He didn’t. This is common folklore. The description for the perseverance of this mythology is along these lines:
Reagan’s policies, like lots of Repugnican policies, rather of putting federal funds out there to go straight to money certain things from the federal “guvment”, rather put it
into block grants for each state, to utilize however each state felt it should be utilized. For such states like NY, where a long history of state institutions long existed, these were
used to keep such institutions open if not thriving. Other states might not have actually been quite so “generous” in regards to supporting the institutional portion of Psychiatry and the mental illness system.
However more to the point– the POLICY of the federal government in particular to move far from medical facility care for those considered mentally ill did not derive from Reagan, but a President before him called Kennedy. JFK was the first one who proposed, and had passed, policies with begun such a procedure. The concept was that “community-based care” was a lot more gentle than the often institutional brutality discovered in state medical facilities run for the psychologically ill in specific, and personal health centers too. So that was the start of such policies— which many Democrats prefer, for whatever reason, to neglect as a result of this tendency to dress up this specific “Martyr’s Legend” in a manner that avoids plain truth on what his policies were on this, on Communist nations, or anything else one wishes to paint– rightly or mistakenly– based on whatever that private thinks about the saintly JFK to have meant, you see. And the basic fact is that this general policy of “Deinstitutionalism” was the accepted method of the mental illness lobby from that time till it chose, together with all partisans opposed to Reagan in general, that Reagan instead should have “blame” for all the viewed “failures of Deinstitutionalistic policies at the federal level.”
Now, notwithstanding all of that, where the argument stands in regards to Reagan’s and certainly in basic all Repugnican policies that might well have some validity is the impact of such policies especially in particular states and cities therewithin, in terms of the swelling of the homeless population. There is a provable nexus a minimum of socioeconomically in between those reliant upon the system of institutionalism to support a lifestyle of the consistent failure to financially exist outside those realms and an itinerant homeless population, so that when the already restricted medical facility bed scenario converged with recessionary pressures in the economy in general, more homeless in general were seen, and the homeless did consist in big part of those with perceived mental illness or detected mental illness or those who had already been dependent upon the institutional system of “dealing with mental disorder.”
At the end of the day, institutional Psychiatry and the whole mental illness model of despondence devoid of a healing design, can not perhaps be of benefit to the society or the clients it purports to have in mind. The thinking on the policy of institutionalization and the chronic drugging and turning anyone into a zombie procedure so well achieved in the past and so well preserved as an accomplishment of Psychiatry in the present, the procedure of turning individuals into functional zombies regardless of what they were or were not in advance, is properly seen as a societal evil which ought be prevented in the solution of sound policy. Organizations have never ever– and never ever will– discard the design of drugging people into zombieland as their “treatment”. This benefits pharmaceutical companies and all gamers within the medical commercial Psychiatric complex, and benefits greatly no patient. Hence, it is correctly perceived that any policy which supports the continued unsuccessful and devastating operation of the medical commercial complex in this fashion in the assistance of existing institutions is as devastating as what continues to be done within the structure of organizations today. It is a company design to benefit all those significantly who run such systems– and not any helpful, valid, ethical, or considerable model for client care. It supports portfolios; to heck with people.
I am of the opinion that JFK’s policies got it right on this score, and the only flaw therein is that these stopped working to eliminate Psychiatry or punish Psychiatry more for its absence of science worthwhile of the name. These such policies are definitely well planned, as is arguably stated of Reagan’s policies on funding health care or overall. While it is likewise said the roadway to a particular location is “paved with excellent intentions”– not without some reason a minimum of as a basic concept— the usual animus flung at Reagan twists not just the truths about what his policies were– but more to the point, what the policies of JFK were prior to him on the entire concern referred to as Deinstitutionalization,
the general total– and consistent assistance this gotten from lobby groups lobbying on the problem of mental disorder from that time onward to the time of today, and the historical revisionism as shown in the animus towards Reagan that might have been much more appropriate to his other policies, such as a serious effort to eliminate Social Security— that did take place, and yet what Reagan is most villified for today, for some factor, is this expected closure of mental health centers that was most definitely not a policy of his, and definitely the policy of Deinstitutionalization was very long in place and taking pleasure in broad support up until Reagan was tagged with this accusation, which when again, reflected very little more than partisan villification from the other political celebration than Reagan’s, and mainly sought to direct attention from that political party’s long assistance and participation in assistance of the overall policy of Deinstitutionalization, based upon the very policies of the Democrat President John F. Kennedy in this regard.
I will say one more thing and that is this: it is crucial to UNDERSTAND our own history, because without such understanding, it is easy to be rapidly lost in the weeds and the woods, set up by political propaganda and historical revisionism, of which we appear to be so susceptible ever since the news became entertainment, and ever since the history channel accepted and revealed historic folklore.