9 ms·

Thank you for sharing your story. I feel so much empathy towards you and your family, and I'm sorry to hear about your father feeling so bitter towards the syst

Thank you for sharing your story. I feel so much empathy towards you and your family, and I'm sorry to hear about your father feeling so bitter towards the system afterwards. I don't blame him. When I see people screaming and walking down the streets talking to themselves, I see people that need love. I see people that need to be taken in, not just for a night, but for a year or longer... so they can stop stressing about where they'll get their next meal, or if they'll have someplace warm and safe to sleep at night. It is so easy for people to judge them.. say that it is their fault for being down on their luck. When you're homeless, you just get used to people assuming the worse... heck you even start to assume the worse about yourself. You say, why is it that no one cares to see that I'm hurting inside. People judge them for not taking whatever work is available for the day, because they assume... hey, one day helps, right... well when you're homeless, the help of one person is kind and does help for a bit, but what what people need in America are communities helping them. Unfortunately, you will likely have to go to religious services and pretend to care about religion enough to get the help you need, because that is who America has designated as their community support system.

chaostheory 9y ago
> When I see people screaming and walking down the streets talking to themselves, I see people that need love If they're talking to themselves, they need more than that. They probably need to be cared for in a mental institution. Unfortunately the overall national trend has been funding cuts, with the irony being that it doesn't save money overall; since the costs are just shifted over to hospitals and other emergency services. This isn't a new subject. For those without severe mental issues, the end result is the same when we provide housing: it costs less https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/its-three-times-cheaper-to-give-housing-to-the-homeless-than-to-keep https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/its-three-times-cheape...
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Those living on the streets with severe mental issues probably don’t want to be in a mental institution. And unless they’re a danger to themselves or others (and not just in the sense of making bad life decisions), they can’t be held against their will. This is a free country.
  - AaronFriel 9y ago
    It seems you think that either mental institutions are unfixable, or you have a very poor sense of the harms of say, untreated schizophrenia. This may be a free country, but we shouldn't use that to neglect our duty to our neighbors.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      That’s not what I’m saying. We most definitely should offer mental care to people who need it, regardless of ability to pay. My point is simply that many of them don’t want it, and we can’t force it on them.
      - eanzenberg 9y ago
        This is an extremely philosophical dilemma.. thanks for pointing it out to me.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      What is a more important duty to our neighbors? To lock up and force drugs on homeless people who have no one to talk to but themselves; or preventing them from becoming homeless in the first place?
  - wahern 9y ago
    > And unless they’re a danger to themselves or others (and > not just in the sense of making bad life decisions), they > can’t be held against their will. Technically if somebody suffers from a mental illness, including addiction, they could be forced off the street. In fact, refusing housing and other assistance to live in patently unsanitary conditions could, per se, be construed as evidence of incapacity. We just choose not to. AFAIU, the Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s that, arguably, precipitated the dismantling of the archaic mental health institutions never even came close to suggesting that such people couldn't be forced off the street. For example, in the famous case of O'Connor v. Donaldson the patient, Donaldson, had actually been living in an apartment of his own in Philadelphia. He traveled to Florida to visit his parents, and it was his parents who had him committed after he shared paranoid delusions about his neighbors in Philadelphia. I've seen people use that case to argue against forcing people off the streets as-if we had no legal choice, but it's just plain wrong. Donaldson wasn't living on the streets; his ramblings notwithstanding he was clearly capable of taking care of himself, and in any event the case was never about his initial confinement but his continued confinement 15 years later. We choose to let people live on the streets because we've somehow internalized the perverse logic that to do otherwise would result in a tyrannic state oppressing the mentally ill. (Myths about SCOTUS opinions come into being to bolster the logic.) That such an approach happens to require little or no budget outlays while simultaneously absolving us from moral blame is, I'm sure, merely coincidental....
- alsetmusic 9y ago
  > If they're talking to themselves, they need more than that. They probably need to be cared for in a mental institution. Bullshit. There are many people capable of losing touch with reality who live normal lives thanks to medication.
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    Yes those people probably have homes, jobs, and a family and friends support network. With the homeless, they are missing more than one of those things, if not all of them. Is it even possible to have a prescription when you don't have a mailing address?
    - Cyph0n 9y ago
      And is it even possible to get access to such drugs if you can't afford them and have no health insurance? Genuine question.
      - mirimir 9y ago
        You'd need to pay the doctor, and for prescribed drugs. Some doctors treat indigent patients at reduced prices, or pro bono. Also, food and drug chains often sell generics at discounted prices. And some US states prvide drug-discount services.
      - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
