- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Pharmacist on Netflix - Watch It
Posted on 3/1/20 at 2:03 pm to RCDfan1950
Posted on 3/1/20 at 2:03 pm to RCDfan1950
I'm just throwing out food for thought, it's what I do. There's plenty of argument in support of the premise that addiction, in general, is purely a consequence of personal choice, and I assume free will. And deserves no attention or financial support geared toward treatment. Fine.
But let's look at it from this angle: no one would disagree, I don't think, that addiction is a real thing, it not merely a myth. So you obviously have addicts who have no means to foot the bill for treatment in an effort to turn them clean. Which hopefully is another area of consensus, that addicts can and do get clean and manage to stay clean subsequent to treatment. So then there's the cost of treatment that is proposed to be covered by the government if the person can't afford it/has no insurance. There's a set dollar amount that ends up being. If it is successful you then have a budding productive, tax paying member of society who is much more likely to secure gainful employment. Many of the programs will even assist in placing for employment.
Now we should brainstorm as to the potential that same unclean, continued addiction individual can and will end up likely costing the government for things at least loosely due to the ongoing addiction, if not directly related. Incarceration cost, person ODs or some other irresponsible medical concern or hospitalization, won't work and is able to finagle welfare, and what have you.
Comparing the cost for each situation, what should we lean toward as a general policy? Give em a shot, or tell em good luck and get lost?
But let's look at it from this angle: no one would disagree, I don't think, that addiction is a real thing, it not merely a myth. So you obviously have addicts who have no means to foot the bill for treatment in an effort to turn them clean. Which hopefully is another area of consensus, that addicts can and do get clean and manage to stay clean subsequent to treatment. So then there's the cost of treatment that is proposed to be covered by the government if the person can't afford it/has no insurance. There's a set dollar amount that ends up being. If it is successful you then have a budding productive, tax paying member of society who is much more likely to secure gainful employment. Many of the programs will even assist in placing for employment.
Now we should brainstorm as to the potential that same unclean, continued addiction individual can and will end up likely costing the government for things at least loosely due to the ongoing addiction, if not directly related. Incarceration cost, person ODs or some other irresponsible medical concern or hospitalization, won't work and is able to finagle welfare, and what have you.
Comparing the cost for each situation, what should we lean toward as a general policy? Give em a shot, or tell em good luck and get lost?
This post was edited on 3/1/20 at 2:04 pm
3
Posted on 3/1/20 at 2:33 pm to davyjones
quote:
There's a set dollar amount that ends up being.
I don’t have a huge problem with this. But I think you’d need to screen for certain up front characteristics that would indicate likelihood of success.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 2:39 pm to davyjones
As a general policy, I think we treat it like a public health crisis. Because it is.
I think it’s like any other degenerative condition. It’s a compulsion, that doesn’t discriminate. You can be predisposed bc you’re depressed and trying to self medicate or because you have some kind of abuse or trauma in your background. Neither of those things you can prevent. And both make you at risk for addiction.
I’d much rather see media attention, Public money and resources dedicated to dealing with this issue - which affects all people, than CoronaVirus.
It’s complicated, like people are. It has to be dealt with from spiritual and law enforcement perspective. And with absolute compassion. Compassion in no way requires enabling bad behavior or bad decisions. In fact it demands otherwise. It demands what’s hardest to do. Walk away from someone you love so they can learn to love themselves. And while dealing with the problem doesn’t require excusing the awful behavior that comes with addiction; it does require forgiveness; Both of ourselves and of others.
Thanks for fighting the fight Davy. I’ll pray for you.
I think it’s like any other degenerative condition. It’s a compulsion, that doesn’t discriminate. You can be predisposed bc you’re depressed and trying to self medicate or because you have some kind of abuse or trauma in your background. Neither of those things you can prevent. And both make you at risk for addiction.
I’d much rather see media attention, Public money and resources dedicated to dealing with this issue - which affects all people, than CoronaVirus.
