Just for fun and your very own opinion...rank these Presidents between a 1 and a 10. A 10 means that he's a legend and 1 means that he's practically a heap of garbage. Here's my opinion

Washington-10
Adams-9
Jefferson-10
Madison-8
Monroe-8
Q Adams-6
Jackson-7
Van Buren-3
W.H. Harrison-2
Tyler-1
Polk-5
Taylor-2
Fillmore-2
Pierce-2
Buchanan-1
Lincoln-10
Johnson-1
Grant-1
Hayes-3
Garfield-4
Arthur-3
Cleveland-5 (Only because he had two non-consecutive terms and got married in the White House.)
Harrison-4
McKinnley-6
Roosevelt-10
Taft-4 (Because his Great-Grandson screwed-up Ohio!)
Wilson-5
Harding-1
Coolidge-2
Hoover-2
FDR-10
Truman-9
Eisenhower-8
JFK-7
LBJ-4
Nixon-1
Ford-2
Carter-1
Reagan-10
H.W. Bush-2
Clinton-2
Bush-2 (The last three were very hard for me.)

Bush-2 (The last three were very hard for me.)


Then why didn't you do some Presidential....shut your mouth~
:D

Look, bud, you rate Ronald Reagan higher than Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK...I mean come on!!!

Reagan was a pretty lovable President :)

Reagan was legendary, but so were Jesse James and Genghis Khan.


I'd rank reagan significantly lower and Clinton significantly higher.  Adams the first was a very impressive statesman but not such an impressive president. Bush the elder deserves a slight upgrade while bush the dubya deserves a slight downgrade.

I agree with most of your ratings, but there are a few I would change. ;)



W.H. Harrison-2



Maybe an incomplete for Harrison. After all, he was only in office for a month.


Fillmore-2
Pierce-2
Buchanan-1



I would possibly give these three all a 0. There policies and lack of action in the 1850's indirectly, and in some cases directly, led to the Civil War.

Also, Clinton deserves at least a 6, while GWB should get no better than a 1.

Is it fair to rank all of the presidents?  I mean no one here was around for every one of these presidents, so how can you give a fair judgement?

Is it fair to rank all of the presidents?  I mean no one here was around for every one of these presidents, so how can you give a fair judgement?


**highlight mine**

And this is exactly the point in something like this.  Everybody has their own opinions and impressions of Presidents, and these are based solely on person opinion.

If somebody was a segregationist and racist, they would probably place Lincoln and the two Johnsons much lower in ranking.  If somebody was a hard corps Communist, they would place Nixon and Regan lower, and FDR and Lyndon Johnson much higher.  If somebody was in favor of a strong expansionist policy, they would place Teddy Roosevelt higher.

These to me are only interesting in how they show what people think of different things.  And in how often their knowledge has huge gaps in it.

Reagan was a pretty lovable President :)


If you weren't mentally ill or retarded, which meant okay buddy out on the street you go. As far as the Cold war ending goes I am as sick of hearing that as I am of Clinton's playing DR with interns No pun intended. Beside is the Cold war really over or just switched to North Korea the Mideast and China?

If you weren't mentally ill or retarded, which meant okay buddy out on the street you go.


That is actually another thing that is often misunderstood.

When Regan was Governor of California, there was a case waiting to go in front of the Supreme Court about the mentally ill.  A lot of them wanted out of institutions.  But they were essentially kept locked up forever, even if they were not a danger to themselves or others.  A lot of people considered this inprisonment without trial, and they were talking to a lot of politicians about this.

Right after Regan became Governor, they came and talked to him, and he agreed.  He allowed those institutionalized in California to release themselves, as long as they were not a threat to themselves or others.  And by the time he became President, the case had been heard by the Supreme Court, and they agreed.  This resulted in the doors nationwide being opened up.

And now tell me, should we go back to how things were before?  Should we take people who have mental health issues and force them back into institutions?  Should we hold them for years (or decades) without trial, without parole, with no chance of ever being released?

The institutions are still there.  People can still choose to go to them and be institutionalized.  But think about it, would you want to spend your entire life essentially in prison?  If given a choice, would you not check yourself out?

Or is the kind and just thing to do be to lock them all back up again?  Thorw away the key, and declare that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that they should be incarcerated forever.  Without trial, without a jury, without and hope of being released.

Things are not all that simple, are they?

That is actually another thing that is often misunderstood.

