I'm looking for some ideas for disadvantages to increasing public
health services for mental health care in the united states.  Thats
this year's debate topic, and honestly, there isn't that much you can
argue that works against against every case as the negative team. 
Here's a list of things I've come up with or seen to this effect:

stigma prevents use of services
increased spending bad
more treatment does not make better treatment
mental illness does not exist
"mental illness" as a concept is a tool for social control
federal action in public health harms the balance of power between the
state and federal governments

What I'd like is ideas for arguments that could be supported with
cited evidence to argue that action to increase mental health care is
bad, basically.

Hello again db8soothsayer-ga,

I answered your other question about statistics for your debate. In
that answer I raised some issues about the reluctance of employees to
take advantage of EAP benefits for a variety of reasons. Since you
can’t make even the select few who are eligible go and get the help
they need, some might protest that it’s overkill to provide public
dollars to pay for coverage.

Here are some other objections that might resonate if you’re paying
attention to national politics.

There is a strong push from the current administration to privatize
most government services, to reduce existing benefits, and to cut
taxes. Your proposal is flying in the face of this trend.

Some people might be skeptical about the claim that people need mental
health coverage. There are some books that protest the self-help
industry and claim that we’ve medicalized normal behavior.

http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/reviews/cm08_rev_disease.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Recovery.html

Some people claim that many mental and behavioral problems that are
covered by EAP programs are simply a matter of individual
responsibility and self-control. They might suggest that the solution
to the problem lies in the individual taking responsibility and
changing their behavior. If they need help with the change, they
should get support from the community, from their family and friends,
from their pastor/rabbi/minister/guru or other spiritual counselor.

Some might suggest that there is ample indication that many mental
health problems are greatly relieved by eating right and doing a good
deal of physical exercise.

Some might claim that people are depressed because they’re alienated
and they ought to get involved with doing something for someone else –
pay more attention to their families, volunteer in the community,
perform some physical work.

I hope I’ve given you a few possible rebuttals to your claim. Good
luck with the debate.

czh

Alright, that was worth $3.  The privatization trend bit should be a
useful spin on a politics position.

When I was in debate about 15 years ago, we'd always take something
like this and argue that since the government has a finite ability to
spend its resources, spending on issue #1 is far less preferable than
spending on issue #2 since the consequences of not addressing issue #1
is far less than the consequences of not addressing issue #2.  So
spending dollars on mental health issues has a lesser curative impact
than spending dollars on, say, the war in Iraq.  Good luck and have
fun.