"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...


As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non
profit
mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news.

My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated.

There will have to be a whole new mental health bureaucracy. Actually
two,
as there would have to be both a private and federal ureaucracy. Are
there
really enough trained professionals to seriously evaluate the mental
health
of every American? And can they do it competently? If so, what penalty
should we give to people who refuse treatment? Criminal or civil
penalties?

And how can we know if the diagnosis is correct and was made properly?
How
will we guarantee the rights of Americans?



We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well
test
for mental illness.

Vision and hearing tests are pretty objective. But three different
experts
might say a given kid is hyperactive, has ADD or is just acting like a
normal boy. Alot of parents don't want their kids on such drugs as
Ritalin.
I think they may very well have a point. Strangely, European kids seem to
have a much lower need for Ritalin supplements.

How do we deal with such parents who think they are acting in their own
child's interest? What penalty should be enforced?



Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental
illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at
least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression.

And most of us will be OK. Or maybe not, depending where the standards
are
set. It gets a bit subjective.



One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of
mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment.


Or, every time somebody acts a bit unusual, they haul him in for a
"Government Mental Health Evaluation". Hey, just like the Soviet Union!
Only here in the US, we can force the miscreant to pay for his evaluation
and treatment. And, if the courts are in a good mood, they won't have the
same Constitution hang-up they have with criminal procedures.

Absolutely right.. as the Supreme Court has already decided that the
so-called mentally ill have no legal recourse. Forcing them to take
medication or institutionalization is considered to be not a punishment but
an administrative move. Therefore, Constitutional protections for the
criminally accused do not apply.

This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma.

The proposal is to screen every citizen. What about those who refuse
because they feel they should be left the hell alone as long as they
aren't
bothering anyone or there's no compelling emergency? That's me. I'll
refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam.

As will I, and most of the people I know. This sort of thing can have no
good end or outcome.

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:


Absolutely right.. as the Supreme Court has already decided that the
so-called mentally ill have no legal recourse. Forcing them to take
medication or institutionalization is considered to be not a punishment but
an administrative move. Therefore, Constitutional protections for the
criminally accused do not apply.

That was exactly the reasoning in the Soviet communist system. If you
disagree with the State you must be insane, no court needed. The mental
hospitals were full of 'lunatic' dissenters.

Bush is a menace to democracy and liberty, not to mention all life on
this planet.




mike

In article rH8Cc.2857$HS3.2767@edtnps84,
m II wrote:

David wrote:
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bush to screen population for mental illness
Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs


This is a very bad joke. Right?

I was counting on you to for all our very bad joke needs.

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.

Things really are worse than I thought. Mandatory feeding of
psychotropic drugs to people that the administration finds deficient.

In a few years 'deficient' will mean someone who didn't vote for you.

Nope. The program will start with defective posters to Usenet. Soon you
will get the medicine you need. Next thing you know you will be
listening to short wave and posting on topic to RRS.

Then they will go after people like David that lift entire articles and
post them (including the copyright) as off topic threads.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

I'll
refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam.

As will I, and most of the people I know. This sort of thing can have no
good end or outcome.



Even if those who refuse the Government Mental Health Exam aren't subject to
criminal or civil penalities, there are other potential problems. Will
refusal be held against job applicants? Will Social Security reciepients
need to pass a test before they get a check? If I testify about a crime in
court, will a defense attorney be able to discredit me because I don't have
an up to date bill of mental health?

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

I'll
refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam.

As will I, and most of the people I know. This sort of thing can have no
good end or outcome.



Even if those who refuse the Government Mental Health Exam aren't subject to
criminal or civil penalities, there are other potential problems. Will
refusal be held against job applicants? Will Social Security reciepients
need to pass a test before they get a check? If I testify about a crime in
court, will a defense attorney be able to discredit me because I don't have
an up to date bill of mental health?

One thing is certain about Bush's proposal: It's got the tin foil hat crowd
extremely worried!

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

As long as they start on people who work for the government first...

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...


As someone who has been a volunteer board member for a private non profit
mental health center for over 15 years this sounds like good news.

My primary concern is government programs tend to become bloated.

There will have to be a whole new mental health bureaucracy. Actually two,
as there would have to be both a private and federal ureaucracy. Are there
really enough trained professionals to seriously evaluate the mental health
of every American? And can they do it competently? If so, what penalty
should we give to people who refuse treatment? Criminal or civil penalties?

