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."
Because NOT wanting them to do it would be an indication of insanity, of course.
Catch 22.
**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.
|
Willful ignorance is always scary stuff...
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.
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.
As to your alleged cuddlies with boxford, I really don't give a small rodent's posterior, dear.
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.......
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
Howard Dean? izzat you?
Hey! guess what? we got Mad How on here
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.
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.
Did Howie say that?
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.
Not me. I voluntarily went in and got my pills. I feel s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o much better.
No that I know of, but he should have.
......and now, what were you all saying?
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.)
And so does that.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
Some folks post content, links, cogent argument, and others take cheap one-liner potshots.
Where? Exactly where did I do that?
*chuckle*
Nevermind, dear. Forget I said anything.
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.