Showing posts with label Vision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vision. Show all posts

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Kennedy"s vision for mental health never realized








FILE – In this Oct. 31, 1963 file photo, President John F. Kennedy signs a bill authorizing $ 329 million for mental health programs at the White House in Washington. The Community Mental Health Act, the last legislation that Kennedy signed, aimed to build 1,500 mental health centers so those with mental illnesses could be treated while living at home, rather than being kept in state institutions. It brought positive changes, but was never fully funded. Former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will host a conference on Oct. 24, 2013 in Boston, to mark the 50th anniversary of the act, and formulate an agenda to continue improving mental health care. (AP Photo/Bill Allen, File)





FILE – In this Oct. 31, 1963 file photo, President John F. Kennedy signs a bill authorizing $ 329 million for mental health programs at the White House in Washington. The Community Mental Health Act, the last legislation that Kennedy signed, aimed to build 1,500 mental health centers so those with mental illnesses could be treated while living at home, rather than being kept in state institutions. It brought positive changes, but was never fully funded. Former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will host a conference on Oct. 24, 2013 in Boston, to mark the 50th anniversary of the act, and formulate an agenda to continue improving mental health care. (AP Photo/Bill Allen, File)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — The last piece of legislation President John F. Kennedy signed turns 50 this month: the Community Mental Health Act, which helped transform the way people with mental illness are treated and cared for in the United States.


Signed on Oct. 31, 1963, weeks before Kennedy was assassinated, the legislation aimed to build mental health centers accessible to all Americans so that those with mental illnesses could be treated while working and living at home, rather than being kept in neglectful and often abusive state institutions, sometimes for years on end.


Kennedy said when he signed the bill that the legislation to build 1,500 centers would mean the population of those living in state mental hospitals — at that time more than 500,000 people — could be cut in half. In a special message to Congress earlier that year, he said the idea was to successfully and quickly treat patients in their own communities and then return them to “a useful place in society.”


Recent deadly mass shootings, including at the Washington Navy Yard and a Colorado movie theater, have been perpetrated by men who were apparently not being adequately treated for serious mental illnesses. Those tragedies have focused public attention on the mental health system and made clear that Kennedy’s vision was never fully realized.


The legislation did help to usher in positive life-altering changes for people with serious illnesses such as schizophrenia, many of whom now live normal, productive lives with jobs and families. In 1963, the average stay in a state institution for someone with schizophrenia was 11 years. But only half of the proposed centers were ever built, and those were never fully funded.


Meanwhile, about 90 percent of beds have been cut at state hospitals, according to Paul Appelbaum, a Columbia University psychiatry professor and expert in how the law affects the practice of medicine. In many cases, several mental health experts said, that has left nowhere for the sickest people to turn, so they end up homeless, abusing substances or in prison. The three largest mental health providers in the nation today are jails: Cook County in Illinois, Los Angeles County and Rikers Island in New York.


“The rhetoric was very highfalutin. The reality was a little more complicated, and the funds that were provided were not adequate to the task,” said Steven Sharfstein, president and CEO of Sheppard Pratt Health System, a nonprofit behavioral health organization in Baltimore.


“The goals of deinstitutionalization were perverted. People who did need institutional care got thrown out, and there weren’t the programs in place to keep them supported,” said former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the president’s nephew. “We don’t have an alternate policy to address the needs of the severely mentally ill.”


He is gathering advocates in Boston this week for the Kennedy Forum, a meeting to mark the 50th anniversary of his uncle’s legislation and an attempt to come up with an agenda for improving mental health care.


The 1963 legislation came amid other changes in treatments for the mentally ill and health care policy in general, Appelbaum said. Chlorpromazine or Thorazine, the first effective antipsychotic medicine, was released in the 1950s. That allowed many people who were mentally ill to leave institutions and live at home.


In 1964, with the adoption of Medicaid, deinstitutionalization accelerated, experts said, because states now had an incentive to move patients out of state hospitals, where they shouldered the entire cost of their care, and into communities where the federal government would pick up part of the tab.


Later, a movement grew to guarantee rights to people with mental illness. Laws were changed in every state to limit involuntary hospitalization so people can’t be committed without their consent, unless there is a danger of hurting themselves or others.


Kennedy’s legislation provided for $ 329 million to build mental health centers that were supposed to provide services to people who had formerly been in institutions, as well as to reach into communities to try to prevent the occurrence of new mental disorders. Had the act been fully implemented, there would have been a single place in every community for people to go for mental health services.


But one problem with the legislation was that it didn’t provide money to operate the centers long-term.


