this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
144 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3187 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

America’s drug overdose crisis is out of control. Washington, despite a bipartisan desire to combat it, is finding its addiction-fighting programs are failing.

In 2018, Republicans, Democrats and then-President Donald Trump united around legislation that threw $20 billion into treatment, prevention and recovery. But five years later, the SUPPORT Act has lapsed and the number of Americans dying from overdoses has grown more than 60 percent, driven by illicit fentanyl. The battle has turned into a slog.

Even though 105,000 Americans died last year, Congress is showing little urgency about reupping the law since it expired on Sept. 30. That’s not because of partisan division, but a realization that there are no quick fixes a new law could bring to bear.

Aiming to expand access to treatment, Congress in December eliminated the waiver and training requirements physicians needed to prescribe buprenorphine, which helps patients stop taking fentanyl. The Drug Enforcement Administration recently extended eased pandemic rules for prescribing it via telemedicine through the end of 2024.

A bipartisan group of representatives focused on mental health and substance use has proposed more than 70 bills this Congress to fight the overdose crisis, but none of them has inspired the kind of urgency lawmakers showed five years ago when they packaged bills into one landmark package: the SUPPORT Act.

The law’s expiration on Oct. 1 means states are no longer required to cover all of the FDA-approved treatments for opioid use disorder through Medicaid but public health advocates don’t expect any state to drop that coverage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe they will realize soon that they have fucked this world up so bad that disproportionately more people don’t even want to deal with it. Fuck, Canada has the same issues, and we even have MAID now that they suggest to people because the country doesn’t want to care for them anymore (veterans, disabled people who can’t afford rent with the lower disability payments).

Then you have the fact that the medical systems still push too many opioids, and people who reach too high of a tolerance on standard opioid medications seek out something stronger like fentanyl. If only they made access to other pain relief as easy (like cannabis), but that won’t happen until Purdue can put it into a prescience bottle.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fuck, Canada has the same issues, and we even have MAID now that they suggest to people because the country doesn’t want to care for them anymore (veterans, disabled people who can’t afford rent with the lower disability payments).

MAID requires two separate doctors to sign off on. Is there any actual evidence that people struggling to pay rent have been recommended for MAID?

Or is this just so deliciously outrageous that we're just going to repeat it often enough that it becomes mistaken for the truth?

[–] bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anybody deemed mentally sound should have the option of a safe and painless suicide. Or is it only okay to kill people when they are guilty of a crime?

[–] bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You are widely missing ehe point. It shouldn’t be an option if the only reason is ‘rent is to high for my government benefits’. That’s an absolute failure by the government

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Good thing that's not a real option.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That isn't happening. Get fucked you little bitch and go back to Facebook

[–] bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You can’t even come up with something yourself? So your arrogant AND stupid, I thought so.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anyone can recommend anything. I recommend you find a large trash bin and sleep in it like Oscar the Grouch to save on rent and improve your current smell. Please find find two doctors to sign off on it.

[–] bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s your attitude when confronted with evidence that goes against what you say? Get fucked you little bitch and go back to Facebook

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Evidence? Look at the first link you sent me.

This is not government policy. This was not serious. This was a military grunt making a dumb joke that he got reprimanded for, that CTV is using for click bait and idiots like you are taking as fact.

Your media literacy is embarrassing.

[–] bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Are you really complaining about media literacy when you are just making assumptions based on…nothing? Writing this off as ‘just a military grunt’ is so obviously ignorant it tells me you don’t really care about the evidence provided since you are just going to nitpick words and sentences, then make wild assumptions (like knowing exactly what was going through that persons mind that makes it a ‘joke’) and conclude that you were right.