3 ms·
Speaking as a Finn. It's foremost NOT about mental&substance issues treatment but general financial aid to anyone in need. I think this phraze from the articl
by fsloth 2y ago
Speaking as a Finn.
It's foremost NOT about mental&substance issues treatment but general financial aid to anyone in need.
I think this phraze from the article summarizes it well.
"The Finnish experience demonstrates the effectiveness of tackling homelessness through a combination of financial assistance, integrated and targeted support services and more supply: "
It's a holistic system that actually kicks-in way before one is in danger of being homeless, and if someone would suddenly find themselves homeless, the state security blanket is available to all. So 1. direct assistance 2. support services and 3. supply.
On the first order, this is not related to substance abuse or mental illness, and should not be viewed as such. They are just a way to make sure nobody freezes to death.
The way these policies link with mental&substance issues is that before 90's you were denied housing if you had ongoing substance abuse issues. This policy was dialed back to allow all housing regardless of any other issues, specifically because it was considered being homeless does not help in any way to resolve the above matters.
So viewing this as "something only for ill people" is the wrong lens. It's a system for everyone. Of course mentally ill and those suffering substance issue are often without financial means so they are represented in the population receiving support.
But the actual treatment to the above issues is a separate policy matter (after nobody was excluded anymore).
The downside is that unless a polity has similar wide cover social security system in place, I have no idea what learnings you could get from this.
- throwawayq3423 2y agoSounds like the result of being a small and rich country. The scale of these actions in a country like the US (Or India) would be impossibly expensive.
- fsloth 2y agoFinland rich? Not as such. Small and homogenous definetly (pop 5.6M). US is rich. Vastly richer than Finland. PPP GDP for US in 2023 was 73k $ and for Finland 64k $. The systems are quite different. But it’s not about total wealth as such. If we use GDP as rough back-of-the-envelope estimate (problematic I know!) us could implement similar system economically but politically probably not. The gini coefficient gives some hints about these differences (US 0.48, FI 0.28). In Finland people are taxed until there are very little income differences and then that money is used for social policies and healthcare. So everybody gets high quality healthcare for all of the serious stuff (until you reach best-before-date and government pulls the plug), you never need to freeze to death, go hungry (in theory at least) and your kids will have free education. Based on my limited understanding of US politics and social structure I find similar arrangement improbable. But it’s not about country’s total wealth!
- throwawayq3423 2y agoLooks like you are confusing median / average. The US has more billionaires, and many many more desperately poor people than Finland does. > us could implement similar system economically but politically probably not. But they won't. Spending significant amounts of money on your poor is a decision made by politicians and society as a whole. Some countries choose to do it, some don't. > But it’s not about country’s total wealth! Again, the existence of more billionaires does not make a place rich. In fact it could prove destabilizing in the long term because billionaires use their money to lobby against policies for the poor. The answer I suppose is that both Finland and US are rich by global standards, but the US has a middle class only because of policy decisions it made post WW2 (GI Act, housing, education, etc.) that are quickly eroding. So yes, Finland is "richer" in the sense that a greater % of its population live better lives.