Our major cities struggle with increased crime‚ sprawling homeless encampments‚ overcrowded jails‚ sky high taxes‚ and exploding budget deficits. Yet most government officials ignore the one factor that contributes significantly to each of these problems: the lack of acute psychiatric beds to treat mental illness. As Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has noted‚ “It is profoundly inhumane to allow people to suffer mental illness and die on our streets.” The federal government already spends $150 billion on mental health every year‚ and states kick in billions more. How is it possible that despite the huge sums we spend on mental health there are too few psychiatric beds? The answer is simple: we are spending those billions helping the wrong people. (READ MORE from Pat Nolan: Prisoner Rape Is No Joke) Most of the mental health dollars are spent on those dealing with minor life crises such as losing a job‚ breaking up with a girlfriend‚ being evicted‚ or the loss of a loved one. While stress and anxiety are common problems‚ they are not mental illness. They are normal reactions to temporary crises. However‚ the mental health industry cleverly rebrands it “psychological trauma” and “sub-clinical depression” to give it a gravitas that it doesn’t deserve. The Manhattan Institute described this as a “shift in mental-health funding that deprioritized treatment for the mentally ill in favor of preventing mental illness among the masses.” An example of how the money is spent on the “walking wounded” rather than on those with serious mental illness (SMI)‚ California uses the $2 billion per year raised from a 1 percent tax on millionaires — which had been pledged to help people with “serious mental illness” — to fund activities such as yoga‚ line dancing‚ drumming‚ and “soulful movement‚” deeming those individuals as suffering from “subclinical depression.” When the state mental hospitals were emptied‚ legislators promised to fund community treatment. Sadly‚ the legislators reneged on those promises. Instead of building acute care beds in the community they built clinics with no beds in the suburbs (far from where the homeless mentally ill congregate). The clinics are only open five days a week‚ M-F‚ 8am to 5pm. And the patients often wait over two weeks to schedule appointments. Unfortunately‚ those suffering from SMI don’t act out during the clinics’ business hours. The clinics are of little help to a person about to jump off a building or whose voices in their head tells them to stab a stranger walking past. The unspoken truth is that mental health providers avoid dealing with the severely mentally ill. It is easier to work with people experiencing a transitory difficulty in their lives; they recover much faster and can articulate their gratitude. On the other hand‚ those with mental illness are frequently not very likeable. They are ill-kempt‚ lack personal hygiene‚ and they are always difficult to deal with. So‚ the system chooses to deal with the easy cases while the seriously mentally ill are allowed to decompensate on the streets until they are ready for jail. Our prisons and jails have become the default mental health system. It is not law enforcement’s fault. The police would much rather take the non-dangerous mentally ill to facilities with acute psychiatric beds — but those beds are simply not available. The Los Angeles County Jail is the largest mental health institution in the United States. Cook County Jail and Rikers Island in New York City hold the largest mentally ill populations in their states. The video “Prisons and the Mentally Ill” provides an inside view of difficulties prisons and jails must deal with when people with SMI are incarcerated. Though the video was produced 10 years ago‚ the problems discussed in it remain unchanged. The government has prioritized help for those dealing with minor life crises over helping those who suffer from serious mental illness. Sadness and grief are receiving treatment while those with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are ignored and left to the streets and jails. In New York nearly 40percent of the most seriously mentally ill receive zero treatment. Mental health dollars should be focused on programs that treat people with serious mental illnesses and “not just making people happier.” Because there are no psychiatric beds available‚ the most severely ill are turned over to police and law enforcement in record numbers. When they are released from jail they are on their own‚ without families and social networks to help them obtain the services they need. It is laughable to expect patients with serious mental illness to navigate the mental health bureaucracy to find housing and the professional services they so desperately need. They end up back on the streets‚ where they languish untreated until they spiral into disorder and violent behavior‚ get arrested again and continue to serve life sentences on the installment plan. (READ MORE: Reclaiming Our Cities From Mayhem) There is a much better way to handle people with serious mental illness. Those billions spent on “mental health” should be used to fund additional acute psychiatric beds in hospitals — rather than in jails. The alternative to involuntary treatment is to continue to allow those with SMI to live in homeless