My encounters with homeless/mentally ill people on Metro are becoming more common. Today a totally insane homeless women loudly wandered (in the middle of the train ride when normal people are sitting or standing still) into my general area, forcefully plopped herself down on a seat, sending a poof of putrid air out in a cloud around her. She then turned to the woman next to her and unleashed a viciously profane, racially-charged verbal attack, that included threats of physical violence. The woman got up and ran away in horror, as other people scattered from the area out of fear and disgust. Her stench was so overwhelming that I got out at the next stop and took the next train. I feel like the smell is still clinging to all of my clothes.
Here's a rather disturbing and heartbreaking piece on TomDispatch about how the nation's library system is basically day care for homeless people. I don't know if the author's math is right, but he argues that "we could solve the problem for less than it costs to manage it," meaning the entire existing system of managing the related problems of homelessness and mental illness:
The cost of this mad system is staggering. Cities that have tracked chronically homeless people for the police, jail, clinic, paramedic, emergency room, and other hospital services they require, estimate that a typical transient can cost taxpayers between $20,000 and $150,000 a year. You could not design a more expensive, wasteful, or ineffective way to provide healthcare to individuals who live on the street than by having librarians like me dispense it through paramedics and emergency rooms. For one thing, fragmented, episodic care consistently fails, no matter how many times delivered. It is not only immoral to ignore people who are suffering illness in our midst, it's downright stupid public policy. We do not spend too little on the problems of the mentally disabled homeless, as is often assumed, instead we spend extravagantly but foolishly.
3 comments:
The homeless people problem is quite a dilemma, and one that you don't hear too much about, probably because, well, it's considered a purely humanitarian mission, like saving pets, and you can't make any money off of it nor does it effect us in any great way. Of course, as someone who lives in DC and cannot walk to any destination outside of my apartment building without crossing paths with a homeless person, this is a problem I'd like to see something done about. I'm torn between wanting a massive humanitarian effort to figure something out for these people and an Orwellian measure where they just disappear and no one knows what happened. Obviously the second is easier but carries a few moral issues with it (duh), but the first doesn't have any obvious solution. In figuring out a solution you also have to consider the motivations. As you said, and I would agree, it would be great not to have to deal with psychotic and pungeant homeless people creeping people out in public places, but should that drive the effort to resolve this issue? I don't think so. Ideally, our sense of humanity shoud compel us to help these people, but that's largely not the case. Afterall, do we even believe we can help them enough?
Just rambling.
Living in the suburbs and not going into urban areas ever helps.
Giving money makes you feel good too.
Doesn't actually help, though.
Did you read the library guy's article? He seems to have some good ideas. And one of the points is that there's actually an economic basis for helping them that doesn't even need the humanitarian. Plus there's some public health issues too.
Post a Comment