Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

[Guest guest]

> I wish those politicians who mandated funding depression would have

> done their homework. Depression is a clinical term for sadness;

>there is nothing pathological about it.

Now Tommy, here mam I trying not to make off-topic posts, and you say

this. Well at least I said I would still comment on issues related to

psychiatry.

Depression is very pathological in its colloquial sense, and also in

its modern sense in abnormal psychology, which I know you dont accept.

Mere sadness is *not* the sole characteristic of depression. Indeed, a

person can be diagnised as having bipolar depression even if the

individual is continuously in either an elated or moderate

emotional state and never experiences sadness. Even when a depressed

person does indeed exhibit sadness, bad mood is by no means the only

sign or symptom a person shows - depression can show a whole

constellation of symptoms in addition, such as irritability, anxiety,

and disturbances of eating, sleeping and libido in either direction.

I guess you would say that all that means is these things go along

with being sad, and we are talking semantics, but in fact when most

ppl say merely " sad " they do *not* mean these additional things which

is why they have to be listed in order to describe depression

adequately. In addition, what is termed sadness is ordinarily not too

severe apart from through major losses such as bereavement,

appropriate to life circumstances, and fairly short-lived; depression

is frequently intense, chronic, and either excessive or even unrelated

to life circumstances.

Whether or not depression is a genuine illness or not, what is

undeniably true is it can be ameliorated by a variety of interventions

provided by practitioners of one kind or another, and as such I see no

reason why it may not be covered by an insurance policy. However, I

appreciate the point here is the issue of mandatory cover.

While as you know being no great admirer of complete laissez-faire

capitalism, I myself question the principle of mandated insurance,

which can reach ludicrous lengths, including in the UK insistence that

house insurance cover all areas even those where burglary is

commonplace, to the point where the insurance company and its policy

holders are effectively subsidising burglary. This is clearly

madness. Mandated health insurance is not quite as absurd but is also

internally contradictory, in that is demanding a social function to be

performed by a profit-making enterprise that sees no profit in that

area. This is even more ridiculous in the case of banning exclusion

of individuals known to be certain or very likely to develop a

disorder, as the whole principle of insurance requires the parties

concerned to be *unaware* of the risks involved and the insurer only

provides a policy on the understanding that there is a possibility

that they make a profit on any individual case. By demanding

insurance companies cover known or highly probable losses, the State

is effectively demanding a social service function of a private

company - a kind of tax by service rather than coin. My own view is

that as medical and other technology inevitably make the grey areas

around risks more discernable, insurance should naturally contract and

the State step in to cover the new exposed areas - funded by *overt*

taxation in general, not simply on a particular sector that happens to

provide profit-making sevices in a related area. Of course, I can

just imagine how popular folks over there will find *that* idea!

P.

[Guest guest]

> I wish those politicians who mandated funding depression would have

> done their homework. Depression is a clinical term for sadness;

>there is nothing pathological about it.

Now Tommy, here mam I trying not to make off-topic posts, and you say

this. Well at least I said I would still comment on issues related to

psychiatry.

Depression is very pathological in its colloquial sense, and also in

its modern sense in abnormal psychology, which I know you dont accept.

Mere sadness is *not* the sole characteristic of depression. Indeed, a

person can be diagnised as having bipolar depression even if the

individual is continuously in either an elated or moderate

emotional state and never experiences sadness. Even when a depressed

person does indeed exhibit sadness, bad mood is by no means the only

sign or symptom a person shows - depression can show a whole

constellation of symptoms in addition, such as irritability, anxiety,

and disturbances of eating, sleeping and libido in either direction.

I guess you would say that all that means is these things go along

with being sad, and we are talking semantics, but in fact when most

ppl say merely " sad " they do *not* mean these additional things which

is why they have to be listed in order to describe depression

adequately. In addition, what is termed sadness is ordinarily not too

severe apart from through major losses such as bereavement,

appropriate to life circumstances, and fairly short-lived; depression

is frequently intense, chronic, and either excessive or even unrelated

to life circumstances.