It’s complicated, like people are. It has to be dealt with from spiritual and law enforcement perspective. And with absolute compassion. Compassion in no way requires enabling bad behavior or bad decisions. In fact it demands otherwise. It demands what’s hardest to do. Walk away from someone you love so they can learn to love themselves. And while dealing with the problem doesn’t require excusing the awful behavior that comes with addiction; it does require forgiveness; Both of ourselves and of others.
Thanks for fighting the fight Davy. I’ll pray for you.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 2:40 pm to Wednesday
Super good series
Just be prepared, you need a high tolerance for men crying and the nastiest Chalmette accents ever.
Just be prepared, you need a high tolerance for men crying and the nastiest Chalmette accents ever.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 2:56 pm to Wednesday
Compassion tempered with restraint, and reason. Quite the combination that you strongly demonstrate here.
And I recognize that there are others here exhibiting signs of same.
And not to diminish positions to the contrary throughout a thread like this....competing thoughts are always necessary, as long as they're fairly reasoned. Which of course I do my best to hold myself to as well.
And I recognize that there are others here exhibiting signs of same.
And not to diminish positions to the contrary throughout a thread like this....competing thoughts are always necessary, as long as they're fairly reasoned. Which of course I do my best to hold myself to as well.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 3:02 pm to OBReb6
The Drug Rep was adorable and his accent was pure south Louisiana gold.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 3:04 pm to Wednesday
Yeah that dude was cool AF
Posted on 3/1/20 at 5:07 pm to davyjones
quote:
Comparing the cost for each situation, what should we lean toward as a general policy? Give em a shot, or tell em good luck and get lost?
Even if we could accurately predict those costs your formula assumes static numbers. If you de-stigmatize a risky activity and provide assistance to minimize the negative impact of that activity, you'll get more of that activity.
It may be too complicated an issue to say "screw them", but it's also too complicated to simply claim "helping them is cheaper".
Posted on 3/1/20 at 5:29 pm to Flats
Perhaps the government could contract with the private sector and statutorily set payment schedules. I believe that's a common practice in govt-private sector arrangements. Possibly a couple or three different levels of care/packages that would be determined by the initial screening process mentioned by 808 a few posts back, could determine overall eligibility and level of need.
And sure, I simplified the choices, but it does seem to come down to that public health crisis that may ultimately warrant a basic cost/benefit analysis, which again is a simplified but accurate in a very stripped down way.
Just a little spitballing here.
And sure, I simplified the choices, but it does seem to come down to that public health crisis that may ultimately warrant a basic cost/benefit analysis, which again is a simplified but accurate in a very stripped down way.
Just a little spitballing here.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 5:46 pm to Wednesday
quote:
And BTW - frick Purdue Pharmaceuticals. I hope you people go to jail. I hope my sexy unsexy old boyfriend files a RICO action on your arse and you go directly to jail and you die penniless in an orange jumpsuit.
Purdue went BK in late 2019 due to all the litigation. Of course, the Sacklers withdrew about $10bn out of the company in advance.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 7:06 pm to Wednesday
I’m watching it now. It’s pretty good but some of the spin is annoying as hell. They were just talking about some guy who ground up the pills and injected his son (I’m assuming they were dissolved in something) with a double dose, son dies. And they repeatedly say he “lost his son.” No, he killed his son.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 7:28 pm to Flats
I have respect for ole Dan, but he's annoying as hell.
Posted on 3/1/20 at 8:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In these kangaroo court proceedings targeting opiod manufacturers, physicians claim to have been buffaloed by pharma companies into belief that opiates were nonaddictive.
Are you kidding me?!!
I buy that BS from pharmacists more than doctors, and I don't much buy it from pharmacists. How many doctors you know who will listen to medical advice from someone who's not a doctor? We're supposed to believe that they were bamboozled by some blond hottie with a low cut dress who majored in general studies? No.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News