        Not really in actual, regular, uninterrupted practice. There are so many problems with the US healthcare system at every level of it when you have excellent health insurance, especially in terms of regular maintenence medication for something as garden variety as asthma, that when you get down to the level of real emergency help absolutely medically required, it is usually a severely delayed and often interrupted swampy mess. I've been at both ends of this spectrum of care. Both are unreliable, but obviously, it is far worse-- a nightmare of indifference really, at the bottom. And many meds (like inhalers even) require ridiculously expensive, regular tests. The homeless and impoverished are often given less effective medication or ineffective medication to treat serious ongoing conditions.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  > If they're talking to themselves, they need more than that. They probably need to be cared for in a mental institution The statement that they should probably need to be cared for in a mental institution isn't true. That some or several may need to be cared for is true, yes, but the probability of that need is less well know. Schizophrenia and other schizophrenia-related disorders can often 'mellow out' on their own over time. [1] It is important to give someone a stable and loving and validating environment for them to be able to recover. There are several kinds of people who, while they talk to themselves, really just have their symptoms exacerbated by stress (e.g. schizotypal personality disorder can have quasi-psychotic symptoms triggered by stress). 1. https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophrenia/negative-symptoms-of-schizophrenia-may-improve-over-time-says-meta-analysis/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophren... (I will also note that this has been anecdotally determined, though I understand anecdotes are not data.)
  - chaostheory 9y ago
    To be clear, we're discussing homeless people with mental issues, and not people who aren't homeless. The homeless have less access to resources than a non-homeless person with family and friends. > It is important to give someone a stable and loving and validating environment for them to be able to recover. There are several kinds of people who, while they talk to themselves, really just have their symptoms exacerbated by stress Yes, which is why a mental institution is a good starting point for a homeless person with mental issues. Let's not confuse these institutions with the mental asylums of the past. Are there better alternatives for the mentally ill homeless that I'm not aware of? I don't feel that most if not all homeless shelters are equiped to fully deal with individuals suffering from schizophrenia.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Yes, there are. The only real difference between a mentally ill homeless person and a normal mentally ill person is the home. Why wouldn't a stable home be the answer? A short-term stay in a mental hospital might be necessary while getting the patient adjusted to their medication. But once someone is stable, there is no need for such things. Even though the institutions have changed, they are still pretty horrible places to stay in, with all sorts of lifestyle restrictions that aren't generally needed. A small apartment is appropriate for most folks once they are stable, along with access to someone to call. Some communities have social workers that visit once or twice a week and help with grocery shopping, bill paying, and general "how are you" sorts of things. Group homes are another option if someone chooses it: Private space with shared kitchen and whatnot, staffed with someone to help with cooking and cleaning. My ex, diagnosed with schizophrenia, would have been a candidate for such a thing. I was his primary caregiver, fair or not, and his doctor didn't want him living alone for his own protection. Give support for family members as well - this is something seriously lacking in the US system. He had help, I didn't. A small amount of folks might need some help for substance abuse, but many short-term mental health facilities are equipped to do this. A fair amount of folks would be helped by police that are capable of helping mentally ill folks with training and a marker on their ID so the cops know what to change in their approach.
- WovenTales 9y ago
  Some, maybe. Others live perfectly happily without being alone in their heads. I know a story or two about people for whom just talking with the voices was the way they found themselves again. Sure there are people who can't deal with another constant presence or who have deeper issues to work out, but saying that everyone who's part of a plural system needs institutional help is part of the feedback loop that makes them reject their headmates and so need institutional help finding solitude. The key is finding a way to a stable life, not finding a way to a single life.
wetha 9y ago
> because that is who America has designated as their community support system. This seems unjustified. Your statement assumes (a) Support systems in the community are run only by religious people. This implies (b) Non-religious people do not run any community programs. Assuming (b) is true (which it may very well not be), the question that needs to be asked is, why do non-religious people and institutions not run more community programs. Not rail against the religious people who do. Disclaimer: I am not American.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  >> Disclaimer: I am not American. This explains it. You probably live somewhere with a reasonable social safety net. Our government safety net is full of holes, and religious people build webs to catch people who fall through. Not all of them are bad. Some of them will just help people and not make it conditional on joining their religion. In my experience and from accounts by other LGBTQ+ people, these are the outliers.
ythn 9y ago
> Unfortunately, you will likely have to go to religious services and pretend to care about religion enough to get the help you need, because that is who America has designated as their community support system. Ouch, that's kind of an uncalled for jab at religion. Why don't atheists band together and form communities to show the religious how it's done...?
- braderhart 9y ago
  Many non-religious groups do exist, but depending on where you live they are not the norm. I am happy to try to start my own non-profit, but I also realize that I have to be careful of what time I commit personally right now until I can find more ways to give back.

chaostheory 9y ago

> When I see people screaming and walking down the streets talking to themselves, I see people that need love If they're talking to themselves, they need more than that. They probably need to be cared for in a mental institution. Unfortunately the overall national trend has been funding cuts, with the irony being that it doesn't save money overall; since the costs are just shifted over to hospitals and other emergency services. This isn't a new subject. For those without severe mental issues, the end result is the same when we provide housing: it costs less https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/its-three-times-cheaper-to-give-housing-to-the-homeless-than-to-keep https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/its-three-times-cheape...

marcoperaza 9y ago
Those living on the streets with severe mental issues probably don’t want to be in a mental institution. And unless they’re a danger to themselves or others (and not just in the sense of making bad life decisions), they can’t be held against their will. This is a free country.
- AaronFriel 9y ago
  It seems you think that either mental institutions are unfixable, or you have a very poor sense of the harms of say, untreated schizophrenia. This may be a free country, but we shouldn't use that to neglect our duty to our neighbors.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    That’s not what I’m saying. We most definitely should offer mental care to people who need it, regardless of ability to pay. My point is simply that many of them don’t want it, and we can’t force it on them.
    - eanzenberg 9y ago
      This is an extremely philosophical dilemma.. thanks for pointing it out to me.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    What is a more important duty to our neighbors? To lock up and force drugs on homeless people who have no one to talk to but themselves; or preventing them from becoming homeless in the first place?
- wahern 9y ago
  > And unless they’re a danger to themselves or others (and > not just in the sense of making bad life decisions), they > can’t be held against their will. Technically if somebody suffers from a mental illness, including addiction, they could be forced off the street. In fact, refusing housing and other assistance to live in patently unsanitary conditions could, per se, be construed as evidence of incapacity. We just choose not to. AFAIU, the Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s that, arguably, precipitated the dismantling of the archaic mental health institutions never even came close to suggesting that such people couldn't be forced off the street. For example, in the famous case of O'Connor v. Donaldson the patient, Donaldson, had actually been living in an apartment of his own in Philadelphia. He traveled to Florida to visit his parents, and it was his parents who had him committed after he shared paranoid delusions about his neighbors in Philadelphia. I've seen people use that case to argue against forcing people off the streets as-if we had no legal choice, but it's just plain wrong. Donaldson wasn't living on the streets; his ramblings notwithstanding he was clearly capable of taking care of himself, and in any event the case was never about his initial confinement but his continued confinement 15 years later. We choose to let people live on the streets because we've somehow internalized the perverse logic that to do otherwise would result in a tyrannic state oppressing the mentally ill. (Myths about SCOTUS opinions come into being to bolster the logic.) That such an approach happens to require little or no budget outlays while simultaneously absolving us from moral blame is, I'm sure, merely coincidental....
alsetmusic 9y ago
> If they're talking to themselves, they need more than that. They probably need to be cared for in a mental institution. Bullshit. There are many people capable of losing touch with reality who live normal lives thanks to medication.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  Yes those people probably have homes, jobs, and a family and friends support network. With the homeless, they are missing more than one of those things, if not all of them. Is it even possible to have a prescription when you don't have a mailing address?
  - Cyph0n 9y ago
    And is it even possible to get access to such drugs if you can't afford them and have no health insurance? Genuine question.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      You'd need to pay the doctor, and for prescribed drugs. Some doctors treat indigent patients at reduced prices, or pro bono. Also, food and drug chains often sell generics at discounted prices. And some US states prvide drug-discount services.
    - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
      Not really in actual, regular, uninterrupted practice. There are so many problems with the US healthcare system at every level of it when you have excellent health insurance, especially in terms of regular maintenence medication for something as garden variety as asthma, that when you get down to the level of real emergency help absolutely medically required, it is usually a severely delayed and often interrupted swampy mess. I've been at both ends of this spectrum of care. Both are unreliable, but obviously, it is far worse-- a nightmare of indifference really, at the bottom. And many meds (like inhalers even) require ridiculously expensive, regular tests. The homeless and impoverished are often given less effective medication or ineffective medication to treat serious ongoing conditions.
SolaceQuantum 9y ago
