| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bush proposes mandatory mental health screening
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 21, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration. The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported. Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public. The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children. The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders." Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools. The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes." The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan. But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it. Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab." Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council. Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party. Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers." Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said. However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening. "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory." |
David wrote:
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 21, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration. The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported. Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public. The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children. The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders." Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools. The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes." The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan. But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it. Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab." Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council. Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party. Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers." Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said. However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening. "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory." As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. |
Seig Heil!
All you nut cases out there will be diagnosed and treated even if you dont want to be....if you dont become a productive member of society then we will rid the world of you! Love always! Adolph DUBYA Hitler (Sorry BUll****.!!!..Its been done before in the 30's and it went over then like a turd in the punch bowl!) "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... David wrote: LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Posted: June 21, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration. The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported. Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public. The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children. The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders." Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools. The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes." The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan. But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it. Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab." Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council. Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party. Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers." Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said. However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening. "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory." As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. |
From: David Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:37:38 GMT Subject: Bush proposes mandatory mental health screening LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Posted: June 21, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration. (Snip) You don't suppose they would test rec.radio.shortwave do ya? Greg |
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:51:53 GMT, Greg wrote:
From: David Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:37:38 GMT Subject: Bush proposes mandatory mental health screening LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Posted: June 21, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration. (Snip) You don't suppose they would test rec.radio.shortwave do ya? Greg Naah, they could forego the testing and go straight to treatment 8-} |
= = = "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
= = = ... - - - - - S N I P - - - - - However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening. "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory." As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. MSH, Yours may be the Voice of Reason and Compassion for those in need. But this post was done for the Condemnation and Denigrate any effort to really 'help' and/or "Cure" those in need of Mental Health Programs and Treatment. The Left needs the Mentally Ill and the Homeless as 'problems' to tout as "Issues" to Politic-About in their quest for power. ~ RHF .. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. There will have to be a whole new mental health bureaucracy. Actually two, as there would have to be both a private and federal ureaucracy. Are there really enough trained professionals to seriously evaluate the mental health of every American? And can they do it competently? If so, what penalty should we give to people who refuse treatment? Criminal or civil penalties? And how can we know if the diagnosis is correct and was made properly? How will we guarantee the rights of Americans? We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Vision and hearing tests are pretty objective. But three different experts might say a given kid is hyperactive, has ADD or is just acting like a normal boy. Alot of parents don't want their kids on such drugs as Ritalin. I think they may very well have a point. Strangely, European kids seem to have a much lower need for Ritalin supplements. How do we deal with such parents who think they are acting in their own child's interest? What penalty should be enforced? Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. And most of us will be OK. Or maybe not, depending where the standards are set. It gets a bit subjective. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. Or, every time somebody acts a bit unusual, they haul him in for a "Government Mental Health Evaluation". Hey, just like the Soviet Union! Only here in the US, we can force the miscreant to pay for his evaluation and treatment. And, if the courts are in a good mood, they won't have the same Constitution hang-up they have with criminal procedures. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. The proposal is to screen every citizen. What about those who refuse because they feel they should be left the hell alone as long as they aren't bothering anyone or there's no compelling emergency? That's me. I'll refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam. Frank Dresser |
RHF wrote:
