Login

americus 2.0 · 06-30-2017, 04:36 PM

(06-29-2017, 03:50 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(06-29-2017, 02:36 PM)Dumptruck Wrote: I live in Huntington, WV (basically ground zero for the heroin crisis). A quarter of the people who live in the county are on heroin. No exaggeration, you can look it up. The heroin zombies are nodding off behind the wheel and running into people left and right. An elderly fella was ran off of a bridge after a couple OD'd behind the wheel. He died from his injuries later. I get sick of seeing these people get narcan and go right back to what they were up to before.

My wife is a cardiac nurse. The majority of her patients used to be elderly folks. Now, they are primarily IV drug users who have burned up a heart valve. Medicaid pays for them to get valve replacements so they get a new valve to burn up on our dime. Between narcan and medicaid, they have zero consequences for their actions.

So the part of me that is sick of dealing with these pieces of garbage says that three strikes sounds good. However, no medical professional is allowed to let some heroin junkie die.

I understand your frustration and feeling regarding the "three strikes" law, but at the same time I personally couldn't just let someone die because of a psychological/physiological disease. It goes back to actually helping these people overcome the need to put dangerous chemicals into their bodies. Yes I know, alcohol and nicotine are also dangerous chemicals that people put into their bodies (including myself) but it's not the same thing.

Allowing someone to die without helping them or attempting to help them is just not the moral or right thing to do.

And this is where the ball is dropped and it's sad. Ten years ago I was hospitalized twice (in two different psych hospitals no less) due to attempted suicide and having suicidal ideations and neither place was super supportive of getting me well. The second one was better than the first but both were seriously lacking. They basically change up all your meds, which may or may not have contributed to why you were there, you see the doctor once every couple of days and sit in group therapy or watch TV. There is no actual sessions one on one with the shrink, no getting family involved with treatment even if all parties are willing to go that route.

Nothing.

It was changing meds, make sure your insurance was current and when that 30 days of coverage was up, if you didn't have the cash to pay daily they put you out. And insurance didn't cover more than 30 days per year so if you were in trouble again and couldn't pay, sucks to be you. Thankfully I was not there that long consecutively so it wasn't an issue, but these are the things that go on whether it's mental illness or addiction. It pisses me off to no end because people need real help. People who can become productive members of society such as myself and your son.

(06-30-2017, 08:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(06-29-2017, 09:12 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: How dare you insinuate that individuals should be responsible for the consequences of their decisions! Its up to the productive and responsible to pay for those people's judgement lapses.

You may or may not be joking, but you have touched on an inevitable question, and that is, should I be forced to pay for other people's poor choices. Should I be forced to save you from your drug addiction, or your lung cancer, or your diabetes, when those maladies were caused by your own lifestyle choices.

Um, type-1 diabetes is not a lifestyle choice. So you must be talking about type-2. And people do get lung cancer who have never smoked a day in their life. Drug addiction often starts quite innocently. Percocet after a major surgery turns into something quite different down the line for some. Things are not always what they seem, that's all I'm saying.