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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740, 741-760, 761-780 ... 1,081 next last
To: TigersEye
Why would any sane person want the Federal Government to do this? Because NOT wanting them to do it would be an indication of insanity, of course.
Catch 22.
741
posted on
06/22/2004 4:22:40 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: A Citizen Reporter
**This is what the White House webpage says about the link you all are quoting: *"On April 29, 2002, the President issued Executive Order 13263 establishing the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Composed of fifteen members representing providers, payers, administrators, and consumers of mental health services, as well as family members of consumers, and seven ex officio members, the Commission was charged with conducting a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, including public and private sector providers, and was directed to advise the President on methods of improving the system. In July 2003, the Commission issued its recommendations in a final report entitled Achieving the Promise, Transforming Mental Health Care in America. See http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/reports.htm. The report identifies barriers to care within the mental health system and examples of community-based care models that have proven successful in coordinating and providing treatment services." **The report has recommendations yes, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE page has outlined what it took from the report. If I didn't know the reputation that you have, I'd be surprised at your polemics. You don't surprise. Ever.
Actually, here's a more fleshed-out excerpt: Presidents New Freedom Commission on Mental Health On April 29, 2002, the President issued Executive Order 13263 establishing the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Composed of fifteen members representing providers, payers, administrators, and consumers of mental health services, as well as family members of consumers, and seven ex officio members, the Commission was charged with conducting a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, including public and private sector providers, and was directed to advise the President on methods of improving the system. In July 2003, the Commission issued its recommendations in a final report entitled Achieving the Promise, Transforming Mental Health Care in America. See http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/reports.htm. The report identifies barriers to care within the mental health system and examples of community-based care models that have proven successful in coordinating and providing treatment services. 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. The Commission also concluded that the roles played by states must be central to the transformation process, but states must rely heavily upon the involvement of consumers in research, planning, and evaluation activities. At the same time, the coordinated efforts of more than 25 Federal agencies must undergird and reinforce the states processes. Every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies. Every state must have a comprehensive mental health plan, the ownership of which is shared by all state agencies impacting the care of persons with serious mental illnesses. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/chapter4-2004.html
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, as it reconfirms what the President said in April of 2002: "We must give all Americans who suffer from mental illness the treatment, and the respect, they deserve." So again, how do we find "every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance" without universal screening?
|
742
posted on
06/22/2004 4:24:05 PM PDT
by
Sabertooth
(Mohammedanism is an evil empire.)
To: Don Joe
Willful ignorance is always scary stuff...
To: truthkeeper
Have you kept a count of how many times you've posted that WH link? Oh, probably as many times as it's been ignored, if not less.
Take this post of yours, for example. It's clear that YOU didn't bother to actually look at it, or you'd realize that it's NOT a "WH link". And no, there is no contradiction to anything I've said, but you'd have to bother to read it to understand that.
I don't feel like going back and re-reading this entire thread.
Oh pooor baby. In that case, I suggest you don't.
744
posted on
06/22/2004 4:25:10 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Don Joe
Would you believe that the majority of Bush supporters are doing so because of the facts?
If you are no Bush supporter, maybe you are being misled about the facts.
745
posted on
06/22/2004 4:26:54 PM PDT
by
F.J. Mitchell
(Let Kerry be Kerry -what the hell else is he good for? -but let Bush be President.)
To: Judith Anne
That was a reply to HIS personal attack, in which he essentially accused my wife of being a pathological liar.
As to your alleged cuddlies with boxford, I really don't give a small rodent's posterior, dear.
746
posted on
06/22/2004 4:27:07 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Ann Archy
Sorry...color me skeptical....I don't believe this story.
Same here. I don't believe it one bit. Not for a second.
To: Don Joe
Catch 22.That's funny but actually quite true. You would have to be nuts to turn down FREE healthcare and FREE medicine. After all; this country is about Freedom and Freedom starts with FREE! It all just fits together.
Ha Ha, Ho Ho, Hee Hee.......
748
posted on
06/22/2004 4:28:56 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Intellectuals only exist if you think they do!)
To: Don Joe
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!
YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!! How could I have been so blind????
We're all going to be marched to diagnostic centers and forced to reveal our inmost thoughts so we can be drugged into insensibility!!!!!
AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!
