General News A Rational Response To Homelessness - It's ACTUALLY Happening!

This is great. Why don't more people do this?

 

Why don't they? Because republicans will see it as "they are living off the system and why should I pay for their houses"?

Ok. Fine I'll take that arguement. However... How about the fact that people unconsciously will be fine with paying medical expenses of the same cost, but it's a mental thing "but we aren't paying for their drug habits or whatever material possessions".

Rationality doesn't actually work with the far right Glenn beck followers.

 

See, I think it's brilliant. Just having a safe place to sleep cuts down so dramatically on the body's energy expenses & exposure to bugs, never mind injuries from slips & falls in bad weather, stress hormones in the body that jack with the immune system, etc etc etc. It's easy to see how that would save a state money over the long haul. And how is providing an apartment paying for drug habits?

But there I go thinking logically again.

 

I think that is a great idea. All places should do this. People shouldn't have to go hungry and live without a roof over there head and have to brave out the extreme weather. Portland, OR needs to implement this. Take a walk down Burnside any day of the week, and you will see hundreds of people lined up sleeping on the ground with blankets.. Some are just down on there luck, and some I have seen are mentally ill (Schizophrenia, for example) I agree it's a human rights issue. This would help people who are able to get jobs to get back on their feet, and the ones who aren't able to find jobs at least they can get treatment and have a place to call home.

 

I'm surprised such an idea was conceived in a staunchly Republican state such as Utah - excellent regardless. I'd love to see a similar scheme implemented here (unlikely with our current Conservative government).

 

It is surprising - but then, it's $11,000 vs almost $17,000. If you want to cut spending and look good to the public, this is really smart move.

That said, I'd be pretty surprised if other Republican states copied them any time soon.

 

I wish more statess would implement this.

 

I work with homeless elders in Boston and let me tell you, the system that is being put in place in Utah will only work if there is stabilization services readily available for those individuals who are moving into permanent housing.

I have seen many of my clients who lose their apartments after being homeless due to their inability to break away from their shelter/outside stayer habits such as:
a. Not needing to pay rent,
b. Smoking inside/bringing drugs into the apartment and getting caught,
c. Not cleaning and maintaining the apartment up to HUD standards,
d. Bringing permanent guests without adding them to the lease, etc.

All of the above, plus many other habits that are rooted deep on homelessness (did not include actual substance use/abuse since usually that's a result and not a cause of homelessness). Without social workers, case managers, counselors, access to medical and behavioral health, the system will fail.

I know the article mentions they will be given a social worker, but their support web needs to go beyond that, without mentioning how many cases each worker will have (anything over 25 cases causes efficiency problems) and how other services like community centers, healthcare facilities and elderly/disabled services are set up.

 

Im going to have to say I disagree with this concept. I disagree with the state using taxes to fund anything but road work, police, firefighters, EMT crews, public defenders, and politicians salaries. I even disagree with a hospital not being able to turn you away at all ever. I would rather have it modified to say that they cannot turn you away if you are in direct danger of life and limb and nothing else.
I do not believe it is a legitimate function of government to support the populace. The only proper function of government is to ensure that we have basic infrastructure to travel, safeguard our liberties, and enforce contract law.
As much as I pity the homeless I am only in support of voluntary aid given by private organizations and individuals.

 

I don't think you've had much contact with the medical world; hospitals need to be vast, expensive complexes with a lot of employees, extensive services, and the ability to maintain a patient's welfare to the end of recovery. By your criteria, a lot of my mother's patients would be on the streets; most of them are poor and many have issues that are only solved through public services such as hospitals and the provision of government housing. Otherwise it's like putting a band-aid on a broken fibula; it's either laughably ineffectual or immoral to think that it'd work. And this goes for most public services; leaving it in private hands or only ever providing the bare-minimum never goes well.

 

Thats an excellent idea - i know that here one of the things that keeps people homeless is the fact that they dont have a permanent residence/mailing adress, which i think you need for a lot of jobs, and to access welfare.

 

I'd be more sympathetic if corporations actually acted in a responsible manner on their own. Unfortunately, we have things like fracking, outsourcing, widespread political bribery, monopolies, mandatory arbitration, wage stagnation, too many co2 emissions, and tax evasion, and that's without them being allowed to do whatever they want. The days of heavy government intervention and hefty taxes may not have been the best, but it was a damn sight better than this, and what you propose will be a lot worse.

 

I feel we are about to go off on a tangent here, but..

I don't object to private organisations having at least partial involvement with the provision of certain services - this can help reduce the strain on the public sector - but wholly private healthcare systems are extortionately expensive and often inefficient.

Take the US system as an obvious example (the only developed counry that does not provide universal healthcare in any form) - the US spends more on healthcare per person than any other country in the world bar Switzerland, and more as a percentage of GDP than any other country - yet the results are nowhere near as good as you would expect, with the US faltering behind most other developed countries in a variety of areas - life expectancy and infant moralities as two major examples.


