CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:22
Arguments:29
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What should be the government’s role in mental health? (16)

Debate Creator

Amarel(5136) pic



What should be the government’s role in mental health?

Add New Argument
3 points

For a start, it should stop brainwashing people with propaganda. That would greatly improve people's mental health.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

Are you brainwashed by propaganda ?

FactEnforcer(24) Clarified
2 points

Are you brainwashed by propaganda ?

Probably. The shit's everywhere.

outlaw60(15501) Disputed
1 point

AMY you are so what is your point here ?????????? Being college uneducated u are brainwashed ! Need more be said ?????????

marcusmoon(586) Clarified
1 point

Hello, Amarel.

Are you brainwashed by propaganda ?

That is the right question.

We need to have our brains washed AFTER being propagandized.

Also, it should stop sending people overseas to murder people in blatant acts of economic imperialism, and brainwashing them into thinking they are doing good. A big reason why PTSD is a thing is because not only is war itself traumatizing but it's especially so when you realize deep down that you are hurting innocent people for American greed.

marcusmoon(586) Clarified
2 points

FE,

Also, it should stop sending people overseas to murder people in blatant acts of economic imperialism, and brainwashing them into thinking they are doing good.

Yep.

The vast majority of our service people go overseas out of a real desire to make the world safer, and to sacrifice time with their loved ones, their safety, and their families in order to benefit their fellow Americans or the people being oppressed by foreign governments out of control.

By contrast, our service people are SENT overseas by douchebags of both parties, and in both houses in order to get reelected.

I don't think the reason is primarily imperialism. That would be giving our politicians way too much credit for having any concept of a big picture or cohesive sense of what they are doing. Imperialism requires a sense of purpose based in a belief in something larger than oneself. I have a hard time identifying a group of individuals more self-involved and myopic than the folks we elect to Federal office. They don't have it in them to think beyond the next election, much less to think in terms of building an empire.

The end result of this often thoughtless military action is, as you say, an unconscionable PTSD rate.

A big reason why PTSD is a thing is because not only is war itself traumatizing but it's especially so when you realize deep down that you are hurting innocent people for American greed.

I recommend On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman.

In the book, Grossman discusses factors in PTSD that result from killing, both in warfare and in non-warfare situations (e.g., crime, protecting oneself from crime.) One of his observations is that the reason for killing has very little (but some) effect on the likelihood and degree of PTSD. Even the desire to protect one's own life and the lives of one's friends and family is of little effect on staving off PTSD.

The explanation Grossman gives is that in our middle brains there is a biological (not cultural) psychological barrier against killing our own species, and when we violate that natural prohibition, all sorts of psychological hell breaks loose.

He hypothesizes that the fact that so many mass shooters and killers of their own families end up killing themselves is not about a desire to avoid legal consequences, but rather a desire to avoid the psychological consequences that start to erupt shortly after the adrenaline rush of killing subsides.

Grossman also observes that watching killing, whether by ones own compadres or by enemies, is also traumatic, though far less so than doing the killing oneself. Grossman indicates that the reason for the killing is less relevant than the proximity to the person being killed.

1 point

Hello A:

My Medicare for all plan would cover everybody for everything. What sense does it make to treat some stuff and not other stuff??

excon

Singularity(21) Disputed
2 points

Because it would cost 41 trillion dollars. That would mean that even if everyone was taxed 100%, you wouldn't be anywhere near covering the costs.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

Is there any reason not to cover food, clothing, shelter, transportation, communication, and entertainment along with healthcare?

excon(14555) Clarified
2 points

Is there any reason not to cover food, clothing, shelter, transportation, communication, and entertainment along with healthcare

Hello A:

An illness in your body is like a fire in your house.. I think the government SHOULD cover us for those possibilities.. Apparently, the right wing does too.. Otherwise we wouldn't have ER's to take care of the poor, and the right wing wouldn't support it..

So, I think we align with health CARE.. We only disagree on how to pay for it.. I also think we align about NOT paying for peoples entertainment and shit.. Of course, you're just being silly..

excon

outlaw60(15501) Disputed
1 point

Hello A:

My Medicare for all plan would cover everybody for everything. What sense does it make to treat some stuff and not other stuff??

excon

LMMFAO then SUPER STUPID you should take your Medicare plan to Congress you FLAMING INTERNET IDIOT !

