Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to screen population for mental illness
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 21, 2004

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."


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cultbacked; cultbased; drugaddicition; drugs; headshrinkers; healthcare; homosexualityisokay; insane; insanity; johntravolta; kirstiealley; lronhubbard; mentalhealth; mentalhealthmonth; mentalhealthparity; nationalhealthcare; newfreedom; newfreedominitiative; offhismeds; psychiatry; psychobabble; quacks; rukiddingme; sanitycheck; scientology; scientologybabble; shrinks; tomcruisebabble; whodeterminessanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,081 next last
To: thoughtomator
"I can't believe a Republican administration has proposed such an abomination."

I know. After the way Ritalin was pushed on kids, I would think the government would be a little less gungho on pushing drugs to kids.

I think we should start by screening politicians. And the test is that if you want to be a politician, then you must be crazy.

441 posted on 06/22/2004 7:57:17 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

This is scary and nothing to joke about.... My guess is it has nothing to do with either party ... even though Bush and the GOP seem to be the ones opening the door. I believe either party in office will back this policy... Who can be trusted top do this kind of testing?... Where are the children's rights advocates? Our nation will produce a generation of zombies. Is this the legal president being set by recent court cases,(parents verses state over medicating their children). Will it be another issue we realize years later we have been set up for, like abortion? ... Will parents who refuse to administer antidepressants to their children get them removed from their homes? Or go to detention centers? I am sick ... As bad as I would hate to vote for Kerry ,Bush will lose my vote if this idea is backed by his administration..


442 posted on 06/22/2004 7:59:00 AM PDT by mariejlt (I hate abusers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe

It would be better if President Bush would focus that power on the War Against Terror. Victory over the jihadists would improve the nation's mental health.


443 posted on 06/22/2004 7:59:35 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: alnick

I think the mental test will be called "You Decide 2004"


444 posted on 06/22/2004 8:02:58 AM PDT by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy; bluefish

It is a big deal, they could use this to make you or anyone incapable of owning firearms do to any form of "mental disorder". Plus the Dems/libs could use this to define just about anything as a mental disorder.


445 posted on 06/22/2004 8:05:04 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Charlesj

That's the whole idea! Divide and conquer.


446 posted on 06/22/2004 8:06:44 AM PDT by trussell (If stupidity was actually painful, some people would be on a permanent lidocane drip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mhking; Victoria Delsoul; BureaucratusMaximus; NittanyLion; Don Joe; cyncooper; AntiGuv; ...
And at this rate (and if this is true), he can start at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and keep his sorry shrinks away from me.

Well, while there may be debate over some of the details, I don't see anything in these comments from President Bush from a few years ago to indicate that this plan isn't true, as the WND and BMJ articles have it.

Millions of Americans, millions, are impaired at work, at school, or at home by episodes of mental illness. Many are disabled by severe and persistent mental problems. These illnesses affect individuals, they affect their families, and they affect our country.

As many Americans know, it is incredibly painful to watch someone you love struggle with an illness that affects their mind and their feelings and their relationships with others. We heard stories today in a roundtable discussion about that -- what the struggle means for family.

Remarkable treatments exist, and that's good. Yet many people -- too many people -- remain untreated. Some end up addicted to drugs or alcohol. Some end up on the streets, homeless. Others end up in our jails, our prisons, our juvenile detention facilities.

Our country must make a commitment: Americans with mental illness deserve our understanding, and they deserve excellent care. (Applause.) They deserve a health care system that treats their illness with the same urgency as a physical illness. (Applause.)

To meet this goal, we've got to overcome obstacles, and I want to talk about three such obstacles this morning. The first obstacle is the stigma, the stigma that often surrounds mental illness -- a stigma caused by a history of misunderstanding, fear, and embarrassment.

Stigma leads to isolation, and discourages people from seeking the treatment they need. Political leaders, health care professionals, and all Americans must understand and send this message: mental disability is not a scandal-- (applause) -- it is an illness. And like physical illness, it is treatable, especially when the treatment comes early.

Today, new drugs and therapies have vastly improved the outlook for millions of Americans with the most serious mental illnesses, and for millions more with less severe illnesses. The treatment success rates for schizophrenia and clinical depression are comparable to those for heart disease. That's good news in America, and we must encourage more and more Americans to understand, and to seek more treatment.

The second obstacle to quality mental health care is our fragmented mental health service delivery system. Mental health centers and hospitals, homeless shelters, the justice system, and our schools all have contact with individuals suffering from mental disorders. Yet many of these disorders are difficult to diagnose. This makes it even harder to provide the mentally ill with the care they need.

Many Americans fall through the cracks of the current system. Many years and lives are lost before help, if it is given at all, is given. Consider this example -- and for the experts in the field, they will confirm this is a story which is often times too true: a 14-year-old boy who started experimenting with drugs to ease his severe depression. That happens.

