[tombert]

I'm not going to pretend I know a solution to this, but wasn't part of the reason it became hard to involuntarily commit people because it was being abused? Like, fathers were getting their daughters committed for being "too promiscuous"?

If that's a serious risk, I don't know that the "solution" to this problem by committing people is worth it.

That said, it's a hard problem. I know it's extremely hard for people without a yuppie income to get mental health treatment in the United States. I know before I got a high-paying desk job, I realized I had some form of manic depression, wanted treatment, but also could not afford to see a therapist because my health plan did not cover mental healthcare and my job didn't pay particularly well. It became this chicken-egg problem: it was hard to find a better job because of the depressive episodes, but I couldn't treat them without getting a better job. I can only imagine that stuff like schizophrenia and drug addiction (which I luckily have not suffered from) is exponentially more difficult to deal with.

[okareaman]

> Like, fathers were getting their daughters committed for being "too promiscuous"?

That's a really old-fashioned concern. It used to happen in the 50's and 60's, but patient rights have come a long way since then. The most anyone can do in CA is 5150 a relative, which is a 72 hour hold. That's not done more often because in 3 days and they're out on the street again, refusing to take meds. Mental health pros need to be able to hold someone longer and force a 30 day injection of psych meds. Paranoid schizophrenics usually won't take their meds because they don't trust the system naturally. They are unable to make a rational choice (obviously) So we just abandon them and ignore them.

> extremely hard for people without a yuppie income to get mental health treatment in the United States

Not in California. Impoverished people have access to basic free health care with Covered California. The mental health people I talked to at the local hospital were very well qualified. Too bad I was too screwed up to listen to them.

[gautamcgoel]

My gf has Covered California insurance and it is terrible. In particular, 1) very few doctors are in network, so she can't see the specialist she needs and 2) the customer service is a joke; when she calls she spends an hour on hold, and the reps never have any idea what's going on. Would not recommend (she is self-employed, so her options are limited).

[kenjackson]

Is mental health treatment not covered in a lot of health plans?

I'm not a fan of involuntarily committing people. But I do want to make it as easy (and as cheap) as possible to get good mental treatment if they need it. I've seen the results of good therapists, and it is no less impactful than a good surgeon.

[tombert]

In a sister reply apparently it's not hard to get mental health treatment in California, so I won't speak to that. Where I lived (and currently live) in NYC, it was hard for me to find cheap therapy, as it does not appear they require mental health plans in the insurance (though I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's more recent legislation).

There are free clinics for it, and of course those are good things and the doctors there are doing the lord's work, but they're extremely backed up. I looked to make an appointment at the time, and the soonest one was four months away. Compare this to the two-day wait I had when I finally did manage to get better insurance.

[okareaman]

> there's more recent legislation

California decided it liked Obamacare and the idea of Medicare for all, so I think that's when they made Covered California available for people who couldn't otherwise afford it. It might actually save money because there are less emergency room visits.