Housing The Homeless Not Only Saves Lives -- It's Actually Cheaper Than Doing Nothing

[SLM]

At some point in time, personal responsibility has to be assessed into the equation

Personal responsibility can't be legitimately assessed for an individual if they have a deteriorated mental condition though. Someone who refuses to come in out of the cold because they don't want to be told what to do and someone who refuses to come in out of the cold because the voices in his head tell him not to really can't be assessed on the same scale. Which brings us back to the question of what society should do when someone is prevented from making choices because of mental defect.

Another question is, where does our own personal responsibility end? With just our own selves? From an ethical and moral perspective, do we bear any responsibility for or to each other? Does a person with a strong sense of personal responsibility turn their back on a fellow human being in distress and asking for help? What if we recognize them being in distress and, for whatever reason, they are incapable of asking for that help? I'm not suggesting that there isn't a line where intervention becomes interference, but where does that line really begin, that is the question.

I'm asking a legitimate question. There are conservatives out there supporting this study because it saves money.

I'm sure there are many on the extreme left side of the spectrum that support measures irrespective of any financial considerations too. It's only a legitimate question if you're aim is to maintain the status quo and limit this issue as a strictly political one.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Another question is, where does our own personal responsibility end? With just our own selves? From an ethical and moral perspective, do we bear any responsibility for or to each other? Does a person with a strong sense of personal responsibility turn their back on a fellow human being in distress and asking for help? What if we recognize them being in distress and, for whatever reason, they are incapable of asking for that help? I'm not suggesting that there isn't a line where intervention becomes interference, but where does that line really begin, that is the question.

For more than 100,000 years, humans have banded into societies for mutual protection, aid, and support. But we're past that now.

 

[mentalfloss]

Another question is, where does our own personal responsibility end? With just our own selves? From an ethical and moral perspective, do we bear any responsibility for or to each other? Does a person with a strong sense of personal responsibility turn their back on a fellow human being in distress and asking for help? What if we recognize them being in distress and, for whatever reason, they are incapable of asking for that help? I'm not suggesting that there isn't a line where intervention becomes interference, but where does that line really begin, that is the question.

There are medical (both physical and psychological) and financial assessments that can accurately measure one's capability. That's part of what determines entitlement to some benefit, like disability pay or housing.

I'm sure there are many on the extreme left side of the spectrum that support measures irrespective of any financial considerations too. It's only a legitimate question if you're aim is to maintain the status quo and limit this issue as a strictly political one.

This is an idea that would seemingly benefit everyone as far as I understand it.

 

[captain morgan]

Personal responsibility can't be legitimately assessed for an individual if they have a deteriorated mental condition though. Someone who refuses to come in out of the cold because they don't want to be told what to do and someone who refuses to come in out of the cold because the voices in his head tell him not to really can't be assessed on the same scale. Which brings us back to the question of what society should do when someone is prevented from making choices because of mental defect.

This point is, in many regards, ground zero in this discussion... The contemporary bible for assessing mental illness is: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders v 5 (PsychiatryOnline | Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition | Table of Contents).

Not exactly light reading, but from what I recall, one of the interesting elements in said publication is that there is no definition of 'normalcy ' outlined in the manual.

That said, according to the manual, we are all 'suffering' from mental illness and all in the same boat (to one degree or another)... The point that I am really hitting upon here is that if we were to truly assess the situation in recognizing the true numbers of those individuals that simply are not able to care for themselves, the proposed needs of this part of the system would be very different from the existing requirements we see today.

I believe that the number of folks that won't come in out of the cold because of 'the voices' are a slim percentage of the overall (homeless) population.

Case in point; ask yourself why the problem of homelessness in Canada is essentially regulated to major cities more so than small towns and communities?

Another question is, where does our own personal responsibility end? With just our own selves? From an ethical and moral perspective, do we bear any responsibility for or to each other? Does a person with a strong sense of personal responsibility turn their back on a fellow human being in distress and asking for help? What if we recognize them being in distress and, for whatever reason, they are incapable of asking for that help? I'm not suggesting that there isn't a line where intervention becomes interference, but where does that line really begin, that is the question.

That is an excellent point, but where the opportunity for introspective analysis is lost is the moment that gvt admin decisions legislate a solution that impacts you and I directly.

