Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Some of the city’s most vulnerable residents may be worse off thanks to a plan to close as many as five mental health centers. The Daley administration says the closings will take place on Feb. 1 and are due to a drop in state funding. Dr. Terry Mason, Daley’s health commissioner, told the Tribune that the patients from the closed centers could be relocated to any of the seven remaining ones. He also added that all 12 centers could handle about 6,500 patients.
The Tribune reports that the closing centers could be:
- Back of the Yards, 4313 S. Ashland Ave.
- Beverly/Morgan Park, 1987 W. 111th St.
- Greater Grand/Mid-South, 4314 S. Cottage Grove Ave.
- Woodlawn, 6337 S. Woodlawn Ave.
- North River center, 5801 N. Pulaski Road
How this fits into Daley’s plan to end homelessness by 2012 is anybody’s guess. But Badonna Reingold of the Community Mental Health Board of Chicago told the Trib the city’s math isn’t adding up.
“A lot of people are going to be left in the cold,” she said. "If the city can support the [2016 Olympic bid], they can come up with some money for the most vulnerable people.”
Photo by AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
“A lot of people are going to be left in the cold,” she said. "If the city can support the [2016 Olympic bid], they can come up with some money for the most vulnerable people.”"
I agree.
That would imply that the city CAN support an Olympic bid, an assumption that I, personally, still question.
They don't save them, just like the Beijing Olympics, malnutritioned, retards, and the rest of the undesirables were forbidden to linger within the complex. They just put them out of the view like another priest abuse case.
These types of decisions have a way of biting a city in the ass in the long-term.
But hey, at least the muttering dwarf* mayor can get his two-week party, right?
* mind you, I don't mean to imply that dwarfs are incompetent managers who tolerate corruption and pretend to love a city while at the same time damaging it beyond repair.
WHAT. THE FUCK.
...
I swear, I hate this city more and more every day. Funding dealing with mental and physical health should be the last thing on the chopping block.
Here's an unpopular notion:
We have reached a point at which society can no longer afford certain luxuries. We have bills to pay thanks to decades of frivolous spending on crap. Now, I'll fully admit that there are many, many, many areas in this city where spending needs to be cut, starting with anything related to this Olympic bid and moving on through 10,000 useless jobs for useless workers. But that fact does not change the idea that these kind of mental services, no matter how essential they may seem, are the luxury of a wealthy society. And sadly, we wasted our opportunity to make that luxury permanent.
The economy isn't going to suddenly return to what it was even a year ago. We're in for a long slog which will require us to give up much we think is essential. Ultimately, one way or the other we will be forced to provide only the basics ... winter street clearing, police protection, fire. Anything else will have to fade.
I hate to see it come. I hate to see these services vanish, but it's inevitable. We just need to remember what we had when the economy does return, and remember how it all got wasted. Maybe by then we can vote for somebody not named Daley.
Well, let's start with the blatant waste, as you suggest, before moving on to these services that--even if one cares little about these people, as is my case*--are more likely to save money and hardship in the long-term for the rest of us. Ask some health-care professionals if we are still paying for some of Reagan's boneheaded decisions regarding federal funding of such services.
By the way, I think your notion is sound, Blue. But I don't expect Daley to do what you suggest in a wise, pragmatic manner. He is going full-bore on the Games while allowing street cleaning and police service to suffer noticeably.
*I find it is easier to make political and financial arguments without resorting to weepy morality, which only leads to distracting discussions about who has the biggest heart and all that. Don't you?
The problem is with the assertion that mental health care is a luxury of any kind. Good, basic mental health care is a preventative for any number of social ills. People one medication and in treatment are less likely to commit crimes, more likely to be employed. Mental health costs are actually fairly minimal compared to the millions spent dealing with mentally ill criminals. Not to mention the societal benefits of preventing violence, from domestic abuse to murder.
A full top down independent (not a friend of Daley) audit of every city service is what we need. Put all that fat on the butcher block first.
I'm all for efficient, economical treatment of any kind. But that "luxury" reference was pretty much a blanket statement. I appreciate your trying to finesse it, but I'll wait for the original poster to explain what he meant.
Daley is just following the example of Bush and Co.
On the way out, they orchestrated their behind the scenes orders to weaken environmental, health care and product safety regulations.
