It's not a question of preference. Our constitution is incompatible with treatment programs that involve indefinite imprisonment when the individual is not a serious threat to himself or others.
Further, If your actions as a semi-coherent group are enough to cause PTSD in library personnel, how can that not be considered as being dangerous to others? PTSD is no joke, it can easily lead to life long suffering.
With that said. Assuming the constitution really disallows all forms of "closed" psychiatric care and it's not only a convenient interpretation.Then the lack of, or reduction in other kinds of care still points to the actual reasons for effective care being something different than simply an issue of law. It might in addition be a matter of law, but certainly not only a matter of law. If it were then somehow a way to work with/around that would have been found, as always happens. The will of a significant majority has never been stopped by what's written in in any law ever.
There is a fair number of homeless that would voluntarily get treatment/help/support if it was readily available, of high quality, and safe.
But. Care for homeless is almost universally terribly underfunded, and this is clearly a willful act of society.
True, but it's usually not an immediate threat, and that's the one where people get hospitalized. Living on the streets certainly isn't good for your health, but it's closer to "smoking, drinking and unhealthy diet" than to "putting a razor to your throat" in terms of immediacy, and it's the latter part where most people agree that the state can and should act against your "will".
After renting for two years I was evicted with a 2-month notice for what was essentially a simple disagreement with the landlord. They didn't even attempt to resolve it: they just evicted me.
It took me over half a year to get half of my £1 100 deposit back; they initially tried to charge me £1 400, mostly for bullshit general maintenance and/or lying about either the initial state – even though it was unambiguously stated in the original inventory – or agreements we had made about the checkout condition (I asked if I had to fix a few minor issues, they said no, and then charged me anyway). About £100 was reasonable, the rest wasn't.
My point here is, all of this would be highly illegal in the Netherlands. You can't just evict people because you feel like it, and you can't just send a bill well over a month later for all sorts of items (or maybe you can, but it's certainly not common[1]). It's not hard to imagine how I could have ended up homeless if I had been more vulnerable – for example by actually needing that £1 100 deposit for a new deposit, or suffering from depression or other mental illness, etc.
I think homelessness is a complex problem, and dealing with people after they become homeless is a only a part of it. This is not very scientific, but in general, I've observed that homelessness is correlated with the amount of empathy in a society, which is something that affects many laws and attitudes.
[1]: A little footnote: technically also not legal in the UK, but they interpret "notify about deductions within 10 days" as "send standard form letter that there may be some deductions within 10 days", which is obviously not the same. But ... what can you do about stuff like this as a tenant, right? I might have considered the small claims court, but have since left the UK as I was fed up. Even "notify within 10 days" is already very strange, as this means they have all the time to collect all the evidence, while robbing me the chance of actually giving any sort of counter-argument. In NL, it's always been arranged at the checkout, with both parties present.
Were you actually evicted, or did your lease simply expire without an option to renew? Because even here in the US, it's very hard to impossible to evict someone who has a lease and is still paying rent and isn't flagrantly violating laws or destroying the dwelling.
Details: https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-agreements-a-guide-for-landlords/... – tl;dr is that after 6 months you can just end the tenancy agreement with a 2 month notice.
Assured shorthold tenancies are pretty much the standard; you don't have a lot of choice. Either sign a contract like this, or don't have a house to live in :-/
The entire thing is seriously fucked up if you ask me, because at the slightest hint of being "difficult" (e.g. because you demand they actually fix things, or because you object when they act like assholes) you just get evicted :-/
That said, I also never rented in a major city. Mostly during college in a small city, and while most students were a bit clueless, their mostly middle-class parents were not. Then a few homes after college, but again, in a wealthy suburb where tenants typically had the means to enforce their rights via the courts.
The dispute service of the deposit protection services are completely useless as well. They took over 4 months to reply, didn't address half the stuff I had sent in, had no way to see what the landlord sent in, and made some spectacularly wrong decisions. The entire thing felt like it was rushed by an intern.
I think the problem is that as a landlord/rental agent you have a lot of power, especially in a high-demand market (I lived in Bristol). My apartment was listed as "let agreed" just 4 days after I left for £75/month more. Power corrupts.
If you get cancer it won't mean you'll have so many bills you'll have to live outside. If you have disability, mental or otherwise, it doesn't mean you'll have to rely on the generosity of your family to be able to survive. And if you do sleep outside the police will likely make you not is my understanding.
A lot of this comes down to the municipalities though, which recently clashed with national politics on the subject of shelter for rejected immigrants. Some municipalities (including mine) wanted to provide bed bath and bread to these people. On a national level, the policy was to force these people to leave the country, as they were here illegally.
