The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared new proposed mental impairment listings on July 9, three months ago. Normally, Notices of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRMs) appear in the Federal Register within a few days after being cleared by OMB, but not this one.
I do not know what is going on, but I have to wonder if this NPRM is being held up due to the proximity to the election or the proximity to the change in administration. Everything about Social Security's handling of mental impairment cases was extremely controversial in the early '80s when Michael Astrue last worked at Social Security. Any significant tightening of these listings would be controversial today, perhaps controversial enough to catch the attention of the general public. Even if this is not the sort of thing that could have even a minor effect upon the election, an Obama administration might have very different feelings about this proposal than the Bush administration or a McCain administration. John McCain appears to have exhibited little sensitivity to mental health issues. A statement that McCain gave to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) seems to me to display little enthuaism for helping the mentally ill and a strong tendency to emphasize substance abuse and personal responsibility when talking about mental illness. Contrast McCain's statement with the responses that Obama gave to a NAMI questionnaire.
Will this NPRM be published shortly after the election? Will this version of the proposal never be published because a revised version of the proposal will be resubmitted to OMB after the new President takes office? Will the election result affect what happens with the mental impairment listings? My best guess, worth every penny you paid for it, is that the NPRM gets published immediately after the election if McCain wins, but never gets published if Obama wins because a different proposal more favorable to the mentally ill will be submitted to the OMB once Obama takes office.
I do not know what is going on, but I have to wonder if this NPRM is being held up due to the proximity to the election or the proximity to the change in administration. Everything about Social Security's handling of mental impairment cases was extremely controversial in the early '80s when Michael Astrue last worked at Social Security. Any significant tightening of these listings would be controversial today, perhaps controversial enough to catch the attention of the general public. Even if this is not the sort of thing that could have even a minor effect upon the election, an Obama administration might have very different feelings about this proposal than the Bush administration or a McCain administration. John McCain appears to have exhibited little sensitivity to mental health issues. A statement that McCain gave to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) seems to me to display little enthuaism for helping the mentally ill and a strong tendency to emphasize substance abuse and personal responsibility when talking about mental illness. Contrast McCain's statement with the responses that Obama gave to a NAMI questionnaire.
Will this NPRM be published shortly after the election? Will this version of the proposal never be published because a revised version of the proposal will be resubmitted to OMB after the new President takes office? Will the election result affect what happens with the mental impairment listings? My best guess, worth every penny you paid for it, is that the NPRM gets published immediately after the election if McCain wins, but never gets published if Obama wins because a different proposal more favorable to the mentally ill will be submitted to the OMB once Obama takes office.
5 comments:
"The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared new proposed mental impairment listings on July 9, three months ago."
After the vote on the bailout bill it probably need to be reevaluated.
Wow, you are one paranoid dude, dude.
McCain's statement incorporating "personal responsibility" relates to avoidance of addictive behavior. Contrary to the liberal philosophy and agenda, drug and alcohol abuse are a significant contributing factor to the incidence of mental illness; i.e. people who use drugs devlop psychoses--I have seen it many times in medical histories of young people. Early drug use leads to young adult and eventual life-long mental health crises.
Achieving a lower rate of drug and alcohol abuse would put a lot of folks in the liberal social work matrix out of a job.
The liberal answer is just to provide universal health care and unlimited treatment options, after pushing for decriminalization/legalization of any and all recreational drugs.
I consider myself a moderate and the assertion in the above comment that drug or alcohol abuse is the main or even sole cause of mental illess leaves me cold. I know better. Certainly there are folks who are addicts, but such abuse is not the cause of most mental illesses.
I did not say that it is the cause of most mental illnesses. It is a significant contributing factor in young people with no pre-existing organic mental health issues. I have seen it over-and-over again. Youths do, in fact, get "burned out" from drug and alcohol abuse, and the younger it starts the more permanent the effects are likely to be. The point is, it greatly increases health care costs and the volume of disability claims. The vast majority of disability claims filed by those 18-30 are for mental illness, and most of those are, in fact, related to drug/alcohol abuse. We don't even know how many children's SSI claims are based on disabilities caused by their parents' alcohol/abuse.
Post a Comment