Southern_Man

Without recording it is almost certain that 100% of those instances would have proven the cops correct because it would have come down to he-said, he-said. Recording is leveling the playing field, does nothing to keep good cops from doing the job correctly. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

TTIWWP "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Writing it down is just a tool. It may help some people, it may not. Some people (ideally all) would be able to do the same thing just by talking to each other openly and honestly. Lots of people don't do that for lots of reasons. Many people lack self-awareness. Many people are afraid to say what they really think because they think their partner will reject them for it. Many people do not know the issues that systematically cause discord and unhappiness in relationships. Writing it down could address at least one of those factors but can not address the other ones. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Insurance companies only know an individual needs mental health treatment when the individual takes one of a number of steps: 1. Calls to request pre-authorization of treatment 2. Presents to a mental health professional. They would be able to produce fairly good population statistics on the overall incidence of need but would not be able to tell about any one individual. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm not a doctor. I really just picked an example for illustration purposes. I think I picked that example becaue I think most people are familiar with both heartburn and the symptoms of MI and can understand how those symptoms overlap in some cases. The question was whether the ER could triage out people with non-emergent conditions and whether that would differ from ER to ER. The point of my example was that yes, the standard would differ from ER to ER. And that it could still be a burden to the ER to determine that it was not an emergent condition--the hospital has an affirmative obligation to provide a screening to determine if there is an emergency medical condition. If there is not emergency medical condition the patient can be triaged out or referred to a primary care physician. What that screening looks like and how much it costs are going to differ based both on hospital protocols and the presenting symptoms. So, in my example, the hospital still has to screen for MI. They are not required to treat for heartburn. This imposes a burden on the hospital. The the burden (yes, the screening is relative cheap compared to many medical procedures) still exists and the hospital and staff may or may not get paid for the heartburn screening. In the meantime they will have tied up resources that cannot go to treating other patients. In this particular case, you are right, the adjective very expensive was misplaced. I'm sure you could come up with examples where the screening and triage was much, much more expensive even when little or no treatment was required, or the treatment was not required by the hospital because it did not qualify as an emergency medical condition under EMTALA. Here is a good FAQ on EMTALA: http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm Note that it is authored by an attorney who specializes in defense of medical malpractice, so consider the source but I found it overall the answer to be consistent with what I have read elsewhere and it was well written and easily understandable. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

+1, That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of any guy. The main thing we want to know about panties is if we can get them off. If you had a Mirage you wouldn't have to wonder. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