While I fully support any and all assistance for those that suffer from significant conditions, I also differentiate those from the 'victims' mental illnesses that are a result of (poor) personal choices and my belief is that a substantial % of those relying on homeless shelters fall in this category.

This over representation in the personal choices sector is, in my opinion, costing everyone, especially those that truly need the help.

 

[SLM]

For more than 100,000 years, humans have banded into societies for mutual protection, aid, and support. But we're past that now.

Now, that I don't really buy, we're not past or beyond that. I think we still retain both the capacity and the need for community for just the reasons you've stated. I think that, probably since the industrial revolution predominantly, societies both geographically clustered and globally as a whole, have under gone rapid and in some cases very drastic changes. This instinct to band together requires recognizing our surroundings, our communities, our society and that's a difficult thing to do whilst still dealing with rapid change. I can't even count the number of ways society has changed just in my lifetime alone. But I think we still strive towards banding together, we are just facing different hurdles to that. Whether you think we'll clear those hurdles ultimately comes down to whether you're an optimist or a pessimist regarding mankind's fate, I suppose.

But make no mistake either, through out those 100,000 years there have always been those on the fringes of society, who were ostracized and had no place within the community. And if I had to guess, I'd assume that there were always large numbers of mentally ill amongst them.

There are medical (both physical and psychological) and financial assessments that can accurately measure one's capability. That's part of what determines entitlement to some benefit, like disability pay or housing.

Of course we can, but the question was, should we and, if so, in what circumstances? Take for instance, those that admit they want the help. Seems pretty cut and dried, they want help, we have the ability to help, so we help them. What if they squander that help? What if they squander that help continually? Is there a point where we say, enough is enough? Financially that would be a fairly easy assessment, numbers are cold, hard and strictly logical. But from a moral and ethical standpoint, it's not so black and white. But that doesn't mean from a moral and ethical standpoint we should make assistance a bottomless well either. This is where an expectation of personal responsibility comes in to play. Both for those being helped and those doing the helping.

And amongst those unwilling or unable to admit to wanting or needing help, what do we do? Should we be force feeding an individual medication for a mental condition just because they're homeless? If we do it to (for) them, do we do it to (for) others in society?

One question leads to another which leads to another.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

While I fully support any and all assistance for those that suffer from significant conditions, I also differentiate those from the 'victims' mental illnesses that are a result of (poor) personal choices and my belief is that a substantial % of those relying on homeless shelters fall in this category.

This over representation in the personal choices sector is, in my opinion, costing everyone, especially those that truly need the help.

Undeserving Poor - YouTube

 

[mentalfloss]

Of course we can, but the question was, should we and, if so, in what circumstances?

Take for instance, those that admit they want the help. Seems pretty cut and dried, they want help, we have the ability to help, so we help them. What if they squander that help? What if they squander that help continually? Is there a point where we say, enough is enough?

To begin any claim you need to have a willing party to that claim. For example, if Joe gets into a car accident and he is injured, then he would go to an insurance company for medical coverage. That insurance company will refer Joe to independent medical assessor if they need assistance in determining a reasonable extent of medical coverage. They can also refer him to forensic accountants if Joe loses work as a result of the accident and they need an appropriate measure of Joe's income.

All this is predicated on Joe's willingness to co-operate.

He can voluntarily choose not to make a claim or accept any benefits offered to him.

The same, real world circumstances apply to this situation.

And amongst those unwilling or unable to admit to wanting or needing help, what do we do? Should we be force feeding an individual medication for a mental condition just because they're homeless? If we do it to (for) them, do we do it to (for) others in society?

One question leads to another which leads to another.

Again, there are reasonable ways of determining someone's capability.

If that person does not have a diagnosable dilemma, then it can be assumed they will not be granted some form of aid. The system is not perfect of course, but private and public organizations are constantly refining their methodologies to reduce fraud.

 

[SLM]

This point is, in many regards, ground zero in this discussion... The contemporary bible for assessing mental illness is: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders v 5 (PsychiatryOnline | Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition | Table of Contents).

Not exactly light reading, but from what I recall, one of the interesting elements in said publication is that there is no definition of 'normalcy ' outlined in the manual.

That said, according to the manual, we are all 'suffering' from mental illness and all in the same boat (to one degree or another)... The point that I am really hitting upon here is that if we were to truly assess the situation in recognizing the true numbers of those individuals that simply are not able to care for themselves, the proposed needs of this part of the system would be very different from the existing requirements we see today.

