Homelessness and Solutions?

[oneniltothearsenal]

John Oliver just did an episode on homelessness:

It was good but I feel it didn't fully address the complexity of the situation from a macro factor perspective nor did it address the elephant in the room with homelessness currently in America (which can be found here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ )

Typically some of the challenges are how much housing ends up costing (in California one permanent housing unit costs over $400,00), the effect of Reagan and Brown (in California) closing down the mental hospitals, and overall stripping of the social safety net, how to deal with the cold truth about the new meth. Many of these issues are intertwined of course. The punitive War on Drugs is a massive problem that hinders any attempts at creating a social safety net that deals with drugs as a health problem (as it should be) and it feels like other restrictions really prevent logical somewhat temporary solutions (such as simply increasing the amount of FEMA type energy housing plus porta-potties. The right obviously causes a lot of the problem but the left has been useless in really coming up with meaningful solutions (which gives the right more ammunition).

This is a great resource that delves into it more:
https://calmatters.org/explainers/californias-homelessness-crisis-explained/

 

[VorZakone]

I literally watched that segment today. The woman with the stay-at-home husband was a hard-hitting story how losing income can just completely feck up your life like that.

There's just so many stuff at play here. Housing affordability, social safety nets, wage stagnancy, you name it. Sometimes I get the feeling America needs a fundamental restructuring of society.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Solution is in Your question.

If you have a robust, secure and encouraging social safety net, you don’t just write off people as ‘homeless’.

If you have socialised healthcare you have fewer people relying on it (having doctors and lawyers declaring medical bankruptcy is aindictment of your society).

If you have an acceptance in society that sometimes people are up, sometimes they’re behind, you go a long way to solving the ‘problem’ before it ever becomes one.

There are smarter people on the streets in America than me. My country supported me when I struggled. America would have discarded me.

It’s not a problem to solve. It’s one that free market capitalists invent.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I literally watched that segment today. The woman with the stay-at-home husband was a hard-hitting story how losing income can just completely feck up your life like that.

There's just so many stuff at play here. Housing affordability, social safety nets, wage stagnancy, you name it. Sometimes I get the feeling America needs a fundamental restructuring of society.

Sometimes? America is broken.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Solution is in Your question.

If you have a robust, secure and encouraging social safety net, you don’t just write off people as ‘homeless’.

If you have socialised healthcare you have fewer people relying on it (having doctors and lawyers declaring medical bankruptcy is aindictment of your society).

If you have an acceptance in society that sometimes people are up, sometimes they’re behind, you go a long way to solving the ‘problem’ before it ever becomes one.

There are smarter people on the streets in America than me. My country supported me when I struggled. America would have discarded me.

It’s not a problem to solve. It’s one that free market capitalists invent.

You're not entirely wrong but saying the solution to homelessness in America is "be more like Norway" isn't really an actionable solution to get from point A to point Z. There are a lot of steps that need to happen to rebuild the social safety net and socialized healthcare simply isn't going to happen in America any time soon (although a lot of states like California are strengthening medi-cal options for low incomes).

For me, I tend to think the first steps need to be a true dismantling of the War on Drugs (something both Trump and Biden hinted it while campaigning but neither did shite about), implementing an infrastructure program that comes from the Federal-State governments rather than being run through private contractors (something like Roosevelt's alphabet programs) and controlling the influence of billionaires and high finance (fat chance given Citizens United and how the wealthy own the political influence).

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

You're not entirely wrong but saying the solution to homelessness in America is "be more like Norway" isn't really an actionable solution to get from point A to point Z. There are a lot of steps that need to happen to rebuild the social safety net and socialized healthcare simply isn't going to happen in America any time soon (although a lot of states like California are strengthening medi-cal options for low incomes).

For me, I tend to think the first steps need to be a true dismantling of the War on Drugs (something both Trump and Biden hinted it while campaigning but neither did shite about), implementing an infrastructure program that comes from the Federal-State governments rather than being run through private contractors (something like Roosevelt's alphabet programs) and controlling the influence of billionaires and high finance (fat chance given Citizens United and how the wealthy own the political influence).

