the snap general election thread

economic

economic wrote: »

certainly true. i myself suffer for depression and can very well see how mental disorders can easily result in poverty and to stay in poverty. its an issue that is still not taken as seriously as physical disorders. i rather have a curable cancer then depression.

im pretty sure a lot of the reason why i am out of work and have changed jobs so many times is due to my depression. my depression has often left me feeling angry for no reason at all. if this can happen to me then im sure other people with same or similar mental disorders would experience similar issues and end up not able to work and thus in poverty. its a disability thats not well recognised so they end up seeing as just not good enough for a job rather then their mental disorder reducing their chances severely.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

im pretty sure a lot of the reason why i am out of work and have changed jobs so many times is due to my depression. my depression has often left me feeling angry for no reason at all. if this can happen to me then im sure other people with same or similar mental disorders would experience similar issues and end up not able to work and thus in poverty. its a disability thats not well recognised so they end up seeing as just not good enough for a job rather then their mental disorder reducing their chances severely.

I hope it gets better for you

I dont know much about it, I believe my father went though it a long time ago when I was too young to know what was going on. I think it lasted a couple of years with him during which time he couldn't work but he got better and has had no problems for two decades now. In fact he is quite a happy person now and has been for as long as I can remember.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I hope it gets better for you

I dont know much about it, I believe my father went though it a long time ago when I was too young to know what was going on. I think it lasted a couple of years with him during which time he couldn't work but he got better and has had no problems for two decades now. In fact he is quite a happy person now and has been for as long as I can remember.

i think i have had it for a while, at least since 2009 so about 8 years now. prior to that i was alwasy a bit different, felt different compared to everyone else. i doubt mine will ever be gone completely but i think i can manage it (i hope).

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

Truly poor people have mental problems or addiction or server family issues or all of the above, neither party can do much to help them

Why do wealthy people need help too? Perhaps money alone doesn't buy a happy stable family environment.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why do wealthy people need help too? Perhaps money alone doesn't buy a happy stable family environment.

These problems can impact everyone from the poor to the very richest

The takeaway point though is that whoever it hits it often leads to that person that household becoming poor. This means 'the poor' disproportionately have these problems because people who develop these problems become poor. Often when I read articles and stats of poor vs rich I make this note that its not a fair comparison because you are biasing the two groups from the outset.

eg like newspaper articles about the rich living longer and how unfair and unjust that is. Well that's just such poor data analysis because in 'the poor' you include alcoholics people with gambling addictions people with physical disabilities people who have been to jail or were abused growing up etc etc.

I wish there was a way to help these people but I simply dont see what can be done. The only help that saves some of these people are very dedicated family members who put up with grief and heartache to just about keep their family members on this side of sanity and I dont see how the state could do that for each person who suffers from these afflictions.

Maybe in a couple of decades we will have brain chips that suppress the negative parts of our mind and elevate the better bits. Until then we will have homeless people, we will have alcoholics and drug abusers, we will have poverty and crime.

padington

Is this thread a joke ? Theresa May doesn't give a flying eff bomb about the poorer Uk subjects, if she did, she wouldn't be the cheerleader for a party which has surpressed wages heavily for the last 40 years whilst GDP and profits of billionaires gallop ahead.

Corbyn on the other hand obviously does give a Damn about the poor, he is just quite misguided about how heavily global capital will clobber the U.K if he presses ahead with his manifesto.

The two things are quite different. One is an inept bully, the other a misguided idealist.

Give me the crap choice however Corbyn gets my vote every day of the week because his ideas would make the world a better place if every country adopted them, unlike Mays selfish tax haven motivated hard Brexit drivel.

Thrugelmir

padington wrote: »

Is this thread a joke ? Theresa May doesn't give a flying eff bomb about the poorer Uk subjects, if she did, she wouldn't be the cheerleader for a party which has surpressed wages heavily for the last 40 years whilst GDP and profits of billionaires gallop ahead.

No joke. Extremely serious in fact. Whatever side of the political divide you sit on. Takes a matter of seconds to cause a decade of problems.

padington

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No joke. Extremely serious in fact. Whatever side of the political divide you sit on. Takes a matter of seconds to cause a decade of problems.

Quadruple it if your name is Theresa May. 40 years of hard won negotiations is going to be given away.

Her party should be arrested for inciting national vandalism.

Cakeguts

I just want to add to the bit about homeless people. What a lot of people don't realise is that the NHS is not very good at mental illness so treatment is patchy. A large proportion of homeless people who have addictions to alcohol or illegal drugs started out with a mental illness that was not very well treated. So what they did was they self medicated with something to deal with the problem that wasn't getting treated by any medical professionals. This causes a lot of problems because you then have an addiction on top of a mental illness that was a very large part of the cause of the addiction.

If you get a mental illness as a young person. You become invisible. If the illness means that you can't work you can't move out of your parent's home. There isn't enough supported housing for people who need help to live independent lives so they get stuck at home with parents to a much greater age than most other people would. Because they are invisible many people don't seem to realise that there are people in this position. These people are poor. They don't have the choices in life that many other people have. It isn't just money it is complete lack of choice.

Considering the number of people who suffer from mental illness there has been a very little research into the causes and into improving medication. This means that some of the medication still has severe side effects.

It would be possible for a government to improve the prospects of people with mental illness but it would mean changing some of the ways that it is treated. At the moment quite a lot of care of mental illness comes under adult care rather than under the NHS. What this means is that the illness comes under the budget of local councils rather than under the NHS budget. If this was cancer instead it would mean that you go into hospital for the initial dose of chemotherapy and then once they have decided that the chemotherapy suits you and isn't making you worse you would be discharged to continue your chemotherapy at home by yourself and if you had a problem you would go to your GP who would send you to a council run centre to check how you are getting on taking your chemotherapy at home. They might give you a social worker to help you manage your treatment at home. It would be extremely difficult for you to have any more hospital treatment after the initial admission. Any changes of chemotherapy would be handled by an oncologist on an outpatient basis. The chemotherapy given to you would have a lot of side effects because it would not have had very much research done to improve it. Your local council centre could have its range of services reduced at the whim of the council if it decided to save some money. In which case you would be left to take the chemotherapy at home on your own with minimum help.

Chrysalis

BobQ wrote: »

However, 40% of the electorate had no problem voting for the policies he espouses. Many say they were a money tree list but the Tory plans had no indication of any costing either. So I do not think that he is "extreme".

I did not vote for Labour because I did not think Corbyn could win the election (which was the case), not because of his policies. But I am surprised how close he came to winning - another 1% switching their vote could have made for a real upset.

When you talk of being an "extreme leader" I am bemused - you may not agree with him but what makes him extreme? Extreme to me is advocating the suspension of the courts, nationalisation of the media or the internet, banning LBGTI marriages etc.

Both policies had similar costs, labours was costed the tories wasnt.

Tax cuts still costs money.

In fact cutting taxes is a very dangerous game, and can have severe long term repercussions.

Once you take away taxes, its very hard to get people to accept them again, e.g. corby's proposals wasnt even to put it back to what it was in 2009 and look at the road block he hit. So what was considered fine in 2009 suddenly isnt now.