Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nartarf t1_j0fcvtp wrote

The Zero sum thinking of capitalism poisons all. I recently learned the awful term “junkie broker” when trying to help a friend. They get a finders fee for getting people to rehab. They’ll gain your trust then ask for friends and families phone numbers gain their trust and even buy plane tickets to Florida.

Rehab billed insurance $3200 per day. Insurance paid $2400 per day. That’s $7200 for a 30 day stay. Finders fee is probably $2000+

he said “we’ll bill you for the deductible 3 times and then won’t send to collections or send more bills… just don’t pay.” Basically saying it’s completely free.

Excited to read more. Thanks for investigating.

9

Funny_Level4422 t1_j0e63gl wrote

I can’t wait to read the next post! This reporter has done an amazing job of uncovering the greed and corruption in this industry, I hope these people all end up in prison!

1

VAisforLizards t1_j0fcyui wrote

Lol. Who even wrote this trash? There may even be some interesting threads to pull on here if it wasn't written by what I can only assume to be a first year journalism student who just learned about investigative journalism.

1

Funny_Level4422 t1_j0h7uox wrote

The point is that these organizations have been exploiting very vulnerable people for years and making a HUGE profit while doing it. These are just bad people, I’m beyond happy they’re being exposed. Hopefully one of the installments will focus on the fact that Ms. Fulcher’s baby daddy (and half owner of true recovery), Coleman Mundie, has been getting women bonded to their organization and violating PREA by sleeping with them (Ms. Fultcher was one of them). It’s borderline sex trafficking to funnel women into your organization and assault them knowing if they speak out you have the power to take their freedom. These people need to be in prison period.

5

VAisforLizards t1_j0lu2gp wrote

If that is supposed to be the message then it is incredibly poorly presented.

1

beatyouwithahammer t1_j0ntc8r wrote

It's OK to admit you're not interested in the topic.

2

VAisforLizards t1_j0nun2y wrote

I'm incredibly interested in the topic. I am an addict in long term recovery and i have had interactions with many of the people named. There may be some good information that may be important for people to know, but you wouldn't know it by reading this trash

0

Raw-Squirrel0820 t1_j0o5m0d wrote

Let me guess. You're a barista, or you do construction clean-up. You read a Hunter S. Thompson book in jail, and you post pics of your food with your step work casually visible in the background.

2

dbakes80 OP t1_j0g3bz0 wrote

A good friend of mine with no experience in journalism or even writing for that matter. She put an ungodly amount of time and energy into trying to get to the truth of how all these opioid funds are being used. It’s a 10 part piece. Next section will be released early January. Just out of curiosity, and so I can give her your feedback, why do you think it’s trash?

3

ZephyrInfernum t1_j0gdjkz wrote

Not the person you're replying to, but she needs an editor or to learn to properly edit herself. There's a litany of mistakes in grammar and punctuation that make it hard to read. That's the first thing

4

beatyouwithahammer t1_j0nt5aa wrote

I didn't experience any difficulty reading the work. How interested were you in the topic?

3

J-Colio t1_j0gfesf wrote

Not op, but I see what they mean because I opened the link to proof-read. The third... let's call it a sentence, is triggering, and that's as far as I felt like reading because of it.

You literally learn to not start a sentence with a conjunction in like middle school... Yet here we are reading "But addiction is treatable," with the misplaced comma at the end...

Also, they had the headings. "INTRODUCTION" Just introduce the piece with an introductory paragraph. Ain't nobody got time for you to introduce your introduction...

Those are the kind of points op was making. Those are also points that get shown super early when learning to write, so tripping up on them really turns people off of reading. The reader low-key assumes the person who wrote it is at a middle-school level... Not trying to be mean here or berate your friend, but that's the effect of poor writing, and you asked for critique.

Edit: have the [...]'s link to the same thing the headings link to. As a user experience that's where I tried to click to read more, so when it didn't I assumed that's all there was. I clicked back to read more casually, and found out. It's awkward to scroll up (mentally) to the top to read more.

4

dbakes80 OP t1_j0gfnfx wrote

Not taking any of this as rude or berating. I’m legitimately interested in the critique. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

3

beatyouwithahammer t1_j0nsp7f wrote

You used a comma in your comment in the same manner as the individual you're criticizing. Further, you utilized meaningless memetic neologistic rhetoric such as "low-key." People didn't really say that so widely until the last few years, which means it's a trend, not some revolutionary word which describes something people should know about.

I really don't know if you should be criticizing this article, because after reading it, it's just fine. The content matters so much more, and the writing doesn't get in the way of it.

But I can understand if you desire to hold others to arbitrary rules of style which don't really matter. I guess.

1

VAisforLizards t1_j0gwoz0 wrote

Honestly it reads like it's trying too hard to be "gotcha journalism". The author seems to be trying to expose something but there isn't any real consistent thesis and the writing is difficult to follow throughout. What is the point of all of the pictures of text messages etc without context? The "sources" seem to be people who have an axe to grind with the subjects of the story and that is the only sources that seem to be in the story. There is a lot of "just asking questions" style of writing in this too which seems to encourage the reader to assume certain things without providing any evidence or analysis that would actually suggest ill intent or even poor judgment. I would encourage the author to focus on a theme or argument and then spe d time demonstrating it throughout the piece instead of throwing shit at a wall and see what sticks. This is very difficult to read, and I feel like I have less information about the programs and individuals than I did before I read it.

−1