I don’t give a feck about what small minded people deem ‘actionable’. The US sold itself to Capitalism and is a slave to it. feck em.

I also didn’t mention Norway. Nor drugs.

America is fcuked as all involved in its governance make money from its continued stagnation. And downfall.

 

[VorZakone]

You're not entirely wrong but saying the solution to homelessness in America is "be more like Norway" isn't really an actionable solution to get from point A to point Z. There are a lot of steps that need to happen to rebuild the social safety net and socialized healthcare simply isn't going to happen in America any time soon (although a lot of states like California are strengthening medi-cal options for low incomes).

For me, I tend to think the first steps need to be a true dismantling of the War on Drugs (something both Trump and Biden hinted it while campaigning but neither did shite about), implementing an infrastructure program that comes from the Federal-State governments rather than being run through private contractors (something like Roosevelt's alphabet programs) and controlling the influence of billionaires and high finance (fat chance given Citizens United and how the wealthy own the political influence).

What's with the whole employer-related healthcare coverage too in America? Where I live, you can optionally buy additional insurance with discounts through an employee program. But most people just have a private healthcare policy and it's a fine default option.

I can't remember the exact specifics of what I read but the whole employer-coverage stuff really seemed like a big administrative mess.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

What's with the whole employer-related healthcare coverage too in America? Where I live, you can optionally buy additional insurance with discounts through an employee program. But most people just have a private healthcare policy and it's a fine default option.

I can't remember the exact specifics of what I read but the whole employer-coverage stuff really seemed like a big administrative mess.

It's a catch-22. The lower-cost employer healthcare options are always HMO and that has a lot of problems with being forced to see certain doctors, not being able to choose the specialists you might want/need to see for any conditions, and it almost entirely focuses on treating symptoms rather than preventative care.

The better options are PPO plans which offer flexibility and access to far better options BUT they often come with higher prices even with a superb employer provided plan. So even with employer health care, you can still be spending thousands per year on healthcare (or more if, heaven forbid, you have a chronic condition or some type of accident).

On top of that a lot of specialists, like the best psychiatrists, for example, don't even take Cadillac health insurance so you'd have to pay out of pocket.

Then, on the lower end, certain "small businesses" (I think it's 50 employees or less) don't have to provide healthcare. They can just supply a "health stipend" of something like $200 that employees can use to purchase health insurance "on the market" (even though even the cheapest health care plans can cost $250 or more per month depending on the state/city).

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It's a catch-22. The lower-cost employer healthcare options are always HMO and that has a lot of problems with being forced to see certain doctors, not being able to choose the specialists you might want/need to see for any conditions, and it almost entirely focuses on treating symptoms rather than preventative care.

The better options are PPO plans which offer flexibility and access to far better options BUT they often come with higher prices even with a superb employer provided plan. So even with employer health care, you can still be spending thousands per year on healthcare (or more if, heaven forbid, you have a chronic condition or some type of accident).

On top of that a lot of specialists, like the best psychiatrists, for example, don't even take Cadillac health insurance so you'd have to pay out of pocket.

Then, on the lower end, certain "small businesses" (I think it's 50 employees or less) don't have to provide healthcare. They can just supply a "health stipend" of something like $200 that employees can use to purchase health insurance "on the market" (even though even the cheapest health care plans can cost $250 or more per month depending on the state/city).

Its almost as if… everyone paying the same, enjoying the same level of care… ensures that treatment and outcomes are even. Mad.

 

[VorZakone]

It's a catch-22. The lower-cost employer healthcare options are always HMO and that has a lot of problems with being forced to see certain doctors, not being able to choose the specialists you might want/need to see for any conditions, and it almost entirely focuses on treating symptoms rather than preventative care.

The better options are PPO plans which offer flexibility and access to far better options BUT they often come with higher prices even with a superb employer provided plan. So even with employer health care, you can still be spending thousands per year on healthcare (or more if, heaven forbid, you have a chronic condition or some type of accident).