“Having gotten them off the ground, the federal government left it to states and localities to support,” Appelbaum said. “That support by and large never came through.”


Later, during the Reagan administration, the remaining funding for the act was converted into a mental health block grant for states, allowing them to spend it however they chose. Appelbaum called it a death knell because it left the community health centers that did exist on their own for funding.


Robert Drake, a professor of psychiatry and community and family medicine at Dartmouth College, said some states have tried to provide good community mental health care.


“But it’s been very hard for them to sustain that because when state budget crunches come, it’s always easiest to defund mental health programs because the state legislature gets relatively little pushback,” he said. “Services are at a very low level right now. It’s really kind of a disaster situation in most states.”


Sharfstein points out that most mentally ill people are at a very low risk of becoming violent. He said it’s unthinkable we would go back to the era when people were housed in “nightmare” conditions at overcrowded, understaffed and sometimes dangerous state hospitals.


“The opportunity to recover is much greater now than it was in 1963,” he said.


But for those who do not take their medication, don’t recover from their first episode of illness and don’t seek treatment and support from professionals, they are vulnerable to homelessness, incarceration and death, he said.


Linda Rosenberg, president and CEO of the National Council for Behavioral Health, counts among its 2,100 member organizations many of the original community mental health centers that were built under the 1963 legislation.


“Whenever you pass a piece of legislation, people would like to think that you’ve solved the problem,” she said. “It did some very important things. It laid some ground work. It’s up to us now to move forward.”


___


Associated Press news researcher Judith Ausuebel in New York contributed to this report.


Associated Press




Top Headlines



Kennedy"s vision for mental health never realized

Monday, August 5, 2013

US vision for Middle East?


Mohammed Saber / EPA



Egyptian supporters of ousted president Mohammed Morsi attend a protest near Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque in Cairo, Egypt, on Friday.




By Richard Engel, Chief Foreign Correspondent, NBC News


NEWS ANALYSIS


CAIRO — An Egyptian friend asked me if Washington backs the Muslim Brotherhood or the military that threw the Islamist party from power here last month.


“Whose side is the United States on?” he wanted to know.


Frankly, I didn’t know how to answer him — and it turns out, neither do many U.S. diplomats and intelligence analysts.


Several senior U.S. intelligence officers have told me they don’t see a clear U.S. policy — an American vision — for this volatile, oil rich land of prophets, religious passions and ancient scriptures. American policy, they said, seems to be reinvented day by day, veering from the management of one crisis to the next. Washington’s inconsistencies have been undeniable. 


The United States supported Egypt’s strongman president Hosni Mubarak for 30 years, until President Obama dumped him after 18 days of unrest in early 2011. That move sent a sign that Washington was with the students, activists and rebellious youths demanding change, and with the Islamic masses unchained after years of repression.


A few months later, President Obama ordered the U.S. military to back rebels in Libya. An “Obama Doctrine” seemed to be emerging, supporting change and turning against the nationalist, military-backed “big men” who have dominated the region for two generations.


But then, things changed. Bahrain, a close US ally and home to the Navy’s 5th Fleet, got a pass. The Gulf monarchy cracked down on its uprising while Washington stayed silent. Along came the mess in Syria. While Libyan revolutionaries were given air cover and NATO military advisers, Syrians rebels were left to die. A month ago I spent three days with Syrian rebel commander Selim Idris, traveling with him to the outskirts of what’s left of the once beautiful city of Aleppo. At times Idris was in tears of frustration with U.S. policy. 


“Is Washington with us or against us?” he asked. He told me of countless meetings he has had with U.S. diplomats, often going over the same ground.


“They say they want to help us, but don’t trust us. They say they will help, but don’t deliver. They give us just enough support to help keep us alive and fighting, but not enough to win. Do they want us all to die? Is that the U.S. goal? If it is just tell me!” he said.


Idris said he wants to meet with President Obama to ask him directly what Washington has in mind for Syria. As far as I know, that meeting hasn’t been added to the president’s agenda.


Meanwhile Egypt, the biggest country in the Middle East and the region’s cultural capital, has seen a dizzying array of positions from Washington. After dropping Mubarak, Washington supported the Muslim Brotherhood after it won a series of elections in 2012. Washington then changed again, accepting a military coup against the Brotherhood this summer as a fait accompli. Now the U.S. is trying to please both sides, stressing that the military and the Brotherhood should negotiate to avoid more bloodshed. 


There may not be much to negotiate about. The secular military and Islamist Brotherhood both want to rule this crowded narrow strip of green along the Nile. The gap between the two sides may be too wide to bridge. 