Well, for one, they should make it a hell of a lot cheaper to be able to care for your mental health. Therapists, medication, insurance, hospital bills if you have a serious self-harming issue are all expensive. I want to be healthy, mentally and physically, and not have to pay over $100 a session just to have a vent and feel mentally better.

Now, healthcare nowadays is bad, but that's another topic.

There's also the issue of weapons. There should be more talk about how mental issues affect your thoughts and behavior, and your mental health should be taken into consideration before you buy a weapon. It would be hard, because mental issues form differently for different people, but in any instance, mental health should be taken into consideration.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

Do you mean to say that the government should require mental health evaluations for permits to purchase weapons and should subsidize mental heath care?

marcusmoon(586) Clarified
1 point

Amarel,

Do you mean to say that the government should require mental health evaluations for permits to purchase weapons and should subsidize mental heath care?

Should we go the rest of the way and suggest the government should subsidize gun purchases for people who pass the mental health evaluations for weapons purchases?

;-)

1 point

What should be the government’s role in mental health?

Very little.

There is a significant problem with psychiatry/psychology--who is the 100% "sane" authority that dictates what is "crazy" or not(?) In fact, psychiatry itself has gone 'insane', as anything that deviates from "gender neutral, sedentary, numb, pacifist", now has a "diagnosis" in the DSM. Psychologists are overwhelmingly liberal feminists, and view the world through that particular lens. This has already, and is increasingly, become a serious issue in our society, particularly with the encroachment of "mental health" into the 2nd amendment restrictions discussion.

Honestly, look at how people reacted to Kanye West stating he wants to affiliate with the Republican Party. They said he needs to be hospitalized--literally (which can actually happen, btw). We are not all too far before things could (potentially) start to get really, really ugly in this respect.

If it were changed to "Life Coaching--personal & marital" with each therapist/coach stating their viewpoint/bias upfront, I would have absolutely zero issue with it (in fact, I'm sure it could potentially be quite beneficial when someone finds a 'coach'/therapist that fits with them well). However, the current state of things is dangerous, where it is called "science", and one is able to say "objectively", this philosophy of life and human behavior is "normal"/'sane' and everything else veers toward 'abnormal'/'insane'. Further, and the largest issue, is that people can be forcibly hospitalized by the state if they are called in claimed to be a "danger" to others or themselves--which is exactly what Don Lemon & others were suggesting about Kanye.

Amarel(5136) Disputed
1 point

who is the 100% "sane" authority that dictates what is "crazy" or not(?)

Who is the 100% heart healthy doctor that tells you you have a heart condition?

anything that deviates from "gender neutral, sedentary, numb, pacifist", now has a "diagnosis" in the DSM.

All health is on a spectrum. Diagnosis doesn't mean insanity. No one is getting upset about dermal hematoma. Nor is anyone putting people away for general anxiety.

This has already, and is increasingly, become a serious issue in our society, particularly with the encroachment of "mental health" into the 2nd amendment restrictions discussion.

While I can understand the concern for 2nd Amendment abuses, I can also see it would be appropriate to restrict access to firearms for the severely mentally ill. Would you give a gun to a delusional psychotic? Do you truly believe no one is qualified to identify a delusional psychotic person?

Honestly, look at how people reacted to Kanye West stating he wants to affiliate with the Republican Party. They said he needs to be hospitalized--literally

Kanye West has bipolar disorder and has suffered blackouts as a result--literally. He has required hospitalization for his mental health--literally. He has talked about the need for open dialogue concerning mental health. While it is a low blow for people to go straight to his psychology to attack his politics, there's a reason no one has called other black conservatives mental health into question. Colion Noir comes to mind.

this philosophy of life and human behavior is "normal"/'sane' and everything else veers toward 'abnormal'/'insane'

This dichotomy doesn't exist in the mental health profession.

Further, and the largest issue, is that people can be forcibly hospitalized by the state if they are called in claimed to be a "danger" to others or themselves

It takes much more than an accusation to institutionalize someone. There are a lot of people living on the street who can't remember the most basic aspects of personal care, whose quality of life would be greatly improved under supervision. They often will rail against an institution, but then they will often rail against all things, as a compulsion. In the meantime, they end up in jail for various offenses resulting from their insanity.

1 point

As patients in a mental institution. It's obvious that they are some sick puppies.