Woah...Corey Haim dead.

If you don't think anyone is profiting from even a socialized healthcare system, then.. wow. Just wow, I wasn't expecting that coming from someone who's made it their life's purpose to interject themselves into every thread and be an authority/devil's advocate/voice in the crowd.

It's not just about doctors' personal salaries - it's also about the clinics the doctors work for, which need to be profitable or break even in order to remain operating. Think about the pharmaceutical industry, which manufactures and sells the medications that people need to stay alive/healthy/maintained.
 
If you don't think anyone is profiting from even a socialized healthcare system, then.. wow. Just wow, I wasn't expecting that coming from someone who's made it their life's purpose to interject themselves into every thread and be an authority/devil's advocate/voice in the crowd.

It's not just about doctors' personal salaries - it's also about the clinics the doctors work for, which need to be profitable or break even in order to remain operating. Think about the pharmaceutical industry, which manufactures and sells the medications that people need to stay alive/healthy/maintained.

No such thing as profit in the NHS, it's a non profit organization.

If anything it doesn't have enough money, it doesn't need to be spending the little money it does have on illnesses that don't exist.

Can't believe anyone can be so paranoid or daft as to say illnesses are made up by the medical profession.
 
Last edited:
but there are statistics and boxes to tick in the NHS so there would be your reason to label something a disease and try to cure the bugger. its good for the administrators.
 
A disease is something you get, by no fault of your own.

You mean like Herpes or the Clap?

Below is not my writing, but good writing none the less.


"Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by changes in the brain which result in a compulsive desire to use a drug. A combination of many factors including genetics, environment and behavior influence a person's addiction risk, making it an incredibly complicated disease. The new science of addiction considers all of these factors - from biology to family - to unravel the complexities of the addicted brain."

Research indicates that drugs have an intense and immediate effect on the brain's physiology. Over time the changes contribute to profound alterations or 'hard-rewiring' within the brain because in effect the brain reacts to the presence of the drug and tries to adapt to it.
Behavior

The most controversial aspect of this definition might be in its behavioral approach. Physician and addiction specialist Kevin T. McCauley, M.D defends this, writing, "the behavior of addicts can be frustrating, revolting — even criminal. But in medicine, the character of the patient is separated from his or her symptoms, however unpleasant or harmful. Patients are not judged based on the palatability of their symptoms."

Put another way, reading and interpreting the symptoms of a disease help doctors to diagnose it, but these symptoms themselves are not appropriate treatment pathways. For example, If a patient is screaming about some extreme lower body pain, doctors do not treat this pain by disabling or removing vocal chords.

There is a general agreement—albeit slim—that at some point, an addict loses the ability to control his urge or desire to use drugs. What happens in the time leading up to this is the debate's true battleground featuring a complex hive of factors, not all of them easily proven or disproved. The foundation of the medical community is on the scientific method, on research and clinical trials; it can't rely on anecdotal evidence. br> Thus if changing the names of government research institutes to reflect addiction as a disease means more resources will be applied towards finding effective treatment options for addicts, it seems like an unimpeachable step in the right direction.

Those who are once again on their high horse in the "It's not a disease" Crowd, Sorry, we're not talking a "Theory" that cropped up recently, we have data going back decades in support, and thank God, treatment is progressing rapidly to fight it.
 

Yeah, my girlfriend works for one :rolleyes

Believe me, they're about profit over service. Try googling Robert Francis' report into the Mid Staffordshire Trust, before buying hook line into the 'official' version on the goverment's website.

Staff were equally critical about the hospital's management, and described bosses who bred "an atmosphere of fear of adverse repercussions", stressed NHS targets were the top priority and were secretive when things went wrong

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/25/mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust
 
Ian Child, a financial accountant at the Trust, explains: 'Today, an NHS Foundation Trust has to account for and monitor its funding accurately, just as would be the case in any large business organisation. The capital we receive from the Government is given to us in order that we can generate and show a return on it.

http://www.realassetmgt.co.uk/press/case_studie/NHS/southend.php

The idea of the Foundation Trust is that they are run in such a way as they actually turn a profit, which is reinvested into the service to suplement what we pay in taxes to keep the NHS afloat.
 