> If they're talking to themselves, they need more than that. They probably need to be cared for in a mental institution The statement that they should probably need to be cared for in a mental institution isn't true. That some or several may need to be cared for is true, yes, but the probability of that need is less well know. Schizophrenia and other schizophrenia-related disorders can often 'mellow out' on their own over time. [1] It is important to give someone a stable and loving and validating environment for them to be able to recover. There are several kinds of people who, while they talk to themselves, really just have their symptoms exacerbated by stress (e.g. schizotypal personality disorder can have quasi-psychotic symptoms triggered by stress). 1. https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophrenia/negative-symptoms-of-schizophrenia-may-improve-over-time-says-meta-analysis/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophren... (I will also note that this has been anecdotally determined, though I understand anecdotes are not data.)
- chaostheory 9y ago
  To be clear, we're discussing homeless people with mental issues, and not people who aren't homeless. The homeless have less access to resources than a non-homeless person with family and friends. > It is important to give someone a stable and loving and validating environment for them to be able to recover. There are several kinds of people who, while they talk to themselves, really just have their symptoms exacerbated by stress Yes, which is why a mental institution is a good starting point for a homeless person with mental issues. Let's not confuse these institutions with the mental asylums of the past. Are there better alternatives for the mentally ill homeless that I'm not aware of? I don't feel that most if not all homeless shelters are equiped to fully deal with individuals suffering from schizophrenia.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Yes, there are. The only real difference between a mentally ill homeless person and a normal mentally ill person is the home. Why wouldn't a stable home be the answer? A short-term stay in a mental hospital might be necessary while getting the patient adjusted to their medication. But once someone is stable, there is no need for such things. Even though the institutions have changed, they are still pretty horrible places to stay in, with all sorts of lifestyle restrictions that aren't generally needed. A small apartment is appropriate for most folks once they are stable, along with access to someone to call. Some communities have social workers that visit once or twice a week and help with grocery shopping, bill paying, and general "how are you" sorts of things. Group homes are another option if someone chooses it: Private space with shared kitchen and whatnot, staffed with someone to help with cooking and cleaning. My ex, diagnosed with schizophrenia, would have been a candidate for such a thing. I was his primary caregiver, fair or not, and his doctor didn't want him living alone for his own protection. Give support for family members as well - this is something seriously lacking in the US system. He had help, I didn't. A small amount of folks might need some help for substance abuse, but many short-term mental health facilities are equipped to do this. A fair amount of folks would be helped by police that are capable of helping mentally ill folks with training and a marker on their ID so the cops know what to change in their approach.
WovenTales 9y ago
Some, maybe. Others live perfectly happily without being alone in their heads. I know a story or two about people for whom just talking with the voices was the way they found themselves again. Sure there are people who can't deal with another constant presence or who have deeper issues to work out, but saying that everyone who's part of a plural system needs institutional help is part of the feedback loop that makes them reject their headmates and so need institutional help finding solitude. The key is finding a way to a stable life, not finding a way to a single life.

wetha 9y ago

> because that is who America has designated as their community support system. This seems unjustified. Your statement assumes (a) Support systems in the community are run only by religious people. This implies (b) Non-religious people do not run any community programs. Assuming (b) is true (which it may very well not be), the question that needs to be asked is, why do non-religious people and institutions not run more community programs. Not rail against the religious people who do. Disclaimer: I am not American.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
>> Disclaimer: I am not American. This explains it. You probably live somewhere with a reasonable social safety net. Our government safety net is full of holes, and religious people build webs to catch people who fall through. Not all of them are bad. Some of them will just help people and not make it conditional on joining their religion. In my experience and from accounts by other LGBTQ+ people, these are the outliers.

ythn 9y ago

> Unfortunately, you will likely have to go to religious services and pretend to care about religion enough to get the help you need, because that is who America has designated as their community support system. Ouch, that's kind of an uncalled for jab at religion. Why don't atheists band together and form communities to show the religious how it's done...?

braderhart 9y ago
Many non-religious groups do exist, but depending on where you live they are not the norm. I am happy to try to start my own non-profit, but I also realize that I have to be careful of what time I commit personally right now until I can find more ways to give back.