Faux compassion is only worsening homeless crisis

It wasn't liberals. It is unconstitutional to do it. It's called patient dumping

 

We can see from the history that there is plenty of blame to go around. https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/...tal-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here

 

You're saying it would be wrong to build homeless housing for people an hour away from where they live?

 

Only about one third of the homeless population has diagnosed serious mental issues.
Only about one third have serious substance abuse or alcohol problems.
Some of those two thirds overlap, so that leaves more than a third left over who have neither of those problems.

 

It doesn't work. People wont leave the city voluntarily and you cant take them there against their will without a warrant

 

I didn't say force would be used to make them leave.

 

Greenland is part of Denmark. They actually have a prominent group of indigenous inhabitants with a unique culture. See "Smilla's Sense of Snow" if you want to see a fictionalized story about them

 

That's debatable. These days Greenland is as much a part of Denmark as Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. (which is to say technically yes, but for all other intents and purposes no). I think there's slightly more English speakers in Greenland now than Danish.

 

A military career doesn't look good if you value your mental health.
23% of homeless population are veterans
33% of male homeless population are veterans
47% Vietnam Era
17% post-Vietnam
15% pre-Vietnam
67% served three or more years
33% stationed in war zone
25% have used VA Homeless Services
85% completed high school/GED, compared to 56% of non-veterans
89% received Honorable Discharge
79% reside in central cities
16% reside in suburban areas
5% reside in rural areas
76% experience alcohol, drug, or mental health problems
46% white males compared to 34% non-veterans
46% age 45 or older compared to 20% non-veterans
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/veterans.html

 

Then no one will go. They tried it in vegas. In the city they can pan handle, drink, use drugs even have sex. More importantly for the mentally ill they can be alone....the voices and paranoia get much worse around a lot of people. Trust me....these were my patients

 

Your numbers cannot be confirmed

But most military vets never served in combat

So maybe we can at least agree that the average street person is a loser who screwed up his life with drugs or alcohol

 

Can't most of those conditions be recreated in a special village?

 

It's too expensive. Trust me. They tried and failed. Especially if no one wants to go

Housing first

 

You say that, but don't explain how it is directly responsible, or even partially responsible.

 

Facts. It is taking, RIGHT NOW, four way plus years, to process a claim. That is with or without a lawyer. A lawyer improves your odds, when you get there, somewhat, but mostly it is a box checked, and a payment you will have come out of any settlement. During this five years, you will have family, or you will try to survive on the street. This will be with any chronic illness. If you were not destitute, you would not receive any health care.

All this hell, that is survival, with a serious illness, is brought to you by compromises the Democrats made, to get improvements.

All this HELP you assume, is that you can keep WORKING.

Again, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

I'm almost hesitant to answer this rudimentary question as U should clear your mind and try again to connect the obvious dots, lol.

- any time U, your cohorts, party etc. incentivize & facilitate perilous & illicit behavior U are inherently endangering everyone in the process (not just your target population & NOT just those directly involved).

 

Nice to see you take a cheap jab at the GOP when your parties petri dish is where the homeless problem is at extreme levels. The truth is that the most of the groups I worked with that help feed and house them are religious conservatives who donate more time and money than your sanctimonious Democrats.

 

I dont know where you live, but the homeless around here are on the street mostly due to mental conditions.

 

You are emotional and incorrect. Don't worry, I live in CA, so I am used to it.

For those who have an obvious disability with the right documentation from a doctor, it can take as little as a few weeks. It depends on medical evidence. As an employer, I notice that many on disability are in better health than those who work full time.

As far as your claim that I made an assumption one can keep working, SDI is deducted from employee wages and is handled through the EDD. Most of the work is done by the employer and it doesn't take long. This also applies to those who provide care for a family member. (PFL)

Your claim that a serious illness is a path from working to living on the streets is completely false, especially in California, where homelessness is high.

 

That being, that a doctor SWEARS you will be DEAD within six months.

I was asked, POINT BLANK, if I was on the street YET? OR had I family? This is WELL KNOWN, as the obvious result of our system. I was asked this, by the SOCIAL SECURITY GAL.

 

I'm afraid I am not clear either how your OPs long winded rant fraught with obfuscation, hyperbole and unnecessarily complicated verbiage about illegals not being prosecuted has anything to do with the homeless crisis either. Prosecution or mass deportation is not feasible anyway

 

The guy saying I don't know what I am talking about is backing his claim by referencing a single conversation with a SS employee. Who could ever challenge such an air-tight piece of anecdotal evidence?

The truth is that you don't have to be dying to get disability.

As an employer for more than 30 years, I have been through this process many times. I think the cases you are referring to are those where the disability is not obvious and my personal feeling is that most of them should be denied.

 

You are not homeless so your attempt at strawman is ridiculous even by strawman standards.

What's not working out is treating addiction as a criminal issue rather than a public health one. Blaming people is probably not a good way to start anyway because addiction can affect anyone from depressed housewives to doctors to teachers and anyone else. Addiction is a disease of social isolation and hopelessness. These can effect anyone. Here is some background on the controversial "rat Park" studies to which I was referring:

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm

https://theoutline.com/post/2205/th...ng-bad-ideas-about-addiction?zd=1&zi=yw5y67dd

So you see, simply blaming addicts is a flawed even if you take Skinner's original studies with rats at face value which almost nobody does anymore even if "Rat Park' is somewhat overstating it's conclusions.

That may indeed be one issue but I would argue that as a society we are completely unable or unwilling to address why we produce so many profoundly alienated and disconnected people who are left behind by the material progress that we are told is the highest ideal we can aspire to. And why are we blaming those who are falling into poverty and homelessness rather than taking an honest look at the systemic barriers such people are experiencing in trying to function in the kind of economic and social structure we experience today? How is the experience we have today different from the past when parents could expect their children to have a better standard of living than they did which is not the case today.

As with gun violence, why cannot we discuss why we are producing so many angry, violent, hopeless, socially disconnected, poverty stricken and mentally disturbed individuals without just taking the simplistic and lazy path the op does and throw more shame and blame and individuals caught in systemic poverty and homelessness.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't support vagrancy laws either but now I understand your point.

It is a tough problem to solve. Tent cities and shelters are not the answer, imho.

There is just no way around the fact that it is going to take investment in housing and programs to begin to tackle the problem. The question we need to ask is whether it is more cost effective to have these people in constant conflict with the criminal justice system taking resources away from legitimate police work and interacting with front line health officials taking up time and money from hospitals and clinics meant to serve other health concerns?

With the privatization of prisons, we can now lock these people in cages and force them into what is basically unpaid slave labour but is that effective in dealing with long-term health of society? In the public system is costs between 30,000 and 60,000 to incarcerate a single inmate. Is that cost effective in terms of housing?

My own feeling is that we should be building large all in one homeless health institutions where individuals can be sheltered and fed and triaged and where their needs and level of suitability for other programs assessed. People who are not ready for treatment or so messed up the could never take part in housing first programs could be kept in basic shelter, mental health problems could be assessed and treated appropriately, those who are ready for drug treatment assessed and sent to those programs and people stable enough to go into subsidized housing or even market-priced housing helped into that path.

Yes, it would take money but if there was one place, under one roof that could start the process of getting people off the street and into more healthy lifestyles while providing some hope, I think that would be a big start and I bet it would be more cost effective than prison or hospitals.