4 ms·

The article implies that it's more than 5x as expensive to house the mentally ill in jail than elsewhere. Such a huge difference suggests that providing them wi

by gruseom 13y ago

The article implies that it's more than 5x as expensive to house the mentally ill in jail than elsewhere. Such a huge difference suggests that providing them with housing and care would more than pay for itself, so cost ought not to be an issue. I realize that's oversimplifying--for one thing, total cost to society is not the same as costs (and income!) to different institutions--but do you think it's basically correct? If so, where in your view are the obstacles really coming from: moral ideas about criminality and illness? institutional politics? for-profit industry? etc.

DanBC 13y ago
Look at the outrage caused to some people when we suggest that someone's life should be saved with free-at-the-point-of-delivery health care. Now apply that to giving people adequate care in the community and see heads explode.
- ljf 13y ago
  I know it's so hard, even in the UK people get upset 'Why does this inner city youth club get X benefit' 'Why are we sending X troubled child to X holiday camp for the summer' 'Why doesn't my child get these things?' is often the question, but the answer that these things are put in place to try and reduce future potential crime and other societal damage are not things that a lot of people want to consider - I'm spending money now to negate possible risk in the future? I can't find the report now, but there was an interesting experiment in London. In the UK the average homeless person costs the state around £26,000 (http://homeless.org.uk/costs-homelessness#.UgTa1Y3qlNQ http://homeless.org.uk/costs-homelessness#.UgTa1Y3qlNQ) or even more in London. A charity was able to get £5000 per homeless person from a corporate donation, and offered this money directly to 100 homeless people, with the only previsions being that they did not get to handle the cash directly and that everything they spent money on helping them get off the street. Obviously this was a self selecting group (people that wanted to leave rough sleeping), but the following year a stunning proportion of those who had taken part had been able to turn their lives around. Should there be a buffer to help people turn their lives around and stop them costing the state money? I'm all for it, but I have no idea how we could stop abuse of the system. We could start by trialling the idea out though, with money saved by stopping people and companies avoiding paying their taxes (some £16billion lost each year in the UK: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/500000Final.pdf http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/500000Final.pdf )

by gruseom 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

Look at the outrage caused to some people when we suggest that someone's life should be saved with free-at-the-point-of-delivery health care. Now apply that to giving people adequate care in the community and see heads explode.

ljf 13y ago
I know it's so hard, even in the UK people get upset 'Why does this inner city youth club get X benefit' 'Why are we sending X troubled child to X holiday camp for the summer' 'Why doesn't my child get these things?' is often the question, but the answer that these things are put in place to try and reduce future potential crime and other societal damage are not things that a lot of people want to consider - I'm spending money now to negate possible risk in the future? I can't find the report now, but there was an interesting experiment in London. In the UK the average homeless person costs the state around £26,000 (http://homeless.org.uk/costs-homelessness#.UgTa1Y3qlNQ http://homeless.org.uk/costs-homelessness#.UgTa1Y3qlNQ) or even more in London. A charity was able to get £5000 per homeless person from a corporate donation, and offered this money directly to 100 homeless people, with the only previsions being that they did not get to handle the cash directly and that everything they spent money on helping them get off the street. Obviously this was a self selecting group (people that wanted to leave rough sleeping), but the following year a stunning proportion of those who had taken part had been able to turn their lives around. Should there be a buffer to help people turn their lives around and stop them costing the state money? I'm all for it, but I have no idea how we could stop abuse of the system. We could start by trialling the idea out though, with money saved by stopping people and companies avoiding paying their taxes (some £16billion lost each year in the UK: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/500000Final.pdf http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/500000Final.pdf )