6 ms·

Our government collects a lot of taxes for helping people like you. I guess I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that that’s not working but do you have any insight

Our government collects a lot of taxes for helping people like you. I guess I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that that’s not working but do you have any insight into why none of the homeless assistance projects aren’t capable of bringing you back to a stable situation?

cvccvroomvroom 4y ago
It's a haphazard, inconsistent, bureaucratic, unkind, demeaning patchwork that isn't funded enough to meet the needs of people left-out in the actual cold. It's not meant to help people improve their situation because it treats people consistently like lazy criminals who don't want help and can't be helped. - Section 8 housing takes forever. - Work programs are for menial jobs that don't pay anywhere close to livable wages. - Cash assistance amounts to $5 per day. - Food assistance amounts to $7 per day (without a means of refrigeration). - Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones. Medicare with SSDI takes years to get. - Make just enough to try to get ahead, then you can't afford medications. Working severely penalizes the destitute into even more impossible situations. - Everything takes longer and is more difficult and more expensive: laundry, showering, and transportation. - Social workers don't go outdoors in most of America. They sit at desks, fill out paperwork, and randomly stop benefits based on errors, assumptions, and their lack of communication.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  > Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones What makes you think any sort of government intervention will solve this? If you implement universal healthcare these doctors will still have revenue streams from rich people and won't need to take poor patients. You can't force doctors to treat people they don't want to.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    They never said that. All they did was describe why the current American system sucks.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    An even more absurd form of this is happening in France. There used to be some "abuse" (according to the national health insurance administration) where people would, supposedly, try to see specialists for no reason. So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first. Now most of these doctors are "full" and won't take any new clients. You don't need to be poor, they don't even ask your situation. If you call them up, they'll ask you if the doc knows you. If not, they hang up. And even if they're your family doctor, you better hope your cough isn't anything too urgent, 'cause they're in no hurry to see you. Of course, there are doctors who will see you, but usually they charge extra, so they're not fully covered by the "free" healthcare, if at all.
    - baby 4y ago
      That’s mostly a problem in small towns, not that it makes the problem OK
      - vladvasiliu 4y ago
        From what I hear it's brutal in small towns. My post above came from my own experience, living in Paris proper.
      - PoignardAzur 4y ago
        I live in Paris, and finding a medecin traitant has been a pain.
        baby 4y ago
        Interesting, never had an issue in Lyon. Just use google maps, call the ones that are closer to you, sure some won't take you because they have too many patients but usually there are so many doctors that it's not a problem. I'm surprised that Paris would have this problem but not Lyon.
    - fineIllregister 4y ago
      > So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first. Every private insurer I've ever had in the US has the exact same requirement.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Univers healthcare almost always bans duplicate coverage. Without private insurance, a tiny fraction of people (<1%) can afford to bypass the public healthcare system. Therefore, it is not financially viable for all but a small number of doctors not to integrate into the public healthcare system. The scenario you're described had the opportunity to be borne out in dozens of countries and generally didn't.
    - ceeplusplus 4y ago
      Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would absolutely be challenged and likely struck down in court in the US.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance. The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
        masonic 4y ago
        >manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
        lesuorac 4y ago
        > The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA. How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority? https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/ https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Because we solved it entirely in Scandinavia and most of northern Europe.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  I read a statistic that the government spends $108k per homeless individual in San Francisco per annum. Reading this, it seems efficient for government to just hand that directly to the homeless..
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    That's the argument for UBI. Basically it's "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them". It's probably more cynical than the reality warrants, but it's visibly closer to the truth than the current "let's poll the money and hire some people to help the ones in need".
    - IMTDb 4y ago
      > "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them" UBI switches the question : "we think the people themselves would do a much better job if they just had the money". It's gonna be true in some cases. And completely wrong in many others.
  - gruez 4y ago
    1. I need to see the exact statistic, but IME statistics like that are flawed because they undercount the amount of people served (ie. housing assistance that keeps people housed would count towards the budget, but won't count toward the amount of "homeless individuals") 2. the other possibility is that for the very mentally ill, they actually do need 2x the median income to survive, eg. because of mental illness counseling costs.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    If there was a no-strings attached $108K/y to be had somewhere, some conniving scum would find a way to get their hands on it before any single genuine homeless person in need.
    - pzone 4y ago
- lupire 4y ago
  - If you start to make a little legal money, your benefits get reduced by more than you earn.
rdubs333 4y ago
urban campgrounds. even Rome had showers. people like me. i am a web developer and artist. i never took no help from any of your tax dollars. i paid my way or asked permission. very rarely broke laws. racially discriminated, income discriminated. people like me is part of the problem
- soared 4y ago
  Seems weird to complain about a bad situation and then refuse the help that exists.
- rdubs333 4y ago
  I wouldn't say refuse, I was accepted to a program but got mugged and had to move to new location only to get mugged again. I think you are grossly over estimating the help there is or the strings tied to that help. I do still have legs and a brain and I work as much as I can, give back but I also dont sell out my work or myself or my goals or freedom.
  - Avicebron 4y ago
    why do you refer to yourself on your website in third person? genuinely curious, as marketing goes, thats a red flag. also the load time is wack, and the stats aren't backed up, im confused
    - rdubs333 4y ago
      red flag for what? ask me anything. good feedback but i guess i been so many roles over years i rather be objective about my accomplishments. the man, the myth, the legend!!!
      - ham-sandwich 4y ago
        You should seek therapy, there’s a few red flags here
      - Avicebron 4y ago
lupire 4y ago
One of the major problems is that inexpensive housing is illegal. India has slums, and Brazil has favelas. They aren't good but they are better than the street. US used to have rooming houses. Now, if you cant afford an apartment, and can't get an expensive one gifted from the state, you have to live in the street. (Not in your car; that's usually illegal too.)
- rdubs333 4y ago
  russia has house shares that work good for them
kingcharles 4y ago
If you're an immigrant like me, then a lot of these services are not available to you in the USA. Or, if you do take advantage of any of them you are permanently excluded for applying for citizenship.

