Posted on 06/21/2004 10:19:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
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 a Christian, I am instructed to show mercy and kindness to the least among us. If that means part of my tax dollars go to helping someone 'control their demons' (either real or imaginary), I can deal with it. I think that's the compassionate part. I do hope they get the funds from our disastrous foreign aid program, however. I am tired of helping to line the pockets of two-bit dictators.
Reagan GREW the government, including entitlements, he blew up the deficit, he granted MASS BLANKET amnesty to illegals, and worst of all, he COMPROMISED -- kryptonite to you people -- with the Democrats on a CAMPAIGN promise he made to cut taxes!
I am over it; you're the one who cannot accept the fact that WorldNet Daily kited somebody else's article and put their own name on it.
Agreed!
But let's wait 'til next month to see if it's true...
Uh huh.
The largest expense is educating the special needs children. I am not sure how this affects school monies for different programs, but this is not a pill pushing agenda that it has been construed to be.
Uhh, that is what I said. You are the one who implied otherwise. They just modified it primarily by removing a lot of the quoted parts in the BMJ article and rearranging things accordingly.
I could use some drugs myself on these threads. :-)
And that, my friend, is plagiarism.
No doubt the Left would approve of your thinking it's "compassionate" to force taxpayers to fund "controlling people's demons".
Well, he tried. That is what you said. TRIED. Perhaps you should reread your own comment. I even quoted it for your benefit since I know you have a tendency to forget your imprecise language...
Anyhow, I'm outta this thread!
It appears that he plans a commission to look at the delivery of mental health care. Right now there are more problems than you can stick a shake at.
There were bounty hunters in Texas that kidnapped people out of corporate parking lots and tapped out the mental health insurance while destroying lives. These people are now on SSD and Medicare because of the corrupt MH system.
This should fix some of the corruption.
So what? I could care less if WND gets sued for plagiarism. LOL
Now I really am outta here!
Don't you realize how this would help our country ??
Once someone is "diagnosed" with a "mental illness", you can
NO LONGER purchase a firearm (or in some cases, never be allowed to own one) because that question is on the form you have to fill out to purchase one.
Falsifying info needed on the form?=JAIL....FELONY .....Get charged with a FELONY??...NO FIREARM PURCHASES OR OWNERSHIP !!
Since a lot of "diseases" are "hereditary", a discovery of this illness might require a "family check"(say mother,father,grandparents) for the disease.
You wouldn't want anyone in their family "perpetuating" a
"mental illness" for generations would you?...That person could marry somebody who doesn't have it, but if they have children, they would probably have to be checked THROUGHOUT
their life to makie sure they are "disease free"....
...kinda like when your doc asks:"Does heart disease,cancer,diabetes etc,run in your family?"......kinda like an INNOCENT question like that, only they don't have to ask cuz it would be on a FED GOVT RECORD.
See, those "DOPERS" who get a felony, can't own a gun , and now anyone who has EVER had to be "medicated" to make their personality "NORMAL",(i.e. to relieve a case of depression or something)won't be able to own a gun also.
Dopers without guns, and now "CRAZIES" (and possibly their families, AND THEIR FUTURE FAMILIES) with out guns...
Do see that as a "PROBLEM"??....
What's so wrong with that??
(scarcasm off thingee DEFINATELY goes in this spot)...
I noticed you skipped my post about Reagan. Interesting.
Bye!
I didn't say anyone should be 'forced' to pay for it. I'm a Conservative (note the capital 'C') and I'm also a Christian who believes, verbatim, the teachings of my Lord and Savior of helping the least among us, whenever possible. I don't see an oxymoron in that. I would hope that you didn't either.
Well, let's see:
WorldNet Daily's article went up on:
Posted: June 21, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern
And the bmj.com article went up on:
BMJ 2004;328:1458 (19 June)
written and credited to Jeanne Lenzer in New York.
Nowhere do I see where WorldNet Daily has given ANY credit to the author or the publication.
And you yourself say they both say the same thing, only WND is "slightly more compact," meaning, of course, they didn't copy ALL OF IT!
I'm not trying to discredit WND. I AM discrediting them with their own web site.
"By mocking President Bush's motives, "you" all look petty."
We aren't "mocking Bush's motives". I am sure he has only the best motives. That doesn't make it a good idea though. This is just wrong on so many levels. I am pretty sure no such widespread screening will ever be announced. Even a guy as brain dead as Karl Rove can see the political fallout from proposing something like this.
At this point it is only a recommendation by a commission set up by Bush. I am sure he won't follow it. If he does all hell will break loose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.