When Regan was Governor of California, there was a case waiting to go in front of the Supreme Court about the mentally ill.  A lot of them wanted out of institutions.  But they were essentially kept locked up forever, even if they were not a danger to themselves or others.  A lot of people considered this inprisonment without trial, and they were talking to a lot of politicians about this.

Right after Regan became Governor, they came and talked to him, and he agreed.  He allowed those institutionalized in California to release themselves, as long as they were not a threat to themselves or others.  And by the time he became President, the case had been heard by the Supreme Court, and they agreed.  This resulted in the doors nationwide being opened up.

And now tell me, should we go back to how things were before?  Should we take people who have mental health issues and force them back into institutions?  Should we hold them for years (or decades) without trial, without parole, with no chance of ever being released?

The institutions are still there.  People can still choose to go to them and be institutionalized.  But think about it, would you want to spend your entire life essentially in prison?  If given a choice, would you not check yourself out?

Or is the kind and just thing to do be to lock them all back up again?  Thorw away the key, and declare that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that they should be incarcerated forever.  Without trial, without a jury, without and hope of being released.

Things are not all that simple, are they?


Talking from an autistic...If the 60's didn't happen and the American Disabilities Act wasn't ratified, I wouldn't be able to go to College, period. And I would feel more out-of-place with my family than I am right now!


Then why didn't you do some Presidential....shut your mouth~
:D

Look, bud, you rate Ronald Reagan higher than Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK...I mean come on!!!



Like I said...this is my opinion, you can rate Reagan a 2 and Bush a 1 for all I care.

Look, bud, you rate Ronald Reagan higher than Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower


Agree, agree, agree.


and JFK...I mean come on!!!


Oh come on, he just looked pretty then got shot. I could do that! (well.. maybe not the pretty part.)

I've narrowed it down to the ones I have an opinion of....

Washington-10
Adams-9
Jefferson-10
Madison-10 (cooler than most people realize)
Monroe-8
Q Adams-7
Jackson-6 (he treated the Constitution like it was optional to follow)
Tyler-1
Polk-7 (kept his promises)
Buchanan-1 (arguably the worst president we've had)
Lincoln-5 (a great leader, but also a great tyrant)
Johnson-1 (totally unprepared for the job)
Grant-1 (a drunkard)
Roosevelt-7 (a progressive conservationist, but also overzealous in extending his authority and American imperialism)
Wilson-7 (a great leader, but also a racist)
Harding-1 (probably the second worst president we've had)
Coolidge-2
Hoover-2
FDR-10 (the best president we've had IMHO)
Truman-9
Eisenhower-8
JFK-7 (not as great as people say, mostly because he got us into Vietnam)
LBJ-4
Nixon-3
Ford-5
Carter-5
Reagan-8 (not the god some people treat him as, but he did fix a lot of things)
H.W. Bush-6
Clinton-8 (the Democrat version of Reagan)
Bush-4 (he was ok until he passed the Patriot Act and decided to invade Iraq)

I don't like Dubya, but I still wouldn't say he was our worst president.  He'd probably fit in the top 10 worst presidents though....

That is actually another thing that is often misunderstood.

When Regan was Governor of California, there was a case waiting to go in front of the Supreme Court about the mentally ill.  A lot of them wanted out of institutions.  But they were essentially kept locked up forever, even if they were not a danger to themselves or others.  A lot of people considered this inprisonment without trial, and they were talking to a lot of politicians about this.

Right after Regan became Governor, they came and talked to him, and he agreed.  He allowed those institutionalized in California to release themselves, as long as they were not a threat to themselves or others.  And by the time he became President, the case had been heard by the Supreme Court, and they agreed.  This resulted in the doors nationwide being opened up.

And now tell me, should we go back to how things were before?  Should we take people who have mental health issues and force them back into institutions?  Should we hold them for years (or decades) without trial, without parole, with no chance of ever being released?

The institutions are still there.  People can still choose to go to them and be institutionalized.  But think about it, would you want to spend your entire life essentially in prison?  If given a choice, would you not check yourself out?

Or is the kind and just thing to do be to lock them all back up again?  Thorw away the key, and declare that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that they should be incarcerated forever.  Without trial, without a jury, without and hope of being released.

Things are not all that simple, are they?

No, they're not.
:(

That's why I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist.  A successful government creates a hybrid of collective stewardship and individual enterprise.  Our government is doing neither right now. 

Robert Reich discuss a "third way."  Unfortunately, Clinton let Wall Street and the political right get the upper hand too much.
::)

I've narrowed it down to the ones I have an opinion of....

