November 26, 2016 at 8:11 pm #85091
Here’s Murphy’s self-congratulations:
““This is a landmark moment. The federal government’s course in addressing mental health and illness in America is being fundamentally changed. Congress has finally come together in a bipartisan effort to bring serious mental illness out of the shadows. Now federal agencies will be moving from feel-good programs for behavioral wellness to ones that emphasize evidence-based care for those at highest risk and those with symptoms of serious mental illness. We’ve achieved long-sought reforms by creating an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use to elevate, integrate and coordinate programs; investing in services for the most difficult to treat cases; expanding the mental health workforce, and so much more.“It couldn’t be more fitting that we’ve reached this bipartisan agreement between the House and Senate at the close of Thanksgiving week.”November 26, 2016 at 8:18 pm #85092
Thanks for the link. Happy thanksgiving indeed…
I wrote this on another thread…do you think there’s any chance Obama won’t go along with it? He’s never expressed support of AOT and he’s advocated for SAMHSA based programs (not sure how much this bills weakens SAMHSA, but that was part of the original Murphy).November 26, 2016 at 10:56 pm #85095
This bill is WORSE than the original Murphy. All the info I found in the various links in what you originally posted.
Once again, we are unfortunately the “select few” who even know what’s going on — it might help to lobby the MIA staff to get this up on the site ASAP, though I’ve already emailed most of them. Most people will be totally surprised come Monday, predictably. Wonder if NCMHR is even aware of this?November 26, 2016 at 11:04 pm #85096
Wonder if NCMHR is even aware of this?
I checked their website, they’re still comparing the two bills & telling people to vote for 2680, basically saying this is Murphy’s last gasp. Won’t they be surprised. If we were getting paid I guess we wouldn’t know about this either? Yay peerdom!November 26, 2016 at 11:29 pm #85097
FYI the new cobbled-together “Frankenstein” Murphy bill has assumed the form of “House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 34, Tsunami Warning, Education and Research Act of 2015” and is titled (ready?) “The 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT”!!!
November 27, 2016 at 1:43 am #85099
- This reply was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by oldhead.
People who post on other sites should post this info and tell them to call their senators on Monday and tell them to oppose the above bill.November 27, 2016 at 11:39 am #85112
humanbeingParticipantNovember 27, 2016 at 2:42 pm #85127
I skimmed the bill, but DJ Jaffe has a page that picks out and summarizes the relevant parts. Looks like AOT expansion is part of the package. See here https://mentalillnesspolicyorg.blogspot.com/2016/11/memo-on-section-of-cures-bill-that.htmlNovember 27, 2016 at 2:51 pm #85128
possible talking point, if your senator(s) is a democrat.
Maybe we can use Trump/Pence to our advantage. I’m pessimistic about people paying attention to issues that affect those who are only labeled “mentally ill”, but we might get broader support if we point out how some of the extremists around Trump may target other vulnerable groups. For example, some of them believe that LGBT individuals are “mentally ill” and Pence is a known supporter of gay conversion therapy. So, we could say that we have concerns that the LGBT community would be subjected to involuntary mental health services. You could also apply this to protestors or others who would piss off Trump and people like Bannon.November 27, 2016 at 4:29 pm #85129
Right now we just have to find ways to get people to call, again — people who don’t need to be converted but just need to get off their asses. Though you are right about the “conversion therapy” issue as something to seize upon in the future; I’ve thought the same.
Right now even people here who have been involved all along, and NCMHR, are still weighing the Senate bill vs. 4626. That’s all moot now. The first thing we should communicate is simply “vote no” — or “no vote” till people have a chance to sort it out.
S&T — News items are being posted at MIA today but so far nothing about this — even though I’ve contacted Justin Karter and numerous other staff. I’ll do it again if necessary, but if you &/or others could also lobby MIA to get on the ball this is certainly more important than anything else currently considered “News.”
November 27, 2016 at 4:59 pm #85131
- This reply was modified 10 months, 4 weeks ago by oldhead.
I’ve contacted them too. Hopefully we will see something by tomorrow.November 27, 2016 at 7:43 pm #85140
The expansion on AOT, otherwise known as “treatment before tragedy”. I can see you why there is such an emphasis on being against ‘mental health’. Regardless of what people think about the concept keeping up with this crowd is depressing… Mass killings, homicides, and suicides seems to be the majority of what they talk about.
In one video I herd Murphy keeps pictures of victims of mass killings close at all times… The way they talk about it too…
Then add, the fact that none of them talk about psyche drugs being involved, and people mostly ignore this… So it continues. Hopefully, they’ll listen eventually. I don’t know. It took so long to have warnings put on SSRIs, and although ignored, mostly there’s some awareness.November 27, 2016 at 8:02 pm #85141
Everyone, including the “consumers” who supported S2680 as the “lesser of two evils,” should be outraged by this. (S&T I also sent an email to Val Marsh’s group NCMHR who are supposedly spearheading the Murphy resistance but I doubt they’ll find out about this before Monday.)
We’re talking here about an amendment to an amendment to HR 34, which is about tsunami warnings. If anyone can look this up on gov.track before I can go for it.
And Kayla, its not a matter of them “not getting it,” they know exactly what’s up. We should remember and keep repeating the quote from D.J. Jaffee himself when calling senators:
“From a marketing perspective, it may be necessary to capitalize on the fear of violence to get the law passed.”November 27, 2016 at 9:49 pm #85142
Some people don’t get this yet. Do we have any kind of a gauge on who is aware of this. I’ve heard, from a wide pollitcal prospective, including politicians, and voters, that claim mental health laws are only used in cases of violence. In fact the only party I really heard speaking out against this was the Green Party.
Yet, how is this keeping the government out of our lives, or fighting for social justice? At least some people seem to believe this fits in. A lot actually seem to believe this.
Was listening to “The Young Turks”, speaking about fear mongering at the RCN, and it was frustrating after they, spread fear mongering of the mental health system. However, hard core republicans on the other side have done this too.
I am hoping Trump will be better for this at least, but as it’s been mentioned he has said stuff that sounded close to the Murphy bill, regarding HIPAA.
Anyways, the quote sounds familiar, but the question is, how many spreading what he he said bought. Then you get into justifying it. That’s a whole other story. However, how can we get enough people to get it, and\or realize this is not the right way? Also, how this is really worse for everyone? We’re deffinatley going to go at this from many sides. Kind of what I was trying to express at Bob’s use of the word “mental illness”. It’s hard to know exactly what to do, and keep fearing it will be to late when we figure it out.
For now I found this at least. There’s actually a lot of good stuff that pops up when you type in that quote by DJ. http://stigmanet.net/FEAR%20TACTICS%20IN%20ADVOCACY%2015%20EXAMPLESNovember 27, 2016 at 10:22 pm #85143
That’s a very interesting website, good find. Also please tell more about that Green Party position, I’m not aware.
The next couple days will be crazy enough trying to get people to call their senators, which is the only thing I can personally focus on right now, but one thing I can mention about one of your other points is that there is already some agreement that we need to single out and expose Torrey, especially via identifying the so-called studies he cites and getting all sorts of experts to disavow their validity, info which we can then use very effectively.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.