Whether or not depression is a genuine illness or not, what is

undeniably true is it can be ameliorated by a variety of interventions

provided by practitioners of one kind or another, and as such I see no

reason why it may not be covered by an insurance policy. However, I

appreciate the point here is the issue of mandatory cover.

While as you know being no great admirer of complete laissez-faire

capitalism, I myself question the principle of mandated insurance,

which can reach ludicrous lengths, including in the UK insistence that

house insurance cover all areas even those where burglary is

commonplace, to the point where the insurance company and its policy

holders are effectively subsidising burglary. This is clearly

madness. Mandated health insurance is not quite as absurd but is also

internally contradictory, in that is demanding a social function to be

performed by a profit-making enterprise that sees no profit in that

area. This is even more ridiculous in the case of banning exclusion

of individuals known to be certain or very likely to develop a

disorder, as the whole principle of insurance requires the parties

concerned to be *unaware* of the risks involved and the insurer only

provides a policy on the understanding that there is a possibility

that they make a profit on any individual case. By demanding

insurance companies cover known or highly probable losses, the State

is effectively demanding a social service function of a private

company - a kind of tax by service rather than coin. My own view is

that as medical and other technology inevitably make the grey areas

around risks more discernable, insurance should naturally contract and

the State step in to cover the new exposed areas - funded by *overt*

taxation in general, not simply on a particular sector that happens to

provide profit-making sevices in a related area. Of course, I can

just imagine how popular folks over there will find *that* idea!

P.

[Guest guest]

> I wish those politicians who mandated funding depression would have

> done their homework. Depression is a clinical term for sadness;

>there is nothing pathological about it.

Now Tommy, here mam I trying not to make off-topic posts, and you say

this. Well at least I said I would still comment on issues related to

psychiatry.

Depression is very pathological in its colloquial sense, and also in

its modern sense in abnormal psychology, which I know you dont accept.

Mere sadness is *not* the sole characteristic of depression. Indeed, a

person can be diagnised as having bipolar depression even if the

individual is continuously in either an elated or moderate

emotional state and never experiences sadness. Even when a depressed

person does indeed exhibit sadness, bad mood is by no means the only

sign or symptom a person shows - depression can show a whole

constellation of symptoms in addition, such as irritability, anxiety,

and disturbances of eating, sleeping and libido in either direction.

I guess you would say that all that means is these things go along

with being sad, and we are talking semantics, but in fact when most

ppl say merely " sad " they do *not* mean these additional things which

is why they have to be listed in order to describe depression

adequately. In addition, what is termed sadness is ordinarily not too

severe apart from through major losses such as bereavement,

appropriate to life circumstances, and fairly short-lived; depression

is frequently intense, chronic, and either excessive or even unrelated

to life circumstances.

Whether or not depression is a genuine illness or not, what is

undeniably true is it can be ameliorated by a variety of interventions

provided by practitioners of one kind or another, and as such I see no

reason why it may not be covered by an insurance policy. However, I

appreciate the point here is the issue of mandatory cover.

While as you know being no great admirer of complete laissez-faire

capitalism, I myself question the principle of mandated insurance,

which can reach ludicrous lengths, including in the UK insistence that

house insurance cover all areas even those where burglary is

commonplace, to the point where the insurance company and its policy

holders are effectively subsidising burglary. This is clearly

madness. Mandated health insurance is not quite as absurd but is also

internally contradictory, in that is demanding a social function to be

performed by a profit-making enterprise that sees no profit in that

area. This is even more ridiculous in the case of banning exclusion

of individuals known to be certain or very likely to develop a

disorder, as the whole principle of insurance requires the parties

concerned to be *unaware* of the risks involved and the insurer only

provides a policy on the understanding that there is a possibility

that they make a profit on any individual case. By demanding

insurance companies cover known or highly probable losses, the State

is effectively demanding a social service function of a private

company - a kind of tax by service rather than coin. My own view is

that as medical and other technology inevitably make the grey areas

around risks more discernable, insurance should naturally contract and

the State step in to cover the new exposed areas - funded by *overt*

taxation in general, not simply on a particular sector that happens to

provide profit-making sevices in a related area. Of course, I can

just imagine how popular folks over there will find *that* idea!

