Just for scale, California's annual Medi-Cal (the state’s implementation of Medicaid) spending is over $100 billion, so this represents less than 0.1% of Medi-Cal spending.
The article throws a lot of numbers around that are tangentially related, but, oddly, not that one.
> up to six months of housing for people who are or risk becoming homeless; are coming out of prison or foster care; or are at risk for hospitalization or emergency room visits.
So this helps prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place -- some because of issues the state/country create.
Which is the best way to prevent the cycle of homelessness from starting.
Yeah totally agree with this, right now in CA we say "the homeless" as one homogenous group. The reality is there are a bunch who could probably get back on their feet for just a few a thousand dollars. There are others who will never find stability no matter how much help they get. Helping those two groups requires totally different solutions.
The largest expense for running an ER is dealing with people that use it as a homeless shelter. I have first and second hand knowledge of this.
Weather gets cold? Visit Er. Due to federal regulation, even if a person visits 13 times a day (facility record btw) they can’t be turned away.
Progress needs to be made on both avenues. ERs need the ability to turn expensive frequent fliers away and be absolved of liability, but also shelter programs that are metrics based (job placement, illicit substance abuse, participation in mental health) need private funding.
California funds an enormous prison population, a significant portion of them are non violent or victimless crimes. So that being said, the money is already available.
My friend did part of her residency at an ER in Los Angeles. She went from being generally upbeat but overworked to being a full on misanthrope in 6 months. I am not sure what the solution is but we should recognize that our healthcare workers are critical members of our society and dealing with this shit burns them out fast.
The solution is reforming the American healthcare system… because at least from what I can anecdotally tell… usually it takes years of even decades (global average worldwide)to turn a upbeat medical resident into a cynical misanthrope.
That’s astonishingly quick to have someone go negative on humanity that fast… and it really reflects on how fucked healthcare is in America… even in a state that’s trying it’s best
Considering how geographically concentrated homelessness tends to be in large cities, wouldn't it be more cost-efficient for the state to run its own clinic or two in each major city?
> Considering how geographically concentrated homelessness tends to be in large cities, wouldn't it be more cost-efficient for the state to run its own clinic or two in each major city?
While they are administered at lower levels than the State (though significant funding flows through the state, including Medi-Cal funding, for them), there are more than “one or two” publicly-operated clinics in each of California’s major cities.
It turns out that housing is not the solution for the frequent flyers. Hospitalization is. (TLDR: drug addicted and mentally ill residents trashed up many of the Skid Row Housing Trust's units and buildings, rendering them uninhabitable, ultimately leading to the organization's demise.)
>CA's biggest problem, however, is the limitations on housing construction and bureaucracy designed to prevent housing construction
Well what would the alternative be? Letting the poors live right next to the people who matter? They should only be seen when I want my expensive coffee milkshakes, right? </sarcasm>
That sounds like a self-inflicted problem. What I don't understand is why so many stick around rather than finding some place that wants good hard working people and is willing to allow them to actually have a place to live. I know it's not easy to relocate but it can be done and is usually worthwhile in the long run.
I support helping people with housing for a year or so to get back on their feet but let's address the elephant in the room.
The government of California is the reason housing is so expensive in the first place. Now they toss a token amount of money at a problem they created.
It's similar to how the US government pays billions to corn farmers to produce corn syrup, which then causes obesity, which the government spends millions to address.
Such an extreme measure without strict requirements on developer profit margins turns this kind of act into flowing more cash into the pockets of for-profit development corporations. Zero-profit development should be mandatory. Match people looking to work with funding to do so, without the profit margins and investors seeking gains.
"Non-profit" just encourages padding expenses along the way.
City of LA had access to government-owned land, fairly large pool of labor and probably some bulk discounts on building materials. Yet after you add consultants, construction unions and other well-connected entities jumping onto the gravy train, average unit ended up above $600k, way above an average "for-profit" luxury condo in LA
Having worked with the St. Louis housing authority in the past, I bid work for urban development authorities at a 10x multiplier, and I am elated to tell my investors that we tried, and our bids were rejected.
You cannot possibly imagine the pain and frustration of building for inner-city urban development government organizations. They exist to perpetuate the problems that perpetuate their existence. The worse things get, the more funding they get.
>Such an extreme measure without strict requirements on developer profit margins turns this kind of act into flowing more cash into the pockets of for-profit development corporations. Zero-profit development should be mandatory.
What evidence is there that the housing crisis is caused by profiteering in the construction industry? Are construction margins significantly fatter in california/US than other developed countries? What's preventing new entrants from setting up their own construction companies and undercutting the incumbents?
except, in California and elsewhere, there is a new, large population of hardened homeless, complete with a menu of mental illness, emotional damage including prison and police interactions, and super, ultra-strong drugs on a daily basis.
What ordinary apartment could house populations like this? Since California desires no undocumented slums, as found commonly on a large scale in the South Americas, someone has to build something.
The real danger is similar to totally crooked locals like Phil Tagami in Oakland, who has a "housing project" that has been going for TWELVE YEARS without building anything, nothing. Other crooked people involved, depending on how you define it. If this money results in actual buildings that can handle the intended crowds, that are not prisons, that is progress here.
And if your child or sibling hits a rough patch, becomes a drug user, and chooses their inevitable death on Swains Island before you can do anything about it, you will still think it’s a good idea?
What if my child hits a rough patch and becomes the victim of a drug user? So much the better if that drug user instead chose voluntarily to enjoy all the drugs they like on Swain's Island.
Crickets from you regarding the whole premise here that relies on my counterparty's "stereotype" that a drug user will choose "inevitable death" when able to dose themselves with clean pharmaceutical grade drugs without cost. At least I didn't make it a personal comment about the individual inclination of the counterparty's children like they did about mine.
I reject your use of the word "stereotype" here but if it applies it is clear you're using it with extreme prejudice. Although it is kind of hilarious to see essentially don't stereotype drug users, who will all kill themselves with drugs if given the chance. Which of course is a position that is neatly and compactly contradictory.
Love to see that straightforwardly eliminationist rhetoric on "hacker" "news." We are all so smart contrarian and cool you can tell because we tolerate even endorse this sort of thing as long as you keep a calm tone.
I'm merely advocating these individuals be given their own territory where they can pursue their dream with freedom and excellent knowledge of the content of their drugs, free from threat of arrest for possession or the irregularities of the unknown black market stomped on cocktails.
remarkably, there is a large and prolonged historical project that fits this description very well ! It was the exiles of France, under Catholic approval, sent to the swampy exile of the Atlantic Coast of South America.. (near modern Guyana I think) This happened just after the Napoleonic Wars (?) and lasted a very long time, with many many thousands sent away. The move Papillon is based on the story of a man that survived it, as I recall.
If you watch the movie, please tell others about it!
"Papillon is a 2017 drama film directed by Michael Noer that tells the story of French convict Henri Charrière (Charlie Hunnam), nicknamed Papillon ("butterfly"), who was falsely imprisoned in the notorious Devil's Island penal colony and escaped in 1941 with the help of convicted counterfeiter Louis Dega (Rami Malek). Additionally, Papillon is a 1973 epic historical drama prison film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and based on Henri Charrière’s 1969 autobiography"
The article throws a lot of numbers around that are tangentially related, but, oddly, not that one.