For-Profit Corporations Are Buying Up More Psychiatric Hospitals. Some Flout Federal Law With Scarce Repercussions. - sh.itjust.works
sh.itjust.works
Shields and other researchers have repeatedly flagged concerns about lower quality of care at mental health facilities owned by for-profit corporations, in part due to efforts to cut staff and reduce costs. Companies have defended the quality of care they provide. ProPublica reported Monday that over 90 psychiatric hospitals across the country have violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in the past 15 years. The vast majority of them — around 80% — are owned by for-profit corporations. Yet only a handful have faced any consequences from either the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, both of which are responsible for regulating the law. In the rare cases when hospitals have faced fines, the penalties have been trivial compared to the earnings of each for-profit hospital chain, the investigation found.

Ok, on a thread about how psychiatric hospitals are getting gobbled up by private equity, and treatment standards are plummetting, I say, that if you actually wanna stop this, you have to overthrow the government and abolish corporations, otherwise, you’re complicit.

Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to get into a discussion about tacit vs explicit consent to be governed, or anything like that.

Here’s the post url again:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/46618629

But uh, yeah, jawbone all you like, don’t change nothin’ in a fascist state.

So, then after a brief exchange, where I remind pele that his retort he tried on me last time I said something like that of ‘Where are you from / You’re not American’, I remind him of the last time we danced that dance.

Here’s that older exchange, for context:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/45775934/20923933

He then thanks me for that reminder, deletes my original comment, bans me from his comm.

Problem: He banned me for “rule 5, promoting violence”.

Here’s rule 5 on the sidebar:

Here’s the instance rules:

Nothing about advocating violence.

I would also go so far as to say that uh, he intervened and made an uncivil comment.

… Am I… missing some hidden rules… somewhere?

Also… did I explicitly promote violence?

By saying:

“Overthrow the government. Abolish corporations.”

???

Is it impossible to do many nonviolent things to pressure a regime to change, a major policy to be reworked, with a sufficient amount of people?

Anyway, yep, there we go, I submit this to the evaluation of fellow m@teys and any other interested passersby.

bonus

pele, if you show up here, I Iiterally do not care what you have to say, I have blocked you to improve my lemmy experience.

  • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    6 days ago

    Alright, so, you’ve conflicted yourself here, by saying overthrowing a government is the same as firing someone, but then agreeing with me that it’s usually a violent endeavor. This is especially amazing when you compound it with the fact that you claim violence is specific to people. Fun.

    Now, moving on…

    No, by definition, it targets living beings.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

    There is no such clause by definition.

    WTF? From where did you pull that shit out?

    Why would you bring up Nazis if you clearly know so little about what happened in WW2?

    Journalists or editors who failed to follow these instructions could be fired or, if believed to be acting with intent to harm Germany, sent to a concentration camp.

    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-press-in-the-third-reich

    Regardless of whether they lived in the German Reich or in the occupied nations, media professionals like Carl von Ossietzky, Milena Jesenská, and Titus Anno Brandsma who were involved in the resistance were often arrested, deported to concentration camps, and mistreated; many of them were killed.

    https://arolsen-archives.org/en/news/nazi-germanys-schriftleitergesetz-the-end-of-freedom-of-the-press/

    Here’s an article about how they executed an associated press war reporter.

    https://niemanreports.org/the-story-behind-the-execution-of-ap-reporter-joseph-morton-during-ww2/

    It’s honestly embarrassing that you brought up Nazis but couldn’t even back it without personal attacks.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Gerlich

    And it’s not a straw man if I’m just bringing up a part of your analogy you didn’t understand.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
      53·
      6 days ago

      Alright, so, you’ve conflicted yourself here, by saying overthrowing a government is the same as firing someone, but then agreeing with me that it’s usually a violent endeavor. This is especially amazing when you compound it with the fact that you claim violence is specific to people. Fun.

      Not conflicted at all. I know revolutions can often involve violence. I ask you to think who initiates the violence. but you’re not going to do that.

      Journalists or editors who failed to follow these instructions could be fired or, if believed to be acting with intent to harm Germany, sent to a concentration camp.

      Did I say explicitly about being inside Nazi Germany? No, you just assumed that because you thought you got an easy gotcha and could spam links to seem smart. You’re also massively disingenuous if you think I support the actions of Nazi Germany towards their critics.

      But it’s interesting to see you claim that the correct course of action while inside a fascist regime is not to resist it, because it would retaliate violently. You sound like you’d be the perfect collaborator with them.

      • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        6 days ago

        Not conflicted at all. I know revolutions can often involve violence. I ask you to think who initiates the violence. but you’re not going to do that.

        You stated first that overthrowing a government isn’t violent and is akin to firing someone, and then later agreed that overthrowing a government is usually violent. These points are plainly contradictory, and asking “who initiates the violence,” is a transparent attempt to shift the narrative.

        Did I say explicitly about being inside Nazi Germany?

        Yes, you did. I took a screenshot.

        db0 starting a paragraph with "Imagine living in the times of Nazi Germany,"

        And if you were, for reasons unfathomable, talking about a journalist outside Nazi Germany, why? That’s a blatant false equivalency. I have very clearly stated that I’m talking about someone who could be realistically targeted for their opinions, a position influenced by the history you’re trying to bastardize.

        But it’s interesting to see you claim that the correct course of action while inside a fascist regime is not to resist it, because it would retaliate violently.

        Whee, doggy! Now that’s a straw man! What I actually said, easily visible above, is that I understand why someone would want to preserve themselves, but you go off.

        I’ve had fun here (lie), but I’m tired, I’m done, and I’m going to bed (truth).

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
          51·
          6 days ago

          You stated first that overthrowing a government isn’t violent and is akin to firing someone, and then later agreed that overthrowing a government is usually violent.

          Since you insist on being spoon fed: Overthrowing the government is not violent. A [state] government’s reaction to not being followed by the people is usually violent. I want to think you can understand the difference and implications of this, but at this point, I doubt it. If your argument is “let’s never overthrow governments, because they retaliate violently”, then you’re effectively a willing fascist collaborator.

          And if you were, for reasons unfathomable, talking about a journalist outside Nazi Germany, why? That’s a blatant false equivalency.

          Yes, I was in fact referring to someone outside Nazi Germany which is why I chose my words very carefully, and which person you would clearly praise being silenced from a public forum for asking to overthrow Nazi Germany. It is not a false equivalency. It’s exactly analogous what you’re going right now.

          I have very clearly stated that I’m talking about someone who could be realistically targeted for their opinions, a position influenced by the history you’re trying to bastardize.

          What? You are claiming you are in fact trying to protect @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com from retaliation for posting their opinion in a public forum? I repeat: Are you for real?

          Whee, doggy! Now that’s a straw man!

          That’s the exact implication of your statements until this point.

          • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            12·
            6 days ago

            Either your literacy or your morality needs work, because you have misrepresented or misunderstood every single thing I have said from the beginning. I’m tired of this. It’s ridiculous. I can’t argue against constant logical fallacies. Maybe tomorrow you’ll come back and see how “You are claiming you are in fact trying to protect @/sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com from retaliation for posting their opinion in a public forum?” was completely incorrect or how a forum host that could be touched by a fascist regime is different from an editor that can’t be. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll realize how shitty you’ve been accusing me of being a Nazi sympathizer because of the conclusions you’ve jumped to. But I don’t care anymore. I’m done. This is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever had and I’ll have no further part.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
              51·
              6 days ago

              Oh thank fuck, I was planning to disengage after this point because you’re incapable of expressing a clear opinion and your reading comprehension is clearly shot (not a call to violence btw)