11 ms·

> Marketers from the treatment center had to approve every post in the group, which gave them the first opportunity to privately message good candidates for the

• smt88 8y ago
  I'm not sure what basis you're using to suggest that exploiting addicts is somehow unique to (or uniquely bad in) the US, but you should read the histories of England, China, India, or any other industrialized nation for more context. If you meant that this is a capitalism/free-market problem and the US is the poster child for those values, then I agree with the sentiment, if not the phrasing.
  • orf 8y ago
    > If you meant that this is a capitalism/free-market problem and the US is the poster child for those values, then I agree with the sentiment, if not the phrasing. Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. I've edited it a bit to make that more clear. I would argue that it does seem uniquely bad in the US, and that could be for a number of reasons like significant differences in drug use compared to other developed nations[1]. 1. https://recoverybrands.com/drugs-in-america-vs-europe/ https://recoverybrands.com/drugs-in-america-vs-europe/
• 0xfaded 8y ago
  I'm looking at moving to Denmark, and as part of my reading I was surprised to learn that public sector employment accounts for 40% of full time jobs. For all the bad rap it gets about being inefficient, some things really ought to be run by the government, especially when public money is involved. I find it hard to believe that a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers, all with what seems like little oversight.
  • dgzl 8y ago
    > I find it hard to believe that a government run system could be less efficient than one that has to pay off insurance companies, recruiters, and mass marketers, all with what seems like little oversight. What makes you think that the government wouldn't also have to work through those hurdles? Government is notoriously inefficient, especially at scale. If government demands a process be done in the public sector, then there is zero competition and little innovation in the process.
    • ThomPete 8y ago
      Denmarks public and private sector is very efficient and have a yearly 2% effeciency demand to the public sector. But Denmark is also a small and very homogeneous country.
      • zip1234 8y ago
        Just for clarification, are you saying that they need to increase efficiency 2% each year?
        • CamTin 8y ago
          If so, how is that measured, and what are the consequences (to whom) if it isn't met?
        • ThomPete 8y ago
          Yes. It's not implemented 100% and there are exceptions but most parts of the public sector are required to find ways to do more for less every year. Obviously the idea is to use technology or better procedures. This doesn't mean that the public sector doesn't grow just that it has to be more effective with it's money.
• sethbannon 8y ago
  Agree. This mentality stems from the "Friedman Doctrine" which says that all a business should be concerned with (so long as it acts within the law) is maximizing shareholder value. America was captivated by this idea, and it's still how most think about business here. This has been one of the most insidiously destructive forces in the modern world. Luckily the millennial generation (even in America) is largely rejecting this conception of the purpose of business. You can read Friedman's Op-ed in the NYTimes espousing this here: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...
  • sorokod 8y ago
    From the article: In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all coopera­tion is voluntary, all parties to such coopera­tion benefit or they need not participate. There are no values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form. Someone should inform the members of "Affected by Addiction Support Group".
  • zizek23 8y ago
    The pentagon recently revealed it can't account for 21 trillion dollars. [1] The 18 US security agencies and military cost vast sums to run. The bank bailouts are trillions more, nickle and diming public services is an ideological position. Civilized societies see a healthy and educated population and infrastructure as the beginning of building a progress oriented society, market fundamentalists like Friedman see it as an end, a process from which they can extract profits. This is an impoverished self-limiting vision. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#6e9e2e987aef https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-go...
  • eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    Why all the downvotes to the parent?
  • ghufran_syed 8y ago
• nothrabannosir 8y ago
  > After taking a step backwards you're just exploiting/taking advantage of vulnerable people looking for help and using that to manipulate them into giving you money. This describes an uncomfortably large section of our (customer facing) economy. Casinos, tobacco, payday loan sharks, etc are the obvious actors. But if you look more closely, you will see that there are essentially two families of competing in b2c: * productive: quality, service, price. * destructive: bait and switch, seduction through marketing (unrelated to the actual product), etc. All of the destructive forms eventually boil down to: abusing the faults in our human brain. Once you start looking at the world this way, you will see it everywhere. Almost every commercial on tv is destructive. E.g. car commercials never talk about car specs; they just try to seduce your fallible brain. Perfume. Clothing brands. Any food franchising (which are not about food, they are marketing companies who happen to sell food). Etc etc etc. None of these advance society forward. There is an all-out, 24/7 war on your brain. It is what hippies mean when they talk about “buying shit you don’t need”. The only problem with that statement is it puts the blame with the consumer. But we are only human, and fighting a mental war 24/7 is exhausting. The problem is more insidious than mere gluttony / consumerism. The example here is egregious and very clear. But make no mistake about it: it exists, in smaller form, everywhere you go.
