Reply #293: Well known does not mean well defined

[treelogger]

You say "His problems were well known and had been treated before".

Agree. But current law in Virginia defines mentally ill in a certain fashion, and by that definiion, he was not mentally ill enough to be reported to the systems that greatly restrict him in his liberty. You can spank the judge to have rendered a wrong decision, that about all you can do.

You could propose changing that definition, and make the bar lower. That any form of mental health treatment should be federally registered, go into all forms of databases, including the one that prevents gun purchases. From a medical privacy point of view, that would be a debacle. Gun owners don't need to fight any such proposals - the medical profession will do extremely effectively.

You also say that mental health should be included in premiums. In theory, I would agree. In the current health care system, which is a set of civil contracts between employers, employees, and insurance companies, this is wrong-headed to enforce. The government has no business telling people what types of contracts they can enter into. However, the proposal you did NOT make is: Medical insurance should be socialized, run by a central authority, with mental health treatment included. To this proposal I would whole-heartedly agree.

But be VERY VERY careful in using the case of Mr. Cho to discriminate against people who are in need of psychological or psychiatric treatment, by denying them some of their rights, any more than is actually necessary. Let's not create yet another disenfranchised and suppressed class in this country, we already have too many. Zillions of people get some mental health treatment. A visit to a "shrink" provided by your HR person because one of your colleagues goes on your nerves does not mean that your civil rights need to be curtailed.