Skip to main content

View Diary: Good news: ACA covers addiction treatment - Bad news: addiction treatment may not work (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  based on your definition of "addict" (5+ / 0-)

    in your prior response to me, it seems there is no shortage of frauds in the counseling business inventing addicts.

    individual counselors may not rake in the bucks, but both private corporate rehabs and not-for-profits are perversely incented to fill seats and bill hours to get that grant money, and their employees follow that line, like the two corrupt counselors I encountered during my experience.

    Counselor 1:  "Your urine test is negative, no positive, no negative, no positive.  A single positive test is the criteria for counseling (no it isn't), the law requires a urine test (no it doesn't).

    Counselor 2:  "You are an alcohol abuser because you drank one kind of alcohol on one occasion and another kind of alcohol on another occasion"

    "You have multiple legal problems with alcohol in a single 12 month period"  (NOPE, contradicts the public record and reality.

    Me to various bodies of counselors who are supposed to hold other counselors accountable:  "Look at this clear documented evidence of fraud"

    Counselor Committee who enforces standards in the industry "Whatever".

    Scam artists all.

    •  oh right (0+ / 0-)

      keep on drinking, we're all frauds anyway. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that one.

      •  Every addictions counselor I have encountered (4+ / 0-)

        so far is a fraud.  I like the implication that I am an alcoholic from you as well.  I am not, never was, and when challenged to stand behind that assertion with a factual basis for their diagnoses, 3 licensed counselors,  2 social workers supervising the program and a deputy attorney general backed down and reversed themselves.

        I called them liars in open court and they had no response.  I proved everything they said wrong with documented facts and they had no response.  Why, because they were frauds.

        And you have made several comments now implying I am an alcoholic.  Based on what evidence?  That the facts prove that those counselors were scam artists, and presumably, based on your behavior in this thread, you're one too.

        There's a reason you hear that a lot.  Grass is green.  The sky is blue.

        •  hey, I admitted I like Turkey 101 here and I was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          spacecadet1, MKinTN

          labeled an alcoholic....I guess cause only alcoholics like their Bourbon strong and neat.......

          Of course, the fact that I go through about 2 bottles a year if that much....well that has nothing to do with it...I must be an alcoholic.....

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:27:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not like it's a pleasant experience (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, spacecadet1, MKinTN

            But if anyone wants to test my propositions, it's easy.  Go into any addictions counseling center (for or non profit), and say you need to be evaluated.

            Pretty much anything you say after that will make you an addict.

            I smoked pot once in high school - ADDICT.
            I had too many drinks at my sister's wedding and barfed, but otherwise drink one glass of wine a month - ADDICT.
            I watched New Jack City - ADDICT.
            I have a package for you to sign for - ADDICT.

            •  BS (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              there are actual standards.  No one is diagnosed addicted until they've tried to stop and could not, or if they have to stop, for their marriage or their legal case or their child custody case, or their liver, and could not.  It's always voluntary from the program's point of view. If  someone has never tired to stop and has had no problems from drinking, then we don't care, we don't treat anyone who thinks they're fine.

              You seem quite adamant for someone who's only had two drinks in your life?

              •  I did not say I had two drinks in my life (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lonely Texan

                But I am 100% living proof that you are wrong.  I was diagnosed as an alcoholic despite not meeting any one of the DSM criteria, all of which were falsely cited, and all of which were objectively provable (Role Obligations, Hazardous Use, especially Legal Problems).  To reach this diagnosis the counselor in question made intentional misrepresentations.  

                Despite documented factual citations (only one legal problem in my life, was getting a professional designation, a promotion and a raise while supposedly failing my role obligations) I made to support my position, despite soliciting letters from family, friends and co-workers counteracting the diagnoses.  2 counselors, and 2 social workers, an entire committee of Addictions Counselors, etc... would not give me the time of day, decided to continue persecuting me instead maliciously and at the end of the day could not cobble together any evidence that I was an alcohol abuser, factual, circumstantial or otherwise and at the end of day folded when the Judge challenged all of them to defend the diagnoses.

                So you are wrong.  It happened in my case, another IDP counselor who I met on a social level advised me that such treatment was SOP in this industry, I trust his word since he also believes in the treatments you do.

                Your own, completely empty defense of your field and attempt to impugn me rather than address the issues I raised is all the more ammunition for me to paint your whole industry as a bunch of pseudo-scientific scam artists.

                You have no evidence based treatment and to the extent anyone leaves your programs better than they came in, it is pure coincidence and not the result of anything an addictions counselor does.

                •  name the program (0+ / 0-)

                  was it evidence based?  Not all programs are the same. Some programs use 'the gut' rather than the evidence.  

                  •  The Intoxicated Driving program of NJ (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    First in the County of my arrest - Sussex, run by a licensed social worker - Cindy Armstrong and addictions counselor (not identified), both of who willingly participated in this fraud.

                    Two licensed counselors (Pascale Augustin for Jersey City Medical Center and Christina Sgaramella for Capital Care center) for private contracted affiliates, both of who willingly participated in this fraud.

                    The director of the state program (Andrea Connor), I believe a licensed addictions counselor herself, who willingly participated in this fraud.

                    Each of these individuals and organizations fraudulently fabricated, perpetuated and defended assessments made based on factual misrepresentations that I was an alcohol abuser.  All basically violated "evidence based" standards to do so.

                    All when challenged, could not defend their finding in Court while their attorneys (Michael Garofalo and DAG John Regina) executed a legal strategy of denying me due process through the Office of Administrative Law and attempting to coerce the Court through their knowingly false statements to punish me further for blowing the whistle.

                    A committee of addictions counselors tasked with enforcing the law and licensing standards in NJ has been presented with clear factual evidence from the public record itself that this fraud has occurred and has done nothing.

                    I was never in a treatment program, I was referred to Level One Outpatient Treatment which I refused to participate in.

                    Again, you don't have "evidence based treatment" in your field, because you can not provide statistical support to back up an assertion that these programs on any consistent level help all, most, or even many of the participants.  The most you can say is that an anecdotal number of people do improve their behavior with alcohol, but I don't really see evidence that even those results are compared to a "placebo" or "control" group.

                    "evidence based" is a weasel word in this regard to imply "scientific", what evidence addictions counselors base their methods on is extremely weak to the point of insubstantial.

                    This failure to support the effectiveness of treatment, plus the fact that in my experience I encountered at least 8-10 addictions professionals, all of whom either lied on the public record, committed fraud, helped cover up the fraud or ignored the fraud despite their responsibility to address it - tells me all I need to know about your industry.

                    Your own obfuscations, attacks on me and empty rhetoric with little or no solid support is just more icing on the cake for me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site