Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
= = = "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 .. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | General | |||
Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | Scanner | |||
Here is My Resume. Who Am I? | Shortwave | |||
Why did Bush run away from service in Vietnam? | Shortwave |