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> Schaler,

> " Addiction is a Choice " :

> " Addiction is not a disease and therefore cannot be medically

> 'treated'. As a matter of fact, there is currently no addiction

> 'treatment' that has been proved effective. But of course, people

> should be entirely free to preach the doctrine that addiction is a

> disease and to offer their 'treatments', gratuitously or for

payment.

> Just as we don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize The Psychic

> Hotline, so they should not subsidize 'addiction treatment', which

is

> just about as scientific. "

Tommy:

> I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> depression/sadness.

Pete: Whether or not depression is a disease, you are wrong if " the

same way " extends to say there is no scientifically demonstrated

effective treatment for depression. In fact, there is a vast

literature indicating successful psychotherapeutic and drug treatments

of many different kinds.

[Guest guest]

>

> Schaler,

> " Addiction is a Choice " :

> " Addiction is not a disease and therefore cannot be medically

> 'treated'. As a matter of fact, there is currently no addiction

> 'treatment' that has been proved effective. But of course, people

> should be entirely free to preach the doctrine that addiction is a

> disease and to offer their 'treatments', gratuitously or for

payment.

> Just as we don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize The Psychic

> Hotline, so they should not subsidize 'addiction treatment', which

is

> just about as scientific. "

Tommy:

> I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> depression/sadness.

Pete: Whether or not depression is a disease, you are wrong if " the

same way " extends to say there is no scientifically demonstrated

effective treatment for depression. In fact, there is a vast

literature indicating successful psychotherapeutic and drug treatments

of many different kinds.

[Guest guest]

>

> Schaler,

> " Addiction is a Choice " :

> " Addiction is not a disease and therefore cannot be medically

> 'treated'. As a matter of fact, there is currently no addiction

> 'treatment' that has been proved effective. But of course, people

> should be entirely free to preach the doctrine that addiction is a

> disease and to offer their 'treatments', gratuitously or for

payment.

> Just as we don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize The Psychic

> Hotline, so they should not subsidize 'addiction treatment', which

is

> just about as scientific. "

Tommy:

> I agree and feel the same way about depression. This does not mean

> that I do not have sympathy for people who suffer from

> depression/sadness.

Pete: Whether or not depression is a disease, you are wrong if " the

same way " extends to say there is no scientifically demonstrated

effective treatment for depression. In fact, there is a vast

literature indicating successful psychotherapeutic and drug treatments

of many different kinds.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > So what are you saying, Kayleigh, that if I cannot " acknowledge "

> > > what YOU " know " then I have never been what YOU call depressed

and

> > > what I call sad? And no, Kayleigh, I have never known a witch,

a

> > > mentally ill person, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or any other

> > > entity that I do not believe in. If medications make you feel

> > better

> > > or more productive, then help yourself. You should know by now

> that

> > I

> > > believe in a free market in drugs and THAT is your freedom. It

is

> > NOT

> > > your freedom to force money from my pocket to underwrite the

> > > propagation of what YOU believe. I don't care what you believe.

> I

> > > don't care what medications you take, and by all means I hope

you

> > > succeed in your pursuits or happiness, chemically, spiritually

or

> > > whatever. Just don't fuck with my pursuits of happiness by

> > demanding

> > > my hard earned money, or limiting my freedom to enter

contractual

> > > agreements with the insurance company of MY choice.

> > >

> > > Tommy

> > >

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > So what are you saying, Kayleigh, that if I cannot " acknowledge "

> > > what YOU " know " then I have never been what YOU call depressed

and

> > > what I call sad? And no, Kayleigh, I have never known a witch,

a

> > > mentally ill person, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or any other

> > > entity that I do not believe in. If medications make you feel

> > better

> > > or more productive, then help yourself. You should know by now

> that

> > I

> > > believe in a free market in drugs and THAT is your freedom. It

is

> > NOT

> > > your freedom to force money from my pocket to underwrite the

> > > propagation of what YOU believe. I don't care what you believe.

