Doctors could prescribe houses to the homeless under radical Hawaii bill

a reply to: chiefsmom

I think the thought is that if they are living indoors then they may not require $40,000 e-room visits 5 times a year like the guy in the story.

Will it work? Don't know, but it isn't working this way right now.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: NerdGoddess

Agreed, things are crazy expensive, because they can be.

But the guys still needs a place to live. Or he will be abusing the E-room. I don't know what to do, but what we are doing isn't working.

Well that much I can agree with, sadly.

a reply to: seasonal

Why is it deemed as radical to make sure people have shelter?

I live in Utah, and like another person said - they found a way to give homes to the homeless, at a net gain to the economy. As far as I understood it, they were given help finding jobs and such after that, as well.

I really think we can find more win, win situations like this.

a reply to: deadlyhope

It is radical because people go to work everyday to pay for housing. "giving" someone a house is radical by todays stadard.

I happen to think it is a good idea.

It's Hawaii, you don't even need windows on a house there, just shutters for if a hurricane hits. Can't they build a bunch of small efficiency cabins for their homeless, they only need to be the size of a motel room. They can make a small community, and retain ownership of these cabins, they do not need to give them to the homeless person. Even an old motel could be used.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: seasonal

Why is it deemed as radical to make sure people have shelter?

I live in Utah, and like another person said - they found a way to give homes to the homeless, at a net gain to the economy. As far as I understood it, they were given help finding jobs and such after that, as well.

I really think we can find more win, win situations like this.

That is really cool. I didn't know anything like that was going on anywhere yet- and I certainly can't say I would have expected it to be a gain to the economy- though I do see how beneficial it is to those being sheltered.

-Alee

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
To me prescribing housing just sounds like a fantasy and not very realistic.

I want you to ask yourself why? Why is that more unrealistic than repeatedly hooking him up to expensive hospital equipment? Is it just unrealistic to you because you're conditioned to not think of homelessness as a medical issue?

We are headed that way with everybody, anyway. Post-employment economy will lead to housing being nationalized at some point. May as well do it where it saves us all money for now. It's a good start.

a reply to: Abysha

I wonder if there is going to be any anti-lobbying on the part of the medical/phama to stop this. If this idea spreads this could reduce profits.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Abysha

I wonder if there is going to be any anti-lobbying on the part of the medical/phama to stop this. If this idea spreads this could reduce profits.

Interesting thought. It would put big pharma in bed with conservatives even further.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
To me prescribing housing just sounds like a fantasy and not very realistic.

I want you to ask yourself why? Why is that more unrealistic than repeatedly hooking him up to expensive hospital equipment? Is it just unrealistic to you because you're conditioned to not think of homelessness as a medical issue?

We are headed that way with everybody, anyway. Post-employment economy will lead to housing being nationalized at some point. May as well do it where it saves us all money for now. It's a good start.

Good questions, but I think you nailed it when you said "you're conditioned to not think of homelessness as a medical issue? "

I've never really considered it to be a medical issue or even had the thought cross my mind, but since you have brought it up I will try to consider it as a factor or a reason.

I just couldn't see how it would work financially. Not that I would be looking for a profit in this scenario but I wouldn't want states to run out of funding for other important things too because of this.

Most often I look at homelessness as a choice. I understand there are those who due to certain case specific circumstances don't have roofs over their heads (Father in law got cancer and had to choose to pay for chemo or pay his mortgage. Luckily we were able to find him a home and get him on disability income or he'd could be on the streets as well)..... but strictly from personal experience, everyone I've known who ended up homeless for any length of time was because of the poor choices they made to begin with.

I still cared about them, but I do usually blame them, you know, like a silent judging. It doesn't affect how I treat them, or give to them, or get lunches for them here and there- but yes I've always thought it was mainly their choice, still kind of do.



EDIT TO ADD: You know the more I think about this, the more I see what you're saying. I even said it myself about my father in law (well we aren't married but anyhow) When he got cancer when I was a kid...... we didn't know what to do. We were just young punks who wanted to run around and smoke everything in sight, we didn't have a dime to offer to help pay his mortgage and he literally had to choose his treatment or his home. So now i'm thinking about the people who are less fortunate than he, who don't have children or families who will rally up and fight the war on their behalf to make sure they are taken care of and safe and warm.

Now i'm just sad.

-Alee

But if we just start giving free homes (like we do healthcare) to anyone who doesn't feel like working... what reason do they have to work?

I have a job because I need money to spend on a place to live, food to eat, etc.

