Yes, your statement is very sweeiping, and comes to conclusions not represented by fact. But that doesn't surprise me. I still wonder why the author of this article, would choose not to sign it.
|
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."
Good grief, man. Get a grip!
In the words of Robert Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," Who ARE those guys?"
Pardon me, but this is typical laywer BS. WND should not only credit their "sources", somebody could have the courage to own up to authoring the piece on WND.
I agree with all that. And yet the fact remains, this article is a legitimate one based in fact.
You know, I could answer that question for you in a very thorough manner.
However, I will not be wasting my time. I doubt that you want to hear the real facts.
I've been up for about 34 hours now. I'm tired and have to take a nap.
IF you sincerely want an answer to that question then ping me later and you will get one.
If you are legitimately interested you won't have any trouble remembering to ASK ME LATER.
You've been on FR for 34 hours? That must be some kind of record.
No, I was not on FR for 34 hours. I said I had been awake for that long.
Nowhere did I say it was all spent on FR. I've been in and out of here over that time period, but I really have other things to do as well.
This has been the problem all night. You and Don Joe have been making assumptions about what we (me and other posters) are trying to say.
Please don't read things into what I say, OK?
Yes, your statement is very sweeiping, and comes to conclusions not represented by fact. But that doesn't surprise me. I still wonder why the author of this article, would choose not to sign it.
Relax...there was no sinister motive intended.
I'm sorry.
Nite.
Yes, your statement is very sweeiping, and comes to conclusions not represented by fact. But that doesn't surprise me. I still wonder why the author of this article, would choose not to sign it.
|
Because the author of this article, Jeanne Lenzer, works for the British Medical Journal and WorldNet Daily didn't bother to credit her.
Got an answer?
Yes I do. That you've lept to a conclusion that is not based in fact.
And using AP and Reuters to defend WND. THAT dog won't hunt, with me.
Your ploy is so transparent that everyone can see you're avoiding the real issue. It's getting you nowhere, aside from stalling for time in hopes the rest of us forget about this thread.
After all, I'm bumping the thread. And if you lawyers think that exposing the truth is a ploy, I'm a bit concerned about what's being churned out of our law schools these days.
Big Brother Alert.
No mention of supplements. SAM-e, fish oils, amino acids, etc.
Another Medicare/prescription drug boondoggle?
texasflower,
Thanks for your "take" on this... I agree with all you said.
Also, from personal experience, when my son started kindergarten, they gave him a twenty minute test and told me he had attention problems. I didn't want to believe this and treated him as a "normal" (meaning only children with good parents).
Guess what... he is severly ADHD; it became more obvious as the years and problems went by. He has been arrested three times for "sticky fingers" due to poor impulse control and more many details that need not be presented here including serious problems with school
Lastly, getting him help as a teenager was IMPOSSIBLE, even with good insurance. Too many kids and adults fall thru the cracks, while others are misdiagnosed and medicated without sufficient cause.
Also, as a child, I had some tendencies that would have pointed to bipolar many, many years before I was diagnosed. Could have saved me thousands of dollars, thousands of rough days, and hundreds of "bloopers".
I've always said the prisons are filled with ADD/bipolar/schitzophrenic (SP) people. I firmly believe this altho I don't have stats.
I think this was one of the items mentioned in the report. Would we rather have the prisons overflowing, or maybe evaluate and treat some of these folks to lead productive lives?
Just personal experience, but I do understand what this report is about. However, I would not agree to the extremist outcomes some posters have written and seriously doubt it would even come to that.
Thanks again texasflower. You have brought a semblance of reason throughout this thread, and I thank you.
Best to you, ba7
"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."
Here is how WND started their "article":
"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"
This is what Jeanne Lenzer wrote in her bmj.com article:
"The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children."
This is what the President's commission actually stated:
"The Commission concluded that the mental health service delivery system in the United States must be substantively transformed. In the transformed system: 1) Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; 2) mental health care is consumer and family-driven; 3) disparities in mental health services are eliminated; 4) early mental health screening, assessment, and referral to services are common practice; 5) excellent mental health services are delivered and research is accelerated; and 6) technology is used to access mental health care and information"
Now, somebody is using rhetorical license here, and I thinks it's pretty plain to see how it descends...
Yes I do. That you've lept to a conclusion that is not based in fact.
|
I wonder if some of the denial we're seeing on this thread has to do with the difference between those who've spent some time interfacing with the current medical system and those who haven't? If you're young, healthy, and been treated only for an occasional sprained shoulder from softball, or whatever, it's easy to think of the medical system as benign and based on altruism rather than money.
As I see it, one of the major factors that would turn a commission's recommendation like this into law is the heavy-duty lobbying from companies guaranteed to make money off of it.
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.