I believe that the number of folks that won't come in out of the cold because of 'the voices' are a slim percentage of the overall (homeless) population.

Yes, those hearing the voices are an extreme example I admit, although they are out there and the ones in most need of intervention, but it still illustrates that the notion of choice can sometimes be a matter of perspective.

Case in point; ask yourself why the problem of homelessness in Canada is essentially regulated to major cities more so than small towns and communities?

A good part of that probably is just percentage of population in that there is a typical X number of individuals within every group that falls outside of the mainstream. But also, the plain fact is that it's difficult to become a nameless face in a crowd when you are in an area where everyone knows each others names.

That is an excellent point, but where the opportunity for introspective analysis is lost is the moment that gvt admin decisions legislate a solution that impacts you and I directly.

That's true however we really need to stop making government a third party in society. Government is supposed to be us, it's supposed to be society's collective hands for getting things done. And no matter what, all collective decisions will impact the individual. What we need to strive for, in my opinion, is an acceptable cost factor, one that recognizes that humanity is an important part of decision making but doesn't disregard the economic impact either.

While I fully support any and all assistance for those that suffer from significant conditions, I also differentiate those from the 'victims' mental illnesses that are a result of (poor) personal choices and my belief is that a substantial % of those relying on homeless shelters fall in this category.

This over representation in the personal choices sector is, in my opinion, costing everyone, especially those that truly need the help.

In all honesty I think homelessness itself is a significant condition, one that's extremely difficult to get out of without any kind of assistance. One does need something to build upon after all.

Also, I get where you're coming from as far as personal choices go. I don't think assistance should always necessarily be blanket with no questions asked or even, in some circumstances, expectation and demands made. But at the same time, I'd hate to think that we only have the one shot to get everything right, particularly when there are definitely some situations where the beginnings of poor personal choices can be outside of our control. Just take kids for example, there are numerous kids and young adults out on the streets that are there because they've fled abuses. They can easily become the lifelong homeless when they compound what could be called a 'desperate' choice with continued poor personal ones, like criminal behaviour or substance abuse.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

In all honesty I think homelessness itself is a significant condition, one that's extremely difficult to get out of without any kind of assistance. One does need something to build upon after all.

Also, I get where you're coming from as far as personal choices go. I don't think assistance should always necessarily be blanket with no questions asked or even, in some circumstances, expectation and demands made. But at the same time, I'd hate to think that we only have the one shot to get everything right, particularly when there are definitely some situations where the beginnings of poor personal choices can be outside of our control. Just take kids for example, there are numerous kids and young adults out on the streets that are there because they've fled abuses. They can easily become the lifelong homeless when they compound what could be called a 'desperate' choice with continued poor personal ones, like criminal behaviour or substance abuse.

Yeah, but then you miss out on the fun of sitting in judgment on those who fail to meet your standard of personal excellence!

 

[SLM]

To begin any claim you need to have a willing party to that claim. For example, if Joe gets into a car accident and he is injured, then he would go to an insurance company for medical coverage. That insurance company will refer Joe to independent medical assessor if they need assistance in determining a reasonable extent of medical coverage. They can also refer him to forensic accountants if Joe loses work as a result of the accident and they need an appropriate measure of Joe's income.

All this is predicated on Joe's willingness to co-operate.

He can voluntarily choose not to make a claim or accept any benefits offered to him.

The same, real world circumstances apply to this situation.

Not necessarily. The ability to make a true voluntary choice requires an ability to accurately self-assess, and the ability to accurately self-assess is impacted by things like mental illness or low self-esteem or addictions, etc, etc.

Again, there are reasonable ways of determining someone's capability.

If that person does not have a diagnosable dilemma, then it can be assumed they will not be granted some form of aid. The system is not perfect of course, but private and public organizations are constantly refining their methodologies to reduce fraud.

Although some fraud does occur, I don't think fraud is really the issue. It's not about whether or not someone needs food, clothing and shelter. Human beings need food, clothing and shelter for survival. It's not that difficult of task to determine who has that and who doesn't. The issue is how far do we go with someone who does not have the capability to make that distinction for themselves, where does it being and where does it end? It's not necessarily a diagnosable mental illness like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, it's also about those that are so far gone into addiction that there is no way they can make any kind of choice without help.