/extreme dripping sarcasm
749
posted on
06/22/2004 4:30:39 PM PDT
by
Judith Anne
("The convictions that shaped the president began to shape the times..." President G.W. Bush)
To: TigersEye
After all; this country is about Freedom and Freedom starts with FREE! Howard Dean? izzat you?
Hey! guess what? we got Mad How on here
750
posted on
06/22/2004 4:31:45 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
To: BossLady
HIPAA was fully implemented in April 2003....at least that's when all involved had to comply. There are a few ways to escape some of its brutal impact, but only partially so.
First, there's the "country doctor" exemption, but good luck finding one. My doctor is as close to a classic "country doctor" as anyone is likely to find, and she's fully HIPAA'd.
In any case, you are not obligated to sign the document. You can simply file your own releases, which is precisely what I do every time I see a doctor. (And with my body decomposing out from under me, that's more often than I'd like.)
One item to consider: I file a document stating my reason for refusing to sign the HIPAA "release", i.e., the fact that I am not legally obligated to sign it, and my decision to exercise that legal right. The reason I do this is to prevent some scumbag from reporting that I was "uncoopoerative" or "irrational" or somesuch. You see, the doctors have to report their failures to get signatures, and those are some of the reasons they can put down.
I prefer to have my actual reason placed on file rather than some vengeful SOB's nonsense.
It's sad that we've come to this.
Sadder yet is that most people prefer to "go with the flow", and "not make waves".
The statists sure know how to ruin a country. One inch at a time.
751
posted on
06/22/2004 4:32:55 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Sabertooth
"Every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies." Saber:"So again, how do we find "every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance" without universal screening?
Bay Buchanan ain't got nothin' on your polemics, Saber. No matter how many times you repost the same thing, time and time and time again.
Let me ask you this. If the President had said:
"Every adult with cancer must have an individualized plan of care coordinating services among programs and across agencies."
Would you have assumed that he was proposing every American to have federally subsidized cancer screenings?
On second thought, maybe you shouldn't answer that.
To: dread78645
753
posted on
06/22/2004 4:33:16 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Intellectuals only exist if you think they do!)
To: Don Joe
My conclusion is that God's people have been doing a lot of praying, but damned little humbling of themselves. I don't think you can conclude that God's people have been "doing a lot praying". Only God knows this. But you did say one thing right so far that I can tell on this thread. There is "little humbling". I agree. Whether you believe God or not doesn't change a thing however. He will do what He says He will do.Speaking against it doesn't change the fact.
And, yes, I fall short myself; even here on FR. I wrote what I did to encourage another poster not beat anyone over the head with the Bible. I like Laz. He's been here a long time and I've always enjoyed his posts. He sounded discouraged to me.
It seems I have hurt your feelings. I called you insane and made references to your 'sanity' (I was being flippant). I apologize for calling you a name and for being flippant. sincerely sorry.
To: Judith Anne
Not me. I voluntarily went in and got my pills. I feel s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o much better.
755
posted on
06/22/2004 4:34:21 PM PDT
by
F.J. Mitchell
(Let Kerry be Kerry -what the hell else is he good for? -but let Bush be President.)
To: TigersEye
No that I know of, but he should have.
756
posted on
06/22/2004 4:34:34 PM PDT
by
dread78645
(Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
To: Judith Anne
Please excuse my brief interjection while I read the fight going on here, but I must say, if there IS a plan to somehow screen the population for mental illness, and after hearing Clinton talk about his (sniff, sniff) poor, sad life and his feelings of being ALL ALONE after the Monica mess (per interview w/Oprah), I think we should start with him.
......and now, what were you all saying?
757
posted on
06/22/2004 4:34:50 PM PDT
by
Max7
To: Judith Anne
Clinton signed the HIPAA Act in 1996. Don Joe is mistaken. Hasn't bothered to acknowledge that, though. Bush saw to it that it was enacted. It was his decision, his choice.
I'll await your apology after you read the links I provided earlier.
But, I won't hold my breath. (No offense, etc.)
758
posted on
06/22/2004 4:34:55 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: A Citizen Reporter
Now that advances an argument. And so does that.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
Some folks post content, links, cogent argument, and others take cheap one-liner potshots.
759
posted on
06/22/2004 4:36:00 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: Howlin
I mean, you are arguing against the original source material, so I presume there must be a reason. Where? Exactly where did I do that?
*chuckle*
Nevermind, dear. Forget I said anything.
760
posted on
06/22/2004 4:38:08 PM PDT
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740, 741-760, 761-780 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson