It's interesting how the writer avoids the issue of homelessness, as if that's an unshakeable pillar of reality. They even touch on the prison population in th

It's interesting how the writer avoids the issue of homelessness, as if that's an unshakeable pillar of reality. They even touch on the prison population in the U.S. -- comparing a figure from their childhood (when times were good) to today: "The number of inmates in the U.S. in 1955 was 185,000; today, that figure is 1,900,000." -- while gliding easily over any further details or uncomfortable truths about that, presumably that increase is entirely people who would/should be locked up in asylums instead. The term 'asylum' implies refuge, yes. It also refers to actual places that "were popular because they [... relieved] families of their most burdensome members." Places that largely ended with a legacy of being "torture chambers where icepick lobotomies, electric shock, sterilization and solitary confinement turned humans into zombies." The presented model of success (the Worcester Recovery Center in Massachusetts) is described as something completely unlike the article's own description of asylums. Note: the title on the article is the assertive 'It’s Time to Bring Back Asylums', not phrased as the question it is on HN ('Time to Bring Back Asylums?').