= = = "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message = = = ... - - - - - S N I P - - - - - However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening. "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory." As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. MSH, Yours may be the Voice of Reason and Compassion for those in need. But this post was done for the Condemnation and Denigrate any effort to really 'help' and/or "Cure" those in need of Mental Health Programs and Treatment. The Left needs the Mentally Ill and the Homeless as 'problems' to tout as "Issues" to Politic-About in their quest for power. ~ RHF . The cheap shot reply would be to claim they're afraid of losing their base. But actually, I think the reason the people on the left are opposed to the idea is because it comes from GWB. If their guy proposed the idea they'd be all for it. It doesn't even sound like a "Conservative" idea until you realize the economic cost of untreated mental ilness. It's about 100 billion dollars per year in the USA. Early diagnosis and treatment is cost effective. Everybody wins. |
"Greg" wrote in message ... You don't suppose they would test rec.radio.shortwave do ya? Greg What, and come across somebody like this guy? http://www.improb.com/airchives/clas..._memorial.html By the way, those two largish boxes with a central aluminum disk on Mr. Brannd's upper shelf are signal generators. A Precision E-400 sweep generator, and a Precision E-200 signal generator. Those sharp right angle corners identify them as early units, probably made before 1950. They're just like mine. I had to redo the wrinkle paint on mine. Did it on a hot sunny day. Came out very nice. I got rid of my round screen TV about six years ago, though. Gotta keep up with the times. Frank Dresser |
David wrote:
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs This is a very bad joke. Right? Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council. Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party. Things really are worse than I thought. Mandatory feeding of psychotropic drugs to people that the administration finds deficient. In a few years 'deficient' will mean someone who didn't vote for you. mike |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. There will have to be a whole new mental health bureaucracy. Actually two, as there would have to be both a private and federal ureaucracy. Are there really enough trained professionals to seriously evaluate the mental health of every American? And can they do it competently? If so, what penalty should we give to people who refuse treatment? Criminal or civil penalties? And how can we know if the diagnosis is correct and was made properly? How will we guarantee the rights of Americans? We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Vision and hearing tests are pretty objective. But three different experts might say a given kid is hyperactive, has ADD or is just acting like a normal boy. Alot of parents don't want their kids on such drugs as Ritalin. I think they may very well have a point. Strangely, European kids seem to have a much lower need for Ritalin supplements. How do we deal with such parents who think they are acting in their own child's interest? What penalty should be enforced? Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. And most of us will be OK. Or maybe not, depending where the standards are set. It gets a bit subjective. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. Or, every time somebody acts a bit unusual, they haul him in for a "Government Mental Health Evaluation". Hey, just like the Soviet Union! Only here in the US, we can force the miscreant to pay for his evaluation and treatment. And, if the courts are in a good mood, they won't have the same Constitution hang-up they have with criminal procedures. Absolutely right.. as the Supreme Court has already decided that the so-called mentally ill have no legal recourse. Forcing them to take medication or institutionalization is considered to be not a punishment but an administrative move. Therefore, Constitutional protections for the criminally accused do not apply. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. The proposal is to screen every citizen. What about those who refuse because they feel they should be left the hell alone as long as they aren't bothering anyone or there's no compelling emergency? That's me. I'll refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam. As will I, and most of the people I know. This sort of thing can have no good end or outcome. |
Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:
Absolutely right.. as the Supreme Court has already decided that the so-called mentally ill have no legal recourse. Forcing them to take medication or institutionalization is considered to be not a punishment but an administrative move. Therefore, Constitutional protections for the criminally accused do not apply. That was exactly the reasoning in the Soviet communist system. If you disagree with the State you must be insane, no court needed. The mental hospitals were full of 'lunatic' dissenters. Bush is a menace to democracy and liberty, not to mention all life on this planet. mike |
In article rH8Cc.2857$HS3.2767@edtnps84,
m II wrote: David wrote: LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER Bush to screen population for mental illness Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs This is a very bad joke. Right? I was counting on you to for all our very bad joke needs. Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP. Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council. Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party. Things really are worse than I thought. Mandatory feeding of psychotropic drugs to people that the administration finds deficient. In a few years 'deficient' will mean someone who didn't vote for you. Nope. The program will start with defective posters to Usenet. Soon you will get the medicine you need. Next thing you know you will be listening to short wave and posting on topic to RRS. Then they will go after people like David that lift entire articles and post them (including the copyright) as off topic threads. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message ... I'll refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam. As will I, and most of the people I know. This sort of thing can have no good end or outcome. Even if those who refuse the Government Mental Health Exam aren't subject to criminal or civil penalities, there are other potential problems. Will refusal be held against job applicants? Will Social Security reciepients need to pass a test before they get a check? If I testify about a crime in court, will a defense attorney be able to discredit me because I don't have an up to date bill of mental health? Frank Dresser |
Frank Dresser wrote: "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message ... I'll refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam. As will I, and most of the people I know. This sort of thing can have no good end or outcome. Even if those who refuse the Government Mental Health Exam aren't subject to criminal or civil penalities, there are other potential problems. Will refusal be held against job applicants? Will Social Security reciepients need to pass a test before they get a check? If I testify about a crime in court, will a defense attorney be able to discredit me because I don't have an up to date bill of mental health? One thing is certain about Bush's proposal: It's got the tin foil hat crowd extremely worried! Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
As long as they start on people who work for the government first...