Washington-10
Adams-9
Jefferson-10
Madison-10 (cooler than most people realize)
Monroe-8
Q Adams-7
Jackson-6 (he treated the Constitution like it was optional to follow)
Tyler-1
Polk-7 (kept his promises)
Buchanan-1 (arguably the worst president we've had)
Lincoln-5 (a great leader, but also a great tyrant)
Johnson-1 (totally unprepared for the job)
Grant-1 (a drunkard)
Roosevelt-7 (a progressive conservationist, but also overzealous in extending his authority and American imperialism)
Wilson-7 (a great leader, but also a racist)
Harding-1 (probably the second worst president we've had)
Coolidge-2
Hoover-2
FDR-10 (the best president we've had IMHO)
Truman-9
Eisenhower-8
JFK-7 (not as great as people say, mostly because he got us into Vietnam)
LBJ-4
Nixon-3
Ford-5
Carter-5
Reagan-8 (not the god some people treat him as, but he did fix a lot of things)
H.W. Bush-6
Clinton-8 (the Democrat version of Reagan)
Bush-4 (he was ok until he passed the Patriot Act and decided to invade Iraq)

I don't like Dubya, but I still wouldn't say he was our worst president.  He'd probably fit in the top 10 worst presidents though....



That's good, and that's what I expect to see as well.

If you think Bush should have a 1, then give him a 1. If you think Clinton should get a 10, then give him a 10.

That is actually another thing that is often misunderstood.

When Regan was Governor of California, there was a case waiting to go in front of the Supreme Court about the mentally ill.  A lot of them wanted out of institutions.  But they were essentially kept locked up forever, even if they were not a danger to themselves or others.  A lot of people considered this inprisonment without trial, and they were talking to a lot of politicians about this.

Right after Regan became Governor, they came and talked to him, and he agreed.  He allowed those institutionalized in California to release themselves, as long as they were not a threat to themselves or others.  And by the time he became President, the case had been heard by the Supreme Court, and they agreed.  This resulted in the doors nationwide being opened up.

And now tell me, should we go back to how things were before?  Should we take people who have mental health issues and force them back into institutions?  Should we hold them for years (or decades) without trial, without parole, with no chance of ever being released?

The institutions are still there.  People can still choose to go to them and be institutionalized.  But think about it, would you want to spend your entire life essentially in prison?  If given a choice, would you not check yourself out?

Or is the kind and just thing to do be to lock them all back up again?  Thorw away the key, and declare that the Supreme Court was wrong, and that they should be incarcerated forever.  Without trial, without a jury, without and hope of being released.

Things are not all that simple, are they?


No Not simple at all. I happened to be a group home manager for 20 years. Lots of my residents I meant during that 20 years were abused by a system that chose to hide them away or worse yet abuse and experiment on them. They turned out to be useful productive parts of society. It is a black mark on us as a society.
When Reagan let everyone out he did it to save the goverment  money regardless of their mental status. Some people are too dangerous to be mainstreamed. There were no guidelines  the result  homeless people who can't get jobs to buy medication they need to maintain their stability. Up goes the crime rate, self medication with other cheaper and more easily obtainable substances.
Guess where they end up ? In prision lots of therapy there. RIGHT

The way things are going...I should go into a Group Home since I don't fit in with my family and I'll never get my Drivers License.

God is just telling me 'no'.

The way things are going...I should go into a Group Home since I don't fit in with my family and I'll never get my Drivers License.

God is just telling me 'no'.


Does your Autism prevent you from driving? It seems like you are capable of posting. If you can take care of yourself basically, maybe a supported apartment would be a good fit. I know lots of people with autism and other challenges that drive and function within society.

Just a thought

When Reagan let everyone out he did it to save the goverment  money regardless of their mental status. Some people are too dangerous to be mainstreamed. There were no guidelines  the result  homeless people who can't get jobs to buy medication they need to maintain their stability. Up goes the crime rate, self medication with other cheaper and more easily obtainable substances.


The phrasing here is the kind that drives me crazy.  "let everybody out".  That sounds like they were kicked out.  But that was not the case.  They were simply told that they could leave if they choose.  And while a lot of them remained because they knew it was what was best for them, even more did what the Supreme Court (not Ronald Reagan) said they could do:  leave.

So to be more accurate, why not state that the Supreme Court let out the crazies?  It is more accurate, since Governor (and later President Reagan) was simply in office when these things were done.

