3 ms·

Well, keep in mind the agency here. This isn't the city 'moving' anyone, these are people who are choosing to move themselves. I don't see why the city ought ev

by darawk 8y ago

Well, keep in mind the agency here. This isn't the city 'moving' anyone, these are people who are choosing to move themselves. I don't see why the city ought even have the responsibility to ensure they have somewhere to stay. Let them go where they want.

fzeroracer 8y ago
I hope you realize the inverse of the problem you posit here: Why should other cities be forced to bear the burden of homeless people being shipped to them? The end result of your logic would essentially lead to caravans of homeless people because it would be cheaper to give them a bus pass and a pat on the back rather than take care of their own responsibilities. The idea that they have agency in this case is a facade because then the city could deny them care under the guise of 'well we gave them a chance for a better opportunity and they denied it'. It seems to be a uniquely American thing to ignore actually addressing the damn problem in favor of making it someone else's problem.
- darawk 8y ago
  Nobody is denying them care. Their choices are being strictly expanded here, not restricted. You think they would be better off if they did not have the option of these tickets?
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    To say that they're not being denied care is objectively wrong. Don't be disingenuous. The city that they reside in is effectively denying them care. The tickets are an excuse to push them out of the city so that they don't actually have to give them proper care. If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there? This is EXACTLY what happened when Nevada gave discharged patients from a mental health hospital one-way bus tickets out of town. They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. So let's not ignore the fact that this actually occurs.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there? Well, one reason from TFA is so they can go back to where they have a friends/family support network. People actually do this on their own, parents get their kid a ticket on the Greyhound so they don't end up on/get off the streets. Happens a lot. Given a choice between staying homeless where you happen to be or going somewhere where you have a fighting chance people seem to be going with the latter. > They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. One alleged abusive program and this means they all share the same motivation? Prisons do the exact same thing BTW.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > The city that they reside in is effectively denying them care. The tickets are an excuse to push them out of the city so that they don't actually have to give them proper care. If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there? What? How is giving them a free ticket pushing them anywhere? They're not being forced to take it. > This is EXACTLY what happened when Nevada gave discharged patients from a mental health hospital one-way bus tickets out of town. They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. So let's not ignore the fact that this actually occurs. It is not even close to that. That was people being put onto these buses after being kicked out of hospitals. These are people who have already been living homelessly in the city, and the city saying "here, IF YOU WANT THIS, you can have a free ticket wherever you need to go". This is a strict expansion of their autonomy, to paint it any other way is ludicrous.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        No, let's get one thing straight here. These situations occur when we encourage the movement of homeless or mentally ill populations between states because they don't want to bother fixing the core problem. As for the people in the Nevada case they were offered a choice by the hospital: They could be discharged early if they took a bus ticket to another state, and could leave even earlier if they had family/friends there. These were people given a choice, something that you mention as being incredibly important. Their autonomy was increased, was it not? They were not forced into taking the ticket. Of course they were coerced, naturally. That's why I think your argument about choice ends up being complete bunk, because often there isn't a real 'choice' for many of these homeless people. For people who may have trouble making a well-informed choice due to poverty or mental illness or any other reason, to act like they have a full choice in the matter is ignorance.

by darawk 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

I hope you realize the inverse of the problem you posit here: Why should other cities be forced to bear the burden of homeless people being shipped to them? The end result of your logic would essentially lead to caravans of homeless people because it would be cheaper to give them a bus pass and a pat on the back rather than take care of their own responsibilities. The idea that they have agency in this case is a facade because then the city could deny them care under the guise of 'well we gave them a chance for a better opportunity and they denied it'. It seems to be a uniquely American thing to ignore actually addressing the damn problem in favor of making it someone else's problem.

darawk 8y ago
Nobody is denying them care. Their choices are being strictly expanded here, not restricted. You think they would be better off if they did not have the option of these tickets?
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  To say that they're not being denied care is objectively wrong. Don't be disingenuous. The city that they reside in is effectively denying them care. The tickets are an excuse to push them out of the city so that they don't actually have to give them proper care. If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there? This is EXACTLY what happened when Nevada gave discharged patients from a mental health hospital one-way bus tickets out of town. They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. So let's not ignore the fact that this actually occurs.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there? Well, one reason from TFA is so they can go back to where they have a friends/family support network. People actually do this on their own, parents get their kid a ticket on the Greyhound so they don't end up on/get off the streets. Happens a lot. Given a choice between staying homeless where you happen to be or going somewhere where you have a fighting chance people seem to be going with the latter. > They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. One alleged abusive program and this means they all share the same motivation? Prisons do the exact same thing BTW.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > The city that they reside in is effectively denying them care. The tickets are an excuse to push them out of the city so that they don't actually have to give them proper care. If they weren't being denied care for whatever reasons, then there wouldn't be a reason to bus them out to other cities, now would there? What? How is giving them a free ticket pushing them anywhere? They're not being forced to take it. > This is EXACTLY what happened when Nevada gave discharged patients from a mental health hospital one-way bus tickets out of town. They were given bus tickets and advised to seek health care elsewhere and were sued because of this program. So let's not ignore the fact that this actually occurs. It is not even close to that. That was people being put onto these buses after being kicked out of hospitals. These are people who have already been living homelessly in the city, and the city saying "here, IF YOU WANT THIS, you can have a free ticket wherever you need to go". This is a strict expansion of their autonomy, to paint it any other way is ludicrous.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      No, let's get one thing straight here. These situations occur when we encourage the movement of homeless or mentally ill populations between states because they don't want to bother fixing the core problem. As for the people in the Nevada case they were offered a choice by the hospital: They could be discharged early if they took a bus ticket to another state, and could leave even earlier if they had family/friends there. These were people given a choice, something that you mention as being incredibly important. Their autonomy was increased, was it not? They were not forced into taking the ticket. Of course they were coerced, naturally. That's why I think your argument about choice ends up being complete bunk, because often there isn't a real 'choice' for many of these homeless people. For people who may have trouble making a well-informed choice due to poverty or mental illness or any other reason, to act like they have a full choice in the matter is ignorance.