All I'm trying to speak to is that there is no black and white, cut and dry solution,like an assessment and ticking all the right boxes or attributing it all to personal choice, because both the problem and the solutions are multifaceted.

Yeah, but then you miss out on the fun of sitting in judgment on those who fail to meet your standard of personal excellence!

I don't think that's what he's doing, in fact I know it isn't. And it is a very reasonable and important talking point. Personal responsibility has to become part of the equation at some point. For anyone I know or have ever heard of that has gotten beyond a cycle of abuse or beaten an addiction, a key factor in doing so was their embrace of personal responsibility for life choices. I think it just becomes a question of when in this process of recovery or healing that becomes a factor.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I don't think that's what he's doing, in fact I know it isn't. And it is a very reasonable and important talking point. Personal responsibility has to become part of the equation at some point. For anyone I know or have ever heard of that has gotten beyond a cycle of abuse or beaten an addiction, a key factor in doing so was their embrace of personal responsibility for life choices. I think it just becomes a question of when in this process of recovery or healing that becomes a factor.

Damn hard to recover or heal when you're cold, hungry, and sick.


Midnight Oil - Under the Overpass - YouTube

 

[SLM]

Damn hard to recover or heal when you're cold, hungry, and sick.

Well no ****, I said it was a part of the process, not the first step, lol.

You can feed a hungry person a meal but unless you also make sure they have the skills, resources and the ability to renew their resources and feed themselves, you are just going to have a hungry person again.

 

[mentalfloss]

Although some fraud does occur, I don't think fraud is really the issue. It's not about whether or not someone needs food, clothing and shelter. Human beings need food, clothing and shelter for survival. It's not that difficult of task to determine who has that and who doesn't. The issue is how far do we go with someone who does not have the capability to make that distinction for themselves, where does it being and where does it end? It's not necessarily a diagnosable mental illness like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, it's also about those that are so far gone into addiction that there is no way they can make any kind of choice without help.

I don't think that's what he's doing, in fact I know it isn't. And it is a very reasonable and important talking point. Personal responsibility has to become part of the equation at some point. For anyone I know or have ever heard of that has gotten beyond a cycle of abuse or beaten an addiction, a key factor in doing so was their embrace of personal responsibility for life choices. I think it just becomes a question of when in this process of recovery or healing that becomes a factor.

Personal responsibility differs from person to person. You have to unpack the term and look at the activities of daily living.

You will never be able to document every bit of their life and associated minutiae, so you have to begin with the most substantial consequences for them and everyone else and then work your way up from there.

Look at their job (if they have one), and what they do on a regular basis. What are their goals and aspirations? What are the concessions needed to bring them there and do these concessions pose any substantial risk to others.

All of these factors come into play whether someone is looking for insurance coverage or something like ODSP.

It's a tough job, but a necessary one not only to help this person, but to also avoid hurting others.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, those hearing the voices are an extreme example I admit, although they are out there and the ones in most need of intervention, but it still illustrates that the notion of choice can sometimes be a matter of perspective.

A good part of that probably is just percentage of population in that there is a typical X number of individuals within every group that falls outside of the mainstream. But also, the plain fact is that it's difficult to become a nameless face in a crowd when you are in an area where everyone knows each others names.


That's true however we really need to stop making government a third party in society. Government is supposed to be us, it's supposed to be society's collective hands for getting things done. And no matter what, all collective decisions will impact the individual. What we need to strive for, in my opinion, is an acceptable cost factor, one that recognizes that humanity is an important part of decision making but doesn't disregard the economic impact either.

In all honesty I think homelessness itself is a significant condition, one that's extremely difficult to get out of without any kind of assistance. One does need something to build upon after all.

Also, I get where you're coming from as far as personal choices go. I don't think assistance should always necessarily be blanket with no questions asked or even, in some circumstances, expectation and demands made. But at the same time, I'd hate to think that we only have the one shot to get everything right, particularly when there are definitely some situations where the beginnings of poor personal choices can be outside of our control. Just take kids for example, there are numerous kids and young adults out on the streets that are there because they've fled abuses. They can easily become the lifelong homeless when they compound what could be called a 'desperate' choice with continued poor personal ones, like criminal behaviour or substance abuse.

