We need to have a lot more payment options for low-income people, who are already more vulnerable to addiction in the first place.
The cost for not treating addiction is even higher.
“The Cost of Addiction Treatment Keeps Poor People Addicted”
And private insurance cost-cutting increases opioid addiction in the first place:
"[D]espite the U.S. opioid crisis, many insurance companies provide easy access to highly addictive opioid medications for pain relief while restricting access to less-risky but more costly alternatives."
Along with Homeless Shelters that are connected to/have their own “Health Care”/“Mental Health” services. Coercing with free Transit passes and anything else in exchange of Vaccinations/Flu Shots. Exploiting the poor, homeless and vulnerable yet again. “Alternative” Medicines/Curing Needs to be Coerced/Pushed/Forced. If They can do it with pHARMaceutiKILLS then why not actual Health and CURES?
This is a useful article that highlights at least some of the problems with current drug treatment.
I would like to add that 1) another useful medication for opioid addiction is suboxone; 2) highly expensive 12 Step rehabs for opioid addiction are currently the norm for treatment and horrifically ineffective when compared to medication. As the article addresses, “abstinence” doesn’t work for most people and 12 Step is not only has abstinence as its core, but an abstinence tied to something that plays out to be more religious cult than helpful treatment;3) It’s also interesting and frustrating that while the government will use Ibogaine as an actual “cure” for opioid addiction of its Special Agents that Ibogaine is still illegal for others in the United States even under doctor supervision.
Perhaps the overdoses are in fact cases of suicide? I wonder…
These are some issues with Single Payer that are worth considering. Canada has a successful program modeled after one in Switzerland and both of them are Single Payer but much different from what is proposed for the U.S.
Hm…wasn’t really point of my post…I did read Holland’s article around the time it came out - as well several replies “worth considering,” imo.
I guess I am not sure what the information was meant to imply. I took it to mean treatment options for addicts would be improved by a Single payer plan. So I’m still not entirely sure. I don’t agree with everything in the Nation article but I really object to Margaret Flowers as a biased account of HR676, The one thing that I liked about about the Nation article is that it illustrates there is more than one way to archive Single Payer. HR676 is incomplete just like the CA plan and that is most likely that if people understood those terms they too would object. I did accreditation under Health Services and State regulation so I have a small idea what they are referencing. Thanks very much as I usually try to avoid reading her work and I should.
“I guess I am not sure what the information was meant to imply. I took it to mean treatment options for addicts would be improved by a Single payer plan.”
The post wasn’t about “implying.” As w/Brico’s piece, I focused not on single payer, but ills of U.S. private healthcare. I pointed out the profit motive not only decreases the likelihood of addicts getting effective treatment, but increases the likelihood of addiction in the first place. A generalized invocation of Holland’s piece is too overarching, doesn’t come to terms w/that point.
“The one thing that I liked about about the Nation article is that it illustrates there is more than one way to archive [sic] Single Payer.”
Great you “liked” an article, fern…But liking something, declaring an opposing view “biased,” and invoking your professional authority to support your inspecific rejection is not a claim or an argument…more like an evasion of one.