA seems to be just enormous.

Aswad -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 3:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Maybe, LadyC Not just maybe. Check out the prison systems in Scandinavia. They're fairly similar to each other. And radically different from the ones in the USA. You will note that we have exceptionally low relapse rates, on top of low crime rates, with very few cases of "poor behavior" both in the prisons and during apprehension of criminals. Rehabilitation rates are also pretty damn good. Privileges to make conditional on good behavior is a significant incentive, especially with long sentences. And most people do not, when actually faced with reality, see a lifetime sentence the same way as capital punishment. Especially when you are able to provide conditions which serve the purpose of safeguarding society without making things as shitty as possible for the inmates. Assuming you want people to be safe, that is. Most criminals who might face severe penalties are in a situation where they have limited options, supported by pretty solid evidence. A suitable analogy is war. You have an opponent with no retreat from the battlefield, other than what you are willing to provide. So, either you throw your 'soldiers' at an enemy with the back to the wall and nothing to lose, or you negotiate a way out. Life imprisonment with a tolerable standard of living is a good trade for the safety of your 'soldiers' (i.e. the police). You have a bad situation going in, everyone standing to lose, and the stakes are asymmetrical. The reasonable society-scale choice is to spend some money on reducing loss of life, by making defeat an option for the opponent. Social morality differs from individual morality on the point of 'right' vs 'wrong', in that it is the mesoscale result that matters, not the microscale result of each event. Multiply the 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of each 'right' and 'wrong', then sum them up and put them on the scale. If a policy causes several slight 'wrongs' to be balanced against a few major 'rights', then it is the socially moral way to go. It isn't particularly controversial that the policy of not negotiating with kidnappers, terrorists, etc., is a sound one in terms of social morality. And, similarly, it shouldn't be controversial that spending tax money on keeping criminals tolerably happy is a sound policy, because it is demonstrably effective at preventing greater wrongs. We can probably agree that spending tax money on their happiness is- in and of itself- a wrong, since it involves taking money from people who don't want to give up that money. But it's a lesser wrong, even when summed over all the instances. Sometimes, you have to spend money or lives, in order to save money or lives. It seems absurd to spend lives on saving either (or both), when you can spend money on saving both. Assuming one aims to actually do that. If the whole point is to be exacting vengeance by inflicting punishment, then one should delegate that task to a seperate "domestic torture and execution force", instead of billing and couching it as a matter of public risk management or crime prevention (collectively: "safety"). As for the problem for guards in jail, it is directly related to how the USA manages its jails. We don't have the same problem, even in the max security prisons. Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875