If I can just skip the going to work part and still have a home, food, and healthcare... why would I go to work?


Giving more money to lazy people isn't going to help anything, it's just going to create more lazy people.

a reply to: lordcomac

Do you want to live like that?

Edit:By that same line of thinking does legalizing MJ make more users?

"Here, take two houses and call me in the morning."

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

1/2 a chuckle. Nice

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: lordcomac

Do you want to live like that?

Edit:By that same line of thinking does legalizing MJ make more users?

Do I? No, I want to live tax-free, out in the woods, far from any place that homeless people would go... since there's no handouts in the woods. Of course there's no such thing as a tax free life if you own anything. Only way to do that is to choose not to work, and be homeless.
Which apparently gets you free housing, food, and last I heard even a cellphone.
Sounds more tempting every day.

And yes- I live in Maine where we just legalized MJ, and I know several people who didn't use it before that are looking to try it

Good luck getting Medicaid to cover that.

Next we'll have doctors prescribing cars to people with gout, or food to people with anorexia, HEPA filters for HVAC systems for people like me with asthma, or stilts to short people.

Look, I'm all for donating to time or money or supplies to places that help clothe, feed, and house the less fortunate within our communities, but I don't think that it should be forced on every citizen at the hands of government taxation.

And I fully understand how bad the homeless issue is in Hawai'i, so I can only imagine how much this would cost the taxpayer, especially at the cost for housing in Hawai'i.

This is progressive pipe dreaming--and ridiculous use of the legislative process, IMO.

a reply to: lordcomac

There is nothing stopping you from reaching your goal, if it is, of being homeless/tax free. It's easy to do hard to live.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Are you arguing the slippery slope?

What is the solution in your opinion on a workable solution?

This guy, if I understand it went to the e-roon 21 times in 4 years. And that is about $800,000 to this hospital, do you think there is a better way?

originally posted by: NerdGoddess

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
I don't think the answer is prescribing housing, I believe the answer is major reform and regulation, limits, and strict laws on how much these things can cost.

Seems ridiculous to me.

-Alee

*sigh*

It's not that simple, but that is a different thread. I will say that the healthcare industry overall is not the reason why your healthcare costs so much; they are just the scapegoat (for the most part, although there are exceptions).

Yes, sure, if it was simple it'd be done by now- however I still think that should be the focus over "Prescribing housing"

To me prescribing housing just sounds like a fantasy and not very realistic.

I guess I'd like to know, are they saying One low income house for these unfortunate guys and girls, or are we talking shared housing or project housing like halfway homes etc....

-Alee

Honestly, it's more realistic than fixing our healthcare system. At the end of the day, what's broken there is the result of a larger societal perspective that is highly unlikely to change. In fact, in part, it is the societal perspective that says "I shouldn't have to pay for this guys healthcare/housing/basic needs/ life" that causes the problem. This is the reason that other wealthy, "first world" nations have workable, efficient and stable healthcare systems and we don't; because the culture and the individuals within that culture understand social responsibility. Even the elite who hold most of that wealth pay in. That will never, ever happen in the US because this culture blames the poor for being poor and thinks they should suffer. If there is no social pressure from the masses, our elite will continue to exploit that "I shouldn't have to pay" attitude for all it's worth, and believe me, it's worth more in a year for just one of those 1%ers than you or I will ever see in our life times.

But I digress. Give the guy a roof, it'll save tax payers in the long run. To be honest, a more holistic approach like this was one of the very few things I liked about the ACA, even if I didn't like how it attempted to implement it.

a reply to: seasonal

I'm not here to opine solutions, because I'm not a legislator. I am, however, capable of realizing when proposed legislations has a foundation in asininity with potential of destructive costs and probable abuse, and this one fits that mold.

I will say, though, that this guy is most likely an extreme case (so that the legislation can appeal to emotion), and that the average homeless person does not access emergency healthcare nearly as often as this guy does (in fact, your own linked story specifies an average of $120,000/year spent on hospital expenses for homeless people that the good doctor hopes to help with such legislation).

The story says that the aim would be to house patients that "must have been homeless for at least six months and suffer from mental illness or a substance addiction." Hell, that even excludes the opening story in the link, who suffers from staph infections and psoriasis flare ups (again, a focus on an appeal to emotion in the story).

I agree with many of the concerns included in the latter half of your story, and for that reason, I can almost guarantee that this would be a debacle to a law if it were to pass, and it would end up costing two-to-three times as much as anticipated as loopholes are found in and abuse occurs in the new system of housing prescription.