> I

> > > don't care what medications you take, and by all means I hope

you

> > > succeed in your pursuits or happiness, chemically, spiritually

or

> > > whatever. Just don't fuck with my pursuits of happiness by

> > demanding

> > > my hard earned money, or limiting my freedom to enter

contractual

> > > agreements with the insurance company of MY choice.

> > >

> > > Tommy

> > >

[Guest guest]

You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good

people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they

are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand.

I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming

responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people

from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that

" alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy

for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't

make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some

people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my

belief.

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good

people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they

are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand.

I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming

responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people

from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that

" alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy

for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't

make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some

people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my

belief.

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good

people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they

are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand.

I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming

responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people

from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that

" alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy

for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't

make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some

people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my

belief.

> >

> > Hi Kayleighs,

> >

> > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

that

> > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

what

> > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

that

> > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

say,

> > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> >

> > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

do

> > like this point you've made here.

> >

> > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

than

> > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

them

> > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

friends,

> > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

be

> > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

seeking

> > are hidden by others.

> >

> > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

as

> > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

happens to

> > us is " God's will for us. "

> >

> > See you,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Kayleighs said:

That's what

> ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

said:

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

I think both of these statements reflect a total lack of understanding

regarding the philosophy of people like Szasz and the idea of personal

responsibility. First of all, the concepts of personal responsibility and

choice are not uncompassionate. Sartre said that this kind of thinking was

" the only one which gives man dignity, the only one which does not reduce

him to an object " . When you expect someone to take responsibility for his or

her life, to " own " him or herself if you will, you are respecting that

person. And, as government welfare programs have proven time and again, when

you foster a mentality in people that allows them to continue to think they

are without choice or responsibility, you take away their dignity. This

process of un-dignifying people is about as uncompassionate as you can get

in my book.

Secondly, regarding the insinuation that personal responsibility advocates

only see it as an appropriate way of viewing other people's situations and

not their own, this doesn't make any sense when you consider the reasons why

many are personal responsibility advocates in the first place. If a person

regards being responsible for her life and her choices as dignified and

worthy of respect, why would she consider it valid or desirable only for

other people? She wouldn't. Someone who understands the value of this kind

of thinking is going to do everything possible to implement some of that

dignity and respect into her own life.

Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I

began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I

got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others

that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and

negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I

could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act

of my life.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

>

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

>

> I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

> like this point you've made here.

>

> I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

> determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

> in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

> our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

> obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

> are hidden by others.

>

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

>

> See you,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kayleighs said:

That's what

> ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

said:

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

I think both of these statements reflect a total lack of understanding

regarding the philosophy of people like Szasz and the idea of personal

responsibility. First of all, the concepts of personal responsibility and

choice are not uncompassionate. Sartre said that this kind of thinking was

" the only one which gives man dignity, the only one which does not reduce

him to an object " . When you expect someone to take responsibility for his or

her life, to " own " him or herself if you will, you are respecting that

person. And, as government welfare programs have proven time and again, when

you foster a mentality in people that allows them to continue to think they

are without choice or responsibility, you take away their dignity. This

process of un-dignifying people is about as uncompassionate as you can get

in my book.

Secondly, regarding the insinuation that personal responsibility advocates

only see it as an appropriate way of viewing other people's situations and

not their own, this doesn't make any sense when you consider the reasons why

many are personal responsibility advocates in the first place. If a person

regards being responsible for her life and her choices as dignified and

worthy of respect, why would she consider it valid or desirable only for

other people? She wouldn't. Someone who understands the value of this kind

of thinking is going to do everything possible to implement some of that

dignity and respect into her own life.

Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I

began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I

got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others

that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and

negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I

could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act

of my life.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

>

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

>

> I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

> like this point you've made here.

>

> I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

> determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

> in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

> our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

> obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

> are hidden by others.

>

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

>

> See you,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kayleighs said:

That's what

> ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

said:

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

I think both of these statements reflect a total lack of understanding

regarding the philosophy of people like Szasz and the idea of personal

responsibility. First of all, the concepts of personal responsibility and

choice are not uncompassionate. Sartre said that this kind of thinking was

" the only one which gives man dignity, the only one which does not reduce

him to an object " . When you expect someone to take responsibility for his or

her life, to " own " him or herself if you will, you are respecting that

person. And, as government welfare programs have proven time and again, when

you foster a mentality in people that allows them to continue to think they

are without choice or responsibility, you take away their dignity. This

process of un-dignifying people is about as uncompassionate as you can get

in my book.

