| richardhutnik said: In connection with the direction of this thread, I would like to hear what people say is a solution to homelessness, if both funding is cut for shelters, and it is illegal to sleep in public spaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation
Government's desire to reduce cost and spending on hospitalisationAs hospitalisation costs increased, both the federal and state governments were motivated to find less expensive alternatives to hospitalisation.[1] The 1965 amendments to Social Security shifted about 50 percent of the mental health care costs from state to the federal government.[1] This motivated the government to promote deinstitutionalization. A number of factors led to an increase in homelessness, including macroeconomic shifts, but observers also saw a change related to deinstitutionalization.[22][23][24] Studies from the late 1980's indicated that one-third to one-half of homeless people had severe psychiatric disorders, often co-occurring with substance abuse.[25][26] A process of indirect cost-shifting may have led to a form of "re-institutionalisation" through the increased use of jail detention for those with mental disorders deemed unmanageable and noncompliant.[27][28] When laws were enacted requiring communities to take more responsibility for mental health care, needed funding often was absent, therefore resulting in jail becoming the default option,[29] with jails long documented as cheaper than psychiatric care.[27] In Summer 2009, author and columnist Heather Mac Donald stated in City Journal, "jails have become society's primary mental institutions, though few have the funding or expertise to carry out that role properly... at Rikers, 28 percent of the inmates require mental health services, a number that rises each year."[30]
In short, there is no "away" you can magically suddenly make a social problem, like poverty, vanish by believing somehow the "goodness of people's hearts" if you give them more money, will end up taking care of the situation. |
Ok, your main problem here is that you're mixing up different things here that you probably haven't looked into very hard...
A) Your article is about general homelessness while your wikipedia article is about chronic homelessness. There are about 1.5 million people that are homeless.
Of that 1.5 million
80% are no longer homeless after 3 weeks.
10% are no longer homeless after 2 months
10% are the Chronic homeless.
That first 80%, and arguably 90% aren't really that big of a deal.
B) MANY chronic homeless outright refuse help. That's partly why the public sleeping law is in effect. Essentially it's used mostly to try and get homeless people to actually go to homeless shelters.
C) You completely ignored the entire main reasons for deinstitionalization provided both before and after that statement and latched on to a government cost reasoning presented someone as an afterthought... with something that started well after deinsitutionalization was on it's way and picking up
Aside from which, if you were to believe that, it if anything disproves your central theory here. Since afterall that would mean government intentionally shirked it's responisbilities, and gets cheap when it comes to peoples healthcare.
D) If you would of read one step further, you'd see something else that leads to a lot more dinstituionalization now then non funding.
Another notable movement, the consumer or ex-patient movement began as protests in the 1970s.[1] Many of the participants consisted of ex-patients of mental institutions who felt the need to challenge the system's treatment of the mentally ill.[1] Initially, this movement targeted issues surrounding involuntary commitment, use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), antipsychotic medication, and coercive psychiatry.
As it is, unless you've comitted a crime. You can leave a mental institution anytime you want.
