Replies

If Bush does propose a mandatory screening, I will be against it......that would be a huge mistake and I believe an immoral proposal.

I will be a bit shocked if he does though.

I agree, it probably won't be mandatory under President Bush. Whether or not it might be mandatory under some future Democrat or Compassionate Republican is less certain.
What the report does recommend is using public schools to implement widespread screening of children, and even mentions screening for children as young as three years old by other means. That's just in relation to kids.
Also, files would be kept by the government with guarantees of privacy. Do you want anyone working for the government to have acccess to your mental health files, for any reason?
Further, President Bush has expressed a desire to see to it that private insurance companies are required to provide mental health coverage. What business is it of government to determine how extensive one's health insurance plan should be?
Also, with widely expanded screening among the populace and the removal of market forces from the consumption of psychiatric medications, we can reasonably project an increase in the consumption of those drugs by people of all walks of life, whether they need them or not. This is always the case when people can get more than they pay for.

I agree, it probably won't be mandatory under President Bush. Whether or not it might be mandatory under some future Democrat or Compassionate Republican is less certain.

Why are you sure of that? Six years ago, if someone would have told me that Congress would have enacted a law that would have put *every* school district in the US under direct federal control and oversight, I'd have said they were crazy. I don't think this is so farfetched, especially since this administration likes to issue federal *edicts* and then dump the bill into the laps of the states.

Also, files would be kept by the government with guarantees of privacy. Do you want anyone working for the government to have acccess to your mental health files, for any reason?

The HIPAA travesty redefined -- and then ended -- privacy for all of us.

Sure, our medical records will be confidential, insofar as release to entities like our spouses, or specialists we're seeing are concerned. We have to sign forms, releases, and grant "permission" for those folks to have access to our medical records.

However, any government employee, for any reason, can merely request them, and there they are.

It's not limited to government employees, though. Students doing reports, and no end of commercial interests can have access to your records, without your permission. In fact, you are prohibited from denying them access.

Typical orwellian incrementalism. Call it a "privacy act", and then use it to remove privacy act -- and finally, cloak the deception in a massive</> HIPAA "privacy document" you're offered to read before signing.

And of course, don't bother telling the mark that what he's signing is NOT "permission" to allow those entities access to his records. Nope, if you read the fine print, you will see that the ONLY thing you are signing is an acknowledgment that you have been offered a chance to read the massive document.

Cute, eh?

But, millions of Americans think it's "privacy reform", and, they honestly believe they're signing something completely contrary to what they're actually signing.

BTW, it was Bush who gave us HIPAA.