encampments. There is a second important step we should take to reduce the number of mentally ill on our streets — enact a process that can require mentally ill people to stay in treatment after they are released. Most of those with SMI can lead peaceful and productive lives — as long as they stay on their anti-psychotic drugs. However‚ these patients can deteriorate quickly when they stop taking their medicines. They are too sick to realize that they need their medications to remain stable. People with SMI often stop taking their medications due to some unpleasant side effects. They decide that their lives are going well and conclude they don’t need to take the drugs any longer. That decision puts the patients and the community at risk. Several states have established Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT)‚ in which a judge can order someone with a serious mental illness to follow a treatment plan‚ including taking their medications. Data from the New York State Office of Mental Health found that following six months of AOT: 55 percent fewer recipients engaged in suicide attempts or harm to self‚ 47 percent fewer recipients physically harmed others‚ 46 percent fewer recipients damaged or destroyed property‚ and 43 percent fewer recipients threatened physical harm to others. These data indicate that AOT programs reduce arrests and incarceration in excess of 80 percent for those in it. Another study found that individuals in AOT are four times less likely to commit violence than the untreated seriously mentally ill. There is some good news from California. Governor Newsom and the legislature are finally getting serious about its crisis of untreated mental illness. California is home to 12 percent of the country’s population‚ but the state accounts for half of the people living on the streets nationwide. In the last few months‚ the state established a court intervention program for people with severe mental illness and passed a law making it easier for relatives and first responders to send people to mandatory treatment. And Governor Newsom announced a $6.4 billion bond proposal to build nearly 25‚000 psychiatric and addiction beds statewide. Some are concerned that involuntary treatment can be misused. And that is a reasonable apprehension given the record of governments around the world that have declared political opponents insane. However‚ the safeguards built into the AOT laws‚ i.e.‚ hearings must be held in open court with competent counsel for the patient‚ have proven successful at preventing abuse. The alternative to involuntary treatment is to continue to allow those with SMI to live in homeless encampments‚ covered in feces‚ screaming at themselves‚ lying face down on bus shelter floors with their pants around their ankles‚ wandering into traffic or fighting with ghosts and with each other — and often dying on the streets. (READ MORE: It’s Time to Reform Our Scandal-Ridden Federal Prisons) As Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has noted‚ “It is profoundly inhumane to allow people to suffer mental illness and die on our streets.” AOT laws seek to find a path to protect the right of psychiatric patients to live where and how they want in the least restrictive setting‚ and those patients and their loved ones to avoid the often tragic effects of the patient’s illness. There are too many cases where the letter of the law was met‚ and the patient died. Or as one psychiatrist put it‚ they died “with their rights on.” Hopefully other blue state governors and mayors follow Newsom’s lead and take steps to deal with the seriously mentally ill on their streets so that America’s cities become livable once more. Pat Nolan is the Director Emeritus of the Nolan Center for Justice at the American Conservative Union. He served in the California Assembly from 1978-94‚ where he was a leading voice for reform of mental illness laws. The post Will Democrats Finally Address the Mental Health Crisis? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Gavin Newsom proudly made California the first state to provide no charge Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in Golden State) health insurance to illegal entrants (“illegals”). His plan will cover only adults. Eleven other states also intend to enroll illegals in Medicaid. In contrast to California’s “adults only‚” Utah and Texas allow children only to enroll. Utah state Representative Jim Dunnigan said‚ “These are kids‚ and we have a heart.” The biggest beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion‚ besides the bureaucrat workforce‚ are insurance companies. In California‚ 37 percent of the state (14.6 million) currently have Medi-Cal insurance. Adding illegals will add an estimated 764‚000 persons. That number will likely be greater as illegals continue to pour across the border. In December 2023 alone‚ there were 225‚000 illegal entrants. (READ MORE from Deane Waldman: There’s a Tiny ‘Bubble’ That Could Save Healthcare) According to the left-leaning Public Policy Institute of California‚ 66 percent of Californians surveyed support Newsom’s move. However‚ it is doubtful that Californians understand giving Medi-Cal to illegals will reduce access to care for legal residents. With a limited and shrinking population of care providers‚ adding more people to government insurance rolls will exacerbate the seesaw effect. As government insurance rolls go up‚ access to medical care goes down. When Medicaid rolls expanded via the ACA‚ maximum wait times for a primary care visit increased to a medically dangerous 122 days.  Three quarters of all states report impossibly long waiting lists for home and community health services. One shudders to think how much longer wait times will be if an estimated 5 million uninsured illegals will be given Medicaid coverage. The net effect of giving Medicaid insurance to illegals is as follows: More patients demanding care + Fewer providers of care = Longer waits for care‚ or ® “Death-by-queue” (dying while waiting in line for care). Expanding Medicaid drives even more spending on bureaucracy‚ administration‚ rules‚ regulations‚ compliance‚ oversight‚ mandates‚ and enforcement (BARRCOME.) It is estimated that 31 percent to 50 percent of U.S. healthcare spending goes to BARRCOME. As has happened in the past‚ these will be dollars “diverted” away from paying for patient care California currently faces a $68 billion deficit. The estimated cost for adding illegals to Medi-Cal is $4 billion. With thousands more coming across the border every day‚ the actual cost will likely be much higher. It is unclear how Newsom will deal with burgeoning his state deficit as more people flee the Golden state taking their tax revenues with them. It is not just California or the other eleven states that bear the financial burden of expanding Medicaid to illegals — all American taxpayers do. Medicaid programs are jointly funded by each state and Washington. Wealthy states like California and Colorado get one federal dollar added to each state Medicaid dollar. Thus‚ when Newsom budgets four billion California dollars to Medi-Cal‚ he gets an infusion of another $4 billion from all U.S. taxpayers. Who benefits from giving health insurance to illegals? Certainly not patients‚ who suffer through reduced access to care and increased wasteful spending of their tax dollars. Beneficiaries include Democrat politicians‚ health equity advocates‚ state revenue coffers‚ small hospitals‚ and insurance companies. (READ MORE: Feds Can’t Fix Doctor Shortage They Created) Democrats in state government can prove their progressive bona fides by showing how they are reducing uninsured rates in their state. Never mind they are reducing access to care. Much is being written about health inequities — disparate outcomes based on race — blaming these inequities on systemic racism in healthcare. Progressives claim reducing the uninsured rate among minorities and the impoverished (which describes most illegals)‚ will reduce inequities. This is false. Inequities are primarily due to socioeconomic factors not what doctors do. Furthermore‚ giving them Medicaid does not guarantee they will get care‚ certainly not timely care. As states allocate more money to Medicaid‚ they increase state revenue by billions in federal funds. Most Medicaid dollars go to insurance companies‚ state BARRCOME‚ and federal compliance requirements. The amounts diverted from patient care to non-medical‚ “pork” projects is pure conjecture‚ as where Medicaid dollars actually go is often well-disguised. The budgets of small especially rural hospitals benefit. Under EMTALA (Emergency Medical Transport and Labor Act of 1986)‚ hospitals must care for acutely or critically ill patients regardless of payment source. Many patients are illegals who are uninsured. At present‚ hospitals get paid nothing when caring for uninsured illegals. When illegals have Medicaid coverage‚ the hospitals will get paid per Medicaid allowable reimbursement schedules. While this may not be what they should be paid‚ something is much better than nothing. The biggest beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion‚ besides the bureaucrat workforce‚ are insurance companies. They get infusions of additional hundreds of billions of dollars. The law states that 80 percent of health insurance premiums must be spent on patient care. Whether it is semantic legal games‚ viz.‚ differentiating premiums from other forms of revenue or numerous other accounting tricks‚ it is likely that much‚ much less than 80 percent of insurance revenues is paid to providers‚ care facilities‚ and pharmacies. Given proprietary protection of this information‚ taxpayers have no reliable‚ external forensic accounting of where their healthcare billions go. (READ MORE: Cops and Docs ‘Can’t Get No Respect’) Giving Medicaid insurance to illegal entrants to the U.S. may make good sound bites for progressive politicians. However‚ insuring illegals takes desperately needed care away from everyone and spends even more taxpayer billions the country can’t afford. Deane Waldman‚ M.D.‚ MBA is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics‚ Pathology‚ and Decision Science; former Director of the Center for Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; former Director‚ New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange; and author of the multi-award winning book Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: StatesCare and Market-Based Medicine. The post Insuring Illegals Takes Care from ‘Legals’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Last June‚ the U.S. Supreme Court ended racial preferences in higher education. This year will feature a battle to reinstate those preferences‚ in the state that first eliminated them nearly 30 years ago. Diversity dogma ignores personal differences‚ effort‚ and choice. The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI)‚ Proposition 209 on the 1996 ballot‚ eliminated racial and ethnic preferences in state education‚ employment‚ and contracting. Contrary to opponents‚ including the Rev. Jesse Jackson‚ the measure did not eliminate “affirmative action.” (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Christmas Comes Early for Government Snoops) The state could still lend a hand on an economic basis‚ and California had always cast the widest possible net. The great Jackie Robinson‚ for example‚ was an alum of Pasadena City College‚ founded in 1924. In 1939‚ Robinson enrolled at UCLA and in 1954‚ future Olympic decathlon champion Rafer Johnson attended UCLA on both athletic and academic scholarships. After Proposition 209‚ what California could not do was reject a qualified student on the basis of race‚ as UC Davis had done with Allan Bakke. That racist practice continued even after the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke’s favor‚ and by 1996 Californians were ready for change. They passed Prop 209 by a margin of  54.55 to 45.45. The disaster the preference forces predicted never occurred. As Thomas Sowell noted in Intellectuals and Race‚ declines in minority enrollment at UCLA and UC Berkeley had been offset by increases at other UC campuses. More important‚ the number of African-American and Hispanic students graduating from the UC system went up‚ including a 55 percent increase in those graduating in four years with a GPA of 3.5 or higher.  Despite these realities‚ the state education establishment still sought to reinstate racial preferences. The 2020 Proposition 16 would have eliminated the 1996 preference ban but voters rejected it by a margin of 57.2 to 42.8‚ wider than the vote for Proposition 209 in 1996. As it turned out‚ the losers had outspent the winners by approximately 14 to 1. Despite that thrashing‚ the preference forces weren’t giving up. Enter Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA-7). The measure does not openly claim the government shall discriminate on the basis of race‚ or again target Proposition 209 for repeal. This measure allows the governor to make “research-based‚” or “research-informed‚” exceptions to the 1996 law. On the basis of research‚ conveniently undefined‚ the governor can now decide that racial preferences and unequal treatment are good things. The measure would be a huge empowerment of Gov. Gavin Newsom‚ known for his heavy-handed rule during the pandemic. ACA-7 must still qualify for the ballot and in the meantime voters might examine the underlying ideology. Under diversity dogma‚ all groups must be represented according to their percentage of the population. If they are not‚ according to the theory‚ the cause must be discrimination and a government preference program is the only remedy. Diversity dogma ignores personal differences‚ effort‚ and choice‚ and as Sowell has often noted‚ different racial and ethnic groups are never represented proportionally in anything.  For students‚ parents and policymakers‚ Sowell’s own experience should prove educational. (READ MORE: Does Math Need DEI?) He earned a bachelor’s degree from Harvard‚ a master’s from Columbia‚ and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago‚ all without any government affirmative action scheme. Harvard law professor Lani Guinier‚ Bill Clinton’s pick to head the civil rights department of the DOJ‚ questioned Sowell’s blackness. The Harvard alum wasn’t going to take it. “I don’t need some half-white woman from Martha’s Vineyard telling me about being black‚” responded the economist‚ a longtime fellow at the Hoover Institution. That was in 1996‚ when California voters passed the California Civil Rights Initiative. In 2024‚ Californians will decide if an all-white governor should be able to override a law approved and upheld by voters of all skin shades and ethnicities. As they watch this play out‚ people across the country might consult Sowell’s vast body of work. As of this writing‚ the author is still going strong at 93. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ California. The post Racial Preferences Replay Under Gavin’s Governance appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Speaker Johnson Is Right‚ Free Market Should Set Drug Prices‚ Not Government

Our Incompetent Elite Is Opening Up America To Attack

The Harvard Grift

Nadiya Hussain knows that milk powder can save the day when the liquid stuff is unavailable. But that's not the only reason she likes to have the stuff around.

from The Salty Cracker:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Sputnik News: Expanded BRICS‚ a club of major developing economies‚ could become a platform for a self-sufficient dollar-free grain market‚ economists say. BRICS – an acronym for Brazil‚ Russia‚ India‚ China‚ and South Africa – added net grain importers Egypt‚ Ethiopia‚ Iran‚ Saudi Arabia‚ and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2024‚ almost equalizing the production […]

from Infowars:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/