In-patient services for mental health were decimated in the 80's. Reagan cut the funding and cities were flooded with homeless + mentally ill people. I was at UC Berkeley at the time this happened. There were so many seriously mentally ill folks on the street. It was sad.
> In-patient services for mental health were decimated in the 80's. Reagan cut the funding and cities were flooded with homeless
Deinstitutionalization was a broadly supported policy, especially by advocates of the mentally ill; conditions of the widespread institutionalization were horrible.
The failure to create substitute systems to address the easily forseeable consequences of deinstitutionalization was obviously a problem, but not a uniquely Republican one (though certainly Republicans were more opposed to fixing the problems once they materialized.)
This is about as inaccurate a take as one could possibly imagine and is a great example of seeing the world through political bias.
Reagan did not lead the charge. The ACLU was actively involved in shutting down inpatient psychiatric facilities because of the abuse that was occurring.[1]
With the advent of antipsychotics, our-patient treatment became an option and was regarded as more humane.
Now I remember: pushed the funding from federal to state responsibility, which caused many states to empty out the institutions.
And where do you think many of those people ended up? Berkeley, CA. Because they were sometimes put on buses there, and sometimes it was just the most friendly place to be.
The institutions were being emptied out because organizations like the ACLU brought cases to court to have them emptied.
People were being held against their will in conditions that were causing a stir in the media. It was regarded as a human rights issue that they not be confined unless there was no other option. Hence the shift to outpatient care in the community.
Pining it all on Reagan’s cuts is grossly inaccurate.
You seem to have an axe to grind. What you say is not supported by the evidence. It's definitely true in some cases, but not the main reason for the changes.
Yeah, well, that's great. But I read many articles about police departments in other states putting homeless people on a bus for the Bay Area. That's is not cool of them. It overwhelmed the social services in the Bay Area.
It worked out great for Republicans. The spike in crime rates made their "tough on crime" message resonate. When you're homeless and mentally ill it's basically guaranteed that you're going to have fights with the police.
Tough on crime isn't purely a republican stance though. Democrats worked hand-in-hand with republicans in the late 1980s to push through many tough on crime policies. This was due to crime skyrocketing in the 1980s due to cheap and abundant crack cocaine flooding America's streets.
If you replace Republican with Conservative it works. Hell, our current President is debt-hating Conservative if you view it by the bills he's authored/supported as Senator in the past 30 years.
