Mental Health Decrease = Violent Crime Increase

A recent story in the Idaho State Journal showed that a random shooting, that took place at the end of September, may be linked to the state of Idaho ending health care coverage for people with certain mental disorders.

On September 27th, a man was shot outside a Pocatello, Idaho, coffee shop. He nearly died after losing 40% of his blood.  The shooter was a man who had not been on his mental health meds because the state cut off the funding.  The article showed there are other instances of violent behavior since the cuts took place.  One man, in court after assaulting his own house and car, was “suggested” by the local judge to get control of his mental problem (findarticles.com).  Hello? Isn’t that part of a ‘mental’ health problem?  They can’t control it without outside help, and many of them are not in a position pay for it.

This year Idaho lawmakers claim they saved taxpayers $9 million by cutting the mental health budget.  They also said, earlier in the year, that only people with private insurance would be dropped from state assistance.  Yet, I’ve read several recent articles that say, in actuality people without any insurance have been cut.  To give you an example of how insensitive lawmakers are; according to an article in the Idaho Statesman, State Representative Ken Andrus, a Republican from Lava Hot Springs, Idaho, said he considers the Pocatello shooting, by a man dropped from state help, to be an isolated case (www.idahostatesman.com).

Several mental health care professionals, here in Eastern Idaho, are warning that this is just the beginning of bad things to come.  The family of the shooting victim are outraged.

This reminds me of the Federal cuts for mental health care, pushed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.  Instead of saving money, it cost more money in the long run, because of increased incarcerations, and lawsuits, due to resulting violent crime by people who were pushed onto the streets, and, went off their meds.  The difference between then and now is that then the government was trying to save money.  Now, there is no money.  The results will be the same.