Mental Health and the Hillary Hostage Situation

I don't know anything more about Leeland Eisenberg--the 40-something year old man who held Hillary Clinton's campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire, hostage for several hours this afternoon--than what's being reported on network news. But the ordeal--which thankfully ended without any casualties--ought to focus attention on the dire state of mental health care in this country. More than a third of this country's homeless population have severe mental health issues, including schizophrenia and manic depression. At least one in every six inmates in America have been diagnosed with serious mental health conditions.

The gutting of public mental health services began with Reagan, first in California where he closed state-funded mental health facilities. As president he cut aid for federally-funded community-run mental health programs. The result: thousands of more homeless people in California and nationwide and a spike in the prison population. The New York Times recently reported that despite a rapid rise in the suicide rate in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the city has half of its psychiatrists, social workers and mental health care workers.

Just this year, John Broderick, the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, drew attention to this crisis when his son was released from prison. Suffering from depression and severe anxiety, Broderick's son injured him in a violent attack in 2002 and served three years in prison. As Broderick noted in a press conference earlier this year, only 1.5 percent of New Hampshire's prison budget went to mental health services.

Without appearing to capitalize on the situation, Clinton, and all elected officials, can and should take this incident as an opportunity to emphasize the importance of mental health services in any health care package, criminal justice reform, and indeed, in any vision of what a more caring, safer America looks like.

Comments (38)

1. turn on the t.v.

   turn on the news.

   what you get,

   is the hack 'em up blues.

   go the movies,

   what do you see?

   hacking a-plenty,

   "it's in 3-D!"

   play a new game,

   to maim, rape, and kill,

   blow up the bad guy,

   "oooooooh, what a thrill!"

   rated M for "mature",

   or maybe, visual manure,

   with thoughts so unpure,

   the gun is my lure.......................

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/30/2007 @ 11:51pm

2. yeah, consider the fact that many mentally ill people commit crimes and are uninsured...

   there is still a stigma concerning mental illness. its a shame since in fact so much progress has been made in recent years. with treatment and support who knows how many homeless might find employment, how many suicides and homicides might be avoided...

   and with all the ptsd vets coming home...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2007 @ 12:18am

3. and with all the ptsd vets coming home...

   Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/01/2007 @ 12:18am

   maybe in 2053................

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 12:29am

4. Most mentally ill people are not dangerous to others, though they are at risk themselves.

   Most mental illness is treatable, even if it is not curable.

   These are the facts that we need to know -- and that are obscured when all we hear about the mentally ill is that some untreated individual has endangered or molested somebody else in a public way. This sensationalism feeds the misconception that the mentally ill are all criminals who deserve incarceration, not suffering people who could do much better with treatment. Those of us who know someone with a mental illness who treats it successfully, and who leads a well-managed, responsible, and even productive life in spite of it, know better.

   For more information, look up the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI).

   Posted by JakobFabian at 12/01/2007 @ 01:22am

5. But here's the interesting twist on the story...

   "New Hampshire State Police Col. Frederick Booth said Eisenberg had strapped highway flares to his body, held a detonator that gave the appearance he was holding an improvised explosive device and demanded to speak with Clinton. Clinton had offered to cooperate, Booth said, but police negotiators did not want her to talk with Eisenberg."

   So, to make it clear, Hillary Clinton is willing to talk directly and unconditionally with a terrorist, but she's not willing to do the same with Iran's president or other foriegn leaders the US and/or Israel frowns upon.

   Considering that Howard Dean committed political suicide by going "Yaargh!", this seems like it really should be a much bigger deal than it is.

   Posted by Mark Kraft at 12/01/2007 @ 06:18am

6. Posted by MARK KRAFT 12/01/2007 @ 06:18am

   Really cheap shot Mr. Kraft. I'd say "nice try" but it wasn't either of those things. You don't "make it clear" at all, you just troll with no bait on the hook.

   Those of us who have compassion for American citizens with mental health problems are glad not only for the safety of those taken hostage but also for the safety (and hopefully treatment) of Mr. Eisenberg. Hillary, unlike you, quickly recognized the difference between Mr. Eisenberg from New Hampshire and Mr. Ahmadinejad from Iran.

   On the more important topic of the article - I agree that the candidates should ensure that mental health is addressed as part of health plans in general. Clinton's plan summary does claim to provide "at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity..."

