Patriotism = Imperialism

Post Reply New Topic

Then they shoud steel it insted >.<

However, the rest of the post was perfectly sound.

I think you're confusing the Patriots with the Loyalists.

What about the 8 million homeless?

They may not eat as well as the rest of us, but they do get food. Also get clothes, blankets, tampons, etc ... I believe there are even places for free showers and such.

Not to say that they don't suffer problems (many of these homeless are in fact employed but don't make enough money to be able to pay rent anywhere) but very few of them are starving to death.

If you're talking about long-term homelessness, you're off by a factor of about ten. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there are usually between 600,000 and 800,000 people homeless in the U.S. at any given time. Those numbers are higher when you look at temporary homelessness, such as the people displaced by Katrina and other natural disasters, but those people generally get back on their feet relatively quickly.

And even among those who are on the streets for other reasons, 90% of them have a new place to live within a couple months. Of the remaining 10%, a large number of them are homeless because of mental health and/or drug issues. I agree that's something we really need to work on.

And, as Larval said, even those who are homeless generally have access to food and other resources.

With what methodology of collecting this data and with what devinition of someone who is homeless?

eh u coud be rite

Those numbers are a tad inflated. But you have to look at more than just these people being "homeless". you have to concider why. Is it becasue they were runaways? Did they get into drugs? did they get abandoned? Did they choose to be homeless (and yes there are some that do)? Did our social services system turn them loose at 18? There are SO many factors.
if the homelessness is because of disaster (natural, fire, etc) balme the insurance companies for "choosing" not to cover flood, fire, wind, "act of God" etc. They decide what they will and wont cover and all those high preimums (those that dont have it cant afford it usually) go to line their pockets...... RobertN I think you'll agree with that too....... If the homelessness is because of medical (turned out from long term care for mentally handicapped etc) again, blame the insurance companies for lack of coverage, high preimums, and driving up the cost of medical care.....
Blame social services for not better prepairing their wards for life for those that were "lost in the system".....
There are tons of programs both private and public that are designed to help people in bad situations..... but they are set up many times in such ways that those that NEED the help cant get it, and those that dont are able to abuse it..... Or its set up so that trying to better your self with a better job, education etc makes you inelegable for assistance, and the money you make leaves you back to square one, unable to afford housing....
As for the rest, maybe you could blame society, or this administration, or that administration, but really there is no one to blame.

What would you do with the homeless? What can you do?

You missed out on some very significant figures of homeless people

Victims of domestic abuse/violence
people with Learning difficulties/disabilities or what you in the states would call mental retardation
Broken relationships/families
Economics

thats why I said SO many factors. I did meantion the insurance issues that keep the mentally challanged from having the proprt help. As far as economics goes, yea that too.....
But its the way the systems (public and private) that are in place to help are operated that is so very dissipointing. If you make no money they can help you, but if you make above a specified amount you cant get help. The bad thing is that that "specified" amount is BEFORE TAXES and isnt enough to live on with out help. Its a catch 22.
So what do you DO?

Reason i mentioned the ones I did is that domestic violence/abuse happens to be the number one cause of homelessness in the UK

I wouldnt be surprised if it wasnt one of the top 3 here in the US....

I think the real issue with homelessness is whether it's a chronic problem. People who are on the streets temporarily, because of domestic violence, an accident or natural disaster, or things of that nature are not really indicative of a major social problem. It's tragic, certainly, and those people deserve to get help getting back on their feet, but I don't think they're signs of the decline of society.

I would mainly worry about two types of homelessness: people with mental or physical disabilities, because it shows that the support structure for people who are unable to take care of themselves is not working properly, and people who are there because of prolonged economic hardship. Those are the ones I'd really be concerned about. Well, and drugs, but I think that's complicated and hard to untangle from other issues.

To Laz: I'm sorry, I don't have information on how the statistics I quoted were arrived at. I got them from a homelessness advocacy site, so I'd expect them to be inflated, if anything. I'll try to find some references and get back. In any event, I think we can agree that eight million is way too high -- even the absolute highest numbers I've seen were less than half that.

Jeremy

The last figures I read are that in the US, there are 3 million homeless, with another 5 million in danger of becoming homeless, and 48 million with no access to any form of healthcare.

LadySmokeEater, you are being too defeatist!! There is plenty that can be done. The Bush administration keeps the economy tilted in favour of the rich (tax cuts, etc) and cuts programs for the poor. Therefore, this administration is an enemy of the public good. I absolutely agree about insurance companies. But they only care about profits and their shareholders. That is why health services MUST be state owned, because then their only concern is the patients, not making profits. Helping vulnerable people cuts too deeply into their Bottom Line.

You are starting to see that the corporate side of America is the enemy, and that is good. Now go one step further and just think about a life without greedy insurance companies. Its possible....its been done over here in Europe!! All our health is nationalised. There is "Cradle to Grave" security to quote one famous 1940's politician.

Well, the last is dead wrong. By law, no one can be turned away for medical care because of their inability to pay. It's highly inefficient, but anyone can go to the emergency room and get treated at any time, no questions asked.

That said, I could maybe get on board with universal healthcare if it could be shown to be practical in the U.S. Certainly our health system needs improvement. I'd still like to see some controls for self-destructive behavior, though. For example, smokers and people who eat unhealthy food should have to pay a little extra to cover the negative effects of their choices. It's unfair to ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for personal decisions like that.



Umm, I think you might want to check that in the real world. Governments are often just as corrupt as corporations, except they have no accountability or competition to keep them in check.



It's largely possible because market-determined prices for prescription drugs and medical procedures in the U.S. help foot the bill for medical R&D. We're essentially subsidizing medical research for everybody else, which is one reason why our per-capita medical costs are so high (though not the only reason by a long shot). If the U.S. switched to universal healthcare, prices in the rest of the world would increase significantly and you'd have to increase taxes even more.

Jeremy