Secondly, regarding the insinuation that personal responsibility advocates

only see it as an appropriate way of viewing other people's situations and

not their own, this doesn't make any sense when you consider the reasons why

many are personal responsibility advocates in the first place. If a person

regards being responsible for her life and her choices as dignified and

worthy of respect, why would she consider it valid or desirable only for

other people? She wouldn't. Someone who understands the value of this kind

of thinking is going to do everything possible to implement some of that

dignity and respect into her own life.

Choice and responsibility have become central to my self esteem. When I

began to see myself as the author of my life, I reaped wonderful benefits. I

got to believe in myself. I got a sense of myself existing apart from others

that allowed me to enjoy being alone. I got to appreciate both positive and

negative choices I had made because they were mine- a part of who I am. If I

could give that gift to someone else, it would be the most compassionate act

of my life.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

>

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money, that

> > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's what

> > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything that

> > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to say,

> > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

>

> I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I do

> like this point you've made here.

>

> I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices than

> determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make them

> in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our friends,

> our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not be

> obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are seeking

> are hidden by others.

>

> The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just as

> flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that happens to

> us is " God's will for us. "

>

> See you,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a

> profit, period.

> And what is wrong with that. Do not barber shops go into business to

> profit.

Barber shops actually do something. Imagine how ridiculous " hair growth

insurance " would be where you had a third party payer for haircuts!? No one

would be stupid enough to get suckered into such a racket.

> > They don't produce anything.

>

> No, they provide a service that some people want.

>

>

> > Instead, they suck money

> out of the economy.

>

> I'm not following you here.

Insurance companies, banks and corporations are creations of the government.

Their raison d'etre is to accumulate money without providing anything in return

for it. Around 1900, people paid for houses and health care in cash. Now banks,

coporations and insurance companies own damn near everything.

> We could get along fine without them.

>

> We could get along fine without barber shops, but some people would

> rather pay a professional than cut their own hair.

I'd rather pay a doctor for surgery than an insurance company. But when you tell

an office nurse that you want to pay cash she acts like you're from Mars. It's

impossible to negotiate for medical services anymore. Insurance companies have

taken over that function (with help from the government).

> > If it were

> up to me, I'd force them either to start making something or to go out

> of business.

>

> Hope you're just kidding. Don't you think they have a right to exist.

Actually, I'm not kidding. Insurance companies exist because of government

intervention in the economy.

> Health care would cost less in total if there were no

> insurance companies. People would choose the health care they could

> afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged

> more than what people were willing to pay. What exactly is wrong with

> fee-for-service health care?

>

> That could happen even with insurance companies if government would

> get out of the regulation business and just enforce the contracts.

We have the insurance company health care mess we have now largely thanks to the

government!

-------------------------------------------------------

Get your free, secure email at http://www.medmail.com -

the e-mail service for the medical community

[Guest guest]

> > I think you're both way off. Insurance companies exist to make a

> profit, period.

> And what is wrong with that. Do not barber shops go into business to

> profit.

Barber shops actually do something. Imagine how ridiculous " hair growth

insurance " would be where you had a third party payer for haircuts!? No one

would be stupid enough to get suckered into such a racket.

> > They don't produce anything.

>

> No, they provide a service that some people want.

>

>

> > Instead, they suck money

> out of the economy.

>

> I'm not following you here.

Insurance companies, banks and corporations are creations of the government.

Their raison d'etre is to accumulate money without providing anything in return

for it. Around 1900, people paid for houses and health care in cash. Now banks,

coporations and insurance companies own damn near everything.

> We could get along fine without them.

>

> We could get along fine without barber shops, but some people would

> rather pay a professional than cut their own hair.