   But where does The Nation stand on the issues surrounding Senator Obama's less-than-stellar health plan? And why haven't we heard about Obama's "triangulating" in adopting Republican talking points and falsely claiming that his incomplete plan is better than Clinton's and Edwards'?

   KVH if you ever read these things, I really hope you don't endorse Obama. Too many people need health care, and the market has to be brought under control; his plan just doesn't cut it.

   Posted by ccorbell at 12/01/2007 @ 08:27am

7. I love it when people complain that everything is the government's fault.

   Mentally ill people do get treatment from the state. The problem is that not everyone wants to continue taking his medication once he is out of the state's care. For whatever the reason: thinking one's cured, don't like the side effects, one stops, and the next thing you know he's back to causing trouble again.

   And yes the continuing treatment is covered by Medicaid if one is unable to pay for it. It's up to one to be responsible for his actions, not the government.

   Posted by Zeddmen at 12/01/2007 @ 08:31am

8. Posted by ZEDDMEN 12/01/2007 @ 08:31am

   so why do we have police?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2007 @ 09:26am

9. So the deprivations against the mentally ill began under Reagan eh, Mr KIM. If we still have the problem, though, then such deprivation must have continued under Clinton, right Mr KIM?

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/01/2007 @ 09:28am

10. Posted by ZEDDMEN 12/01/2007 @ 08:31am |

    well it varies from state to state, the level of care for the mentally ill. in mine many were turned out into the street some 15 years ago supposedly to try to transition them into normal life, but in fact budget was simultaneusly...

    eventually the large numbers of mentally ill homeless and community housed, barely treated offended middle class sensibilities and renewed attention/funding is now being allocated in my state.

    mentally ill refuseing to take meds is indeed a recurring problem...they are indeed mentally ill, after all. some mental illness comes and goes to...

    but in my state often indigent and poor mentally ill are discharged from acute facilities with say 2-3 weeks of meds and the backlog of cases in state supported community health centers is so bad that they don't see another professional who can dispense meds for 2-3 months! i suspect this situation exists in other states as well...

    again...its a rough deal...those who have good insurance often do not utilize their insurance for fear of the stigma of mental illness (including with their employers). tragic, in that with timely treatment many mental illnesses can be "nipped in the bud" and dealt with effectively, timely, and before they cause too much disruption to the sufferer's life - just like with physical illnesses. in fact many mental illnesses have a physiological componant that simply happens to affect the brain - a physical organ, you know...

    but those who suffer from severe mental illness are very likely to not only be uninsured but unemployed - largely as a result of their illness..

    which puts mental illness firmly within the broader problem of the national healthcare crisis in general...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2007 @ 11:56am

11. Hillary won't do anything to address the issue this man illegally tried to highlight. (sadly, would ANY one be talking about it if he hadn't?). Neither will Obama. And we know none of the Republicans will. So, narrow it down folks. You who's left on that short list.

    Posted by neaguy at 12/01/2007 @ 3:43pm

12. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/01/2007 @ 10:22am | ignore this person

    It was as simple minded then as it is now. Denial of objective truth is what makes the reich wing so susceptible to manipulation by mere, vox populi, opinion.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/01/2007 @ 09:28am | ignore this person

    Take a deep breath ... that was childish. (See below)

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 12/01/2007 @ 08:31am | ignore this person

    Though you may, as I have not checked them, have certain"facts" in a rather narrow and limited way, correct. Your sentiment and the reality of the mentally ill being dumped on the streets under Reagan are mutually exclusive. They both cannot be true.

    Posted by V at 12/01/2007 @ 3:49pm

13. If someone believe they have good mental health because that is what the sum of thier life experiences leads them to conclude, then it is a tautological truth that the are sane.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/01/2007 @ 10:22am

    If that's really what William James meant then he was simply wrong. There are people who are so severely mentally ill that they can't even hold a job, yet they will maintain that they are not ill. Modern science, modern medicine and the simple observation of human behavior tell us differently. People will often report opinions about their own subjective states that are at odds with their observable behavior, even in the absence of serious mental illness. The fact that this is more common among conservatives, among those who believe it is a weakness to admit to any abnormality, true or not, shouldn't surprise anyone. Some of my conservative relatives won't even admit that I'm mentally ill ('cause then they'd be related to a mentally ill person), let alone that they might benefit from consulting a psychiatrist themselves, even just for conventional psychotherapy.

