Get clucked asshole.

This bill has no chance to pass, and Hawley knows this and drafted it in bad faith.

The Republicans (politicians) aren't going to want this passed and their party's voting history in the matter of regulations such as this or anti-lobbying measures is consistently to vote against it.

I think his assumption is the most reasonable seeing as how the Republicans have already prevented a legitimate version of this bill by voting against it. Why should anyone assume this is more than attention grabbing and 'owning the libs' from a well-established jackass?

Maybe the Hawley Act should prevent politicians from running for office while living in a different state. He cheats by using his sister's address in Ozark. He should not be able to represent our state when he absolutely does not reside here.

Man it's been that way in this sub for the last 10 years. I'm guilty of making one or two nosy posts myself over the years.

I would like to point out that I've never owned a pitbull (don't ever plan to), and I am not invested in this topic. But I'd like to play devils advocate here in order to promote scientically literate discussion on the matter.

There are many confounding variables that impact studies on dog aggression and reporting of dog attacks.

For instance, this study (PDF warning) found a strong association between deviant criminal behavior and and ownership of high risk 'vicious' dogs. It's important to note the relatively small and localized sample in that study.

To the claim of putbulls being the most vicious breed, this study found that smaller breeds were in fact the most aggressive. A finding which has been replicated by other studies. There are many factors thought to influence this, including the growth factor gene.

Smaller dog attacks are also severely under-reported since they are not as concerning, which further skews the statistics on dog attacks to a very significant degree. Source. Also illustrated in that article is the prevalence of pitbull ownership in specific locations/demographics, which directly impacts the rate of attacks simply due the higher proportion of pitbulls in the given population.

I think it's important to weigh all of the facts, consider the conflicting studies, and address all of the confounding variables that are not controlled for in most of the studies assessing breed-specific violence.

To claim that pitbulls are the most aggressive breed is not a claim you can make with certainty from the scientific literature we have on the subject.

For people more unfamiliar confounding/third variable problems, here is a famous example:

Statistics show that as ice-cream sales rise, so does the rate of violent crime. You should not draw inferences of causation from correlations, but one might arrive at the false conclusion that ice-cream promotes violent behavior.

However, in actually, the third variable influencing both of those statistics is hot weather.

I'm not going to tell anyone what they should believe, but I encourage everyone to remain vigilant in scrutinizing all available scholarly information, avoid engaging in confirmation bias, and do not simply believe other redditors' comments at face value.

I've seen a child's face after a small dog attack. You are just plain factually wrong that a small dog cannot do real damage, especially to children.

Am I going to feel as intimidated by a smaller dog as large dog? Hell no.. But that doesn't change the fact a small dog can tear up a child's face in an instant.

Ban puppy mills.

Edit: I wanted to make a reply of mine as an original comment for visibility, but the tread is now locked.. I'm going to put it here instead.

I would like to point out that I've never owned a pitbull (don't ever plan to), and I am not invested in this topic. But I'd like to play devils advocate here in order to promote scientically literate discussion on the matter.

There are many confounding variables that impact studies on dog aggression and reporting of dog attacks.

For instance, this study (PDF warning) found a strong association between deviant criminal behavior and and ownership of high risk 'vicious' dogs. It's important to note the relatively small and localized sample in that study.

To the claim of putbulls being the most vicious breed, this study found that smaller breeds were in fact the most aggressive. A finding which has been replicated by other studies. There are many factors thought to influence this, including the growth factor gene.

Smaller dog attacks are also severely under-reported since they are not as concerning, which further skews the statistics on dog attacks to a very significant degree. Source. Also illustrated in that article is the prevalence of pitbull ownership in specific locations/demographics, which directly impacts the rate of attacks simply due the higher proportion of pitbulls in the given population.

I think it's important to weigh all of the facts, consider the conflicting studies, and address all of the confounding variables that are not controlled for in most of the studies assessing breed-specific violence.