And how can we know if the diagnosis is correct and was made properly? How
will we guarantee the rights of Americans?


We test for hearing and vision problems in schools, we might as well test
for mental illness.

Vision and hearing tests are pretty objective. But three different experts
might say a given kid is hyperactive, has ADD or is just acting like a
normal boy. Alot of parents don't want their kids on such drugs as Ritalin.
I think they may very well have a point. Strangely, European kids seem to
have a much lower need for Ritalin supplements.

How do we deal with such parents who think they are acting in their own
child's interest? What penalty should be enforced?


Statistically, one out of ten teenagers will have a bout with mental
illness. Throughout your life, odds are one in four that you'll have at
least one mental health problem - even if it's just short term depression.

And most of us will be OK. Or maybe not, depending where the standards are
set. It gets a bit subjective.


One of the biggest problems with mental health care is the stigma of
mental illness makes people afraid to seek treatment.


Or, every time somebody acts a bit unusual, they haul him in for a
"Government Mental Health Evaluation". Hey, just like the Soviet Union!
Only here in the US, we can force the miscreant to pay for his evaluation
and treatment. And, if the courts are in a good mood, they won't have the
same Constitution hang-up they have with criminal procedures.

This proposal has a chance to reduce or eliminate that stigma.

The proposal is to screen every citizen. What about those who refuse
because they feel they should be left the hell alone as long as they aren't
bothering anyone or there's no compelling emergency? That's me. I'll
refuse when I get my Mental Health letter from Uncle Sam.

Frank Dresser

Hi Frank

I think this is getting blown out of proportion by critics.

I am concerned it could develop into a bloated program, but there is already a federal mental health program in place based on block grants. While it's a limited system, it does what it's supposed to do pretty well.

Mental health is already a growing industry - getting people who need help treatment sooner will make it more efficient.

I expect the mandatory part of this to be offering the tests to everyone. (Making them them available)

One benefit of this will be people will start to realize mental health is part of the big picture of health.

Depression screening might be included in schools much like hearing and vision tests are.

Here's an on line depression screening test:

http://www.depression-screening.org/screeningtest/screeningtest.htm

A google search will bring up others.

Depression is the most common form of mental illness, and while they're still learning, (as they are about just about every branch of medicine) they've got treatments that work pretty well. Part of the problem is many people who are depressed don't
realize they could be treated, or they're afraid the stigma of being treated would hurt them in the future. Consider what happened to Thomas Eagleton.

As for Ritalin, I'm not sure what the deal is in your neck of the woods, but around here, you can say "Thanks but no thanks" if they suggest Ritalin - and the consequences are if Finster is disruptive in class, you need to find an alternative treatment,
or they'll put him in a special class so he won't keep other students from learning, or you'll need to find a new school. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

In article rH8Cc.2857$HS3.2767@edtnps84, m II
writes:


In a few years 'deficient' will mean someone who didn't vote for you.


mike

- Don't laugh..

In the 20's in the south, the Government
diagnosed Malnutrition as a
genetic disorder,
put the men on farms ( & I believe ) sterilized many of them

dxAce wrote:
x
Even if those who refuse the Government Mental Health Exam aren't subject to
criminal or civil penalities, there are other potential problems. Will
refusal be held against job applicants? Will Social Security reciepients
need to pass a test before they get a check? If I testify about a crime in
court, will a defense attorney be able to discredit me because I don't have
an up to date bill of mental health?


One thing is certain about Bush's proposal: It's got the tin foil hat crowd
extremely worried!


Trust you to endorse every liberty limiting proposal the administration
can dream up. Where is YOUR personal limit for totalitarian
enactments? Will you start protesting when the 'Homeland Sanity Squad'
is dragging you out of your house? Single men with shortwave radios,
living in isolation, will be the primary targets.

It will be a bit late to regret what you have condoned by then.





mike

"Diverd4777" wrote in message
...


Teachers can rapidly tell which kids need help,
but


I passed my "vision screening test" when I was in the 3rd grade. I assume
the test was administered carelessly or incompetently as my nearsightedness
was later caught the old-fashioned way. The teacher noticed that I couldn't
read the chalkboard unless I was sitting in the front row. She sent me home
with a note.

Frank Dresser