    To those who think we know how to treat mental illness - you're wrong. It doesn't matter what NAMI says. Sometimes schizophrenics stop taking their medications because they think they're healthy, that is, because the medication didn't actually treat all the aspects of their disease. The medications can also bring with them side effects that are worse than the disease. Mentally ill people don't usually stop taking medication because they simply don't want to. They stop the medication because the medication is itself a source of pain and damage. I've had my life damaged by my own illness and I've had my life damaged the medications I took. Sometimes the medications simply don't work.

    Medications can reduce the symptoms of an illness and for the lucky ones that's all they do. For many of us it is a constant battle between the problems of the illness and the problems of the medication. We can help many people with mental illness through the use of medications but it's wrong to say that we can effectively treat mental illness. Forcing people to take medication is no better than from simply putting them in prison. (When those medications don't actually work or bring side effects worse than the illness it's more like torture.)

    If you really want to reduce the violence associated with mental illness the reduce the desperation the mentally ill experience. Get rid of the stigma, so we don't have to fear losing our jobs. Provide a real welfare system, like the ones they have in those evil "liberal" democracies of Europe, so if we can't hold on to a job we can still put a roof over our heads and feed ourselves. Provide real health care like the other twenty-four industrial nations do, so we can get the treatment we need regardless of our financial situation. The best anti-psychotic medications often aren't covered by insurance, even if you have it, 'cause, well, they're the most expensive. Taking a medication that doesn't work just because it's cheap doesn't work. (There are doctors who refuse to take Medicaid because it doesn't pay adequately for their services. You can't get adequate treatment, let alone a prescription, if you can't get in to a doctor. Medicaid is wholly inadequate.) The best health care systems in the world are based on a single payer model. Why is it Americans don't deserve the best? Why don't Americans want to help their neighbors and reduce the level of desperation and violence in their society?

    Posted by leo777 at 12/01/2007 @ 7:27pm

14. So, to make it clear, Hillary Clinton is willing to talk directly and unconditionally with a terrorist, but she's not willing to do the same with Iran's president or other foriegn leaders the US and/or Israel frowns upon.

    Posted by MARK KRAFT 12/01/2007 @ 06:18am

    Senator Clinton handled this situation exactly the way she said she would handle diplomacy, by letting the experts do the work and make the decisions, calling her in only if and when she was needed. The most charitable way of describing your statement is "willful ignorance".

    Posted by leo777 at 12/01/2007 @ 7:52pm

15. Wasn't there a little something called "deinstitutionalization" and the ACLU as well back in the 70s?

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2007 @ 8:09pm

16. Wasn't there a little something called "deinstitutionalization" and the ACLU as well back in the 70s?

    Posted by MASK 12/01/2007 @ 8:09pm

    Apples and oranges but they're both fruit, right? Preventing people from being forced into hospitals and preventing people from getting into hospitals both have the word "preventing" in them, don't they? And they're both about hospitals, too! Wow, they must be the same thing!

    Posted by leo777 at 12/01/2007 @ 8:33pm

17. Posted by LEO777 12/01/2007 @ 8:33pm

    What if Leeland Eisenberg didn't want to go to a hospital, but his doctor or therapist told authorities they anticipated what Eisenberg would in New Hampshire?

    Plus, as MADLIB asked "Go ask any crazy homeless person if they're crazy".

    So, how do you get them into a hospital?

    BTW, was there an actual denial that the ACLU had facilitated the move to "deinstitutionalization"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2007 @ 9:10pm

18. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/01/2007 @ 10:14am

    So you're saying that:

    Pat Robertson George W. Bush Dick Cheney Rush Limbaugh Ann Coulter Norman Podhoretz Drag Queen Rudia Mitt Romney And all their evangelical Republican base and brethren that believe the world was created in 7 days in 4004 B.C. (or thereabouts) all have better mental health than the likes of Nation writers and editors, professional biologists, geologists, climatologists, etc., etc., etc.? (Polls have also demonstrated that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to be Democrats.) Truly, the inmates have taken over the asylum, methinks....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/01/2007 @ 10:07pm

19. What I interpret is that Eisenberg came to the Clinton headquarters because of the discussion going on between Dems around health care. Reps will not even acknowledge there is a problem, in fact they did not acknowledge a problem with the military until the press found about the W Reed Hospital.

