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.

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    102·
    4 days ago

    So if you’re living under a fascist regime, you claim that saying “overthrow the government” is a violent act and deserves sanction? U for real?

    • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      23·
      4 days ago

      To “overthrow” something has an inherently violent undertone unless you’re talking about literally throwing an object too far. Additionally, most public spaces don’t enjoy being host to calls for violence or calls to bring down governments because things like that can easily result in sanctions against them. Passing blame to the people is also absurd, just as I don’t blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government and I don’t blame all Germans for the actions of the Nazis.

      It seems like common sense to me that “Be excellent” would extend to things beyond the immediate list, and “Overthrow your government or you’re a fascist,” is not excellent.

      In short, yes, overthrowing a government is inherently violent, no it is not inherently wrong, and yes, I believe it is fair a public space might not want to host that.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        93·
        4 days ago

        A government overthrow is not inherently violent. This is an absurd take. “Violence” is against people not institutions (or windows)!

        And no, it’s not fair for a public political space to suppress anti-status-quo political statements.

        Imagine living in the times of Nazi Germany, and you’re the clueless monkey who praises newspaper editors taking down articles who claim the Nazi Germany government should probably be overthrown!

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          41·
          3 days ago

          You’re kinda glossing over the idea that words have meaning.

          You can say overthrow the government and mean it in a hyperbolic way where you are actually saying “organize and vote them out” BUT it also evokes images of violent overthrow.

          It is illegal in many places to advocate for that.

          Hosting that content in many places can make you responsible for it.

          You don’t have to agree but you ought to at least be able to understand.

        • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          24·
          4 days ago

          An institution is made up of people. Regardless of that, violence can target anything. And as far as government overthrow goes, I suppose it doesn’t have to be violent (making my use of “inherently” incorrect, I admit), but the fact is, it usually is, because more often than not, that’s the only realistic option. Stories such as Bolsonaro are uncommon at best, and in the context of the US, functionally impossible at this point.

          With regards to “suppressing anti-status-quo political statements,” I’m moreso speaking of a group not large enough to effectively defend itself attempting to insulate itself from potential retaliation.

          Edit:

          Imagine living in the times of Nazi Germany, and you’re the clueless monkey who praises newspaper editors taking down articles who claim the Nazi Germany government should probably be overthrown!

          Nice edit btw. Not shitty at all. The newspaper editors would be killed in the context you propose, which is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m not a “monkey praising them” like you said so assholishly, I’m the guy who understands that they’re trying not to get fucking shot in the head.

          As of that edit, I’m done speaking to you on this. Goodbye.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
            62·
            4 days ago

            An institution is made up of people

            Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? You’re overthrowing (i.e. changing) the institution, not performing violence against the people in it! This is such an inane take, like saying that them people losing their job as corporate bureaucrats is “violence”.

            Regardless of that, violence can target anything.

            No, by definition, it targets living beings.

            but the fact is, it usually is, because more often than not, that’s the only realistic option.

            Now you’re getting close to the truth. Now ask the next question. Who actually initiates violence during government changes…?

            The newspaper editors would be killed in the context you propose,

            WTF? From where did you pull that shit out? You’re conflating “overthrowing of government” with “kill all politicians”. That speaks more about you, than it does of me.

            Also nice dodge in not actually addressing my historical analogy. Just strawman your own where I said something completely different.

            • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              2·
              4 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·
                4 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·
                  4 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·
                    4 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.