I imagine some of the more christian rural municipalities have a much harsher approach towards homeless people. It's probably effective as well, insofar as it pushes the homeless people out.
There has been a bit of an issue with what the police calls 'confused people'. These are the people with psychiatric issues that are a burden to people around them, but not enough to warrant forced institutionalization. Instead, every time something boils over, the police have to be called. It is very hard to get some of these people evicted, even when they routinely tear up their house and bother neighbors to the point of police involvement.
This is not a homeless issue though. Just one of psychiatric care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_...
Perhaps they are well-hidden?
We aren't offering treatment for free or even making sure there is enough treatment available. We are more likely to put them in jail for a small crime instead. Same with drug addiction: We tend not to offer free, medical based care and instead refer folks to AA or NA. I understand that some folks are helped by these organizations, but many are not.
We don't make sure folks have homes. Sometimes, simple solutions like driving a person to their home over and over is enough of a solution. If someone really wants to life outdoors, we could make room for such things while making sure things look nice and are secure.
We could have an actual safety net too keep folks from homelessness in the first place.
We can invest more in group homes as well, since some folks need help with everyday tasks. Some folks need this long term and some are just short term.
Have enough shelters for the folks that slip through the cracks. Make sure these shelters are safe for disabled folks, children, and everyone in between.
I know all this stuff costs money, and I'm more than willing to pay more in taxes so that folks are being fed and housed and have medical care and things like that. Honestly, we are paying for this stuff in one way or another anyway through our jail system, public services, and so on, so I'm not convinced it would have been that much mroe than it was when I was living in the US anyway.
That’s a everybody should pay more taxes in disguise.
If it was only your taxes, nobody is holding you back to support a charity of your choice to do the job you want to be done.
But please let me support the charity of my choice instead of paying more taxes.
How much more? I'm not trying to argue against what you're saying, but I believe that many Americans don't have a good idea of what it costs to run a Western European welfare state. What's the pain maximum for you? 10% more taxes? 50% more? 100% more?
Nope, we pay that on top, currently ~14% of your salary (half of which is paid directly by the employer), the same goes for pensions etc. You do get free healthcare only if you're unemployed, but that's not reality for most Germans.
I'm pretty certain I'm paying the same or less overall. This is especially when I consider my healthcare is included in that tax. This simple things means I'm not as stressed as I would otherwise be.
But hands down, Norway is cheaper. Taxes include healthcare and my tax rate has been just slightly higher than it was total in the states, and many times lower than taxes + health coverage + deductibe + out of pocket.
There are lots of hidden consumption taxes: VAT is 25% on most things, 15% on food, but there is none on books and newspapers. A TV lisence is a thing. On the other hand, they try to make sure poor folks have internet and phone service.
I do think the top tax rate is about half of one's income, which is fine with me if I'm making more money. I'm fine with VAT and things like that.
The thing folks also forget is that some things are actually cheaper when centralized and spread out and coordinated. This works really well in health care because you can do cost evaluation on costs of covering a home nurse a few times a day vs a nursing home.
Americans also forget that one of the missing bits in American society is trust in the government. Folks here don't believe the government is perfect, but most of the bureaucratic bits just work, and lots of them are online and easily accessible.
If it works out for you to live cheaper in Norway, that's great, but Norway has a very special position due to the vast oil wealth, that's not typical for Western Europe.
Also, I'd love for HN to stop flagging just because they disagree politically. It's so annoying to get timed out because of a civil exchange of arguments and opinions. Always look for light in the dark: this community has convinced me that direct democracy isn't a solution for moderation - it means giving the power to censor to those who are most willing to use it.
Sure, but a welfare state isn't just about open homelessness, it's about free education, free health care etc as well.
2. Free public education has made this country what it is today. We wouldn't be one-tenth the world power we are now if we hadn't educated our citizenry to create a high knowledge work force. Killing off education and leaving the majority of the population uneducated would be the single best one change you could make to turn us into a third world country. It's the ultimate in short-termist thinking.
No, you're replying in a subthread that you didn't want to apparently. To quote myself: "I believe that many Americans don't have a good idea of what it costs to run a Western European welfare state".
> Free public education has made this country what it is today
Possibly. I think high skill immigration has also played a very strong role.
And again, since nobody is reading what I'm writing before flagging or angrily replying: I'm not arguing that a high tax welfare state is necessarily a bad idea. While I do believe that it creates bad incentives and has to be very well calibrated (which is hard and usually fails in my experience), that's not what this is about.
The point is that it does not come for free. You will have to pay for it, and you will pay via taxes. You should be aware of that, and I'm interested in finding out how much more people are willing to pay. The reactions I get (anger, disbelief, flagging) lead me to believe that people are vaguely aware of that fact, but don't want to face it. I suggest they do before they implement it.