So, you are NOT saying that there will be compulsory psychiatric screening for 300 million people? Those who do not measure up will NOT be forced to take psych meds made by drug companies financially friendly to President Bush?
Doesn't that mean we think the same? Because I don't either. So, why are you so upset? How is it that I have my head in the sand? What sneaky proposal is in that document you linked that has you so exercized? Is it law?
Is is going to be an EO? Does congress have to act?
I just can't get excited over this.
My point was that it is plausible to me that something like this could be voted in, and that Republicans would vote for it as well.
As far as the extent of the interventions, what disturbed me in particular was using public schools as the focal points for screening children. Would such screening be "compulsory?" Compulsory is the wrong word. Theoretically, children can get out of all sorts of things that are thought of as "compulsory" (sex ed, drug education, physical exams.) In reality, the vast number of children and their parents just go with the flow. Do I think that schools would become centers for mass screenings of public school children? Yes.
After the issue of involving the public schools, my next major concern has already been expressed by other writers here: that widespread of labelling people with mental illness would be a great way to keep people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
I suppose there is a silver lining, which we can take to the polls with us in November - those worried about a draft won't have to, because at present it's difficult to get into the military if you've been diagnosed with a psychiatric problem, especially if you've used medication. So if everyone's on antidepressants, then I guess there's not much chance of a draft, eh?