I'd rather pay a doctor for surgery than an insurance company. But when you tell

an office nurse that you want to pay cash she acts like you're from Mars. It's

impossible to negotiate for medical services anymore. Insurance companies have

taken over that function (with help from the government).

> > If it were

> up to me, I'd force them either to start making something or to go out

> of business.

>

> Hope you're just kidding. Don't you think they have a right to exist.

Actually, I'm not kidding. Insurance companies exist because of government

intervention in the economy.

> Health care would cost less in total if there were no

> insurance companies. People would choose the health care they could

> afford and providers would not stay in business long if they charged

> more than what people were willing to pay. What exactly is wrong with

> fee-for-service health care?

>

> That could happen even with insurance companies if government would

> get out of the regulation business and just enforce the contracts.

We have the insurance company health care mess we have now largely thanks to the

government!

-------------------------------------------------------

Get your free, secure email at http://www.medmail.com -

the e-mail service for the medical community

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> >Ah, but

> > it is now your fault that you are completely broke.

>

> When I speak of responsibility, it does not have the same meaning

as this

> sort of finger pointing blame. " Blame " and " fault " are pretty

useless,

> self-defeating concepts in many situations. " Responsibility " has a

different

> meaning, though. It is constructive. Consider the following comment

you

> made:

>

> >The loss of dignity through such a

> > circumstance can be a powerful motivator for >getting through it

and

> > off again.

>

> This is more what I mean when I speak of responsibility, and it is a

> wonderful thing when people are able to muster the strength to

create a more

> positive situation out of a negative one. When I mentioned the

failure of

> welfare, I was speaking more about the generations of families that

have

> abused it for years and years (of which, there are plenty).

>

> Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, I suppose. But, I

appreciate your

> comments and wanted to respond.

Hi Joan,

Thanks for responding also. I have a feeling we are actually closer

in thought than we actually sound. However, from what I read of

Schaler, he certainly would assign blame and fault to " bad choices. "

I don't have an answer for welfare abuse that you are talking about.

I don't really have any clear idea how prevalent that is. The two

women I knew that went on welfare did so for a temporary amount of

time. One had 4 kids and her husband walked out on them. They still

weren't able to keep their house, but were able to move to a smaller

one. I can't help thinking, what would they have done without

welfare? The other woman actually put herself through college, again

a single parent with a small child, and was then able to take up

well-paying work, never to be dependent again.

Women with little kids have lots fewer choices than the general

population, just from a practical point of view. I know this by

heart!

I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of

middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes

all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as

far as that. Bill says that none of your actions are, it is all HP.

This I completely reject.

I think people need a " leg-up " sometimes, to get to a point where they

are functioning better and better able to make the choices they need

to. In this way, I believe in " harm reduction. " I will choose the

imperfect solution that nevertheless leads a little closer to the goal

than the perfect solution that is unattainable.

I'm reading a book now called " Coming Clean. " It is a study of people

who have gotten free of addiction without the help of treatment or AA.

The best predicter of success was the person's stake in " conventional

life " by which the authors mean jobs, education, family relationships

and other connections that were meaningful to them. People don't live

in a vacuum.

As far as being off-topic, I don't think so. The questions

surrounding how much power a person has to effect his own life will

always be relevant to any discussion of alcohol use/abuse.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> >Ah, but

> > it is now your fault that you are completely broke.

>

> When I speak of responsibility, it does not have the same meaning

as this

> sort of finger pointing blame. " Blame " and " fault " are pretty

useless,

> self-defeating concepts in many situations. " Responsibility " has a

different

> meaning, though. It is constructive. Consider the following comment

you

> made:

>

> >The loss of dignity through such a

> > circumstance can be a powerful motivator for >getting through it

and

> > off again.

>

> This is more what I mean when I speak of responsibility, and it is a

> wonderful thing when people are able to muster the strength to

create a more

> positive situation out of a negative one. When I mentioned the

failure of

> welfare, I was speaking more about the generations of families that

have

> abused it for years and years (of which, there are plenty).

>

> Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, I suppose. But, I

appreciate your

> comments and wanted to respond.

Hi Joan,

Thanks for responding also. I have a feeling we are actually closer

in thought than we actually sound. However, from what I read of

Schaler, he certainly would assign blame and fault to " bad choices. "

I don't have an answer for welfare abuse that you are talking about.

I don't really have any clear idea how prevalent that is. The two

women I knew that went on welfare did so for a temporary amount of

time. One had 4 kids and her husband walked out on them. They still

weren't able to keep their house, but were able to move to a smaller

one. I can't help thinking, what would they have done without

welfare? The other woman actually put herself through college, again

a single parent with a small child, and was then able to take up

well-paying work, never to be dependent again.

Women with little kids have lots fewer choices than the general

population, just from a practical point of view. I know this by

heart!

I think the Schaler/Szasz point of view is at the opposite extreme

from the AA point of view. I'm more likely to make a home on a bit of

middle ground, a bit closer to Schaler than Bill W. Schaler believes

all your actions and choices are governed by your will. I don't go as

far as that. Bill says that none of your actions are, it is all HP.

This I completely reject.

I think people need a " leg-up " sometimes, to get to a point where they

are functioning better and better able to make the choices they need

to. In this way, I believe in " harm reduction. " I will choose the

imperfect solution that nevertheless leads a little closer to the goal

than the perfect solution that is unattainable.

I'm reading a book now called " Coming Clean. " It is a study of people

who have gotten free of addiction without the help of treatment or AA.

The best predicter of success was the person's stake in " conventional

life " by which the authors mean jobs, education, family relationships

and other connections that were meaningful to them. People don't live

in a vacuum.

As far as being off-topic, I don't think so. The questions

surrounding how much power a person has to effect his own life will

always be relevant to any discussion of alcohol use/abuse.

See you,

[Guest guest]

,

>Ah, but

> it is now your fault that you are completely broke.

When I speak of responsibility, it does not have the same meaning as this

sort of finger pointing blame. " Blame " and " fault " are pretty useless,

self-defeating concepts in many situations. " Responsibility " has a different

meaning, though. It is constructive. Consider the following comment you

made:

>The loss of dignity through such a

> circumstance can be a powerful motivator for >getting through it and

> off again.

This is more what I mean when I speak of responsibility, and it is a

wonderful thing when people are able to muster the strength to create a more

positive situation out of a negative one. When I mentioned the failure of

welfare, I was speaking more about the generations of families that have

abused it for years and years (of which, there are plenty).

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, I suppose. But, I appreciate your

comments and wanted to respond.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

>

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleighs,

> > >

> > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

> that

> > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

> what

> > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

> that

> > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

> say,

> > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> > >

> > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

> do

> > > like this point you've made here.

> > >

> > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

> than

> > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

> them

> > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

> friends,

> > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

> be

> > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

> seeking

> > > are hidden by others.

> > >

> > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

> as

> > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

> happens to

> > > us is " God's will for us. "

> > >

> > > See you,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

,

>Ah, but

> it is now your fault that you are completely broke.

When I speak of responsibility, it does not have the same meaning as this

sort of finger pointing blame. " Blame " and " fault " are pretty useless,

self-defeating concepts in many situations. " Responsibility " has a different

meaning, though. It is constructive. Consider the following comment you

made:

>The loss of dignity through such a

> circumstance can be a powerful motivator for >getting through it and

> off again.

This is more what I mean when I speak of responsibility, and it is a

wonderful thing when people are able to muster the strength to create a more

positive situation out of a negative one. When I mentioned the failure of

welfare, I was speaking more about the generations of families that have

abused it for years and years (of which, there are plenty).

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, I suppose. But, I appreciate your

comments and wanted to respond.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

>

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleighs,

> > >

> > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

> that

> > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

> what

> > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

> that

> > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

> say,

> > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> > >

> > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

> do

> > > like this point you've made here.

> > >

> > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

> than

> > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

> them

> > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

> friends,

> > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

> be

> > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

> seeking

> > > are hidden by others.

> > >

> > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

> as

> > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

> happens to

> > > us is " God's will for us. "

> > >

> > > See you,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

,

>Ah, but

> it is now your fault that you are completely broke.

When I speak of responsibility, it does not have the same meaning as this

sort of finger pointing blame. " Blame " and " fault " are pretty useless,

self-defeating concepts in many situations. " Responsibility " has a different

meaning, though. It is constructive. Consider the following comment you

made:

>The loss of dignity through such a

> circumstance can be a powerful motivator for >getting through it and

> off again.

This is more what I mean when I speak of responsibility, and it is a

wonderful thing when people are able to muster the strength to create a more

positive situation out of a negative one. When I mentioned the failure of

welfare, I was speaking more about the generations of families that have

abused it for years and years (of which, there are plenty).

Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, I suppose. But, I appreciate your

comments and wanted to respond.

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

>

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleighs,

> > >

> > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

> that

> > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

> what

> > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

> that

> > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

> say,

> > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> > >

> > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

> do

> > > like this point you've made here.

> > >

> > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

> than

> > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

> them

> > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

> friends,

> > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

> be

> > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

> seeking

> > > are hidden by others.

> > >

> > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

> as

> > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

> happens to

> > > us is " God's will for us. "

> > >

> > > See you,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Kayleighs:

I apologize if I missed your point. I agree with some of your response,

particularly that the alcoholism of AA is not one of those situations in

which people are unable to take responsibility and make choices. I can't

really speak to the IQ issue. Back when I had my copy of the DSM, I don't

believe low IQ or retardation were considered mental illness or disease in

the same sense as alcoholism or bi-polar disorder. But other mental

conditions as you mentioned concern me. Obviously, there are some people who

are pretty wacked out compared with the rest of society. I don't want to

address them right now. There are also a lot of other people, perhaps only

slightly off kilter, who get diagnosed with various mental illnesses and

then go on to identify themselves solely with those illnesses ( much in the

same way that AA encourages people to do with alcoholism) and learn to think

they have lost the ability to choose any other way than to be " sick " . And it

is not unheard of for mental health professionals to categorize individuals

as schizophrenic, bi-polar, or depressed just because it's the " latest

thing " or because they cannot find any other disorder to specify for the

patient, or because the pharmaceutical companies have a new drug to push.

I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it is pretty scary for it to

be as prevalent as it is. Just look at how many kids are apparently ADD

these days. For many of these unfortunate individuals, I think a solid

psycho-babble deprogramming session is in order and that promoting

self-reliance, responsibility, and choice are positive things to encourage.

Thanks for the response,

Joan

Re: Taxpayer Standing for Lawsuits

> You misunderstand my point. Sometimes bad things happen to good

> people, and certainly, they are responsible for playing the hand they

> are dealt. The same is true if they get a terrific hand.

>

> I happen to believe that some people are more capable of assuming

> responsibility than others. There are conditions that prevent people

> from making sensible choices. AA advocates have long insisted that

> " alcoholism " is one of those conditions, and I have little sympathy

> for that viewpoint. But some people have very low IQ's, and can't

> make choices as capably as people with higher IQ's. Equally, some

> people have mental conditions that impair their judgment. That is my

> belief.

>

>

> > >

> > > Hi Kayleighs,

> > >

> > > > As Donne said, " No man is an island. " And for my money,

> that

> > > > means not only economically, but also psychologically. That's

> what

> > > > ticks me off about people like you and Szasz and Schaler. The

> > > > assertion that every individual is responsible for everything

> that

> > > > happens to him, that he has made a " choice, " is, in effect, to

> say,

> > > > " Who, me? No, not me, just him. He made a choice. "

> > >

> > > I'm not going to jump into the whole mental health debate, but I

> do

> > > like this point you've made here.

> > >

> > > I do believe that people can and do make choices. More choices

> than

> > > determinists, like AA, would have us believe. But we don't make

> them

> > > in a vacuum. All around us is our culture, our families, our

> friends,

> > > our past experiences, our health, and on and on. Options may not

> be

> > > obvious, especially if we are in pain or if the options we are

> seeking

> > > are hidden by others.

> > >

> > > The idea that everything that happens to us is our choice is just

> as

> > > flawed and uncompassionate as the idea that everything that

> happens to

> > > us is " God's will for us. "

> > >

> > > See you,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >