Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsHealthcareStarted 13yrs agoActive 1mo ago

Should the government increase funding for mental health research and treatment?

In July 2022 the federal government approved a $21 billion funding package for mental-health and substance-use disorders. The spending package was in response to a jump in substance abuse and a suicide rate that increased 33% from 1999 through 2017, making it the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S, according to the most recent federal data.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

State:

DMA:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

County:

State Senate District:

City:

Assembly District:

Zipcode:

Expert Pundits

These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of Mental Health

@LeopardEliana
#1 Expert Pundit

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Mental Health

@B96TFFV
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

3.5k Replies

 @BCT4HL8 from Pennsylvania  answered…2mos2MO

yes, I think that they should fund medicines and mental health.

 @9L4Z23BIndependent  from Pennsylvania  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, consolidate NIH and ARPA-H and increase R&D funding to support innovation of the private sector

 @9HFDBY5 from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

No, people nowadays say they have mental issues for attention just let the people that have to issues pay for treatment.

 @9D35GLC from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

NO. That is an issue for CHARITIES, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS and PRIVATE FUNBDING and profit from services RENDERED as well and proper INSURANCE. Government should N=OT BE INVOLVED in ANY WAY!

 @9L4Z23BIndependent  from Pennsylvania  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, increase funding to the NIH to support more intramural and extramural research, and increase ARPA-H funding to support more high risk research

 @9QRCBJD from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

No, too many things contribute to what is mental health. We should focus on removing things from our society that have made our lives more chaotic and stressful.

 @9MYY7PJ from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, mental health treatment should be a covered benefit under Obamacare and NIH should enter more P3s for mental health related R&D

 @9LJY92KLibertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, we need to ban smartphones and revert to cellphones, and to limit internet use significantly. Turns out walking around with a camera and a virtual bullhorn in your pocket makes people feel anxious and depressed.

 @9FHN492Republican  from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

No, Mental health issues are mostly caused from social issues in our society, and it would be less costly and more effective to address the problems from the root instead of throwing money and drugs at it.

 @9DHM9PG from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

yes and if we don’t do this then more people will start babbling about satellite controllers zapping them

 @8Y556WL from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Bring back state mental health hospitals that could be used to treat the severe mental health issues, and potentially be used for drug rehabilitation since in the homeless population these usually go hand in hand.

 @8XXJ77Z from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

yes for treatment, not for research

 @8WTHWNW from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

No, mental health treatment should be reformed.

 @8T3P92S from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, only for research not for treatment.

 @8SHQRBS from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only increase funding for personalized care instead of subsidizing pharmaceutical companies cause our mental healthcare system needs more funding to provide a higher quality of care and services

 @8RQBC2F from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

Privatize healthcare

 @8QNCRLN from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

With a government health care system, this is one of the ways the government can compete with the private health care companies. Those on the government plan have access to government mental health. Those on private plans have access to private owned mental health.

 @8MD3FM2Natural Law from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but explore a biomedical approach to ameliorate the cause instead of the current manner of how mental health is pursued.

 @8JBN8Q3Libertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

No. I don't trust government to define mental illness, and I don't like the way we take constitutional rights from those who we classify as aflicted by varying levels of mental illness.

 @8CLNX56 from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

Insurance companies should be mandated to increase benefits for inpatient and outpatient care

 @9D3BFMZ from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, the government increase funding of both mental health research and treatment in the sense of subsidizing the construction or establishment of additional psychiatric hospitals.

 @953NGWNRepublican from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only until the mental health crisis is under control

 @9B5CG66Republican from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes and No,incentivize private companies to address this issue instead but only increase funding for personalized care instead of subsidizing pharmaceutical companies

 @7BF3XPN from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes. Overlap this with a single-payer healthcare system.

 @96WRR84 from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, our mental healthcare system is terrible. It needs more funding and personnel actually trained to assist those in need of help, the police to not be the first line, and better social education on mental health.

 @932PKCK from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

NO. Government IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be a provider of ANYTHING to ANYONE. However more research needs to be done to treat mental issues more effectively.

 @92DQP2K from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes and also incentivize private companies to address this issue as well.

 @84ZWD6LLibertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and utilize P3's to build more providers, and increase R&D investment for treatments. Have states increase incentives to join workforce

 @9CF9S74 from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only if it fits the budget.

 @9BXY3FJ from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

NO, as GOVERNMENT was and should never be designed or operate as a PROVIDER of ANYTHING to ANYONE. However, MENTAL HEALTH CARE is sadly severely LACKING and is INEFFICIENT.

 @84ZWD6LLibertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and utilize P3's to build more facilities, and increase R&D investment for treatments. Have states increase incentives to join workforce

 @84ZWD6LLibertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, utilize P3's to build more facilities, and increase R&D investment for treatments. Have states increase incentives to join workforce

 @84ZWD6LLibertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, utilize P3's to build more facilities, and increase R&D investment for treatments. Have states increase incentivize to join workforce

 @96RCWLW from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes increase funding for personalized higher care and services but don't subsidize pharmaceutical companies

 @8RYV4BP from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

yeah but abolishing capitalism would do much better in terms of increasing positive mental health outcomes

 @Carter4Ever from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

The government should take over the health industry and socialize it.

 @9CZPBV8 from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, the government should increase funding as it should be public and controlled by the Government.

 @96T2WVQ from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

NO but maybe a TAX credit UNDER their medical insurance.

 @IINXMPRepublican from Pennsylvania  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but we should entirely cut taxes on companies that provide healthcare, garbage disposal, education, and emergency services.

 @8NDFDRM from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

No, I am satisfied with the current amount of funding

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies