American Revolution II - civil servants as the nation's new masters.

[CitizenCain]

The reason we have homeless people on the streets is because we don't force people into homeless shelters and mental asylums against their will. When we did, there were fewer homeless people on the streets.

Just one of the many ways we're uncivilized barbarians compared to our European counterparts.

I should also note that NYC spends about $30k per homeless person, which kind of suggests that if people didn't want to live on the street, they wouldn't (which is probably why 2/3 of all the long-term homeless have serious mental illnesses).

Or that government is hideously inefficient and does less with $30,000 than private charities do with less than a tenth of that. Either way, it definitely makes the case that the solution to all of life's problems is government programs.

[Aimless]

Nice try but only a tiny minority of mentally ill people in Sweden are institutionalised. Moreover, we also have homeless people. And, while many homeless are mentally ill, cause and effect aren't always easy to figure out. I ask about the homeless not just to taunt Dread but because I think it's an interesting question.

Here's what I've found so far:

Homelessness
x Over the past year, the number of persons experiencing homelessness increased across the
survey cities by an average of two percent, with 52 percent of the cities reporting an increase,
36 percent reporting a decrease, and three cities saying it stayed the same.

x Among families, the number experiencing homelessness increased across the survey cities by
an average of nine percent, with 58 percent reporting an increase, 21 percent reporting a
decrease, and 21 percent saying it stayed the same.

x Among unaccompanied individuals, the number experiencing homelessness over the past
year increased across the survey cities by an average of 2.5 percent, with 44 percent reporting
an increase, 39 percent reporting a decrease, and 17 percent saying it stayed the same.

x Among households with children, unemployment led the list of causes for homelessness cited
by city officials. It was followed by lack of affordable housing, poverty, low-paying jobs,
and domestic violence. Lack of affordable housing led the list of causes of homelessness
among unaccompanied individuals, followed by mental illness and the lack of needed
services, substance abuse and the lack of needed services, and poverty.

x The cities reported that, on average, 24 percent of homeless adults are severely mentally ill,
20 percent are physically disabled, 19 percent are employed, 14 percent are victims of
domestic violence, 14 percent are also veterans, and three percent are HIV Positive.

x Across the survey cities, an average of 27 percent of homeless persons needing assistance
over the last year did not receive it. Because no beds are available for them, emergency
shelters in 64 percent of the survey cities must turn away families with children experiencing
homelessness; shelters in 68 percent of the cities must turn away unaccompanied individuals.

x More than seven in 10 (71 percent) of the survey cities have adopted policies and/or
implemented programs aimed at preventing homelessness among households that have lost,
or may lose, their homes to foreclosure.

x Providing more mainstream assisted housing led the list of actions needed to reduce
homelessness in the survey cities. This was followed by providing more permanent
supportive housing for people with disabilities, and having more or better-paying
employment opportunities.

x Officials in 72 percent of the survey cities expect the number of homeless families to increase
over the next year; those in 28 percent expect it to continue at about the same level; one city
expects a moderate decrease. Officials in 77 percent of the cities expect the number of
homeless unaccompanied individuals to increase over the next year; those in 19 percent
expect it to continue at about the same level; one city expects a moderate decrease.

x Officials in 48 percent of the survey cities expect resources to provide emergency shelter to
decrease over the next year; those in another 48 percent expect resources to continue at about
the same level; one city expects a moderate increase.

From: http://www.usmayors.org/pressrelease...021%202010.pdf

And then there's wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeles..._States#Causes



Your statistic on how much NYC spends per homeless person is interesting, but there's a long leap from that statistic to your conclusion. Even if we accept your conclusion without any qualifiers, why, people want a lot of things under different circumstances. These wants aren't unchanging or impervious to outside influence.

[Dreadnaught]

Nice try but only a tiny minority of mentally ill people in Sweden are institutionalised.

Is that because it's very easy to get government supported home care for the mentally ill and indignant? Just curious.

Yeah way to dishonestly misrepresent said discussions senility or just selective memory?



You're absolutely right, although healthcare certainly seems to be among the most important in the US in terms of costs and airtime. As for the others, how're they working out for you? Btw, I keep meaning to ask, what's up with all the homeless people you guys have hanging around all over the place?

That's a completely honest recollection of the discussions. Someone posts some ranking of "best cared-for countries" and then people pick apart the data.

Many of us criticize waste because it's endemic to so many government endeavors. It's easy to preen and boast that you're able to construct a swaddled-child welfare system for a homogeneous population of 9 million.

Out of curiosity, do Swedish-style welfare states exist for any country with a population above 50 - 60 million or any society that is heavily ethnically heterogeneous?

[Nessus]

The reason we have homeless people on the streets is because we don't force people into homeless shelters and mental asylums against their will.

This seems a false dichotomy.

[Loki]

How else do you prevent people who want to live outside from living outside?

[Flixy]

I don't think most homeless want to live outside in your country.

[Loki]

Most are severely mentally ill, and A) are unwilling to live in shelters, and B) incapable of living in an actual apartment.

[Ominous Gamer]

whole bunch of weasel words being tossed around without any hint of citation. and where is the line on whats "severely" ill?

and we do have laws and programs that can force people off the street, especially the mentally ill. ie, The Baker Act. That was used against Brandy's mom until Brandy got something worked out where most of her SS check was used to pay for her boarding in a mental home, and we were cut the leftovers (~$30 a month). Brandy's mom has no legal power (because of her declared state of mind) to object to this.

[Loki]

http://anxietypanichealth.com/2008/1...-ill-homeless/

That link doesn't talk about the long-term homeless (who are homeless for over a year), who are much more likely to be mentally ill than the short-term homeless.

[Ominous Gamer]

Most are severely mentally ill,

http://anxietypanichealth.com/2008/1...-ill-homeless/

This is what I was talking about:

40 to 50 percent of the homeless are mentally ill

Wouldn't "most" mean, at minimum, over 50%?
Article also mentions them being "Axis I mental disorders", which doesn't say anything about the severity.

Curious, whats the nationwide percentage for Axis I disorders?

[Loki]

Is the distinction between all homeless and people who are homeless for more than a year that hard to fathom? I consistently said "long-term" homeless in this thread. Reading comprehension is hard, isn't it?

[Ominous Gamer]

so we're still waiting for a citation then? the point of the previous linkage being what again?

[Flixy]

Aimless' link said 24% is severely mentally ill, and loki's that about half are mentally ill, and numbers are likely higher for long term homeless. Short term homeless still live on the street though. Didn't you have those tent camps during the height of the crisis? Even when things are bad, we don't have that here, and you can't blame our mental institutions for that.

[Ominous Gamer]

Called them Tent Cities around here, started in public fields and areas, until the police started slashing up the tents, it moved to an area controlled by one of the chruches around here. We are even part of the wikipedia entry for tent city

[Loki]

so we're still waiting for a citation then? the point of the previous linkage being what again?

I'll do that after you contribute something useful to any serious discussion instead of just trolling the non-left wingers here.

[Ominous Gamer]

You're whining about trolling because I'm asking for evidence or sources for outlandish claims in a thread that started out with a "remarkably empty puff-position piece"?

I'm assuming that means you got nothing?

[Flixy]

By the way, homeless are only ' forced' to go to a shelter when it's freezing and snowing. Otherwise cops may recommend it,.but not force. Not sure about mental institutions, but being forced in there doesn't seem to happen often.

[Aimless]

Is that because it's very easy to get government supported home care for the mentally ill and indignant? Just curious.

I dunno 'bout "very easy". Sweden, like many Western countries, decided to move away from institutionalisation of mentally ill patients except when it's absolutely necessary. In practice we're usually talking about people experiencing a dangerous psychotic episode (occasionally extremely severe depression or serious impulsivity/compulsivity) of a sort that can't be managed without institutionalisation; and who oppose institutionalisation while being judged as being incapable of making an informed decision. The goal of this sort of care is to bring the person back to a state in which he either doesn't need institutionalisation or can choose to continue necessary treatment upon release. It's a decision that's continuously evaluated and re-evaluated and very few people who're institutionalised remain so for very long. A number, esp. patients with difficult schizophrenia, move in and out of institutionalised care.

That's a completely honest recollection of the discussions. Someone posts some ranking of "best cared-for countries" and then people pick apart the data.

No, that's cherry picking and selective memory. You can start by searching for eg. "gawande" on this very forum. Or perhaps "defensive medicine". Even if you ignore infant mortality and pretend the US is at least as good, on the whole, as any other Western country, you spend far more on your healthcare than you need to, for various reasons that aren't all necessarily caused by your govt.

Many of us criticize waste because it's endemic to so many government endeavors.

Yes, that's nice, but have you actually looked at where and why healthcare in your country is wasteful? I agree it's absurd to let a govt. continue to get away with being wasteful at that scale, but, what, you can't encourage healthcare providers to do better with their govt. money?

Out of curiosity, do Swedish-style welfare states exist for any country with a population above 50 - 60 million or any society that is heavily ethnically heterogeneous?

I dunno, perhaps the UK, but the UK has its own unique problems.

Aimless' link said 24% is severely mentally ill, and loki's that about half are mentally ill, and numbers are likely higher for long term homeless. Short term homeless still live on the street though. Didn't you have those tent camps during the height of the crisis? Even when things are bad, we don't have that here, and you can't blame our mental institutions for that.

No no no we shouldn't focus on the ~80% who aren't severely mentally ill. Or those who aren't "long-term homeless". Nor should we take a moment to consider that many mentally ill people can be (and often are) helped to a state in which they don't have to be homeless or institutionalised. Never mind that many of them needn't have become homeless in the first place. What, anxiety and manic depression and schizophrenia necessarily lead to homeless?

I also liked this bit from Loki's link:

When researchers asked homeless people what their greatest needs were, respondents listed affordable housing, safety, education, transportation, medical/dental treatment, and job training/placement. Formal mental health and substance abuse services were rated as unimportant by comparison, not very easy to obtain, and not very satisfactory to people who had used them.

There are some options right there for you guys to try.

[Dreadnaught]

No, that's cherry picking and selective memory. You can start by searching for eg. "gawande" on this very forum. Or perhaps "defensive medicine". Even if you ignore infant mortality and pretend the US is at least as good, on the whole, as any other Western country, you spend far more on your healthcare than you need to, for various reasons that aren't all necessarily caused by your govt.



Yes, that's nice, but have you actually looked at where and why healthcare in your country is wasteful? I agree it's absurd to let a govt. continue to get away with being wasteful at that scale, but, what, you can't encourage healthcare providers to do better with their govt. money?



I dunno, perhaps the UK, but the UK has its own unique problems.

Slice and dice = bad form.

Those threads don't contain an argument on this issue at all, at least not the ones I found. And the reasons we spend so much on healthcare isn't just government. I don't think I ever said that. But part of the problem is the US effectively acts as a subsidy so other countries (like yours) can benefit from price-regulated drugs and the benefits of research whose commercial applications can't be reaped as effectively outside of the US.

[Aimless]

Those threads don't contain an argument on this issue at all, at least not the ones I found.

What they contain are links, eg. to articles by Atul Gawande and to reports such as the one by PricewaterhouseCoopers on waste in healthcare. They may even have discussions on eg. the flaws with your fee-for-service primary care system.

But part of the problem is the US effectively acts as a subsidy so other countries (like yours) can benefit from price-regulated drugs and the benefits of research whose commercial applications can't be reaped as effectively outside of the US.

It's likely the least important part of the problem, but it's clearly the one that appeals the most to you for obvious reasons. Among the most important causes of waste in your system are defensive medicine, administrative waste (INSURANCE), wasteful decisions by healthcare providers (eg. due to their financial incentives and their lack of adherence to whatever evidence-based guidelines they may have access to), poor use/allocation of preventive care (leading to excessive and inappropriate emergency care). When it comes to drugs, among the most important category of cost drivers in the US are chemo-drugs that are often of dubious value (iirc some of you enjoy rubbing into our faces our lack of access to those amazing wonder-drugs ). I dunno how your population's generally poor health or your social disparities affect the situation.

[GGT]

Considering recent global events, this thread might have been more interesting had it been about a possible European Revolution - civil servants *and pensioners* as the new masters of the EU or eurozone. Or what would happen if Germany just said fuck it all, held their own money, halted the lending, and bowed out of the whole damn ECB mess....

[LittleFuzzy]

Slice and dice = bad form.

You can keep saying that all you want. but you don't dictate style here. Organizing point by point is accepted and common practice for this board, it's easier to track, and it's easier to go back and reread. Your sense of writing aesthetics can shove it.

[Dreadnaught]

You can keep saying that all you want. but you don't dictate style here. Organizing point by point is accepted and common practice for this board, it's easier to track, and it's easier to go back and reread. Your sense of writing aesthetics can shove it.

Jesus. I'm not dictating style, I'm stating what I will and won't respond to.

A point-by-point discussion is often accomplished via bullet points, not sentence-by-sentence sentence-smattering.

[Loki]

In corporate offices.

[LittleFuzzy]

Jesus. I'm not dictating style,

You surely are.

I'm stating what I will and won't respond to.

So don't respond. You've said it again, and again, and again. At this point, you're trying to compel obedience to your standard.

A point-by-point discussion is often accomplished via bullet points, not sentence-by-sentence sentence-smattering.

You mean in an entirely different discussion environment with different expectations *i.e. one which places the premium on fast and simple communication* with an alternative word-processing suite?

[Dreadnaught]

Let me know when you've grown up.

[Ominous Gamer]

I was actually going to say something along the same lines but decided it wasn't worth it. If you grow tired of a conversation then let it be. Finding and stating an excuse to end a debate is childish. The whole slice and dice thing is simply one of your most popular excuses. Its not how you like to converse, but it doesn't seem to be a problem with anyone else, so I would hardly call it poor form; just like when you remind everyone that you are unable to read Reddit discussions, that claim doesn't somehow make their designs poor. You are at this point, and every single time you mention it, trying to claim your way of thinking is somehow better, when its not. Its simply your claimed preference.

[Dreadnaught]

Would anyone else like to pile on the nitpick-at-Dreadnaught of the week?

Calling my intolerance of slice-and-dice an "excuse" is like saying I'm using someone taking a dump on my screen as an excuse for leaving the room. Because taking a dump on someone's screen is what slice-and-dice is. It's the reason Reddit has a niche audience (which is somewhat declining/flatlining).

I prefer discussions with some level of substantive dialog. This involves people sticking their necks out to make assertions, analyze responses and write in paragraphs. Or at least bullet points. Wiggin consistently does it very well, and it's splendid to read. Aimless sometimes does it too. So do other people from time to time.

But standing up for slice-and-dice is standing up for feces on screens. Picking-apart individual sentences is lowly when this place is filled with smart people.

Yes, writing actual paragraphs involves making more points and putting yourself out there a bit more. It involves risking a certain level of ridicule because you're putting more into the open. I realize that scares people like you. But you can be really good at it. You can produce something that is fundamentally more readable and insightful than slicing-out every third sentence in a post and taking a dump on it. That's childish and mean-spirited.

[Aimless]

It was an appropriate way to write a simple and concise reply to that post. You need to learn to accept discomfort Dread, esp. when that discomfort has its origin in your own peculiarities I abandon discussions all the time, usually due to my poor memory and sometimes because I don't want to spend any more time or energy on a discussion (sorry guys ). It's okay to abandon them for other reasons as well.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm not saying abandoning discussions is wrong. It's fine and natural, we all do it all the time.

But my desire not to engage with slice-and-dice isn't some mere excuse.