    Evidently if he made such bold statement it is because: 1) He is aware he has a problem 2) He wants somehow to get treated (like in Tv his son in law told to the news). 3) Most likely he is NOT able to get treatment because he cannot pay for it.

    As someone said there if you ask a homeless person he/she will tell you he is fine but just needs cash. That is exactly what a Rep will respond to the question of mental health, not acknowledging anything beyond his selfishness.

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/02/2007 @ 12:30am

20. and refuse to give him credit (along with Pope JP and PM Thatcher) for winning the cold war without ever firing a shot?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/02/2007 @ 10:01am

    yeah!

    he even sold weapons to iran AND iraq.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 10:30am

21. Study after study shows that conservative Christians enjoy happier lives, better sex, and now indicating the obvious, better mental health.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/02/2007 @ 12:22

    I am curious as to these surveys. They make three claims;

    1.Happier Lives - "Happy" is an extremely vague (and relevant to the time/context it is ask in), term. How does one truly compare levels of happiness.

    2. Better sex - Do conservatives, who find alot of human sexuality abhorrent, even define "good sex" the same way non-inhibited people do?

    3. Better mental health - Ignoring for a bit, the fact that asking anyone about their mental health, usually elicits a positive response. How can you compare the opinions of those who think psychotherapy is evil, there's an invisible man in the sky and they were made "perfect", in their gods image, to people who acknowledge their faults and try to grow.

    All other differences aside, there seems to be a very good chance that the terminology used in the questions, means different things to the people polled, thus rendering their answers non-comparable.

    Just wondered if you had considered that.

    Eric

    Posted by Eric65 at 12/02/2007 @ 1:04pm

22. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/02/2007 @ 2:07pm

    Thanks for the response.

    I still feel strongly, however, that you cannot directly, compare the "happiness" of one who wishes (as most do) that there life was "better", to someone who thinks this is all just a trial run for eternity.

    If I believed that, no matter what happened, this was just a test/training for eternity and that god would eventually reward me for any deprivation AND, most especially that there was a guaranteed better existence after this one...I too, would have a rosier outlook.

    I still think it is an apples to oranges comparison.

    Posted by Eric65 at 12/02/2007 @ 2:54pm

23. * of course, then I would be delusional...but I'd be happier.

    Posted by Eric65 at 12/02/2007 @ 2:55pm

24. *Their life.

    I contstantly screw that one up. Dammit.

    Posted by Eric65 at 12/02/2007 @ 2:56pm

25. Posted by ZERO 12/01/2007 @ 2:29pm

    i agree with zero on this. are we going to criminalize another large chunk of society for not purchasing health insurance? is this the way to solve the health problems here? this "solution" is ridiculous. i'm sure the insurance companies are salivating at the prospect.

    Posted by loveloki at 12/03/2007 @ 11:44am

26. LvLiberty-Those of us who worked in the mental health field are aware that conservative Christians do not lead happier and more mentally stable lives.Like drug addiction and alcoholism, mental illness affects all groups equally.Get out of your fantasy world.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 12:15pm

27. MBB-It would be impossible to get statistics on mental health by political affiliation.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 12:30pm

28. Lvliberty-My views are based on reality and yours are based on personal prejudice and an unscientific "study".I worked in federal,state,county,and private facilities in 4 different states in three different parts of the country. It is known that people who describe themselves as very happy frequently are not.In fact,the opposite is true.The people you have to worry about the least are those who describe themselves as being happy,but you do need to worry about those who describe themselves as very happy unless there is a recent event that would account for their being very happy.The following types frequently describe themselves as very happy-people who have decided to commit suicide,people on anti depressants,depressed people,people with a severe mental illness..Very happy quite often means very unhappy.My former evangelical mother in law told everyone she was very happy even though it was obvious that she was not.She finally admitted to being very depressed and is now on anti depressants.She said that she told people that she was very happy because she thought that being depressed showed a lack of faith in God and didn't want people to think she lacked faith.I'm afraid that you folks are not happier or more mentally stable.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 1:50pm

