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."
Don't sweat the little punky pukes.
That vote test is one of the more despicable things around.
Little numbnuts.
But private voting is also on the way out. Databases like People locators on blueberrys hooked up to voting machines means voting lists that'll display your vote aren't too far off.
After all, if you don't have anything to hide......
You are one of the very first people Bush should force-screen for mental illness.Is this a new proposal that has been put forth by the Executive branch?
Gee, a clear reading of the authoratative material close to this subject reveals that this program, as proposed by a research/planning group/board has as its interest young school age children who exhibit behavioral problems on into puberty and then adulthood ...
Are you making yet another 'stretch' of the actual, bonafide, observable and penned truth in order to hyperbolicly arrive at some sort of 'argument' again?
I take it you've never worked (or visited for a period of time) at a so-called 'mental institution'; an institution where some number of today's mentally ill - sometimes treatable - are usually 'wharehoused'; and this long-range planning proposal seeks as its goal the return of these people to society/the community - with appropriate medicine/medical care AS OPPOSED TO virtual incarceration at a STATE HOSPITAL for the remainer of their lives here on earth.
See, I worked my way through school working at one of these kinds of institutions; I have more than just an "outsider's knowledge" of the conditions, the practices/what 'goes on' there ...
| Sigh...yes I read that and I don't want to spend another day debating this. 1) Those are recommendations TO the President. 2) I have yet to have anyone SHOW ME where the document specifically says screening is for EVERYONE and not just at risk populations. 3) I have yet to see where the President has ACCEPTED these recommendations. 4) I have yet to see where the President OR The White House has said screening for EVERYONE.
|
Believe what you have need to. But please don't ping me again.
Thank you.
But before I go and you (or others) accuse me of running or conceding, the White House site report specifally addresses persons with disabilities. I don't know if the term "at risk" is used, but people with disabilities is.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm not. But I just don't see what BMJ and WND are saying.
That's all, and I'm done here.
| Believe what you have need to. But please don't ping me again. Thank you.
|
But before I go and you (or others) accuse me of running or conceding, the White House site report specifally addresses persons with disabilities. I don't know if the term "at risk" is used, but people with disabilities is.
|
No, I read the links. And as far as I'm concerned, the point I have made still stands.
If I am later proven wrong, I will admit it. But I really don't want to spend more time on this today.
I'm just pointing out that while the intention may be well and good, the implementation - through the government - is a recipe for abuse. Brain chemistry should not be subject to politics, nor regulated by law.
I'm glad you don't hate me. You're really a pretty nice guy.
I sincerely apologized for calling you a name and I stand by that apology. The apology does not mean that I cannot state facts and joke around with others. It is true you only listen to yourself and your own opinions. You are self-absorbed and hysterical. There isn't one thing I wrote, after I made my apology, that wasn't obvious truth to most folks on this thread. You wrote and continue to write like you are 10 years old and in need a mommy's dicipline. You have a real problem with trying to manipulate others. You are as Satan himself trying to conjure up some kind of guilt in me because of a few cracks I made with others. Sorry pal, it ain't gonna happen. How corrupt and feeble of you!
Obviously you are deluded into thinking that you contribute something of value around here when the fact is you are divisive and ill-informed.
Go back and read some of the arrogant, childish, and self-righteous things you wrote to others.
Take the plank out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck out of mine.
I am finished having any further discussions with you. You just are not worth my time or effort.
Once testing positive for "mental health" problem means that the school gets extra money for treatment (and this is already the case), then "parental consent" will only be given lip service
I very much believe that there are people in the education system who are so politically committed to the Left, that they would stoop to destroying a bright Conservative kid that shows signs of growing up to be a societal leader. The majority would not -- but how many school system personnel will your kid come into contact with over the course of 12-13 years of public education? It only takes one
However the Federal Government via the power and authority granted it has NO authority to be involved in these health issues of the general public. Being a law-abiding and respecting person threfore what you are asking for is a Constitutional Amendment that would authorize the Federal Government to "provide for health care to every citizen". . Right?
If not, why then you favor tyranny. A friendly tyrrany -- bua an unaccountable one, restrained by nothing, able to do what it pleases.
Thank you kindly.
I'm sure he'll find some way to spend even more money that the government doesn't have...
One issue may indeed be trivial, but over the past 3.5 years, a lot of issues have accumulated. If you're a Bush campaigner, you have your work cut out for you.
As nice-sounding and well-intended as this program may be, the Constitution does not authorize any branch of the federal government to take up this issue. Properly medicated mentally-ill people are indeed better able to function in a free society, so maybe Congress could take the power to manage one's mental state up as a Constitutional amendment. However, I'm sure the states are aware of this problem, so I'm not sure that there's even a need for that.
You may be right about the level of disaffection among the right (a group among whom I certainly number myself). But a month ago, in the middle of an even worse period for the president, I asked one of my Republican clubs to join me in the following pledge: Not to say anything negative about President Bush, his policies, or his prospects for re-election until after Nov. 2. While I haven't kept to this pledge perfectly, I have honored its spirit as best I can: that I will not contribute to the giant sucking sound of contempt for Bush. The left has made it large enough; I don't want to make it larger.
You are absolutely right that "a lot of issues have accumulated." Breaking my promise very briefly for the sake of private discussion, I'll admit that Bush is a weak and poor representative or promoter of the conservative philosophy. Indeed, I doubt that he really understands it.
That said, I do think that Bush's integrity, his manifest patriotism, and his willing to stick with a politically risky course of action in the War on Terror (i.e., overthrowing Saddam and maintaining troops there while the bad guys remain a threat) will eventually lead the necessary 90 percent of Republicans to vote for him. If they do, we'll all have escaped what would be the nightmare of a Kerry presidency -- under which even more "issues would accumulate," as I'm sure you agree.
If Kerry does win, I suspect that it won't be long before you wish that you, too, were a "Bush campaigner."
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.