To claim that pitbulls are the most aggressive breed is not a claim you can make with certainty from the scientific literature we have on the subject.

For people more unfamiliar confounding/third variable problems, here is a famous example:

Statistics show that as ice-cream sales rise, so does the rate of violent crime. You should not draw inferences of causation from correlations, but one might arrive at the false conclusion that ice-cream promotes violent behavior.

However, in actually, the third variable influencing both of those statistics is hot weather.

I'm not going to tell anyone what they should believe, but I encourage everyone to remain vigilant in scrutinizing all available scholarly information, avoid engaging in confirmation bias, and do not simply believe other redditors' comments at face value.

Not disagreeing with you but for accuracy's sake, it was only one that was unvaccinated, not both.

I know it used to be about $900 out of pocket at Building C and MAPS. But that may have gone up over the years.

I heard this from a department head at Burrell, but they may have been mistaken (I hope so...).

But as far as turning people away, it's seemed about 50/50 odds whether or not they'll admit someone who's only experiencing psychotic symptoms anymore. I've had a lot of clients turned away this last year when having a psychotic episode but not being suicidal/homicidal. Even when they've been transported via ambulance from a residential care facility, with the RCF staff requesting hospitalization. I don't remember it being like this until within the last 1.5 years or so.

Despite being a Burrell employee, I will readily say: stay the hell away from Burrell satellite offices.... I've witnessed/heard of too much incompetence and bad practices at those locations. I think it has to do with lack of oversight.

Most of Burrell's satellite offices are hemorrhaging employees and very understaffed right now too, from what I understand.

Most of the Burrell hate I see here is unfounded, but there are definitely very real criticisms. The biggest problems I see from the inside is that our scheduling department has grown terribly incompetent, wait time for entering services is astronomically slow/backed up, and the turnover rate of providers is substantial and definitely screws up the quality/continuity of care provided to our clients.

Burrell absolutely strives to provide good care for our clients, and 99% of people on client-facing sides truly care about the people we serve. But I also think that when you go beyond the client-facing staff, leadership cares more about profit margins than quality of care provided to clients or quality of life of their employees.

There are valid criticisms of Burrell, but most of the hate I read here is far from valid or based in reality.

I heard Cox is going back to turning away the DD population for psych admittance. Do you know if that's true? Also wondering where that leaves my clients with comorbid developmental disability and mood/schizophrenia-spectrum disorders?

Also have to wonder how many of my clients you've serviced over the years haha.

That's debatable, and if their inpatient is full, you can be held against your will in a hospital bed (one time for days!) before being driven by ambulance to their Joplin overflow facility that is old and dirty (trash and used bandaids and stuff on the floor when I visited a few years ago). Your involuntary hold at Mercy prior to being bussed to Joplin does not count, and it starts once you reach the overflow facility.

That same person who was held for days not getting treatment at Mercy and confined to a bed until being sent to Joplin could not get out of that shithole. The psych provider residing over this individual would not discharge him even though he had been there for about 5 days at this point and was not suicidal. I had to go out there personally and raise hell to advocate for them to discharge this person.

This individual said there were other people at the facility in the same boat, including someone who checked themselves in voluntarily when they were having some psychosis. Once their psychotic episode had passed, the facility would not allow them to leave. Another client of mine recently told me of a similar experience they had going to Mercy, being held without treatment until shipped to Joplin, where they could not leave for an unreasonable amount of time.

Mercy should be a last resort in my opinion. I also highly recommend receiving medical care thru Cox over Mercy. As a caseworker, I've seen problems with Cox, but I have seen way more problems with Mercy. Everyone I know who has worked at Mercy has told me to always go to Cox and stay away from Mercy. That's pretty damning when their employees tell you to go to their biggest competitor...

You don't! Check out Burrell's Rapid Access/Crisis Center! It's totally voluntary so you don't have to be stuck somewhere longer than needed against your will (that's directed at Mercy).