|
Frank Dresser wrote:
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news. My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated. There will have to be a whole new mental health bureaucracy. Actually two, as there would have to be both a private and federal ureaucracy. Are there really enough trained professionals to seriously evaluate the mental health of every American? And can they do it competently? If so, what penalty should we give to people who refuse treatment? Criminal or civil penalties? And how can we know if the diagnosis is correct and was made properly? How will we guarantee the rights of Americans? We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test for mental illness. Vision and hearing tests are pretty objective. But three different experts might say a given kid is hyperactive, has ADD or is just acting like a normal boy. Alot of parents don't want their kids on such drugs as Ritalin. I think they may very well have a point. Strangely, European kids seem to have a much lower need for Ritalin supplements. How do we deal with such parents who think they are acting in their own child's interest? What penalty should be enforced? Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression. And most of us will be OK. Or maybe not, depending where the standards are set. It gets a bit subjective. One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment. Or, every time somebody acts a bit unusual, they haul him in for a "Government Mental Health Evaluation". Hey, just like the Soviet Union! Only here in the US, we can force the miscreant to pay for his evaluation and treatment. And, if the courts are in a good mood, they won't have the same Constitution hang-up they have with criminal procedures. This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma. The proposal is to screen every citizen. What about those who refuse because they feel they should be left the hell alone as long as they aren't bothering anyone or there's no compelling emergency? That's me. I'll refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam. Frank Dresser Hi Frank I think this is getting blown out of proportion by critics. I am concerned it could develop into a bloated program, but there is already a federal mental health program in place based on block grants. While it's a limited system, it does what it's supposed to do pretty well. Mental health is already a growing industry - getting people who need help treatment sooner will make it more efficient. I expect the mandatory part of this to be offering the tests to everyone. (Making them them available) One benefit of this will be people will start to realize mental health is part of the big picture of health. Depression screening might be included in schools much like hearing and vision tests are. Here's an on line depression screening test: http://www.depression-screening.org/screeningtest/screeningtest.htm A google search will bring up others. Depression is the most common form of mental illness, and while they're still learning, (as they are about just about every branch of medicine) they've got treatments that work pretty well. Part of the problem is many people who are depressed don't realize they could be treated, or they're afraid the stigma of being treated would hurt them in the future. Consider what happened to Thomas Eagleton. As for Ritalin, I'm not sure what the deal is in your neck of the woods, but around here, you can say "Thanks but no thanks" if they suggest Ritalin - and the consequences are if Finster is disruptive in class, you need to find an alternative treatment, or they'll put him in a special class so he won't keep other students from learning, or you'll need to find a new school. Seems pretty reasonable to me. |
In article rH8Cc.2857$HS3.2767@edtnps84, m II
writes: In a few years 'deficient' will mean someone who didn't vote for you. mike - Don't laugh.. In the 20's in the south, the Government diagnosed Malnutrition as a genetic disorder, put the men on farms ( & I believe ) sterilized many of them |
dxAce wrote:
x Even if those who refuse the Government Mental Health Exam aren't subject to criminal or civil penalities, there are other potential problems. Will refusal be held against job applicants? Will Social Security reciepients need to pass a test before they get a check? If I testify about a crime in court, will a defense attorney be able to discredit me because I don't have an up to date bill of mental health? One thing is certain about Bush's proposal: It's got the tin foil hat crowd extremely worried! Trust you to endorse every liberty limiting proposal the administration can dream up. Where is YOUR personal limit for totalitarian enactments? Will you start protesting when the 'Homeland Sanity Squad' is dragging you out of your house? Single men with shortwave radios, living in isolation, will be the primary targets. It will be a bit late to regret what you have condoned by then. mike |
"Diverd4777" wrote in message ... Teachers can rapidly tell which kids need help, but I passed my "vision screening test" when I was in the 3rd grade. I assume the test was administered carelessly or incompetently as my nearsightedness was later caught the old-fashioned way. The teacher noticed that I couldn't read the chalkboard unless I was sitting in the front row. She sent me home with a note. Frank Dresser |
Diverd4777 wrote:
In article rH8Cc.2857$HS3.2767@edtnps84, m II writes: In a few years 'deficient' will mean someone who didn't vote for you. mike - Don't laugh.. In the 20's in the south, the Government diagnosed Malnutrition as a genetic disorder, put the men on farms ( & I believe ) sterilized many of them The provincial government of Alberta, Canada and many other places in the commonwealth regularly practiced forced sterilization of people they thought were off balance. It was all medically approved, with NO recourse to the courts. Legislation was changed in the early nineteen seventies. Around that time some elderly people disappeared and when their neighbours started to question their whereabouts it was found that the government had institutionalized them for their own good. NO public announcement OR court appearances needed. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were used to round up these 'undesirables., Note the similarities to secret arrest. The sterilization was done in the name of bettering the species. Eugenics. When the Nazis do it, it's evil. When WE do it, it's healthy. Hypocrisy at it's finest. http://www.google.ca/search?q=albert...e+Search&meta= For the URL wrap impaired: http://tinyurl.com/3gp92 |
= = = David wrote in message
= = = . .. As long as they start on people who work for the government first... David - Thats a Good Idea and Good News ! The Bad News Is David... You have just be Drafted :o) ~ RHF .. |
= = = "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
= = = ... - - - - - S N I P - - - - - Hi Frank I think this is getting blown out of proportion by critics. I am concerned it could develop into a bloated program, but there is already a federal mental health program in place based on block grants. While it's a limited system, it does what it's supposed to do pretty well. Mental health is already a growing industry - getting people who need help treatment sooner will make it more efficient. I expect the mandatory part of this to be offering the tests to everyone. (Making them them available) One benefit of this will be people will start to realize mental health is part of the big picture of health. Depression screening might be included in schools much like hearing and vision tests are. Here's an on line depression screening test: http://www.depression-screening.org/screeningtest/screeningtest.htm A google search will bring up others. Depression is the most common form of mental illness, and while they're still learning, (as they are about just about every branch of medicine) they've got treatments that work pretty well. Part of the problem is many people who are depressed don't realize they could be treated, or they're afraid the stigma of being treated would hurt them in the future. Consider what happened to Thomas Eagleton. As for Ritalin, I'm not sure what the deal is in your neck of the woods, but around here, you can say "Thanks but no thanks" if they suggest Ritalin - and the consequences are if Finster is disruptive in class, you need to find an alternative treatment, or they'll put him in a special class so he won't keep other students from learning, or you'll need to find a new school. Seems pretty reasonable to me. MSH, If like the AIDS Funding for Africa Bush Administration increases the US {Federal} funding by several times with better spending controls then this can be a good thing for the Mentally Ill. Especially early childhood Mental Illness. But there are always some who see anything that "The Government" does as some Evil Plot to 'harm them' or to 'take away their rights'. ~ RHF .. |
"RHF" wrote in message m... I thought that the 'primary focus' of this program was "Children". Identifying Childhood Mental Illness early and then treating it so that the child could have an opportunity at a 'normal' life; before most of their Learning Years are 'wasted' due to the illness. We may not Test them all... We may not Help them all... We may not Cure them all... BUT - Can we at least "TRY To Do Some Good", and attempt to make a potentially better life for those who simply have a childhood illness through: early detection, help, prevention and medication. God Bless the Children - Keep them Safe from Harm ~ RHF [ Safe from Disease and Illness. ] Did you bother to read this part? "a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs" The kid part is a smokescreen. The people putting forth this thing figure nobody's going to gripe about something that 'helps the children'. Try to have open eyes. If this is true, it's something we should ALL be against, since it has a 100% chance of being abused/misused. |
Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:
Did you bother to read this part? "a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs" The kid part is a smokescreen. The people putting forth this thing figure nobody's going to gripe about something that 'helps the children'. Try to have open eyes. If this is true, it's something we should ALL be against, since it has a 100% chance of being abused/misused. If you'd like to read the final report of the New Freedom Commission the article at the beginning of this thread was criticizing, it's available at: http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Home4/Home_Page_Spotlights/Spotlight_4/FinalReport.pdf It is rather long - but this is the actual report. If nothing else, reading the executive summary will put you in a better position to understand what they recommend and why. My feeling is the article at the start of the thread was a smoke screen - intended to gin up protests before an actual proposal is even made. Naturally, it will be important to make sure any legislation derived from this report follows the spirit and intent of the commission's report before deciding if it's a good bill. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... If you'd like to read the final report of the New Freedom Commission the article at the beginning of this thread was criticizing, it's available at: http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentG...tlights/Spotli ght_4/FinalReport.pdf It is rather long - but this is the actual report. If nothing else, reading the executive summary will put you in a better position to understand what they recommend and why. My feeling is the article at the start of the thread was a smoke screen - intended to gin up protests before an actual proposal is even made. Naturally, it will be important to make sure any legislation derived from this report follows the spirit and intent of the commission's report before deciding if it's a good bill. I couldn't see any justification for the use of the original article's term "manditory" beyond this sentence from the New Freedom Commission's report: "In a transformed mental health system, the early detection of mental health problems in children and adults - through routine and comprehensive testing and screening - will be an expected and typical occurrence. " Still, the phrase "routine and comprehensive testing and screening" deserves some attention. I really doubt routine and comprehensive testing and screening is a good idea for people with no symptoms and no risk factors. Consider testing for cancer. Testing healthy people who have no symptoms and no risk factors will result in a number of false positives. A number of people will suffer needless anxiety and some of those will get inapproiate treatment. Frank Dresser |
Frank Dresser wrote:
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... If you'd like to read the final report of the New Freedom Commission the article at the beginning of this thread was criticizing, it's available at: http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentG...tlights/Spotli ght_4/FinalReport.pdf It is rather long - but this is the actual report. If nothing else, reading the executive summary will put you in a better position to understand what they recommend and why. My feeling is the article at the start of the thread was a smoke screen - intended to gin up protests before an actual proposal is even made. Naturally, it will be important to make sure any legislation derived from this report follows the spirit and intent of the commission's report before deciding if it's a good bill. I couldn't see any justification for the use of the original article's term "manditory" beyond this sentence from the New Freedom Commission's report: "In a transformed mental health system, the early detection of mental health problems in children and adults - through routine and comprehensive testing and screening - will be an expected and typical occurrence. " Still, the phrase "routine and comprehensive testing and screening" deserves some attention. I really doubt routine and comprehensive testing and screening is a good idea for people with no symptoms and no risk factors. Consider testing for cancer. Testing healthy people who have no symptoms and no risk factors will result in a number of false positives. A number of people will suffer needless anxiety and some of those will get inapproiate treatment. Frank Dresser My best guess is the word "mandatory" was used by someone who doesn't like GWB, or a Scientologist. (They don't like psychiatry.) It was intended to get you to react negatively. I expect the routine screening will be a computer program - similar to the one I provided a link for earlier, but it'll include a few questions designed to screen for problems other than depression too. Most folks will get boring results and that will be the end of it. Folks with a score indicating a possible problem will probably get sent home with a note suggesting furthur testing, and letting them know where they can get it. |
= = = "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
= = = ... "RHF" wrote in message m... I thought that the 'primary focus' of this program was "Children". Identifying Childhood Mental Illness early and then treating it so that the child could have an opportunity at a 'normal' life; before most of their Learning Years are 'wasted' due to the illness. We may not Test them all... We may not Help them all... We may not Cure them all... BUT - Can we at least "TRY To Do Some Good", and attempt to make a potentially better life for those who simply have a childhood illness through: early detection, help, prevention and medication. God Bless the Children - Keep them Safe from Harm ~ RHF [ Safe from Disease and Illness. ] Did you bother to read this part? "a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs" The kid part is a smokescreen. The people putting forth this thing figure nobody's going to gripe about something that 'helps the children'. Try to have open eyes. If this is true, it's something we should ALL be against, since it has a 100% chance of being abused/misused. BAD, My "EYES ARE OPEN" - But I do not see 'evil government' behind every good idea to help people in need of help. If people are 'clinically' "Ill" and need help should they not provoded some help if they want it ? ? ? {Personal Wellbeing} More importantly, if people are beyond clinical Illness and are in-fact Disfunctional and Acting-in-a-Manner that is Harmful to themselves or others, should they not be provided Help if they want it or not ? ? ? {Public Health and Human Safety} Should not the Homeless be provided a Home and a Safer Environment to Live-in; vice left to slowly deteriorate and die in the streets ? Note: I say this because the majority of the Homeless are people who suffer from both Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Problems. In the Spirit of Loving Kindness: Should we not be 'our' Brother & Sisters Keepers ? ~ RHF .. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ...
