Home > News > Washington Whispers > Poll: Americans Would Pay a Tax or Insurance Premium to Cover Addiction Treatment

Poll: Americans Would Pay a Tax or Insurance Premium to Cover Addiction Treatment

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I Drank heavily for two years And took stalk of my life and have never got drunk again, People who get drunk have issues and do not mind losing physical control since they have no mental control.
My sister says I have a nonaddictive personality yet I stayed drunk for two years. I stopped because I was not enjoying life and I believe suicide is a cowards way out. Leaving me no choice not to drink heavily. I drink a beer or two a day and have no desire to drink any more than that,
Oh another thing I do not believe in is all these excuses people make and what is even worse are the excuses made for addicts so they may remain sick believing they have no way out because you did not give them a way out.
Look around! There is a lot of money in helping the poor if you know how to play the system, addicts are also a source for a big payday for those who want to take advantage of the weak. I have no respect for those who live off the weak and will give them just enough drugs to keep them hooked so they can keep scamming the tax payers.
Fortunately I do not live in the city anymore and Have not seen a doctor for over four or five years and accept for a few headaches have never felt more healthy. I have been diagnosed with epilepsy and I take no drugs yet My epilepsy is under control. The last seizer I had was the last hospital I stayed in. and I am supposed to trust them snake oil salesmen?.
Our problems are so the so called medical industry can get rich, and until people sober up and get off the drugs America will not get healthy just dependent on the health industry.
Look how many lives they have destroyed and yet we need there snake oil so we keep paying there “insurance”. Not me I am to healthy and I am going to stay that way, You can have your drugs and make believe world.
Don D. Brock

Don D. Brock of AZ 11:08PM September 27, 2009

then perhaps those who practice "risky sex" should pay a fee
for STD/HIV treatments. After all, isn't HIV an incredibly
expensive disease to treat? And cannot it be avoided in most
situations, by practicing safe sex?
Ah yes... we can't do that, as it might impact a "special
interest group", more so than the general population!

Tom of NC 3:51PM September 24, 2009

Why should we pay for people who CHOOSE to do these types of things?
They sure didn't ask me.
If you choose to smoke, drink, not exercise and/or do drugs, you don't deserve any help from me.

Randy L. of AZ 1:51PM September 24, 2009

As much as I support anyone who tries to overcome addiction, I do not believe this will do anything more than provide steady employment for treatment center employees. I have been to treatment, and I am one of the tiny minority who actually get sober and stay that way for over 20 years. The harsh reality is that most of the people who get sent to treatment by the legal system bounce back and forth, in and out, for years without any real progress. It's a heartbreaking, frustrating, expensive cycle. Forcing everyone, users and non-users alike, to pony up more money is not going to get any more people off drugs. It might open up some new slots in already overburdened programs, but is will not improve the success rate, nor will it inspire potential users to avoid addicition.

Max of VA 8:17AM September 24, 2009

Plenty of people enjoy alcohol, soda, etc. without overdoing it. Why should they have to pay more because some people have a problem with such things? Part of living in a free society is realizing you have to let people make choices you disapprove of and if they do then THEY suffer the consequences.

Scott of MN 11:12PM September 23, 2009

The concept is a good one, however when and what example can anyone give where the original tax dollar was allocated to the original target? Especially in the case of government!
Its like the lottery in most of the states. A ponzi scheme by the states to essentially tax the poor. One lucky person gets the proceeds of an invested annuity or a taxed windfall and, as in California) do the schools the remainder...about 11% and the rest just vanishes into the abyss...

Tom in San Diego of CA 8:50PM September 23, 2009

on alcohol to provide treatment for addiction to alcohol. But add $2 (or anything) to health care premiums for this? Why? A better idea would be to tax the alcohol however much you need to tax it for the addiction treatment---then triple that and use the other two thirds to REDUCE health care premiums.
Cigarettes have been taxed to the moon lately. Now it's time to do the same for booze----WITH THE PROCEEDS EARMARKED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, NOT SLOSHED INTO GENERAL REVENUE.

Muser of NM 7:28PM September 23, 2009