That is a decision the hospital and ER docs should be able to make, not a decision that is forced on them from the federal government. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Does that vary from ER to ER? Because I've read some stuff that makes it sound like a significant impact to some ERs Wendy P. It's a complicated issue. Yes, procedures vary from ER to ER. If, for example, somebody comes in with heartburn that is causing discomfort, for example, they ER may have to go through some very expensive testing to rule out an MI, because some of the symptoms can be the same. They are not required to treat somebody for heartburn. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Let's see... making only minnimum payments... maybe, have them paid-off in say 30-yrs? Chuck Some guys have all the luck. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Honestly, we should work on eliminating EMTALA. I don't think that is likely to happen but it is a horrible law. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I am even less romantic than you. I do think that good communication (and very explicit about the kind of things that you mention) is an outstanding way to build a long term relationship. Marriage, however, is not really about a long term relationship. It is a property contract. Nothing more and nothing less. Good communication and sharing within a relationship can exist regardless of whether the couple is married or not. In order to fit w/ my (*cynical) view of marriage, all of those conditions would need to have financial penalties and rewards attached to them. Fail to have sex 3 times in a week? Lose rights to 10% of the joint property, etc. Relationships, yes. Marriage, blah, you can keep it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Just replying to myself because I read this over lunch (paraphrasing from the article). The woman's (shooter's) mother had apparently called police sometime in the last few days because she had received some worrying texts and or e-mails indicating that the woman was suffering from depression. It is impossible to really make any conclusions without knowing the contents of those e-mails and what exactly the mother. Presumably they were pretty alarming if she was calling the police about them. Be interesting to see if more information is released. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes, the point of mental health care is to treat people with mental illness. There is a lot of money that is poured into that system every year. For some people it is a good system and works very well. For others there are holes and gaps. Overall there is quite a lot of mental health care available for those who choose to utilize it. I only said that we are not very good at predicting who will become violent because it seems germane to the discussion of prevening people from committing gun violence. Of course, if we could predict accurately who would become violent as a result of mental illness it would be an easy problem to solve. We would simply prohibit those people from owning guns and allow other people with mental illness their constitutional rights. As it is there is not an easy solution for preventing gun violence by people with mental illness--we have some restrictions but not all people who are going to become violent fall under these restrictions (judged incompetent, involuntary commitment). The only other solution seems to be to systematically prevent an entire class of people from exercising their civil liberties. I am not convinced that is a constitutional or a good solution. not necessarily true. The type of violence, that would likely be reduced DRAMATICALLY, by gun control, mental health care, access to firearms, whatever you want to call it would be the 'one-time-nut-job' who decides to kill his wife, spouse, kids, whatever. THe lady who just killed her kids in Tampa was NOT a violent offender, is NOT a violent offender (well, she is now), and I expect that the event would never be repeated even if she was freed tomorrow. Better mental health care for her and less access to a handgun might have prevented the tragedy. I have not seen anything that indicates the woman in Tampa was seeking or was denied mental health treatment. I don't know, maybe she was. I do not see how more mental health treatment is going to prevent one-off gun violence. I would guess that most people who are one-off violent offenders are not seeking mental health treatment. Short of forcing mental health evaluations on everybody (and again, they are not very accurate) I see no practical way to evaluate every potential person. If a person is in the system, and displays either through words or actions that they are a threat to themselves or others, they should indeed be restricted in their freedoms. I don't see how you can restrict freedoms in the absence of that. I really am not addressing access to handguns (although I know other people are in this thread). I just don't know what would justify treating this woman in Tampa differently from anybody else. Of course facts are thin this early, so maybe it will turn out in support of your argument. Again, I'm primarily interested in the mental health system. I would just say that in my state there are no restrictions on having a gun but you do have to pass a course to get a concealed weapons permit. I don't really have a problem with that. Of course you can open carry without a permit here. Hope you don't mind I chopped up your post a bit so I could reply to the most relevant parts. I tried not to distort or dismiss any of your arguments. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Of course mental health organizations advocate for more and better health care. It means more money in the system. That's what activists do. How much more would be sufficient? How much more money would stop shootings? One thing that mental health professionals are lousy at (and any professional with any honesty would tell you this) is predicting who among their clients has the potential to become violent. The only accurate predictor we have is that people who have been violent in the past are more likely to be violent in the future. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Nietzsche. It doesn't matter, you theist. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

In 1997 (sorry it is a bit outdated but the best I could do with a quick google search) our country spent $85 billion on behavioral health care services. That is mental health and substance abuse. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

My public agency, in a small city, spends several millions of dollars a year providing mental health screenings and treatments. Multiply that across the entire population, it's a number we can't afford. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

“I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.” Friedrich Nietzsch "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Saranac Brown Ale, currently "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Damn, pretty sure every skydiver is at risk of that citation. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

VA is a one party consent state, so as long as the person with the taper recorder knows they are being recorded then they are all good. I have not check this in my state but there are states passing laws making a stricter standard for audio or video taping police. Those laws are abysmal and exist simply to prepetuate police abuse. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes, yes I have. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I don't think you have enough jumps yet. You have to have 200 to use a camera! (ducks) "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Execution is already forbidden for those who are intellectually disabled. I'm not 100% sure for developmental disabilities but I'm sure it will be soon if it is not already. There is already space to look at such circumstances. It is on a case-by-case basis, though. This is appropriate to me. I work with people with intellectual disabilities. From time to time they get in legal trouble. Sometimes this is related to their disability, sometimes it is not. Usually this is worked out with the prosecutor before-hand. I will note that the cases I've known have involved minor offenses, I'm not sure what a more serious offense would look like. I wouldn't want the court to have blanket rules regarding the people I work with. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"