Early diagnosis and treatment is cost effective. Everybody wins. I read once that nine out of ten kids with a mental disorder receive no treatment whatsoever. Be wary of misuse; i.e, to misdiagnose one's opponents and lock them up. Then you end up with a Soviet-style system. If that can be avoided, the proposal has merit. |
RHF wrote:
In the Spirit of Loving Kindness: Should we not be 'our' Brother & Sisters Keepers ? As in Guantanamo and Abu Graib? I think the world has seen enough of Washington's compassion for their fellow human beings. mike |
m II dropped his bottle of Labatt's and attempted to make sense: RHF wrote: In the Spirit of Loving Kindness: Should we not be 'our' Brother & Sisters Keepers ? As in Guantanamo and Abu Graib? I think the world has seen enough of Washington's compassion for their fellow human beings. Yes, I'm sure the world just wants to see more of the al-Qaida brand of compassion. That brand must surely have Ottawa's approval. Steve Holland, MI Drake R7, R8 and R8B http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:ILPCc.9410$E84.8987@edtnps89... RHF wrote: In the Spirit of Loving Kindness: Should we not be 'our' Brother & Sisters Keepers ? As in Guantanamo and Abu Graib? I think the world has seen enough of Washington's compassion for their fellow human beings. mike MII - Are you an 'example' of Canadian "Compassion" for their American Neighbors ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ RHF .. |
MSH,
If like the AIDS Funding for Africa Bush Administration increases the US {Federal} funding by several times with better spending controls then this can be a good thing for the Mentally Ill. Especially early childhood Mental Illness. But there are always some who see anything that "The Government" does as some Evil Plot to 'harm them' or to 'take away their rights'. ~ RHF . It is healthy to be wary of anything the government does. .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
"Ian Smith" wrote in message ...
It is healthy to be wary of anything the government does. Inlcuding the vaccination campaigns that stopped polio and smallpox? Elaborate.... |
"Beloved Leader" wrote in message om... "Ian Smith" wrote in message ... It is healthy to be wary of anything the government does. Inlcuding the vaccination campaigns that stopped polio and smallpox? Elaborate.... Being wary of everything the government does does not mean that they don't occasionally do good things. |
considering, neither smallpox, nor polio, were completely
"stopped". both are making a come-back over the last few years. and, least we forget, the swine flu death's, etc. so, don't get too excited, it's just the shrub, trying to help the poor drug companies. (as he did in texas). scary, huh? i think "W" and his friends are the one's that need testing. along with anyone who falls for this BS... Drifter... |
In article , Drifter
wrote: considering, neither smallpox, nor polio, were completely "stopped". both are making a come-back over the last few years. and, least we forget, the swine flu death's, etc. so, don't get too excited, it's just the shrub, trying to help the poor drug companies. (as he did in texas). scary, huh? i think "W" and his friends are the one's that need testing. along with anyone who falls for this BS... Drifter... Where is smallpox and polio making a comeback? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
Telamon wrote: In article , Drifter wrote: considering, neither smallpox, nor polio, were completely "stopped". both are making a come-back over the last few years. and, least we forget, the swine flu death's, etc. so, don't get too excited, it's just the shrub, trying to help the poor drug companies. (as he did in texas). scary, huh? i think "W" and his friends are the one's that need testing. along with anyone who falls for this BS... Drifter... Where is smallpox and polio making a comeback? Smallpox is no longer found in the general population. Polio is, mostly in some of the poorer countries. Given the easy of owrld travel it seems pretty obvious that kids in the USA should get their shots. -- Al Dykes ----------- adykes at p a n i x . c o m |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com