Doctors could prescribe houses to the homeless under radical Hawaii bill

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, when ever you are giving out free things, there are always more hands than hand outs.

And yes, I could see this being a huge mess.

What's funny is there is little out cry about a $40,000 bill for a antibiotic drip.

I guess the only answer is to continue to treat him at a cost of well over $200,000 a year. The hospital will love that, although I think that medicaid is going to go broke.

a reply to: seasonal

Just because the doctor claims the bill for the treatment of a staph infection is $40,000 does not mean, at all, in the least, that Medicaid paid that much for said treatment. In fact, I full guarantee you that Medicaid did not pay even close to that amount.

I was going to go off on a tangent about the claimed cost of treatment, but since this thread is about the bill and now about the cost of healthcare overall, I opted not to take the thread off-topic.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If this is the 21st time in 4 years, I can't imagine the costs. According to the story there is a small group of people that are using 50% of the 2 billion allotment that Hawaii spends.

I don't know if the house thing is the answer, but if it saves money, perhaps it should be tried.

Some will have to change or the system will break.

a reply to: seasonal

Right, but that 50% claim (from an internal study not linked to in the story) doesn't specify which percentage of that 50% are homeless people with a mental issues and/or substance abuse issue, which is the (assumed) small slice of that pie for which this legislation claims it will dramatically reduce the cost.

Sorry, I'm just not buying the claim in the reduced costs, plain and simple.

And, the system will only break when those taxed to pay for it finally have enough. Americans are too apathetic for that to occur any time soon.

I'd personally like to see something like this realized. However, I feel it is absolutely imperative to do it in ways that foster independence and self-sufficiency and just as importantly, fully replace current social safety nets. I think limiting the conversation to just whether or not we should pour money into existing systems is a faulty paradigm.

I'd be supportive of concepts that might have a higher initial cost, but substantially less cost over time. It seems that these issues will become more and more relevant over time as a result of advancing technology.