And going back to my original statement, should we return to the alternative?  Should we open mass-institutions, and round up all the crazies and put them back in?

Oh, and I have been homeless.  I have seen the mentally ill homeless.  Most of them could not give a damn about medication (unless it came in a Nighttrain bottle or some kind of narcotic).  And the news is constantly filled with stories of people who commit murders because they stop taking their medication.  And that is not even the homeless insane, but ones with families and jobs and who try to be "normal".

The phrasing here is the kind that drives me crazy.  "let everybody out".  That sounds like they were kicked out.  But that was not the case.  They were simply told that they could leave if they choose.  And while a lot of them remained because they knew it was what was best for them, even more did what the Supreme Court (not Ronald Reagan) said they could do:  leave.

So to be more accurate, why not state that the Supreme Court let out the crazies?  It is more accurate, since Governor (and later President Reagan) was simply in office when these things were done.

And going back to my original statement, should we return to the alternative?  Should we open mass-institutions, and round up all the crazies and put them back in?

Oh, and I have been homeless.  I have seen the mentally ill homeless.  Most of them could not give a damn about medication (unless it came in a Nighttrain bottle or some kind of narcotic).  And the news is constantly filled with stories of people who commit murders because they stop taking their medication.  And that is not even the homeless insane, but ones with families and jobs and who try to be "normal".



And I suppose all those people who chose to leave had the mental capacity to make that decision? You are preaching in circles, who has the Ultimate veto power??? You made my case of course they don't care about taking their meds, they are mentally ill remember?  But this country does not really give a flying rats ass about the mentally ill anyway.

Does your Autism prevent you from driving? It seems like you are capable of posting. If you can take care of yourself basically, maybe a supported apartment would be a good fit. I know lots of people with autism and other challenges that drive and function within society.

Just a thought


It takes me longer to learn some things. I never talked until I was 3 and I had to do a Math Class the third time before I passed.

It takes me longer to learn some things. I never talked until I was 3 and I had to do a Math Class the third time before I passed.


Keep trying You cn do anything you set your mind to you just have to try harder than others and you don't sound like a quitter to me. Good luck

It takes me longer to learn some things. I never talked until I was 3 and I had to do a Math Class the third time before I passed.

But you passed, they didn't just give it to you.  I had learning disabilities and I got exempted from all kinds of work.  They were trying to make their own jobs easier!  Didn't do me any favors, though!

The phrasing here is the kind that drives me crazy.  "let everybody out".  That sounds like they were kicked out.  But that was not the case.  They were simply told that they could leave if they choose.  And while a lot of them remained because they knew it was what was best for them, even more did what the Supreme Court (not Ronald Reagan) said they could do:  leave.

So to be more accurate, why not state that the Supreme Court let out the crazies?  It is more accurate, since Governor (and later President Reagan) was simply in office when these things were done.

And going back to my original statement, should we return to the alternative?  Should we open mass-institutions, and round up all the crazies and put them back in?

Oh, and I have been homeless.  I have seen the mentally ill homeless.  Most of them could not give a damn about medication (unless it came in a Nighttrain bottle or some kind of narcotic).  And the news is constantly filled with stories of people who commit murders because they stop taking their medication.  And that is not even the homeless insane, but ones with families and jobs and who try to be "normal".


Letting people out of State hospitals is one thing, proper care after being released is another matter.  If you have been in one for over three years you have no sense of reality.  The person usually does not know how to cope with dealing with social norms.  To some walking down a street is a scary stressful experience.  My question would be is it humane to send people out of a secure environment that they've known for year only to send them out into to the world to become victims of crimes, drug addicts?

Those homeless people who are mentally ill are the ones who have slipped through the cracks of the system.  I beg to differ about your assessment that most could not give a damn about medication.  Most Psychiatric medication have a calm and sometime numbing effect.  Coincidentally so does Nightquil.  Trade in one drug for another.  I was on medication since I was a kid.  Everything from antidepressant to mood stabilizers.  I stopped taking them because I wanted to be "normal".  When I did stop taking them, I became less angry because I get frustrated when I'm numb and take it out on people.  I also process things better now that I am off of them.  When I was on them I was very similar to the people you describe.  Having been off for five years I now have a job working for a organization that does health care lobbying for the state and I currently am majoring in Paralegal with a 3.0 average.



By the way people on Prozac and Zoloft have been known to commit murders too.