Bush, at one time, arrogantly spouted that no child in this country has to go without health care. All they need to do, he said, was go to any emergency room.
These arrogant, sociopathic fucks don't give a rat's ass about their cities or their country or the people in them. How in the hell can Bush rationalize weakening health care? And Daley...what does he care about the most vulnerable of our society? When they wind up on the streets, what does he plan on doing then?
Christ, Ingrid, sloppy exercise of power did not originate, nor will it end, with "Bush and Co." And your argument makes no sense: Daley has been in power since '89, and had many short-sighted decisions to his credit before Jan 2001.
If you are talking about the neglect of the cities, you have to go back to the mid-to-late 1940s, at least, in terms of tax policy, capital programs and zoning decisions.
I hate Bush as much as the next person, but let's get some rational perspective, can we?
Chill out matilda, I was just making an observation.
And I don't recall saying that Bush & Co were the originators of "sloppy exercise of power".
The topic was health care and my comment criticizes both Bush's and Daley's total disregard for the health of the American public.
And I've read my History, but my political awakening pretty much started with Bush (and Co)....that's my origins of my "rational perspective".
I think you need to start reading more about history and politics, then, in order to move beyond the limits of your own specific "political awakening." Trust me, crappy things happened before W took office. Hell, the Dems and progressives were responsible for some of it, too. If you don't understand, you can never fix.
"On the way out, they orchestrated their behind the scenes orders to weaken environmental, health care and product safety regulations."
This is what all administrations do--last minute executive orders. Obama will have a bunch when he leaves that will likely piss off at least 40% of the country. Perfectly legal and expected. Just because you don' like Bush's orders--nor do I--doesn't mean it approaches some backroom conspiracy, as your words imply. See, that's what I mean when I urge you to broaden your horizons.
matilda,
Since you're so much broader and wiser than me, I will take your sage advice and get out there and broaden me some horizons. Thanks for the advice, I would have never thought of that!
And it never would have occurred to me that political douchebaggery didn't happen before Bush! Gosh! Thank you so much...where should I start? Maybe with google...the Crusades? The Reformation? Where oh where to begin????
Oh, chill out people. How else will we be able to afford the Olympics and a new NFL team and all the other cool things the mayor envisions for this city? And if a few mentally ill people have to bed down in an alley, so be it.
But that fact does not change the idea that these kind of mental services, no matter how essential they may seem, are the luxury of a wealthy society
Mental health center a "luxury"? Really? Then what do you proposed we do with the mentally ill, if we follow your line of thinking that such facilities are a "luxury"? Go old school and just build warehouses for the mentally ill (aka sanatariums)? Just turn them lose on the street? Perhaps we can just let them stay with their familie who can lock them in the attic and slide them food through a slot in the door?
Seriously, how do you view this as a "luxury" and what is your alternative to dealing with them?
Wait, I forgot one: we can kill the really severly mentally handicapped at birth! Problem solved!
"kill the really severely mentally handicapped at birth"
Actually, that's probably not too far off in the future if you consider the advances in genetic testing going on right now.
Good point. Designer babies and all... But really, if mental facilities are a "luxury" that we can't afford, then what is the alternative?
I agree.
The whole system is so screwed. Just TRY and get single payer health insurance if you've ever taken anything resembling an antidepressant. There are print ads and commercials all over the media for effexor, cymbalta, etc., for any kind of 'sad' disease, and shrinks prescribe them like candy, yet you're poison to any underwriter if you've taken them.
They'll insure a person with heart problems over anyone who has suffered from depression.
Mental illness is still such a stigma. Whoever says otherwise is crazy :/
The alternative (for many people who have mental illness and/or are addicted to drugs) is and will continue to be ... prison.
Ingrid, do you really think that insurance companies (allegedly) stay away from people with a history of mental health problems due to a stigma?
jimbo, please.
I've been around the block with insurance companies and that's not what I was implying.
My point was how screwed up the whole system is. And there is incredible stigma in our society towards the mentally ill. That's part of the problem. And part of the stigma lies in the fact that many people blame the mentally ill for their problems and there are all kinds of misperceptions, and those misperceptions are part of the reason that insurance companies won't underwrite.