Cox North is way better than the Marian Center. I've had too many clients have bad experiences there. God help you if the Marian Center is full and the ship you out to the shithole in Joplin that has been known for holding people much longer than they should.

Cox is far from perfect, but definitely a better alternative to Mercy.

Burrell has the Rapid Access Center that one can check themselves into voluntary, and can leave any time. They have beds available, offer detox, host support groups, offer therapy, medication management, SUD (substance use) treatment, and help you get into other services if needed.

There's a huge anti-Burrell circle-jerk in this sub, but I would highly recommend taking advantage of the Rapid Access Center. I've spoken to multiple people who have told me "that place saved my life" and had great experiences there.

I would recommend starting there before going to Cox, and especially Mercy....

Overmedication is so prevalent in this industry... And the turnover rate absolutely does suck. It's got to be difficult to have to keep starting over with a new provider.

You are absolutely right about the turnover rate of psych providers at Burrell... I think Paula Warner is the only one still working here from before I was hired years ago. Most psych providers at Burrell have been great from my experience working with them. Can't say the same for services provided in satellite locations tho...

Each have some plusses and minuses between each other, but I've never been happy with Jordan Valley for psych/PCP services provided to my clients. Been a couple years now since I've had clients receive services there though, so maybe things have changed.

As an employee (in a different department) I will tell you our scheduling department has been a nightmare since covid hit...

Most of the problems with Burrell is if you work for them (trust me on that...). But they are a very great organization in their client-facing side.

There is a huge anti-Burrell circle-jerk on this sub, and any time I've engaged with the people making complaints, they've immediately shut down when I ask questions about the absurd things they claim (I think most of those have been teenagers).

The biggest valid complaints against Burrell is how long it takes to get into services at this point, the scheduling department is incompetent and just plain don't seem to complete any intra-agency referrals I complete, and they might screw up one of your appointments occasionally, and I honestly would stay away from the satellite locations because I've historically seen consistent incompetence at those locations.

The worst things I can say about Burrell is the financial mismanagement that has put us in a tough stop after we merged with Preferred Family under the conglomerate of Britli. Authentic leadership was sidelined or let go, our tuition assistance programs all canned, department's were merged/dissolved, and billing is pressed at the expense of employee mental/physical health and well-being.

But so rarely do I see mistreatment, abandonment, or other ridiculous claims I see on this sub. You have to also consider that many complaints are not necessarily grounded in reality given the population we work with. A huge portion of my caseload struggles with paranoid delusions from time to time, and my pastey white ass has been accused of being a middle eastern terrorist before...

The absolute vast majority of client-facing/clinical staff at Burrell genuinely care about the people we serve, and that's why we work where we do. We genuinely care and want to help. It's our leadership who seem to have no empathy for their work force. But even though I genuinely believe their motives are profits, selfishly they would not want our consumers to be mistreated and lose more income.

Take the complaints you read on this sub with a bowl full of salt. Burrell is far from perfect, but we have a lot of incredible providers that absolutely recommend, despite my resentment against our leadership.

Edit: Also just want to say, last time I waited in the Transitions waiting room with a client, two different people struck up conversation with me about how the (slightly newerish) Rapid Access Center saved their lives. One was an older gentleman who kicked an opioid addiction spanning many years, and the other who was addicted to meth said "my two little babies at home almost lost their mom a few times."

The vast majority of client-facing employees at Burrell absolutely do not fit the description the users here depict, and Burrell does tremendous good for our most disadvantaged population. It's far from perfect and I'm sure people have had bad experiences, but it should not dissuade you from seeking services. This is all said by a very bitter, overworked Burrell employee.

The owner unfortunately died on 12/23/22....

The way I heard it: "A good driver sometimes misses their exit. A bad driver never misses their exit."

Not judging from your current behavior 🤡

I can't tell if you're trolling or just extremely cringeworthy. If you make a false statement, expect to be called out for it.

You can respond in turn by accepting you made a mistake or acting childish.