And I suppose all those people who chose to leave had the mental capacity to make that decision? You are preaching in circles, who has the Ultimate veto power??? You made my case of course they don't care about taking their meds, they are mentally ill remember?  But this country does not really give a flying rats ass about the mentally ill anyway.


Actually most people who do leave state hospitals have the mental capacity to make decisions, just not good coping skills.  They are interviewed and accessed before being able to leave.  As for caring about meds.  Yes, most do.

Letting people out of State hospitals is one thing, proper care after being released is another matter.  If you have been in one for over three years you have no sense of reality.  The person usually does not know how to cope with dealing with social norms.  To some walking down a street is a scary stressful experience.  My question would be is it humane to send people out of a secure environment that they've known for year only to send them out into to the world to become victims of crimes, drug addicts?

Those homeless people who are mentally ill are the ones who have slipped through the cracks of the system.  I beg to differ about your assessment that most could not give a damn about medication.  Most Psychiatric medication have a calm and sometime numbing effect.  Coincidentally so does Nightquil.  Trade in one drug for another.  I was on medication since I was a kid.  Everything from antidepressant to mood stabilizers.  I stopped taking them because I wanted to be "normal".  When I did stop taking them, I became less angry because I get frustrated when I'm numb and take it out on people.  I also process things better now that I am off of them.  When I was on them I was very similar to the people you describe.  Having been off for five years I now have a job working for a organization that does health care lobbying for the state and I currently am majoring in Paralegal with a 3.0 average.



By the way people on Prozac and Zoloft have been known to commit murders too.



A lot of psychiatric meds have unpleasant side effects ranging from somnolescence, to wight gain, to tardive dyskinesia.  Many people who suffer from severe mental illness won't take these medications unless they are coerced.  It's hard to blame thme when the meds make them feel terrible.  I've known some people with schizoaffective disorder, schizophrena, or bipolar disorder who are willing to put up with side effects provided the meds allow them to interpret reality and keep them from delusional/self-destructive/anti-social behaviors.  Unfortunately, there are people who suffer from delusions of persecution and paranoia.  They see doctors and mental health workers as part of the enemy control system and believe these professionals are on some sinister mission to repress the patient.  There is often a grain of truth in this, especially for those who receive substandard care.  

Disorientation and confusion are early symptoms of schizophrenic episodes.  When the psychiatric patient is discharged from custodial care and given a bottle of pills and told to show up at the case worker's office at 3:30 next Tuesday...surprise, surprise...the patient sometimes doesn't make the appointment because he or she is in a state of psychosis and too disoriented to remember when and where.  No clinic visit, no scrip.  No scrip, no meds.  Thus, some will turn to alcohol or street drugs, which may exacerbate the problem.  

Mr. Mushroom makes it sound as if the mentally ill are shiftless, lazy, criminal people who choose the madman lifestyle.  I could not disagree more strongly.  To be sure, it is not pleasant when a schizophrenic hopped up on fortified wine screams obscenities at you on the corner, but if they could truly act on free will, they would not be there!
::)


Actually most people who do leave state hospitals have the mental capacity to make decisions, just not good coping skills.  They are interviewed and accessed before being able to leave.  As for caring about meds.  Yes, most do.

I have suffered dysthymic depression all my life and experienced episodes of major depression.  You bet I care about getting the proper treatment.  However, my depression never led to bona-fide delusional thinking regarding the basics of reality.  It is important not to BLAME those who do suffer from an inability to interpret reality because it is not their fault.  This does not make up the majority of people who suffer from mental illness, but is likely to be the case with the ones disoriented in the streets. 

A lot of psychiatric meds have unpleasant side effects ranging from somnolescence, to wight gain, to tardive dyskinesia.  Many people who suffer from severe mental illness won't take these medications unless they are coerced.  It's hard to blame thme when the meds make them feel terrible.  I've known some people with schizoaffective disorder, schizophrena, or bipolar disorder who are willing to put up with side effects provided the meds allow them to interpret reality and keep them from delusional/self-destructive/anti-social behaviors.  Unfortunately, there are people who suffer from delusions of persecution and paranoia.  They see doctors and mental health workers as part of the enemy control system and believe these professionals are on some sinister mission to repress the patient.  There is often a grain of truth in this, especially for those who receive substandard care. 

Disorientation and confusion are early symptoms of schizophrenic episodes.  When the psychiatric patient is discharged from custodial care and given a bottle of pills and told to show up at the case worker's office at 3:30 next Tuesday...surprise, surprise...the patient sometimes doesn't make the appointment because he or she is in a state of psychosis and too disoriented to remember when and where.  No clinic visit, no scrip.  No scrip, no meds.  Thus, some will turn to alcohol or street drugs, which may exacerbate the problem. 