This former honor student became a drug addict. He dropped out of school, was incarcerated six times in 16 years. Only two years ago, when he was 30 years old, did the doctors finally diagnose his condition as bipolar disorder, and he began a successful program, a successful long-term treatment program.

And to make sure that the cracks are closed, I am honored to announce what we call the new Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It is charged to study the problems and gaps in our current system of treatment, and to make concrete recommendations for immediate provements that will be implemented -- (applause) -- and these will be improvements that can be implemented, and must be implemented, by the federal government, the state government, local agencies, as well as public and private health care providers.

To chair the commission, I've selected Michael Hogan. Dr. Hogan, I appreciate your coming, Michael. (Applause.) Dr. Hogan has served as the Director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health for more than ten years, and is recognized as a leader in this profession. He has been focused, as a state official, on how our mental health system works, and how it doesn't work.

I look forward to the Commission's findings. I look forward to their proposals. I look forward to making progress and fixing the system, so that Americans do not fall through the cracks. (Applause.)

The third major obstacle to effective mental health care is the often unfair treatment limitations placed on mental health in insurance coverage. (Applause.) Many private health insurance plans have developed effective programs to identify patients with mental illnesses, and they help them get the treatment they need to regain their health.

But insurance plans too often place greater restrictions on the treatment of mental illness than on the treatment of other medical illnesses. As a result, some Americans are unable to get effective medical treatments that would allow them to function well in their daily lives.

Our health insurance system must treat serious mental illness like any other disease. (Applause.) And that was Senator Domenici's message to me at the Oval Office. (Laughter.) And it was Nancy's message when we had them up for dinner. (Laughter.) And I want to appreciate the fact that they have worked tirelessly on this problem. (Applause.)

I have a record on this issue. As the Governor of Texas, I signed a bill to ensure that patients who critically need mental health are treated fairly. Senator Domenici and I share this commitment: health plans should not be allowed to apply unfair treatment limitations or financial requirements on mental health benefits. (Applause.)

It is critical that we provide full -- as we provide full mental health parity, that we do not significantly run up the cost of health care. I'll work with the Senator. I will work with the Speaker. I will work with their House and Senate colleagues to reach an agreement on mental health parity -- this year. (Applause.)

We must work for a welcoming and compassionate society, a society where no American is dismissed, and no American is forgotten. This is the great and hopeful story of our country, and we can write another chapter. We must give all Americans who suffer from mental illness the treatment, and the respect, they deserve. (Applause.)
President Says U.S. Must Make Commitment to Mental Health Care
White House website | April, 2002

That last is pretty sweeping, isn't it? How can all Americans who need mental health treatment be located unless all Americans are screened? Given the President's goals, the eventual step must necessarily be universal screening, once this expansion in the purpose and mission of the federal government is undertaken.

Will such screening be compulsory? In any case, will those who decline screening have that fact filed?

One compulsory aspect of the President's expansive vision for federal mental health policy appears to be a desire to require private insurance companies to proved full coverage.

Seems intrusive.


447 posted on 06/22/2004 8:08:36 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Mohammedanism is an evil empire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan; NotQuiteCricket

"Trot out something like this *after* the election when folks will have time to take it seriously instead of as an election ploy."

You aren't serious are you? See my post #445. Plus the increase of Government and what NotQuiteCricket said in #36 needs to be considered also.


448 posted on 06/22/2004 8:11:11 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I'm guessing refusal to get screened will be considered a sure sign of mental illness.

Absolutely, non-conformist/paranoid type. A previous poster mentioned that they could tie this into health coverage as well -- making it mandatory that way. That'll reel in those of us who's kids aren't in public school. This is simply sickening. The very sort of thing we expect the leftists to slip by us when they are in charge. With regulation such as this, how can we tell the difference?

449 posted on 06/22/2004 8:11:16 AM PDT by Types_with_Fist (God Bless Ronald Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I was thinking that next month in Boston would be a good starting point, but you're right. Hollywood would be better.


450 posted on 06/22/2004 8:11:25 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
The "The Family Independence Agency"? Incredible. That one deserves a spot alongside "The Patriot Act" and "The New Freedom Initiative" in the Newspeak Hall of Fame.
451 posted on 06/22/2004 8:14:28 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth

Thanks for the excellent contribution to this thread.


452 posted on 06/22/2004 8:15:45 AM PDT by truthkeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I can't believe a Republican administration has proposed such an abomination.

They have? Cite, please.

Silly goose. I remember the speech when it was given.

Your point is.....what?

Selective memory? You ask for someone for source info that is well contained in a speech you remembered when it was given.

Groupthink has clouded your memory I suppose.

453 posted on 06/22/2004 8:19:29 AM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus (Space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

Welcome to the POLICE STATE


454 posted on 06/22/2004 8:21:37 AM PDT by take
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Will such screening be compulsory? In any case, will those who decline screening have that fact filed?

I'm sure it would be; else, it wouldn't be an issue.

Thanks, but no thanks.

