Originally Posted by listopencil
That's not necessarily true. Mental health professionals need time to work and access to patients. I would rather focus on therapy over medication but that takes money.
I am not really much for expanding state spending in the area in general as it gives govt more control over minds. Sounds benevolent but it never winds up that way with the state. Drugs or not, it's not a good idea. Drugs just make it worse. Then on top of our current fiscal condition. There's nothing some of the left and democrats won't fund. It's just none of the govt's business and is ripe for abuse.
It's extremely unlibertarian and I am very surprised at your support of the idea. It's Orwellian.
Here's some articles by Paul on it. The Therapeutic Nanny State
Particularly the fifth paragraph down.
Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids
"The psychiatric establishment and the pharmaceutical industry of course support government mental health screening programs in schools, because they both stand to benefit from millions of new customers. But we should not allow self-interested industries to use a government program to create a captive audience for their products. "
I'm sure he (she) had tremendous access to medication. From what I understand he had been sort of "in the system" for quite some time. What she couldn't do was give him the psychological care he needed.
Yes I know. ( regarding the last sentence)
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution
“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950