Mr. Mushroom makes it sound as if the mentally ill are shiftless, lazy, criminal people who choose the madman lifestyle.  I could not disagree more strongly.  To be sure, it is not pleasant when a schizophrenic hopped up on fortified wine screams obscenities at you on the corner, but if they could truly act on free will, they would not be there!
::)


Some of those side effects are worse than the illness that is being treated.  If a person is instructed on how to deal with the side effects usually it doesn't take much coercing to keep a person on meds.  For example, Depakote has been known to cause hair loss.  This is a big concern for people.  Most doctors will tell the person to take selenium in order to prevent that.  Yes, meds do work for some people.  I think part of the reason of non-compliance is the "trial and error" aspect of it.  It's tiresome and it makes some people feel like guinnie pigs.  It is the case managers job to make sure that their client gets proper care including getting to doctors appointments.  If this is not happening the case manager IS NOT doing their job.

I'm going to assume Mr. Mushroom does not know anything about John Nash.  Nobel Prize winner and he is a Paranoid Schziophrantic.  Every who has a mental illness is different.  The illness is a individualized as people themselves.

Some of those side effects are worse than the illness that is being treated.  If a person is instructed on how to deal with the side effects usually it doesn't take much coercing to keep a person on meds.  For example, Depakote has been known to cause hair loss.  This is a big concern for people.  Most doctors will tell the person to take selenium in order to prevent that.  Yes, meds do work for some people.  I think part of the reason of noncompliance is the "trial and error" aspect of it.  It's tiresome and it makes some people feel like guinnie pigs.  It is the case managers job to make sure that their client gets proper care including getting to doctors appointments.  If this is not happening the case manager IS NOT doing their job.

I'm going to assume Mr. Mushroom does not know anything about John Nash.  Nobel Prize winner and he is a Paranoid Schziophrantic.  Every who has a mental illness is different.  The illness is a individualized as people themselves.


Granted some meds have horrific side effects, hair loss being one of the lesser. But their are still some people who regardless of interviews assessments whatever can "slick" the system and get out. What we need is better educated case workers and more of them.
Otherwise we end up with people pushing other people under trains cause"the voices told them to do it. What we need is to get rid of "meat market assembly line mental health care in this country.
I can assure you people do not choose to work in this field for monetary reasons. It is because we care about people, and grew up witnessing things like the Willowbrook and Letchworth village scandals. If you  are unfamiliar with this look it up please.

Granted some meds have horrific side effects, hair loss being one of the lesser. But their are still some people who regardless of interviews assessments whatever can "slick" the system and get out. What we need is better educated case workers and more of them.
Otherwise we end up with people pushing other people under trains cause"the voices told them to do it. What we need is to get rid of "meat market assembly line mental health care in this country.
I can assure you people do not choose to work in this field for monetary reasons. It is because we care about people, and grew up witnessing things like the Willowbrook and Letchworth village scandals. If you  are unfamiliar with this look it up please.


Yes, I know.  I have a friend who has thyroid cancer because of Lithium.  As for a person "slicking" the system.  Those who can "slick" the system are often the once that survive.  Those who are let out and have very little real cognitive skill are the ones who end up pushing people under trains.

I realize that most people enter into the field with the best of intentions not for the money.  Psychiatry and Case Management are horribly paid positions. The only thing we can hope for is a more progressive treatment of mental illness.

Yes, I know.  I have a friend who has thyroid cancer because of Lithium.  As for a person "slicking" the system.  Those who can "slick" the system are often the once that survive.  Those who are let out and have very little real cognitive skill are the ones who end up pushing people under trains.

I realize that most people enter into the field with the best of intentions not for the money.  Psychiatry and Case Management are horribly paid positions. The only thing we can hope for is a more progressive treatment of mental illness.


What pisses me off is that I try to get disability...but I get denied. Wheras, some guy who's addicted to drugs get disability.

It's like I'm the American and he's the Mexican. >:(

What pisses me off is that I try to get disability...but I get denied. Wheras, some guy who's addicted to drugs get disability.

It's like I'm the American and he's the Mexican. >:(


Most forms of Autism are not listed as disabilities by Social Security.  They haven't really caught up with the times.  Sometimes it comes down to "well you look fine."  If you're a drug addict for a number of years it does take a toll on the body.  Keep appealing.