I get it, I really do.

The next question that leaps into the equation is 'what to do'?

The present 'solution' is to bury the problem in cash rather than look towards the root cause(s).

Ironically, one of the definitions of insanity is:

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

Yeah, but then you miss out on the fun of sitting in judgment on those who fail to meet your standard of personal excellence!

Too funny... I see by your snide remarks that it doesn't stop you from sitting in judgement.

I don't think that's what he's doing, in fact I know it isn't. And it is a very reasonable and important talking point. Personal responsibility has to become part of the equation at some point. For anyone I know or have ever heard of that has gotten beyond a cycle of abuse or beaten an addiction, a key factor in doing so was their embrace of personal responsibility for life choices. I think it just becomes a question of when in this process of recovery or healing that becomes a factor.

Some people are more comfortable in life by doing this:

 

[petros]

Mental health is the numero uno health issue with the least funding and social acceptance. It's taboo to have mental health issues. Modern lepers.

 

[SLM]

Personal responsibility differs from person to person. You have to unpack the term and look at the activities of daily living.

You will never be able to document every bit of their life and associated minutiae, so you have to begin with the most substantial consequences for them and everyone else and then work your way up from there.

Look at their job (if they have one), and what they do on a regular basis. What are their goals and aspirations? What are the concessions needed to bring them there and do these concessions pose any substantial risk to others.

All of these factors come into play whether someone is looking for insurance coverage or something like ODSP.

It's a tough job, but a necessary one not only to help this person, but to also avoid hurting others.

Sure, the practical issues need to be dealt with first. It's not very practical to ask someone to examine how their own personal choices may have contributed to their situation and what they can do differently when they are starving, sick, have no shoes and it's minus 30 outside. They are not going to be able to process that, who would? But at some point very shortly after an emergency intervention that does need to at least begin in some way, shape or form. And I know people in social services, friends and family, and the 'boots on the ground' people know this very well. But I don't think it gets talked about enough within society as a whole, which is why it gets mired down into "political think" when people do talk about the issue in general.

I get it, I really do.

The next question that leaps into the equation is 'what to do'?

The present 'solution' is to bury the problem in cash rather than look towards the root cause(s).

Ironically, one of the definitions of insanity is:

"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

I think what we need to do is engage in an honest and thorough examination of the entirety of the issue. And to keep the discussion ongoing, because we don't changes hearts or minds or budgets with one conversation. It's the essence and the reason for debate in the first place, to hash out all the aspects surrounding an issue. Ideally, it would then follow that society's mandate would then be implemented by government which is as it should be, as opposed to how it is now. Whether we ever reach that ideal, who can say, but I do believe we can get closer to it.

Mental health is the numero uno health issue with the least funding and social acceptance. It's taboo to have mental health issues. Modern lepers.

Social stigmas can only disappear when you confront them in the cold light of day. We need to make these issues everyday conversation topics.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

At some point in time, personal responsibility has to be assessed into the equation

I agree, but there are lot of homeless folks out there who have mental health issues and in that case personal responsibility is a tall order.

Mental health is the numero uno health issue with the least funding and social acceptance. It's taboo to have mental health issues. Modern lepers.

Agreed.

 

[petros]

Long before somebody is plopped into an LHK, they need to go through a transition with medical and mental health issues addressed, some training in basic life skills and into the workforce on a casual or part time basis.

Long before putting money into housing it has to go into community clinics and transitional housing directly in the areas of direct need. If help can't be found by walking to it, it won,t be given or received.

 

[Sal]

Long before somebody is plopped into an LHK, they need to go through a transition with medical and mental health issues addressed, some training in basic life skills and into the workforce on a casual or part time basis.

Long before putting money into housing it has to go into community clinics and transitional housing directly in the areas of direct need. If help can't be found by walking to it, it won,t be given or received.

agreed, ideally yes...but now that they're out on the street in the cold with no where to go, we have to address the cold/heat and food

it's a huge issue with many aspects to it

 

[taxslave]

At one time BC had a loony bin where most of these people were housed. Then we had a socialist government that decided it was not PC to keep them contained for their own good and so they were set free. Without any supervision or resources. Except the several thousand social workers that derive their very good living by telling us how the homeless need more help. AKA tax dollars. But don't lock them up. Not PC.