Election affecting psychology

[mshbe]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

There are threads about this in a couple of the other forums, but I was curious what you all thought...

What do you think would be the effect (if any) on psychology for each of the candidates? Would we see any differences in the science end with government allocations for mental health and behavioral research, or at the practitioner end in terms of different mental health insurance plans? What will be the differences between the 3 current candidates and the effect it may have on our field, and which do you agree with?

 

[pinknyyy]

The only thing I can see is if one of the Dems gets elected and manages to pull off universal health care.... that may or may not open up the possibility of counseling/therapy/mental health help to more individuals if it happens to cover that sort of thing. Otherwise, I'm not sure if they really put a lot of thought into the mental health aspect of healthcare.

One other possibility is the news coverage that PTSD and other related disorders are getting in reference to the troops coming home and how they don't get adequate mental health care. Getting psych. treatments will no longer affect their security clearance if they go in for work related reasons so that will be good for everyone.

 

[teammonkeys123]

There are threads about this in a couple of the other forums, but I was curious what you all thought...

What do you think would be the effect (if any) on psychology for each of the candidates? Would we see any differences in the science end with government allocations for mental health and behavioral research, or at the practitioner end in terms of different mental health insurance plans? What will be the differences between the 3 current candidates and the effect it may have on our field, and which do you agree with?

Barack and Hillary's health care plans are similar enough in that they are for mental health parity, but I like how Barack explains why he's for it by acknowledging the prevalence of mental illness and the need to improve mental health care and speaks about the financial and non-financial costs of not treating mental illnesses. In light of the news about the Bush administration pressuring the EPA on their research and forcing scientists out, I'm skeptical about a Republican being helpful to research.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Any of the three do not have our best interests at heart in regard to healthcare and mental health treatment. Dr. Paul had the best approach, but he isn't going to be a realistic option this go around. Obama has at least acknowledged mental health as a challenge, but it is yet to be seen if any of the three can put together a workable solution, as the currently proposed plans leave a lot to be desired. Ultimately the devil is in the details, and there aren't enough details to say for sure, but the current Universal Healthcare (which is a bit of a misnomer) is not in our best interest as citizens or providers in the current drafts. The tax $'s it will cost will overwhelm other initiatives and lead to cuts. The reimbursements are TBD, but considering the poor job we have done on educating the politicians on what we do as a profession, I wouldn't hold my breath expecting better reimbursement rates. If anything, we'd probably get chopped down at the knees and lose out to the much better organized (politically) mid-level providers.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

It probably depends on what you actually do in the field.

My job (or as we like to call it, "mission") will be basically the same regardless of who is president.

 

[psychanon]

The current administration has made it difficult to get any grants having anything to do with relationship research or anything that seems similarly "soft" funded, and any grants having to do with GLB research near impossible to fund. I have no idea how a Clinton, Obama, or McCain administration would differ, but I would think that at least the Dems would be less likely to preclude funding of things like GLB research.

 

[Ollie123]

I only recently found out that historically, Republicans have funded NIH better, with the current administration obviously being an exception. Its funding in non-health, non-defense science areas that tends to get cut (such as the areas psychanon pointed out, as well as many basic science areas that can't be portrayed as health or defense).

I cast my lot with Obama awhile ago. I think he'd be generous with research funding and generally be good for the field. I have nothing solid to base that off, and it could very well be a halo effect since I think he is just all-around better than the other two, so the effect on psychology in particular was not so much a consideration of mine.