But of course, with the wonderful hand of Big Brother, if we don't go through with it, we'll be accused of all sorts of things up through and including collaborating with AQ.

Just damn.

455 posted on 06/22/2004 8:21:41 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn

I'm not saying I like the idea. I'm just saying the timing is even worse to do this while you are running for re-election.

Does he plan to make Tipper Gore his national spokesperson?


456 posted on 06/22/2004 8:25:24 AM PDT by Tall_Texan (Ronald Reagan - Greatest President of the 20th Century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

What a great way to implement "Gun Control"
Simply make everyone ineligible for firearm ownership....by diagnosis...

Wakkenhut a private provider of security services and prison management (asylum)...is looking like a pretty good investment opportunity...

Since the pharmacuetical companies could force (regardless of their hysteria producing politicans and media) anthrax and small pox shots on us...

They too will provide another investment opportunity...

Of course returning combat vets who have seen some serious action...(and buddies killed)
And also rape victims....if they make the mistake of seeking help...will also lose their rights to self defense (kinda ironic)

If it is true that the President would push this merely for the sake of the drug companies...
then why wouldnt he push other policy for the oil companies?

I hope this is a bogus story...very discouraging...the two party cabal must be overthrown...if America is to be free again...as the founders intended..

Of course patriotism or belief in American sovereignty will probably be viewed as a symptom
in need of a diagnosis...and a mind numbing drug of some sort...


457 posted on 06/22/2004 8:26:21 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: primeval patriot

Executive Order
Community-based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities

Fact Sheet

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to place qualified individuals with disabilities in community settings whenever appropriate, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. This order is issued consistent with the following findings and principles:

(a) The United States is committed to community-based alternatives for individuals with disabilities and recognizes that such services advance the best interests of Americans.

(b) The United States seeks to ensure that America's community-based programs effectively foster independence and participation in the community for Americans with disabilities.

(c) Unjustified isolation or segregation of qualified individuals with disabilities through institutionalization is a form of disability-based discrimination prohibited by Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et. seq. States must avoid disability-based discrimination unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity provided by the State.

(d) In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (the "Olmstead decision"), the Supreme Court construed Title II of the ADA to require States to place qualified individuals with mental disabilities in community settings, rather than in institutions, whenever treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose such placement, and the State can reasonably accommodate the placement, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with disabilities.

(e) The Federal Government must assist States and localities to implement swiftly the Olmstead decision, so as to help ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to live close to their families and friends, to live more independently, to engage in productive employment, and to participate in community life.

Sec. 2. Swift Implementation of the Olmstead Decision: Agency Responsibilities. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration shall work cooperatively to ensure that the Olmstead decision is implemented in a timely manner. Specifically, the designated agencies should work with States to help them assess their compliance with the Olmstead decision and the ADA in providing services to qualified individuals with disabilities in community-based settings, as long as such services are appropriate to the needs of those individuals. These agencies should provide technical guidance and work cooperatively with States to achieve the goals of Title II of the ADA, particularly where States have chosen to develop comprehensive, effectively working plans to provide services to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated settings. These agencies should also ensure that existing Federal resources are used in the most effective manner to support the goals of the ADA. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take the lead in coordinating these efforts.

(b) The Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration shall evaluate the policies, programs, statutes, and regulations of their respective agencies to determine whether any should be revised or modified to improve the availability of community-based services for qualified individuals with disabilities. The review shall focus on identifying affected populations, improving the flow of information about supports in the community, and removing barriers that impede opportunities for community placement. The review should ensure the involvement of consumers, advocacy organizations, providers, and relevant agency representatives. Each agency head should report to the President, through the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with the results of their evaluation within 120 days.

(c) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall fully enforce Title II of the ADA, including investigating and resolving complaints filed on behalf of individuals who allege that they have been the victims of unjustified institutionalization. Whenever possible, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services should work cooperatively with States to resolve these complaints, and should use alternative dispute resolution to bring these complaints to a quick and constructive resolution.

(d) The agency actions directed by this order shall be done consistent with this Administration's budget.

Sec. 3. Judicial Review. Nothing in this order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 18, 2001.


458 posted on 06/22/2004 8:26:24 AM PDT by take
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

"this trivial issue"

This is not a trivial issue, this has serious reprecusions especially if libs/Dems get into power. It could make a lot of legal gunowners into "prohibited persons". They could make just about anything a mental disorder (heterosexuality, christianity, anti-abortion, anti-UN, anti-NWO, anti-communist, etc.)


459 posted on 06/22/2004 8:27:44 AM PDT by looscnnn ("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

American Socialism is just so damned well-meaning and clean-thinking that it's hard to oppose it!

But I'm sure there are some who will see this not as Socialism, but as Compassionate Conservatism.

In much the same way, my mother refers to 'meadow muffins' instead of the coarser 'horse-shit'.


460 posted on 06/22/2004 8:27:54 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson