biggentleben

https://twitter.com/pbump/status/649715304344481793/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Spectrum disorders are the worst situation for all involved. Did you know that in any state that did not accept Medicaid expansion, there is no coverage for an adult with a spectrum disorder? They do not qualify under developmentally disabled OR mental illness, so you either need to find another diagnosis for the individual to get them services, or the family is left to fend on their own.

I typed this out completely once and then my page accidentally reloaded, so I hope I address everything again. Feel free to ask if I've seemingly left a hole in my discussion. I believe you and I approach the issue of mental health from two very different (albeit both real and viable) perspectives. I agree that in the case of youth, there is still tremendous stigma due to over diagnosis and over medication of what are often simple hormonal shifts in a growing child. However, I work with adults with SPMI. These adults often aren't seeking assistance until they're committed once and forced to work with someone in order to gain release from an institutional setting. They're not seeking help because they don't believe there's anything wrong, and their family is often left struggling to do anything about it because they are unaware how to get someone into treatment without forcing them into the door (and less than half of the paid mental health treatment in 2013-2014 occurred at a community mental health center building, so it can truly happen anywhere). On top of that, in South Dakota, a high percentage of the mental health consumers are Native American, and many of the tribes have a heavy resistance to seeking mental health assistance as it was used by "the white man" to over medicate and subdue the Native American population. New, more enlightened leaders in the tribes have helped tremendously in moving toward treatment, but as most SPMI illnesses include a genetic component, these diseases will take a couple of generations to even see a lessening/bettering of the treatment of illnesses before they reach the point of permanent damage to the person. The issue you run into is that mental health is the redheaded stepchild of social work funding in most states. Take schizophrenia for example. Schizophrenia was nearly removed entirely from the DSM-V as schizophrenia is NOT a mental illness. It is a developmental disability. The individual's brain becomes irreversibly damaged by a chemical flood that happens post-puberty (typically). However, because Schizophrenia is recognized by AMA and other medical associations as a mental illness, it is going to be hard to re-classify it, in spite of a decade's worth of evidence to show it is truly misclassified as a mental illness. Schizophrenia should be treated along the lines of epilepsy, another illness that can onset post-puberty, but due to epilepsy being classified as a developmental disability, there is significantly more funding for caretakers, social workers, and medical providers who assist with a person with epilepsy than for someone with schizophrenia. Nevermind that there are some medications that do a very solid job of combating the damage done to the brain, but they frequently are near-impossible for someone without medical insurance to afford. Mental health has many facets. These youth should have the comfort of seeking assistance without worrying about being over diagnosed or over medicated, but likewise, those who do have a diagnosable SPMI should be able to access the treatments that could help their illness.

Once again, I'm not opposed to it. I think baseball has royally screwed it up as bad as anything in the game in the last 50 years, and, yes, that means more than PEDs/steroids/etc.

Okay, I'll use a better analogy. You wouldn't have your first baseman shifting to shortstop. Guys have defensive skill sets that are used best. Pitchers are best used on the mound. It is incredibly rare than anyone not pitching has the skill set to be successful on the mound. The Braves' Andrelton Simmons may be the rarity, though he already hits like he's pitching...

It depends on where the money is going. More money for psychotropic medications? No. More money for state institutions? No. However, not only did SD opt out of the Medicaid changes in ACA, the state maintained the funding of mental health while accepting more providers into the system, meaning that community mental health centers are actually funded at a LOWER rate in 2015-2016 fiscal year than in 2014-2015. In what world does that make sense? On top of that, funding to get those psychotropics that are needed to an affordable rate is a great place to put some funding. Funding and legislation requiring more mental health coverage from insurance plans (I'm allowed a maximum of 10 covered visits to a therapist in a 12 month period - the rest comes out of pocket, and my insurance would be considered a mid- to upper-tier type of plan under ACA in the open market) would be another great place to put the funding. On that note, more funding to those who are uninsured or underinsured to get the treatment that they or their children truly need. Therapists aren't paid tremendously (by and large, some find their way to milk the system in any industry), but visiting one on a weekly basis or more would cost hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars out of pocket, even if covered. Imagine for those who are minimally insured or on Medicaid/Medicare, which are both notorious for poor mental health funding programs. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, funding, and more funding, and more funding after that for education programs to combat the stigma of seeking mental health services.

