Kook wants to Crowdfund a taper hospital where cult members can stay indefinitely (there’s already such a place, it’s called an insane asylum)

Could a detox facility similar to Ashton's be created today?
« on: May 04, 2017, 02:13:04 pm »

[Buddie]

It’s been a while since I’ve read the Ashton Manual, so I’m not sure if it included any historical portions in there such as when the facility started and ended. But with the failure that is the modern day psychiatric hospitals and detox centers where you only get about 14 to 30 days before you are discharged (and usually in worse shape than when you came in), you would have to think there is room to have a longer term facility similar to Ashton’s that could be recreated today. I would gladly turn myself over to such a facility to live there indefinitely since I’m out of ideas on how to stabilize myself and already on disability. How much time money do you think a facility like that would take to create? What do you think would be the best location for such a facility? Do you think that it would be possible to use crowdfunding to get something like this created?

Re: Could a detox facility similar to Ashton's be created today?
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2017, 03:36:33 pm »

[Buddie]

I think that prof Ashton treated most people outpatient. Anyway, it would be possible if there were enough funding ! I’m not sure why it doesn’t exist, it wouldn’t be that expensive nor would the costs of certain academic research be that prohibitive.

Money, money, money … who’s gonna pay ? A few 100,000 USD or a few millions would go a long way I think. Any rich members who want to contribute ?

Re: Could a detox facility similar to Ashton's be created today?
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2017, 04:15:05 pm »

[Buddie]

I would but I’m dead broke. 

Re: Could a detox facility similar to Ashton's be created today?
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2017, 04:19:52 pm »

[Buddie]

Professor Ashton only ran an out-patient clinic on the NHS here in the UK. Sadly it was closed down many years ago.

There has been no such facility since then.

[…] 

Re: Could a detox facility similar to Ashton's be created today?
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2017, 04:41:56 pm »

[Buddie]

I’ve thought about buying some property in the Caribbean and starting a benzo recovery retreat. The idea being, a place where one could go during or after your taper, stay for as long as needed (e.g. weeks, months), offering relaxing therapies (e.g. yoga, meditation) and healthy living (organic food, exercise) in a tranquil setting. A place to heal from benzos or other psych drugs. Cost would be comparable to a staying at a modest resort, which is to say not cheap but much less than the outrageous amounts charged by “detox” facilities which don’t really do anything for you except suddenly yank you off drugs which is not the best approach for benzos anyway. I think it’d take a few hundred thousand dollars to start such a facility. I’m not rich but it’d be do-able if I wanted to gamble a chunk of my retirement savings on the idea. Do you think this is a good idea? Would anyone come to such a facility?

I don’t think one could do it in the U.S. due to regulations and the high cost of any kind of health care here.

BALA vs. Benzo Buddies knife fight

new bill that can harm us - action needed
« on: March 19, 2017, 04:10:10 pm »

[Buddie]

One new bill has passed the house that will make it even harder than it is now to sue a pharmaceutical company for an injury. Another is coming behind it. It is important we contact the Senators and stop this. Write to your senators (Everyone has two) via this link about HR 985 or CALL THEM! Then write to or call your House Rep about HR 1215 They hate phone calls because they actually have to respond with more than a form letter. No democrat has voted for this bill, so focus on republicans. https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

H.R. 985, the 2017 Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, aims to put more obstacles in the way of plaintiffs/victims who seek justice. This justice-reform bill is a gift to the pharmaceutical industry, and other big corporations that hurt citizens (like big banks, big agriculture, big chemical, big oil etc.) from Congress men and women who receive millions of dollars in donations from those industries. (PASSED HOUSE)

HR 1215 “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017.” H.R. 1215 eliminates the rights of people harmed by medical professionals. It rigs the system, making it nearly impossible for injured victims to pursue lawsuits by imposing harsh time limits on lawsuits, denying the right to a trial by jury, limiting certain damages to $250,000 (even in states where such limits are unconstitutional), and protecting those who prescribe dangerous drugs and who hurt people with dangerous medical devices. (HAS NOT PASSED HOUSE YET – CONTACT YOUR HOUSE REP)

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2017, 10:19:02 pm »

[Buddie]

That’s fucked up.

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2017, 02:12:22 am »

[Buddie]

I read the bill.

I don’t see how it creates any hardship for folks that have been harmed by medicines of med providers.

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2017, 02:41:01 am »

[Buddie]

Quote from: [Buddie] on March 20, 2017, 02:12:22 am
I read the bill.

I don’t see how it creates any hardship for folks that have been harmed by medicines of med providers.

I’m not exactly what bill you read. My spouse, who is an attorney and policy expert, read it and declared it is dangerous tort reform designed to greatly harm victims of medical malpractice. It essentially restricts the ability for victims to be compensated or to hold hospitals, incompetent doctors, nursing homes and pharmaceutical companies responsible for harming patients. All this bill does is line the pockets of big business and deprive the most needy access to fair compensation.

Call those republican lawmakers to help stop this onerous legislation.

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2017, 03:08:00 am »

[Buddie]

Quote from: [Buddie] on March 20, 2017, 02:41:01 am
Quote from: [Buddie] on March 20, 2017, 02:12:22 am
I read the bill.

I don’t see how it creates any hardship for folks that have been harmed by medicines of med providers.

I’m not exactly what bill you read. My spouse, who is an attorney and policy expert, read it and declared it is dangerous tort reform designed to greatly harm victims of medical malpractice. It essentially restricts the ability for victims to be compensated or to hold hospitals, incompetent doctors, nursing homes and pharmaceutical companies responsible for harming patients. All this bill does is line the pockets of big business and deprive the most needy access to fair compensation.

Call those republican lawmakers to help stop this onerous legislation.

This is the bill I read (as referenced in the original post)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1215/text

I see none of the “dangers” you mention, but I do see, for example, some of the following language:

“…nothing in this Act shall limit a claimant’s recovery of the full amount of the available economic damages,

“…the court shall supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of reducing the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid to claimants. In particular, in any health care lawsuit in which the attorney for a party claims a financial stake in the outcome by virtue of a contingent fee, the court shall have the power to restrict the payment of a claimant’s damage recovery to such attorney, and to redirect such damages to the claimant based upon the interests of justice and principles of equity.

No provider of collateral source benefits shall recover any amount against the claimant or receive any lien or credit against the claimant’s recovery or be equitably or legally subrogated to the right of the claimant in a health care lawsuit involving injury or wrongful death.”

Sounds to me that it protects harmed individuals from predatory attorneys.

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2017, 03:48:17 am »

[Buddie]

[…],

You can quote whatever you’d like, doesn’t make it true. This is extreme tort reform.

We should all be concerned about this bill and I’ve cut and pasted and article from Law Professors and Federal Courts Blog. I’d like to add, the lawmaker who introduced this bill is none other than Representative Steve King of Iowa. If you don’t know who Steve King is, google his name and “white supremacy.”

Republicans Introduce Sweeping Federalization of Tort Law, Limiting Recovery to Victims
By Patricia W. Moore Share
The Republicans in Congress are intent on expropriating ordinary citizens’ right to sue wrongdoers and allowing corporations and other defendants to violate the law without consequence.

Not content to protect corporations from accountability by hobbling class actions and intimidating plaintiffs’ lawyers with mandatory Rule 11 sanctions, Republicans are going for the full monty: federalized so-called “tort reform” (or what I call “tort elimination”).

Without a hearing, H.R. 1215 (Download HR1215) goes to straight to markup in the House Judiciary Committee this Tuesday. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA 4th Dist.).

H.R. 1215 has the Orwellian name of “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017” (because all Republican-sponsored bills about the civil justice system are named just the opposite of what they would actually do to ordinary citizens). The name of this bill should be “Protecting Doctors and Hospitals from Liability for Wrongdoing and Protecting Insurance Companies from Having to Pay Legitimate Claims.”

Although Republicans supposedly care about “states’ rights,” this bill would eliminate (by preempting) vast swaths of state tort law. Among the many draconian provisions of the bill:

It would impose a uniform 3-year statute of limitations on “health care lawsuits.”* States would be free to have a shorter one, but not a longer one.
It would impose a uniform $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages.
The bill would not limit economic damages, but it would allow states to limit economic damages, noneconomic damages, and the total amount of damages.
Naturally, “the jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages.” Because then they might at last understand what “tort reform” means.
The bill would eliminate joint-and-several liability. This could deprive an innocent injured person of full compensation, while shielding a wrongdoing defendant from paying for an injury he helped to cause.
“Any party” would be allowed to introduce evidence of collateral source benefits.
An award of future damages over $50,000 would be required, at the request of “any party,” to be paid in periodic payments.
The bill would completely release health care providers (as defined) from any liability in a products liability action for prescribing a product approved by the FDA.
Finally, no Republican-sponsored civil justice bill would be complete without denigrating plaintiffs’ attorneys and making it even more uneconomical for plaintiffs’ attorneys to represent clients. This bill goes so far as to call the payment to attorneys of an agreed-upon fee a “conflict of interest.” The bill would give the court the power to restrict a contingent fee. And “in no event shall” the contingent fee exceed 40% of the first $50,000 recovered, 33-1/3% of the next $50,000, 25% of the next $500,000, and 15% of any amount in excess of $600,000.

So now the federal government would be dictating to the states what attorneys’ fees they could allow. Those limits would apply even in settlement, mediation, or arbitration.

Really, guys? This bill isn’t even getting a hearing? Maybe to talk about its practical elimination of citizens’ ability to sue or the fact that the bill is a gift to the insurance industry? Maybe to talk about the experience that many states, swept up in “tort reform” over the last several decades, have had with similar provisions (many of which have been held unconstitutional)? How about the fact that the bill slavishly follows the positions of the American Tort Reform Association and the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council?

H.R. 1215 joins five other bills introduced in the past few weeks that tilt the table in favor of corporate defendants in litigation. Is there any item on the corporate defense wish list that we haven’t seen introduced in Congress yet?

It is possible, though, that this bill could have one positive effect. It may induce doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies who currently refuse to participate in federal programs to do so, based upon the limited liability the bill would ensure.

*Definition: “The term ‘health care lawsuit’ means any health care liability claim concerning the provision of goods or services for which coverage was provided in whole or in part via a Federal program, subsidy or tax benefit, or any health care liability action concerning the provision of goods or services for which coverage was provided in whole or in part via a Federal program, subsidy or tax benefit, brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to an alternative dispute resolution system, against a health care provider regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is based . . .” This would presumably include Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act.

February 26, 2017 in Current Affairs, In the News, State Courts | Permalink | Comments (2)

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2017, 03:55:53 am »

[Buddie]

Quote from: [Buddie] on March 20, 2017, 03:48:17 am
[…],

You can quote whatever you’d like, doesn’t make it true. This is extreme tort reform.

But what I’m quoting is the actual language contained HB 1215.

Re: new bill that can harm us - action needed
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2017, 04:01:03 am »

[Buddie]

Quote from: [Buddie] on March 20, 2017, 03:55:53 am
Quote from: [Buddie] on March 20, 2017, 03:48:17 am
[…],

You can quote whatever you’d like, doesn’t make it true. This is extreme tort reform.

But what I’m quoting is the actual language contained HB 1215.

So what! I posted a legal analysis by someone who cares about justice. ?

How pro-Scientology / anti-psychiatry kooks see doctors