  • cryoshon 8y ago
    yeah, i read a book on what you're talking about. it's real. the book is called phishing for phools: https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10534.html https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10534.html especially on products we're not knowledgeable about, we're vulnerable to get phished.
    • 13of40 8y ago
      Not to be too meta, but the hardcover is $10 off right now if you get it from Amazon Prime. Great impulse buy.
  • phkahler 8y ago
    "They Live" is a cheesy sci-fi movie on this topic that should be mandatory viewing.
• jimmy1 8y ago
  In America, the only solutions deemed virtuous or worthwhile are the ones that drive revenue and solve the problem in some form or fashion -- with many cases the scales tipped heavily in the drive revenue side and offering a minimally effective solution. The solutions that are almost never considered are the ones that would almost certainly offer no profitability, but generally be the right solution for the individual, and society as a whole.
  • craftyguy 8y ago
    It's not even that hard. You don't have to solve the problem, you just have to appear to be solving the problem.
• sorokod 8y ago
  After taking a step backwards however then you're just exploiting/taking advantage of vulnerable people looking for help and using that to manipulate them into giving you money. And not doing that would be a case of "leaving money on the table" - a cardinal sin.
  • wpietri 8y ago
    And scaled up that gets us "the world's dumbest idea", the cult of maximizing shareholder value: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/02/05/salesforce-ceo-slams-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-maximizing-shareholder-value/#248b55e7883d https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/02/05/salesfo...
    • sorokod 8y ago
      Wouldn't say it is dumb. It is rapacious and imoral but not dumb.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • wpietri 8y ago
        It is rapacious and immoral, for sure. But it's also dumb, in that a) it ignores the whole reason society created the idea of businesses in the first place, and b) its inherent short-termism makes it ineffective at accomplishing its stated goal. The reason we invented commerce and later corporations is that we can create more value for each other than we can create for ourselves on our own. Systemically, businesses exist to create more value for their customers than the business extracts in cash. Profit is a side-effect of serving customers, not the purpose. In practice, almost anybody hauling out the "increase shareholder value" line is justifying some sort of short-term thinking that increases cash returns at the expense of long-term assets like loyal customers and happy, highly-trained workers. It's a dumb idea. And don't take it from me; the article has many famous capitalists saying so. Further searches will lead to many others saying why, including many business school professors.
• debacle 8y ago
  > you're just exploiting/taking advantage of vulnerable people looking for help and using that to manipulate them into giving you money. AKA creating value. \s
• reaperducer 8y ago
  >the hyper capitalist 'profit above all else' that America espouses They learned it from the best. The Dutch East India Company, the British South Africa Company, and a couple of dozen others. People in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses.
• wpietri 8y ago
  Historian Walter McDougall has written about the duality of the American term "hustle", which means both "being a go-getter" and "scam". He's writing a whole three-volume history of America from this perspective that I keep wanting to find time to read: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/books/free-to-be-you-and-me.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/books/free-to-be-you-and-... That's always had resonance for me, especially here in startup culture, where the line between the two is at best hazy, and is often willfully erased. Just today in Jean-Louis Gassée's article on Theranos, he quotes an old Silicon Valley joke about a pitch that shows both kinds of hustle: "It’ll work because it’d be cool if it did." https://mondaynote.com/theranos-could-have-been-stopped-9670793e3431 https://mondaynote.com/theranos-could-have-been-stopped-9670...
• citrablue 8y ago
  I used to work with people who did this. A lot of it does appear to be uniquely American, but the human element is this: these groups have all 110% convinced themselves they're saving those poor unfortunate people. A little marketing, they make some money, poor unfortunates get the help they need. One organization literally refers to patients as "rescues". and this is one of the better actors in the space. OTOH, these efforts help "raise awareness" and "save lives", more lives than if nothing had been done. It's extremely cost inefficient, but a self-interested naive outlook allows a straightforward rationalization process.