The struggle you have there is that rarely do these shooters exhibit qualifying mental health problems to anyone but those closest to them. This is where the stigma of seeking mental health services for family members causes so much damage in this country. I've had a mother tell me that I shouldn't even say hello to her in public because people know I work in a mental health facility, and that they would assume I work with her or her family. That's scary to me. Those who have committed the largest shootings have not shown much publicly that would cause a person encountering that person on the street to file a petition or a complaint on the person's behavior. In home exhibition of mental health symptoms have to be addressed rather than covered up.

I guess I don't get how the government being involved within the commitment process is a viable thing - that was what I was saying. When judges have the final say, nearly 3 times the amount of people are committed as when a qualified mental health professional is the final say. Frankly, as little as the government supports mental health, their say in the field should be absolutely nil.

True, especially in politics, but in other areas of the board today, there was a good share of quipping as well, so it seemed a theme of the day.

A. The comment was (hopefully, obviously) extremely sarcastic in nature. I'm not 100% anti-DH, though I'm not a fan of the DH either. I'd personally prefer the DH never to have been implemented the way it was. DH should have either come into all baseball or not in either league. That baseball did not have that foresight has really caused this whole issue. Now there's been 40 years of divide, so when the change happens, regardless of which direction it goes, throughout the league, fans of one league are going to be incredibly upset about losing "their" style of play, and it didn't have to be that way. B. Hitters play defense for their position. A first baseman catches throws after a shortstop picks up the ground balls. A pitcher's defensive position is throwing the pitches. A right fielder's position is catching fly balls within his range. I'm not understanding your point. It'd be akin to asking why you don't have your 7-foot center bring the ball up the court or having your running back snap the football or having your goalie lead the power play attack.

I'm not sure if Ramirez really irked posters that much overnight, but today's posting has all gotten real personal/real argumentative real fast. No middle room discussion - one extreme or the other, one side or the other, no compromise. Those are the days it's tough to converse on the board...

This deserves the Billy Madison quote.

Why? In nearly every state, any person can write a petition for committal for mental health reasons. A qualified mental health professional has to do the evaluation to do the final sending, but any person can write the petition under all current laws in most states.

LOL, okay, obviously the NL sucks, the AL rules, and anyone who disagrees upon this forum is lower than cattle feces. I'll back away from any attempt at actual rational discussion.

So, the Giants had the most talent last year?

Same here. Go back to the ball of Chief's youth, where real pitchers had to take their time in the box as well. Glad to see you support the removal of that new-fangled DH monstrosity that is damaging the integrity of the game.

The point being that significant young players appeared throughout the league, not just in the NL.

No, they were .500 teams, and they each made a choice based on finances, primarily, to sell off certain players. The remaining team after sell off did quite a bit worse. Basically, the opposite happened with Texas. They were a .500 team who went for it and acquired significant pieces, and they've moved into first place with a second half surge in opposition to teams like Atlanta and Miami, who were in similar playoff position going into July, but chose to sell.

I wouldn't have an issue with that. I understand the numbers show it's easier to gain a hitter than lose one, which makes sense, but if you consistently have a DH, a guy like Evan Gattis has a spot on your roster. An NL team struggles to justify that guy for intraleague, but he'd be more useful in interleague than a defense first bench guy, and most bench guys in the NL are there based on defense, not offense.

Yeah, like Carlos Correa and Miguel Sano...oh, wait.

That was my point. Both leagues have a disadvantage. As far as crap teams go, a big part of it is the aftermath of the trade deadline. Coming into the deadline, the only really crappy teams were Philly and Milwaukee. Atlanta, Cincinnati, Colorado, and Miami all blew up their teams and have been terrible in the second half. The Braves will have a top 3 pick, for instance, and they were 42-42 before the blow up.

...or the handicap of completely changing the NL teams' style of play by having the DH in AL parks. I feel you cannot compare the leagues based on 2-4 game series that are randomly (now) scattered throughout the season, meaning an AL team can't do a pitcher swap for two weeks to be ready for a road trip through the NL, and vica versa, an NL team can't just pick up a bopper bat from AAA for a two-week AL road trip. Until you're comparing apples to apples, it's really hard to put weight into games that are handicapping one team or another each time from their typical way of play.

I think it's funny how on forums for NL teams, there is a very territorial love for the NL...on forums for AL teams, likewise for AL. I think there are legit arguments for either league, but interleague, the All-Star game, and World Series are rarely indicative of which league is stronger.

The NL is much more split - elite vs. crap. The AL has a whole lot of meh, with one 90 loss team, but most likely no 95 win teams and possibly only 2 90-win teams.

Former South Dakota governor Walter Dale Miller passed. Not sure if he would have qualified, but celebrity enough in my eyes.