29. Lvliberty-Gallup and Pew do not have access to everyones mental health records and simply ask leading questions that have no relevance to the issue of mental health.In the real world mentally unhealthy people don't always know that they are mentally unhealthy so they can't comment on the state of their own mental health..The student who shot his fellow students at Virginia tech thought he was normal and everyone else was screwed up.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 1:57pm

30. LvLiberty-If you catch a drug addict or an alcoholic at the right time they'll say that they're very happy,too.Do you believe that they really are very happy people?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 2:48pm

31. LvLiberty-I noticed that you couldn't refute any of what I wrote so you wrote a general put down where you changed what I said.I did not even imply that mental health workers decide who is really happy.I stated facts about people who frequently describe themselves as very happy.I showed that just because someone describes themselves as very happy does not mean that they're mentally healthy.You,obviously,have no clue as to how many very happy people are not that way naturally.Many need help from the psychiatric profession,local liquor store,corner drug dealer,physician,etc.Alcoholics Anonymous meetings have lots of conservative Christians at them.Republicans,too. Mental health workers aren't even on the list for highest suicides by profession.Protestants commit suicide the most when going by religion though,but the radical Muslims are trying to catch up.I don't see how one can be very happy and still feel compassion and empathy with those less fortunate than themselves.I prefer to seek inner joy and calm to happiness since happiness is a situational emotion that must exclude compassion and empathy.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 3:51pm

32. LvLiberty-Look at the studies on Bible readership and knowledge of Christianity and then get back to me on how many of these people are Christians.I saw one study that showed that more Christians could name more of Santa's reindeer than apostles.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 4:00pm

33. Posted by I'M NOBODY 12/03/2007 @ 4:00pm

    Really?!

    Brothers Simon Peter and Andrew, brothers James and John, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Thaddaeus, Matthew, Mark, John, and Judas Iscariot.

    Matthias was chosen to replace Judas and Saul (Paul) of Tarsus is considered by some to be the 13th apostle because he considered himself to be "born out of season".

    On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer and Vixen, on Comet, on Cupid, on Donder and Blitzen...

    Posted by ACook at 12/03/2007 @ 6:20pm

34. Abou5 hapiness, mental health and so on...

    Happiness: Reps: love money, are mostly work slaves, love war, love to feel safe (so they're really personally extremely unsecure), love 'law and order', think that as long as they are OK they don't give a s. for the rest, they love to bear arms, they hate all other races mostly (not to talk about sex orientation), they think any other political system is doomed, they say their faith will save them not what they actually do, they are AFRAID of anything new.... do you picture that person, does someone think he/she can truly be happy??? Just look at Mr. Cheney's face...

    Mental Health: Tragedies like the school shootings, or for ex. the Waco tragedy, are fed by such strong believe in arms and violence (a Rep emblema) and religious 'beliefs' taken to the extremes, another Rep blind faith teaching.... so we decide, does someone think that people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, or Rumsfeld sleep well every night with all the harm they have caused?? Do they know what is 100,000 or more Iraqis dead? Besides of course our beloved 3,800 or so. If they do sleep well (you bet), they are the mad people!!

    Posted by Frank42 at 12/04/2007 @ 12:49am

35. Posted by FRANK42 12/04/2007 @ 12:49am

    speaking of mental health............... [liberalsmustdie.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/04/2007 @ 01:02am

36. and a little more mental health:

    Yahoo's Top 10 search terms list for 2007:

    Britney Spears,

    WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment),

    Paris Hilton,

    Naruto,

    Beyonce,

    Lindsay Lohan,

    Rune Scape,

    Fantasy Football,

    Fergie,

    and Jessica Alba.

    ah, the search for nirvana.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/04/2007 @ 01:30am

37. great topic choice. republicans are crazy.

    Posted by Will C. at 12/04/2007 @ 10:31pm

38. I work in a Public Defender's Office in Florida. In the early 1980's we had one small hospital unit in the jail where the mentally ill were placed. Today there are tier after tier after tier of sick people. We have gone from treating the mentally ill in community clinics to chaining them to the walls of Bedlam. There is no excuse for this inhumane, brutal disgrace to be occurring in the 21st century. You can judge a society by how it treats the most vunerable.

    Posted by rbruno at 12/06/2007 @ 12:10pm