Moderation key in everything
Re: “Closure of Riverview came at hands of right wing parties” (Citizen online letters)
Sure, the NDP stopped further downsizing of beds in 1996, but this was five years after they got into office. Nor did they appear to have put in place any of the supports the Socreds suggested. Go ahead and stand by blaming the Socreds and Liberals, that’s fine. Now we have to fix their mistakes.
One can be fiscally more “conservative” and yet socially progressive, and the opposite can be true. While some BC Liberals are former Socreds, the fact is the party still has plenty of fairly socially progressive people in it. Trying to pigeonhole the BC Liberals more precisely on the political spectrum is a little more complex than just a dismissive, simplistic, “Oh, they’re right-wing” just because they’re to the right of Karl Marx or John Horgan, and were trying to clean up the budgetary mess the NDP left behind. When a government overspends to the point of borrowing a lot of money, it hurts the ability to pay for things properly in the future because of all the money wasted paying interest charges instead of on programs. Budgeting is hard. Closing Riverview wasn’t a good way to cut costs, but the NDP of the now has made no attempt to reopen it. Maybe cutting costs isn’t exclusively a right-wing phenomenon after all?
The mindreading was when my position on taxes, spending, living in a society, and mental healthcare was assumed — all incorrectly, I might add — based on the bizarre pre-conceived notion about heartless, selfish “conservative” boogeymen that the letter-writer seems to possess. If that wasn’t a mindreading attempt, then I have a sneaking suspicion that reading comprehension is the real issue here.
Deinstitutionalization to the point that severely mentally ill people that should be institutionalized because their specific disorder set requires it are instead let out onto the street to fend for themselves is very bad; however, an extreme progressive idea that “people being in mental institutions at all, ever, is bad, full stop” is also bad. It doesn’t matter why, it’s all bad. It’s not “good” if done for cost-cutting and it’s not “good” when it’s done for “progressive” reasons, especially if the result either way (bad) is the same. I think that should have been understood the first time? FYI not everything considered “progressive” is actually either good or positive.
It stands to reason that if taxes can be too low, they can also be too high. Moderation is the key in everything. What is this weird “either-or” mentality about some people being left behind in terms of mental health care? I insinuated nothing of the kind. There has to be a way to support people that have mental health needs properly, whether it be in an institution if severe, or some sort of specialized clinics, or some sort of homecare. We’ll never get a utopia, but we can at least attempt to achieve a balance between instituting community supported treatment for the mentally ill, and improving mental hospitalization where absolutely needed, to make sure everybody gets the specific help they need without leaving anyone out in the cold, and also without bankrupting the province. All we need to do is give the government a kick in the pants to get on it. So, um, everybody, letter-writer included, write their MLA? I think that would be a good start.
April J. Gibson
Duncan