No doubt your intentions are good but the solutions you propose are scary. You say that mentally ill without a home should get medical care. Alright, I agree. A

No doubt your intentions are good but the solutions you propose are scary. You say that mentally ill without a home should get medical care. Alright, I agree. And they will get that medical care in Amsterdam if they ask for it. But then you say, they should get the treatment involuntary if need be. But suppose I am a homeless person living on the street, who will determine that I am mentally ill and should get forced treatment? What if it is my personal choice to live on the street? Or does that already qualify me as mentally ill, in somebody's eyes? Actually it is possible in Amsterdam for people to be forced to get treatment, but that is only if they are a clear danger to themselves or the people around them. Then at the end you say "homeless people fail in our society. We have to re-educate them so that they are productive and serve as a net positive for society." I hope this will not be a forced re-education as well? And who will determine what 'our' society is? I find it really scary when a group of people defines society to be 'theirs' and that anybody who does not wish to live along their lines should be re-educated. History provides plenty of examples where this idea was put into practice, most of the time with all the good intentions, and every time the outcome was horrible.