It's all around you folks. Count your good fortunes if such a situation is foreign to you.
There's no one to catch you if you fall.
It could happen to you, or your loved ones next.
Try to have some empathy, and fucking VOTE
There's no one to catch you if you fall.
It could happen to you, or your loved ones next.
Try to have some empathy, and fucking VOTE
We could vote to build more housing. Oh wait, SB50 just got rejected by the appropriations committee - which is full of non-elected government officials.
I know, we could completely re-elect all of our local government officials to shake everything up, oh wait that's the promise of our last N mayors who haven't done anything.
I'm disgruntled, if any of these points are incorrect please let me know - it's very frustrating and I feel helpless as a voter (in SF).
A year later, she said she’s still studying the proposal.
She’s happy about voting for those expanded pentagon budgets though!
Technically legal? Sure, they're the legislature, they can do whatever they want. Incredibly disappointing as a voter.
[0]: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/11/utah-medicaid-expa...
Except for staying in office if the voters vote them out.
The problem with mental health care is that such providers either don't exist or are very rare, meaning there is little to no effective care to be had for any amount of money. Simply throwing more money at this problem will not do anything to solve it.
On the other hand, if an individual provider can rely on getting a fee for service without crazy overheads of private insurance approvals/unapprovals, then they can make a business commitment to supplying that service. This costs far less overall when you don't have to price risk and extra work into the service rendered.
As I responded to your sibling commenter, I don't think my original point was clear. I'm asserting that those existing provider services suck and are ineffective, and that what is needed is a paradigm shift in how mental health care is formulated and delivered, not a spread of those existing services.
The funding societally is so poor now that the common end path is people ending up in prison. And, as the article indicates, it's not like the private insurance companies are picking up the expenditure.
My solution is to introduce salary caps. So that NGO's cannot compensate any employee more than some modest amount. Bonus if the state or local gov could give people tax breaks (fed would never go for this) for working on an NGO. So, say a lawyer or accountant could take a few months off their high-stress, white-collar job and work for an NGO for part of the year, make enough for rent, reduce their tax bill, reduce their stress levels for a while, and help the community, then go back to "real" work.
Sounds like what ever metric is used to determine these are good people to elect is broken and needs to be adjusted.
It is a sort of prisoner's dilemma, and while you can say you will choose to do what you think is the right thing regardless of cost, you will find that most people will only follow that so far (though they will not likely admit it to avoid the social damage admitting such will do).
In the cat analogy, not offering services is just pretending the cats don't exist thus solving the problem once and for all. The cats are still there and so are all the negative consequences associated with a large population of feral cats. This is sorta head-in-the-sand thinking, right? The problem needs to be solved nation-wide.
In the cat analogy, you are correct because other cities won't go about shipping their stray cats to you (if they round them up they will just kill them). But there has already been numerous cases of cities sending homeless people to other areas. This is where the hungry cat/homeless analogy breaks down.