Last edited:
Again i'm failing to see who is profiting from making up an illness here.
Yes our healthcare system is paid for with tax money but that''s precisely it the tax is spent on healthcare nobody is profiting from it, doctors have a salary they aren't paid per consultation so they have nothing financially to gain the government have no financial gain so come on tell me what purpose would our healthcare system have to make up an illness ?

I'm stunned you believe this. So much so that clearly any attempt to explain the inherent fallacy in your logic would clearly be a waste of my time.
 
http://www.realassetmgt.co.uk/press/case_studie/NHS/southend.php

The idea of the Foundation Trust is that they are run in such a way as they actually turn a profit, which is reinvested into the service to suplement what we pay in taxes to keep the NHS afloat.

They are able to get their funding from private and public sources, that isn't the same as profit and all funding is plowed into the trust.
Also no capital is made by selling medical care or medicine.

Are we really going to continue on this conspiracy theory that every single medical professional in the world is in on and is making up illnesses that don't exist to make money ?
 
You mean like Herpes or the Clap?

Below is not my writing, but good writing none the less.


"Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by changes in the brain which result in a compulsive desire to use a drug. A combination of many factors including genetics, environment and behavior influence a person's addiction risk, making it an incredibly complicated disease. The new science of addiction considers all of these factors - from biology to family - to unravel the complexities of the addicted brain."

Research indicates that drugs have an intense and immediate effect on the brain's physiology. Over time the changes contribute to profound alterations or 'hard-rewiring' within the brain because in effect the brain reacts to the presence of the drug and tries to adapt to it.
Behavior

The most controversial aspect of this definition might be in its behavioral approach. Physician and addiction specialist Kevin T. McCauley, M.D defends this, writing, "the behavior of addicts can be frustrating, revolting — even criminal. But in medicine, the character of the patient is separated from his or her symptoms, however unpleasant or harmful. Patients are not judged based on the palatability of their symptoms."

Put another way, reading and interpreting the symptoms of a disease help doctors to diagnose it, but these symptoms themselves are not appropriate treatment pathways. For example, If a patient is screaming about some extreme lower body pain, doctors do not treat this pain by disabling or removing vocal chords.

There is a general agreement—albeit slim—that at some point, an addict loses the ability to control his urge or desire to use drugs. What happens in the time leading up to this is the debate's true battleground featuring a complex hive of factors, not all of them easily proven or disproved. The foundation of the medical community is on the scientific method, on research and clinical trials; it can't rely on anecdotal evidence. br> Thus if changing the names of government research institutes to reflect addiction as a disease means more resources will be applied towards finding effective treatment options for addicts, it seems like an unimpeachable step in the right direction.

Those who are once again on their high horse in the "It's not a disease" Crowd, Sorry, we're not talking a "Theory" that cropped up recently, we have data going back decades in support, and thank God, treatment is progressing rapidly to fight it.
Wow...what the hell happened to this thread?

Sorry Oneiros, your copied diatribe is forgetting one thing: The addicts did it to themselves. You cannot go out and intentionally get herpes. Well, you can, but comparing being a drug/alcohol addict to herpes, or any other REAL disease is a load of hooey. I can total feel where StreetJudge is coming from with his statement. You see drug addicts every day, you develop a level of apathy to people who are basically killing themselves. I mean look, I know what heroin, does to your body. It changes the physiology so that you need it. If I know this, I guarantee every single person who has tried heroin knows it too.

So, getting back to the ORIGINAL topic of the thread. It is sad for Haim's family, but they had to expect it. It is also strange to watch a kid a lot of us grew up watching in the movies just dissolve to nothingness, but it is cliched. The fact that this is a cliche is the saddest thing of all.
 
Mods, how about locking this thread already. It has gone way off the original intent. This thread was about someone who died. If people want to argue about healthcare and if addiction is an illness or self induced, let them start there own threads.

I wonder what the reaction of some of you would have been when Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or John Belushi died if there was an internet where you could say whatever you wanted without revealing who you really are?
 
Last edited:
Mods, how about locking this thread already. It has gone way off the original intent.

Ask to have it locked if it's YOUR thread, which this is not. I think it takes a lot of balls to ask to close someone elses thread simply because you don't like the way it's going.
 
Back
Top