cvccvroomvroom 4y ago

It's a haphazard, inconsistent, bureaucratic, unkind, demeaning patchwork that isn't funded enough to meet the needs of people left-out in the actual cold. It's not meant to help people improve their situation because it treats people consistently like lazy criminals who don't want help and can't be helped. - Section 8 housing takes forever. - Work programs are for menial jobs that don't pay anywhere close to livable wages. - Cash assistance amounts to $5 per day. - Food assistance amounts to $7 per day (without a means of refrigeration). - Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones. Medicare with SSDI takes years to get. - Make just enough to try to get ahead, then you can't afford medications. Working severely penalizes the destitute into even more impossible situations. - Everything takes longer and is more difficult and more expensive: laundry, showering, and transportation. - Social workers don't go outdoors in most of America. They sit at desks, fill out paperwork, and randomly stop benefits based on errors, assumptions, and their lack of communication.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
> Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones What makes you think any sort of government intervention will solve this? If you implement universal healthcare these doctors will still have revenue streams from rich people and won't need to take poor patients. You can't force doctors to treat people they don't want to.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  They never said that. All they did was describe why the current American system sucks.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  An even more absurd form of this is happening in France. There used to be some "abuse" (according to the national health insurance administration) where people would, supposedly, try to see specialists for no reason. So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first. Now most of these doctors are "full" and won't take any new clients. You don't need to be poor, they don't even ask your situation. If you call them up, they'll ask you if the doc knows you. If not, they hang up. And even if they're your family doctor, you better hope your cough isn't anything too urgent, 'cause they're in no hurry to see you. Of course, there are doctors who will see you, but usually they charge extra, so they're not fully covered by the "free" healthcare, if at all.
  - baby 4y ago
    That’s mostly a problem in small towns, not that it makes the problem OK
    - vladvasiliu 4y ago
      From what I hear it's brutal in small towns. My post above came from my own experience, living in Paris proper.
    - PoignardAzur 4y ago
      I live in Paris, and finding a medecin traitant has been a pain.
      - baby 4y ago
        Interesting, never had an issue in Lyon. Just use google maps, call the ones that are closer to you, sure some won't take you because they have too many patients but usually there are so many doctors that it's not a problem. I'm surprised that Paris would have this problem but not Lyon.
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    > So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first. Every private insurer I've ever had in the US has the exact same requirement.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Univers healthcare almost always bans duplicate coverage. Without private insurance, a tiny fraction of people (<1%) can afford to bypass the public healthcare system. Therefore, it is not financially viable for all but a small number of doctors not to integrate into the public healthcare system. The scenario you're described had the opportunity to be borne out in dozens of countries and generally didn't.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would absolutely be challenged and likely struck down in court in the US.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance. The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
      - masonic 4y ago
        >manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
        lesuorac 4y ago
        > The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA. How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority? https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/ https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Because we solved it entirely in Scandinavia and most of northern Europe.
hackernewds 4y ago
I read a statistic that the government spends $108k per homeless individual in San Francisco per annum. Reading this, it seems efficient for government to just hand that directly to the homeless..
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  That's the argument for UBI. Basically it's "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them". It's probably more cynical than the reality warrants, but it's visibly closer to the truth than the current "let's poll the money and hire some people to help the ones in need".
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    > "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them" UBI switches the question : "we think the people themselves would do a much better job if they just had the money". It's gonna be true in some cases. And completely wrong in many others.
- gruez 4y ago
  1. I need to see the exact statistic, but IME statistics like that are flawed because they undercount the amount of people served (ie. housing assistance that keeps people housed would count towards the budget, but won't count toward the amount of "homeless individuals") 2. the other possibility is that for the very mentally ill, they actually do need 2x the median income to survive, eg. because of mental illness counseling costs.
- kazinator 4y ago
  If there was a no-strings attached $108K/y to be had somewhere, some conniving scum would find a way to get their hands on it before any single genuine homeless person in need.
  - pzone 4y ago
lupire 4y ago
- If you start to make a little legal money, your benefits get reduced by more than you earn.

rdubs333 4y ago

urban campgrounds. even Rome had showers. people like me. i am a web developer and artist. i never took no help from any of your tax dollars. i paid my way or asked permission. very rarely broke laws. racially discriminated, income discriminated. people like me is part of the problem

soared 4y ago
Seems weird to complain about a bad situation and then refuse the help that exists.
rdubs333 4y ago
I wouldn't say refuse, I was accepted to a program but got mugged and had to move to new location only to get mugged again. I think you are grossly over estimating the help there is or the strings tied to that help. I do still have legs and a brain and I work as much as I can, give back but I also dont sell out my work or myself or my goals or freedom.
- Avicebron 4y ago
  why do you refer to yourself on your website in third person? genuinely curious, as marketing goes, thats a red flag. also the load time is wack, and the stats aren't backed up, im confused
  - rdubs333 4y ago
    red flag for what? ask me anything. good feedback but i guess i been so many roles over years i rather be objective about my accomplishments. the man, the myth, the legend!!!
    - ham-sandwich 4y ago
      You should seek therapy, there’s a few red flags here
    - Avicebron 4y ago

lupire 4y ago

One of the major problems is that inexpensive housing is illegal. India has slums, and Brazil has favelas. They aren't good but they are better than the street. US used to have rooming houses. Now, if you cant afford an apartment, and can't get an expensive one gifted from the state, you have to live in the street. (Not in your car; that's usually illegal too.)

rdubs333 4y ago
russia has house shares that work good for them

kingcharles 4y ago

If you're an immigrant like me, then a lot of these services are not available to you in the USA. Or, if you do take advantage of any of them you are permanently excluded for applying for citizenship.