• jimmaswell 8y ago
  When I read the post title, I expected something a bit worse than pitching rehab clinics to addicts. What's the ethical dilemma here, assuming the rehab clinic is being run in good faith?
  • girvo 8y ago
    That a lot of them are not run in good faith, and frankly most of them have zero evidence backing them up in terms of their effectiveness, all the while preying on some of the most vulnerable in the population.
  • Maybestring 8y ago
    Presenting yourself as giving honest advice while taking kickbacks from the clinics. It's advertising by pretending to be someone that cares about you. It's just cruel.
  • astura 8y ago
    They aren't being run in good faith and some of the worst ones even desire addicts to relapse so they can have return business. On top of that, they don't provide anything even approaching evidence based care.
• jacquesm 8y ago
  Scientology does the exact same thing, they have all kinds of programs targeting addicts because they're easy game. If your business model starts to look like a copy of Scientology you should probably question your ethics.
  • hinkley 8y ago
    It's a refinement of the age old religious pattern of doing charity work with ulterior motives. Build a well and a church. Provide food after a sermon.
    • gowld 8y ago
      That's a ... stretch. One is making people pay for your service with a bit of their attention, and the other is intentionally targeting your malicious message at people you know are mentally unwell.
      • hinkley 8y ago
        Hmm. I was speaking mostly in a historical context but I didn't make that clear. I don't think most churches do this today, and the Scientologists are peculiar in that way, but it was a distinct problem for a very long time, until social anthropologists and friends started calling attention to that sort of behavior.
• 0xdeadbeefbabe 8y ago
  > 'profit above all else' that America espouses. It's more about working with human nature instead of against it. Doubting virtuous intent seems important too, but maybe that's just me (and not you credulous folks).
• digitalengineer 8y ago
  In essence it all started with Freud’s nephew in the us. See this review of ‘The Century Of Self’ and watch the BBC documentary on YouTube. You’ll be amazed: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sacramento-street-psychiatry/201308/review-century-the-self-bbc-documentary https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sacramento-street-ps...
  • ptrincr 8y ago
    Adam Curtis has made quite a few documentaries that are really worth watching. A few that spring to mind are: The Trap All watched over by machines of loving grace (Essential viewing for hackernews readers, I think this is his best work) Bitter Lake HyperNormalisation They are not without flaws, and sometimes I think some of the connections made between events are a little far fetched. However they are thought provoking and extremely well made.
• stevenwoo 8y ago
  You may have already seen it but last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver covered real world addiction treatment centers and almost all of them like the ones described in that article - no scientific/medical evidence backed treatment, no real data on effectiveness, mostly unregulated/unlicensed but heavily targeted at people who have money/insurance plans. The only surprising thing is the ones covered in the Verge article are I think different from the ones mentioned on the TV episode.
  • ryandrake 8y ago
    You even need to look skeptically at your family doctor these days, too. Is she sending me for more blood tests or an X-ray because she really thinks there is a problem, or is she just hustling, spreading my insurance company’s money to her pals at the blood and radiology labs? Honestly I have no way of knowing. Sending me for all sorts of tests would indeed maximize shareholder value, though, which is all anyone in the US cares about anymore.
    • kps 8y ago
      That's a CYA thing. In the US you'll get sued if you didn't order a test for the one-in-a-million thing that otherwise looks exactly like the 99.9999% thing.
    • haldean 8y ago
      This is why I like the Kaiser Permanente system, where you buy your insurance from the same company that provides your healthcare. It has other problems (notably that they are loath to send you somewhere else if they don't have the expertise in their system) but it is nice that they're incentivized both to keep you healthy and not over-prescribe or over-treat you.
• DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  It’s very American, but not unique to America. Take for example Japan, which has an issue with homelessness like most other countries. One of the industries that’s emerged are “poverty businesses” which run private shelters as NPO’s. What they do is usually rent or buy unused corporate dormitories, put up some cheap walls and turn a double occupancy into 2-4 double occupancies. Then they get homeless people, hook them up with lawyers and help them to get their social welfare payments. So far so ok, but the end result is that they take up to 80% for room and very basic board.
• hart_russell 8y ago
  Yes, because greed and predatory behavior are strictly limited to America.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]