It’s no wonder the outgoing U.S. Ambassador in Cairo, Ann Patterson, is the most unpopular envoy here in decades. The Egyptian military accuses her of carrying water for the Brotherhood, supporting a group the army considers to be a terrorist group. But the Brotherhood thinks the ambassador helped Washington orchestrate, or at least green light, the military’s coup. Every child is taught if you try to please everyone, you end up upsetting everyone.


So what is the current U.S. policy in the Middle East? Does Washington back democracy and popular uprisings? Yes in Libya. No in Syria. No in Bahrain. Sometimes in Egypt. 


Does Washington stand with military-backed regimes that claim to ensure stability? No in Syria. Yes across the Persian Gulf. Sometimes in Egypt. No in Iran.


What is the Obama Doctrine? It seems to be one of disengagement, to try to ignore the hot, religious, dry, poor countries from Algeria to Pakistan. 


Around the same time of my somewhat disturbing conversations with U.S. policy experts on the Middle East, I met with a group of American business leaders: Internet innovators, tycoons, big money bankers and hedge fund managers. They talked about biotech, robotics, China and fracking in North America. They talked about the human genome project and supercomputers and 3D printing.  There was no mention at all of the Middle East. The arch of instability wedged between Europe and the Sahara Desert seemed to be written off, a sand trap for moguls to avoid at Augusta. The Sunnis and Shiites living in the footprint of the old Ottoman Empire would simply have to find their way, killing themselves if they had to. 


Perhaps this is the new U.S. policy toward the Middle East, a deliberate look away. It may also be a fantasy. A half a billion people live in the region from Algeria to Pakistan, and there is a tiny state in the middle of it called Israel, which has nuclear weapons and and many powerful friends. 


America openly talks of pivoting to Asia, but consider this: In February 2012, President Obama was in Myanmar, meeting Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and discussing how the once-closed junta was returning to the community of nations that trade together. It was the Asia pivot in action. The President, however, spent much of the trip on the telephone, managing a minor war between Hamas and Israel. 


Like my Egyptian friend, most of the Middle East is frustrated with the lack of a clear U.S. policy these days. People often invent conspiracies to explain the inconsistencies, many of their theories angry, violent and anti-American. The region is struggling to adjust as the United States — the drafted referee of Middle Eastern affairs since the collapse of Europe in WWII — may want to get out of the sandbox.


Related:






US vision for Middle East?

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Obama"s economic vision forged in college address







President Barack Obama addresses an Organizing for Action summit in Washington, Monday, July 22, 2013. The group was formed from Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign with the express goal of backing his policy priorities. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)





President Barack Obama addresses an Organizing for Action summit in Washington, Monday, July 22, 2013. The group was formed from Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign with the express goal of backing his policy priorities. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)





FILE – In this Aug. 17, 2011 file photo, President Barack Obama reacts to catching a football tossed to him as he visits the Galesburg High School football team in Galesburg, Ill., during a three-day economic bus tour. The president has developed a lasting tie to this small, economically bruised town with an empty refrigerator plant and a liberal arts college where he likes to roll-out big economy speeches. He is scheduled to give an economic speech at Knox College in Galesburg on Wednesday, July 24, 2013. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)





Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., left, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., wait on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 23, 2013, for the arrival of University of Louisville men’s basketball team being honored for their 2013 NCAA championship. Earlier President Barack Obama honored the team during a ceremony at the White House. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







WASHINGTON (AP) — It was 2005, just an hour or so before the graduation ceremony at tiny Knox College, and then-Sen. Barack Obama was ducking into classrooms, desperately seeking a computer to make last-minute tweaks to his commencement address.


The finished product was a 24-minute defense of the government’s role in boosting middle class prosperity and preparing the nation to compete in an increasingly interconnected global economy. It also marked Obama’s first economic address as a national political figure.


Much has changed since then, both for Obama and the economy. Yet the graduation speech at the Galesburg, Ill., college has remained a touchstone for the president and his advisers through two national campaigns and five years in the White House.


“I think it is one of the best distillations of the problems we face and the case for a government role in ensuring that American dream,” said Robert Gibbs, a longtime Obama adviser who was serving as his Senate communications director in 2005. “Galesburg has always been a good reminder for him and for the staff of what is really at stake.”


The president will return to Knox College Wednesday for what the White House is billing as another major address on the economy. Advisers say his remarks will be infused with the same themes he articulated eight years ago — themes that are also strikingly similar to so many of the economic addresses he has made in the intervening years.


The centerpiece of Obama’s 2005 speech was a takedown of what he called an “ownership society” that leaves each individual responsible for their own success or failure. Instead, he backed a government role in shaping “our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity.”


Fast-forward to 2013 and the same message is featured prominently in Obama’s second inaugural address.


“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores,” he said from the steps of the U.S. Capitol. “Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.”


Obama’s longtime speechwriter Jon Favreau said the president has purposely sought to echo the Galesburg speech in other economic addresses.


“Every economic speech has built on that first one,” said Favreau, who left the White House earlier this year. Upon his departure, Obama presented him with a framed copy of the Knox College speech.


Despite the consistency in Obama’s economic vision, the nation’s economy has experienced major upheaval since he first spoke at Knox. Back then, the nation’s unemployment rate was 5 percent, with 7.5 million people unemployed. One global recession and tepid recovery later, the unemployment rate stands at 7.6 percent and nearly 12 million Americans are unemployed.


Galesburg also serves as an example of the nation’s economic struggles. One year before Obama’s first speech at Knox, a Maytag plant in town shuttered its doors, leaving hundreds of people unemployed. The old factory still sits vacant, and Galesburg’s unemployment rate sits just under 8 percent. About 23 percent of the town’s population lives in poverty — 10 percent more than the state as a whole.


What’s also changed since that first address is Obama’s responsibility for those economic conditions. As a freshman senator, an economic vision for places like Galesburg was all Obama really needed. Now he bears a large share of the responsibility for putting in place policies that advance that vision and ensuring they succeed. In return, the nation’s economic health will ultimately dictate much of Obama’s legacy as president.


The president’s Republican critics argue he should spend less time talking about the economy and more time implementing policy — though Republicans and Democrats rarely agree on what policies to implement.


“If Washington Democrats were really serious about turning the economy around, they’d be working collaboratively with Republicans to do just that, instead of just sitting on the sidelines and waiting to take their cues from the endless political road-shows the president cooks up whenever he feels like changing the topic,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor Tuesday.


_


Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Obama"s economic vision forged in college address

Saturday, January 19, 2013

A Glimpse At Purchasing Inexpensive Eyeglasses Online

If you are looking for budget eyewear, log on the web. There are so many inexpensive eyeglasses online, ranging from specialty, fashion to prescription. With a wide variety of types available, you will find a pair that suits your needs.

It\’s no secret that some of the cheapest products can be found and purchased in cyberspace. When looking for pocket-friendly eyewear, that is the best place to shop in. Getting a great deal is very easy because it\’s trouble-free to compare products coming from different vendors. There\’s no need to go elsewhere just as long as there is an internet access around.

For sure you will run into that perfect pair, no matter if you want to look stylish or you want to see objects in front of your clearly. Sellers categorize their products for a pleasing shopping experience. For instance, you have to select between eyewear for men and women. Many vendors also carry those that are designed exclusively for children.

Frames range from generic to designer ones. Even if you prefer something that carries a popular brand name, the eyewear being sold on the web is cheaper compared to one being sold at a land-based retail shop. Choosing the right frame is crucial. You want to get something that has a comfortable fit. Also, it should go very well with your facial features.

Rounded frames, for instance, are excellent for people with square faces. Oval or triangular frames are ideal for those with elongated faces. Luckily, you don\’t need to remember a lot of things when choosing the item that complements your appearance. It\’s because most websites offer guides that can make the selection process easier. In fact, some vendors even provide shoppers with an application that allows them to see how their chosen frames would look like once they are worn.

Plastic frames are some of the cheapest ones around. Despite of this, you can find lots of stylish and trendy ones. You can go from simple, nerdy to vintage. There are also those out of metal, for a more elegant and professional look. Then you may also find rimless ones that are not that obvious when being worn. These options also tend to be very lightweight.

Lens types come aplenty. If you are shopping for prescription eyewear, you may choose among bifocal, progressive or single focus. The prescription written by your ophthalmologist or optometrist may be faxed or e-mailed to your chosen vendor. It\’s possible for lenses to be coated with an anti-scratch, anti-UV or anti-reflective layer. For those who want to purchase specialty or fashionable eyewear, they\’ll be glad to know that lenses come in different materials and colors.

Orders may be per piece or in large quantities. Retailers go for inexpensive eyeglasses online to stretch their budget. Especially when buying by the bulk, they can save a lot of money and generate more profit. The price tag of each eyewear becomes cheaper the more items are purchased in a single transaction. What\’s more, some sellers on the internet offer discounted rates of their other products and free shipping once the buyer meets certain requirements.

You can visit the website www.eyesaved.com for more helpful information about A Look At Buying Inexpensive Eyeglasses Online


A Glimpse At Purchasing Inexpensive Eyeglasses Online