Radical yet simple problem solving?

bill barilko

bill barilko

Senate Member
Mar 4, 2009
6,043
584
113
Vancouver-by-the-Sea
The cost for an ill - Mental or physically - can run from 60 to 125 K per person, policing, emergency care, hospitalizations etc. Pure economics show that the present system is bankrupt.
Click to expand...



Yes I've read the figures for establishing a homeless shelter-the costs as quoted are accurate/mind boggling.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Social work has developed into a big business for government employees and to a lesser extent contractors. The unions involved have no interest in changing the status quo because thousands of them make good money off this. Like most government financed endeavors the administration cost is huge and as long as the system appears to work bureaucrats are happy. The end result is irrelevant to them. A politician friend once told me that about 60% of all program spending is eaten up in administration. so if a billion is spent on homeless only about 400000 gets delivered and bureaucrats eat the rest.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
SLM said:
It is a stunning amount of money to essentially keep someone homeless!


Nor to mine.

Unless of course you are that exceedinly wealthy, long lost cousin I've been looking for.

Otherwise, pure coincidence.
Click to expand...

Maybe lost definitely not wealthy.
 
Bar Sinister

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Actually there is very little new about this idea. I first saw it proposed in the 1970s. The fact is many of the homeless are actually capable of getting their act together over time. As for those who cannot, it is actually cheaper to find them a decent place to live than constantly deal with them in the emergency ward for problems like frostbite, malnutrition, and a variety of illnesses or injuries picked up by living on the street. Looking at the problem from an economic point of view it really makes more sense to provide them with what they need than continually trying to repair the damage they cause for themselves from their way of life.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Bar Sinister said:
Actually there is very little new about this idea. I first saw it proposed in the 1970s. The fact is many of the homeless are actually capable of getting their act together over time. As for those who cannot, it is actually cheaper to find them a decent place to live than constantly deal with them in the emergency ward for problems like frostbite, malnutrition, and a variety of illnesses or injuries picked up by living on the street. Looking at the problem from an economic point of view it really makes more sense to provide them with what they need than continually trying to repair the damage they cause for themselves from their way of life.
Click to expand...

I think you are half right, there is a fine line to tread between cutting costs in ways you mention and doing TOO MUCH for them that they have no incentive to do anything for themselves. But you are right in that they have a decent place to live before they can get motivated.
 
SLM

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
JLM said:
I think you are half right, there is a fine line to tread between cutting costs in ways you mention and doing TOO MUCH for them that they have no incentive to do anything for themselves. But you are right in that they have a decent place to live before they can get motivated.
Click to expand...
I think that was the exact balance that was struck by the project/program highlighted in the article. Obviously economics plays a part, putting a roof over your head costs money, pure and simple. But independence comes from having some control over your own life. Instead of a group of people who are well-meaning but not homeless themselves deciding what exactly the homeless need, let's just ask them.
 
Bar Sinister

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
JLM said:
I think you are half right, there is a fine line to tread between cutting costs in ways you mention and doing TOO MUCH for them that they have no incentive to do anything for themselves. But you are right in that they have a decent place to live before they can get motivated.
Click to expand...

The key with making this sort of program work is to ignore the problem most people have with giving something for nothing. It boils down to a simple matter of what is the most effective way to spend tax dollars. Do you want to spend $20,000 to $50,000 a year supporting some disfunctional bum who may never amount to anything or do you want to spend $50,000 to to $200,000 a year dealing with emergency treatment for the same person due to severe frostbite or other problems contracted from living on the street? Instead of looking at it as a moral or ethical issue; look at it as a dollars and cents issue.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Bar Sinister said:
The key with making this sort of program work is to ignore the problem most people have with giving something for nothing. It boils down to a simple matter of what is the most effective way to spend tax dollars. Do you want to spend $20,000 to $50,000 a year supporting some disfunctional bum who may never amount to anything or do you want to spend $50,000 to to $200,000 a year dealing with emergency treatment for the same person due to severe frostbite or other problems contracted from living on the street? Instead of looking at it as a moral or ethical issue; look at it as a dollars and cents issue.
Click to expand...

The 20 -50- g for the bum is not a problem. The problem is the 10 or so social workers at$75000+ that hang on to each bum and contribute nothing to the cure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom