Comments on: Detox Deal Done, Despite Dollar Drain

By: Nemo

Nemo — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:18:09 +0000

Bikeboy,

You have some valid oints, but that model is failing the rest of healthcare, why do we need to set this up for failue too?

Besides a simple look at a significant portion of these potential “clients” (or patients, or what ever PC name de jour) to see that is a dry rescource.

And planning to fund it on money that simply isnt there is a losing proposition. In addition, how do you expect to get the information at the time of need.

This isnt a facility like “celebrity rehab” on TV, this is NOT rehab… this is simply a medicaly monitored holding facility to mitigate risks of incarcerating those people while not overburdoning (and underneath that, spending even more $$) the hospitals in the area.
Hopefully it will also be a method of introducing those same people into rescources forelevating their life to a better place…but if you look at other Detox centers success at this, that is a pipe dream.

I’m not against it, Im ALL for it…but we need to be realistic on what it is, and what it isnt… and fund accordingly and realistically.

By: Tom Anderson

Tom Anderson — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:48:35 +0000

This will free up more room in our prisons for POLITICIANS.

By: The Boise Picayune

The Boise Picayune — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:52:19 +0000

More money is probably headed our way to help pay for this sort of thing…

http://theboisepicayune.blogspot.com/2008/12/calls-for-drug-law-reform-top-obama.html

By: Clancy

Clancy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:30:26 +0000

I agree with Bikeboy. Make them submit financials like for college loans. They can help pay based off a sliding scale. I would also add that a yearly audit of the third party running this joint should be mandatory.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:19:59 +0000

The recipients of the services, and/or their families, should be expected to pay for services rendered, whenever feasible. (Kinda like other forms of medical/mental health care.) The taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the entire bill to run the place. (Unless when I woke up this morning we all have an entitlement to free detox.) Call me hard-hearted. Or agree with me that taxpayers can’t fill every citizen’s every need.

In these parts, we like our healthcare facilities named after saints. I propose “St. David’s SAM-HIC.”

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:44:01 +0000

Great idea! Sorely needed! However, it doesn’t take a lot of money to draw a pretty picture. If it is OK with you, I will wait until I see the deposit slips from all these entities! Based on the prior relationships and agreements, I am sure you will understand my skepticism. (remember the city-county shooting range.)

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:33:40 +0000

What to do? Put them in jail or prison or do we try to provide a second chance at a decent life.

The legislature needs to fund detox and rehab as prison is the ultimate destination for people on drugs who commit crimes. It just takes a lot of local frequent flyer visits to the local jails to end up in prison.

Most of these people recognize they are hooked but can’t seem to find a way out of the lifestyle. I personally know two people who did more than a decade of time in the Idaho Prison system. They got it together and are clean and sober. Just maybe this could have been done at a much lower cost to the taxpayers with a State rehab program. Ten years of lock up time for two non-violent people seems excessive.

It is easy to say lock people up and throw the key away. Maturity and second chances at life need to be a reasoned option in certain instances it makes financial sense as well as a more humane approach to the problems of drug addiction.

By: ericn1300

ericn1300 — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:18:22 +0000

Without a doubt this kind of facility has been long needed, this isn’t Mayberry where Otis just checked himself in for the night, we have a real problem here that the legislature acknowledged but did nothing of real value to address it. I’m glad to see the county and city moving forward towards the public good and maybe using the state legislation, and lack of funding, as grounds for reimbursement.