I don't want anyone to be under the illusion that things are perfect here - we have our own issues to contend with, and they are well-documented by our media - but I would never trade our publicly-funded system with the privately-funded American system. I just cannot see the rationale behind having such an expensive, yet blatantly inefficient, healthcare system.

I would also be inclined to agree with the above poster re private corporations acting in a responsible manner - private companies are driven by generating profit - they have zero obligation to provide a decent service. At least state-owned corporations and executives of public services are directly overseen by elected representatives.

 

As someone with a disability, I do not want to live in your world.

Homelessness is a real possibility for me. I haven't managed to get a job yet, despite trying. If I didn't live on my parents' income, I would not be able to afford food or a place to live. And even if I had my own home, I'd need a lot of help to keep it habitable.

And it's not like I'm in a wheelchair or anything. I'm a person with a mild developmental disability and a normal IQ - us and the mentally ill are pretty much lowest on the list of 'deserving help'. Most people looking at me can't tell I'm disabled - they just think I'm lazy or unmotivated. They don't see that part of my brain just doesn't work properly.

I did not choose to be autistic. Nor did I choose who my parents would be. So factors outside of my control determine whether or not I'll need society's help to survive. I'm not someone who's decided to sit down and be a burden on others. I'm trying my hardest to become an independent adult, but that might never be possible for me. Should I be left homeless and starving, just because I happened to be born with a disability? Should my care be left on the hands of the loving parents I may or may not have, until they die and leave me with nothing unless I happen to have a sibling or friend willing to help?

 

^^^ What Ettina said. Bipolar and high-functioning autistic here. Toss in Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (a joint/connective tissue disorder that makes standing for long periods excruciatingly painful), and holding many jobs becomes difficult in the extreme, and not having the ability to develop "entry level" resume experience makes getting the jobs I can do virtually impossible.

I'm married, his mother lives with us, and without that support system our house would be a disaster because I am LOUSY about maintaining anything but my own private space (about which I am obsessive and God help you if you touch my stuff). I only recently was able to transition to a legitimate work-at-home position, which allows me to both get the hours and income I need to pull my financial weight, but do so without overstressing my body or my limited ability to cope with people (which needs to be saved for my kid, because, not turning into my psycho abusive father. Not doing it.). I'm thirty-one years old today. Thirty-one, and if I weren't blessed with the support structure I have available, I could be homeless so very easily. I have been in situations where my only choice for care was the ER, because I could not afford insurance but made too much to qualify for Medicaid. One of those times, I was pregnant. I don't want to live in your world, sir.

 

That reminds me: I've heard of people having to quit jobs or reduce their hours to stay on government healthcare, because they can't pay the hundreds per month for medication for serious chronic conditions even with increased income.

 

Another persons need is not a licence to live off of the rest of us. Another persons bad luck or bad choices are not a chain on any one to support them. I am against using force to take money from one to give it to others. That is why I am against this. Would it be nice if we all were willing to help the needy? Sure it would. Do I agree with helping the needy? Yes I personally donate what I can and have volunteered time when possible. However if failed government programs didnt demand that they tell me how much of my income I get to keep I could do more. I am not against helping people. I am just against being forced to do it and I am against it going to organizations or projects that are either failed or hold values I would not support.

 

So you are against public resources providing help for the most needy in society because it goes against your values - which are not clearly defined in your above post?

I find your mindset to be pretty disturbing - that you are so disregarding of people who find themselves in a particular situation through no fault of their own. People who end up homeless because they suffer from a mental or physical disability - they shouldn't be allocated any public money whatsoever? We should trust private corporations to look after their interests, even if they have absolutely no obligation to do so, and their primary objective is to generate as much profit as possible? What you're saying comes across as selfish - that you do not want to the government to allocate public money to helping the needy because it doesn't directly benefit you (even if it may directly benefit society as a whole by reducing costs in other areas - and maybe indirectly benefiting you in some way).

The state will always tell you how much of your income you are allowed to keep - unless you live in a country where absolutely everything is provided by private organisations. If the state provides infrastructure of any variety, there will always be people who are being taxed for something they do not use - if the government funds a new railway line using public money, road users will also partially foot the bill. Every tax payer is responsible for paying politicians' wages. It's the way it works.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing which failed government programmes you are referring to - because the particular programme set up by the state of Utah seems to be pretty successful. It seems to me like tax payers in Utah are not losing out, but will actually benefit, since the cost of providing a homeless person with shelter is quite a bit less than the cost of ER visits and jail time. A win-win situation, surely?

 

Be it through bad luck or bad planning there is no right to take from others to provide for yourself. The governments only legitimate purpose is to ensure the rights of people are protected from initiatory force and the breech of contract. So yes unless the private business or individual sees fit to lend aid the person may be out of luck. Its not that I have an issue with helping people as I said. However I am against the use of force to demand money from some to take from others.