I don't think that insurance companies underwrite for anything other than probabilities. The probability for future care must be higher for those with a history of mental illness.
Ingrid,
First off, The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act was recently passed that makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against people with mental illness. Now, of course there are limitations, but this is a step in the right direction. http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0257
I also think the stigma of mental illness is changing, albeit slowly. Look at advertisements, TV commercials, how mental illness is now addressed in television and movies. Again, it's not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Mikey1 made the point and it's a sound one. Mental illness is a public health issue. The untreated mentally ill are more likely to need other government services (welfare, food assistance, public housing) as well as clog the courts with petty arrests often leading to more violent ones as they age.
If you treat mental illness in the same way you do immunization and board of health inspections in restaurants, which is to say treat them as serious matters of high public concern, the benefits would vastly outweigh the costs.
But arguing prevention is an uphill battle when people simply decry the "bums" as "crazy".
I find it interesting that right now there are 25 comments either condemning or defending this move yet nobody knows how it will affect anybody. Does anybody even know what these centers do? I don't and the Tribune article doesn't mention it. Obviously, I could surmise they provide mental health services to the poor. But that is way too general to tell me anything significant. We also don't know how the closings of five out of the twelve centers would affect what services are available. Is everything still the same and people just have to travel a little farther to receive these services? If so, that seems like a small price to pay. Yet everyone here is acting as if they know for a fact that there are vital things that will no longer be available. I bet that most people here had never even heard of these places before this article and have no idea what their purpose is. This is why there are people who use the phrase "knee-jerk liberalism". It's a shame if you believe, as I do, that sometimes the liberal thing to do is the correct action. When people engage in knee-jerk liberalism it just stereotypes all liberals and all liberal positions and, as a result, causes the other side to gain favor with those who belive in the importance of being practical.
I don't know whether the closing of these clinics will have any major negative effects or not. And I will not jump to any conclusions unless I knew more about it. It's a shame that this isn't the case with those who have commented so far.
I'll also point out that when people start screaming about any drop in funds or services to something they know nothing about then it prevents the government from cutting waste and providing efficiancies in order to improve programs. Often times, you can provide better services with less money and/or fewer locations. Yet if that happens (obviously, I'm not saying that that is what is occuring here) then there will be liberals sitting at home who will start complaining because they don't understand the situation.
I find it interesting that you need people to explain to you what it is a public mental health care center does in order to understand why they are important.
Public mental health clinics offer social services assistance, counseling (free and sliding scale) drug treatment outreach, medication referral and dispensing as well as connect to other low cost medical centers and hospitals.
Closing any of these centers cuts off an avenue of treatment for some of the poorest Chicagoans. People to whom medical health care is often out of reach and mental health care is a luxury item.
Nothing like making things harder on people in under-served areas with mental problems.
Well Hi there, I have and have even worked with the CDPH clinic in outreach before. Want to assume some more?
I believe you're engaged in "jack-assism" at this point. Do you even know what liberal and conservative mean? Doubtful. Sounds like you've got a head full of talk radio jibber.
Sage advice. No one should be outraged because then people will assume that we are upset. You make a fine point. I believe it's right on top of your head.
So lets toss the bones and see!
God forbid anyone have an opinion or believe that a city government with a terrible track record on public health issues and poverty would do something wrong.
Wait, if people complain about cuts in services the government is stopped from cutting waste? In essence, I can't stop robbing you until you stop screaming "stop robbing me?" Sound logic.
Lets close all the Mental health clinics, then, by your logic, services will be at their best! Think of the savings! Do more with less! Tend towards entropy and infinity!
In the first half of that sentence you admit to not understanding what is going on or what's going to happen and in the second your criticize people for complaining who don't understand the situation.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Todd Strodger, your Cook County Board President.
I know people who have used these centers (older students with no health insurance, people who don't have a "mental health" rider on their insurance, uninsured, poor, etc) and in some cases, yes, it can make the difference between being having an individual be fully functional in society and school...and those you see on the streets jibbering to themselves (or even worse, harming themselves or others). Mental healthcare should not be treated "as a luxury" in this society. If you break your leg or need surgery you see a doctor. Why should this be any different?
Another point to make is that all the clinics on the chopping block seem to be primarily in one area (instead of across the board). Interesting.