Next call: the mental health lobby

  As predicted, the focus of the Loughner problem is turning to the mental health care situation in the United States, by both critics and lobbyists of the mental health care industry.
  Now that an entire week has gone by since the massacre and the left has gotten as much mileage out of the "conservatives are responsible" meme with now diminishing returns, expect the health care industry and politicians to opportunistically use the incident to try to get more money and control over the public.
  The truth is ugly.
  It was liberal philosophy that pushed mental health patients out onto the streets in the 1970s, claiming that it was their right to not be confined. Indeed, conditions at some mental health facilities were horrendous; the film, believe it or not, The Snake Pit was instrumental in reforming the facilities.
  But the pendulum has swung the other way.
  Rich Lowry has an article today in the New York Post about current conditions regarding mentally ill individuals in this country because of what Lowry calls the "madness lobby":

They do deserve the blame for a system that willfully lets people fall through the cracks and pretends diseased minds can make rational decisions. At its best, this system is cruel in abandoning the ill to their suffering; in exceptional cases, it is reckless in leaving dangerous people to do harm to themselves or others. The madness lobby helps make the lunatic act of violence a routine part of the American landscape

  Lowry correctly writes that it was "ill conceived compassion" and "budget cutting" that prompted the new laws and guidelines which made it easier for mentally ill individuals to not be encumbered by receiving treatment, either in facility or out.
  So now we have calls for action, any action. These calls will increase.
  Unfortunately most of these calls for "something to be done" are thinly disguised efforts to put the nanny state government squarely in the driver's seat--the "someone" who should do "something" is always government intervening in some public capacity, including the rewriting of laws and vast dollars expended to increase security and union organization members to treat the ill. 
  This is exactly the opposite of what should be done.
  Intervention should have been made with regard to Loughner's college security officials and the local sheriff's office; while this may seem like a contradiction to the previous paragraph, let me make my point.
  It's up to local people, which include classmates, neighbors and those locally responsible for the security of a community, to offer and seek assistance when the situation calls for it. 
  Of course, it goes without saying that the family, when they realized they could not handle their son, should have sought help.
  The community college should have contacted the sheriff.
  The sheriff, having been called to the home at least 10 times to deal with family issues, should have asked questions about the dysfunction of the family.
  Yes, it is necessary that "government" intervene in situations like this, but the focus should be on local people, not national lobbies and federal officials who have much to gain by manipulating public law for their own gain.
  Consider last week's event in another light. 
  If there had been no congresswoman present at this shooting, would we be regarding it differently? 
  Would there be national calls for us all to get along?
  If there had been only the judge, would there have been a national so-called "memorial" to which the president and his associates flew?
  Would there be calls for gun control within 1000 yards of a congressperson?
  A single act against a person, even a congressional elected official, does not necessarily necessitate change on a national level.
  Why the special treatment? The situation was tragic, horrific, and caught the attention of the public, but when an "ordinary" citizen is shot in such a manner, would we be chronicling the progress of her recovery, as remarkable as it is, daily waiting breathlessly for word of the next blink or movement?
  Every American citizen's life has value, although not every citizen gets their own graphic and sad theme music on the news channels when something goes dreadfully wrong.
  And every American has certain rights and expectations that the federal government will honor its citizens' freedom and rights.
  Let's pull back and consider carefully before we act impulsively on a national level.
  Patterico has more questions, link included below:

Was Loughner Seen by Mental Health Professionals?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:38 am

Big Media appears to assume the answer is no.

But I’m hearing he was.

Are we assuming he wasn’t because people are denying it? OK. And this is believable … why?

I am sure we will hear more in coming weeks and months. If and when we do, remember this post.