On top of that a lot of specialists, like the best psychiatrists, for example, don't even take Cadillac health insurance so you'd have to pay out of pocket.

Then, on the lower end, certain "small businesses" (I think it's 50 employees or less) don't have to provide healthcare. They can just supply a "health stipend" of something like $200 that employees can use to purchase health insurance "on the market" (even though even the cheapest health care plans can cost $250 or more per month depending on the state/city).

Thanks. It sounds complicated though in the sense that at the end of the day it isn't that beneficial and just adds more bureaucracy? Am I interpreting that correctly?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Thanks. It sounds complicated though in the sense that at the end of the day it isn't that beneficial and just adds more bureaucracy? Am I interpreting that correctly?

Absolutely. I don't have the study near me but I remember there was a study that compared administrative overhead from the US system to admin overhead from the UK and it was something like 12% to 2% so there is a lot of waste built into the US system (that Obamacare did nothing to fix).

 

[entropy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Do we have meth in the UK?

 

[Pexbo]

Do we have meth in the UK?

PM me

 

[Cascarino]

Do we have meth in the UK?

Only ever heard of it in London, though I’m sure it’s in the other big cities, just far, far less common compared to other drugs.

 

[Dante]

Do we have meth in the UK?

I'm sure Boris is trying to cut a trade deal for it.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

PM me

Haha, I don’t want some

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Perhaps UBI.

Maybe a homeless hotel that employs homeless people as staff to look after it might work.

 

[entropy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Carolina Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I’m shocked! /s

 

[Wibble]

It isn't brain surgery and the main cause is a huge shortage of affordable social housing. A UBI would help because homeless people tend to fall out of the social net too often once they become homeless. There are of course other contributing factors but the gutting of public houses by so many countries around the world has to be the main cause.

 

[Sky1981]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You know to be fair, it's not their fault honestly, the American economy is a broken, but they have the right to expect homeless not to be in their neighborhood. Most of us would probably protest if our front yard is filled with Homeless staying there for long period of times, regardless of how wealthy / not our economy is.

Not that I don't have a symphaty towards them, no people should be living in the street.

 

[Sky1981]

UBI won't help.

The lack of affordable housing is a direct byproduct of developer's greed in maximizing profit. I'd wager a good portion of American Homeless and those living in their cars actually have a job and in normal circumstances shouldn't even resort to homelessness, I mean they have no problem living, just have a problem buying house.

What's worse is that IMO the collective repugnant of Middle density housing, that'll meant the area prices going down. They'd rather not build them at all, and veto the land zoning with their votes. Even if developers actually making profits by making a higher density compound, they'd be met with resistance by the council to protect their land worth.

A 20th story flat could have housed 300-400 units easily but they'd rather build 8 small house.

It's actually very easy problem to solve, just mandate that you'll have to have 1 high density housing every 100s or so smaller house, but then again "Freedom" or ownership etc.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[T_Model101]

The support options for homeless people in the UK are absolutely shocking
"Streetlink" requires them to have a smart phone with data and for them to download the app.....
I think the council homelessness contact we have at the local council has to cover 3 or 4 boroughs

 

[SirAF]

UBI won't help.

The lack of affordable housing is a direct byproduct of developer's greed in maximizing profit. I'd wager a good portion of American Homeless and those living in their cars actually have a job and in normal circumstances shouldn't even resort to homelessness, I mean they have no problem living, just have a problem buying house.

What's worse is that IMO the collective repugnant of Middle density housing, that'll meant the area prices going down. They'd rather not build them at all, and veto the land zoning with their votes. Even if developers actually making profits by making a higher density compound, they'd be met with resistance by the council to protect their land worth.

A 20th story flat could have housed 300-400 units easily but they'd rather build 8 small house.

It's actually very easy problem to solve, just mandate that you'll have to have 1 high density housing every 100s or so smaller house, but then again "Freedom" or ownership etc.

A very quick and superficial Google search came up with this from 2018: https://parade.com/643064/beckyhughes/working-homeless-population-grows-in-cities-across-the-u-s/

It's definitely a thing.