I'm several vollies behind here, I see, so let me skip ahead. ;)
LOL. I didn't have time to respond to your earlier post before I had to leave for my workout at the pool but during my routine my bored brain worked up a killer rebuttal. All for naught. So skipping on ahead with you to this post...<g>
There were "unforeseen consequences". Their efforts have harmed many of the people they intended to help.
There are always unforeseen consequences in Federal programs. What happens when Congress and the bureaucracy implement programs is something I know something about. They are conceived with good intentions. Fuzzy headed liberals and now fuzzy headed alleged conservatives aka compassionate conservatives look at the current situation, come up with a program to deal with it, and feel oh so good about themselves. I agree with the piece you referenced about how the previous program, which was intended to fix something, messed up something else. And the program before that was intended to fix something, too, but it created a problem that needed fixing. And so on. And we fall for it every time. Now we're labeling it "conservative" so we can get fresh suckers to fall for it. Yes, deinstitutionalization created problems. What we need is a program to fix them. Not!
When you look at the proposal you wonder how anyone could be politically opposed to it. You and Bill identify the "homeless industry." A few NIMBYs who would be personally affected. Those who would love the program if it were proposed by a liberal but who are suspicious of it coming from a Republican. That's about it. That and real conservatives, that is. <g>
Let's look at this. The proposal is to solve the problem by putting the worst off of the homeless, the ten percent who cost the most, into what are basically assisted living facilities because that would be cheaper for us and better for them. Sounds good.
I suppose we can identify that ten percent, otherwise we wouldn't have that number. So we set up facilities for them, make sure they get proper health care and take their meds, and all's right with the world. That's day one. On day two we have a newly homeless person show up at the door. Do we let him in? He's not on our list. Hmmmm. We need criteria for identifying this ten percent. So it's no longer a known set of people but an entitlement for anyone who meets the criteria.
Do you remember what happened to welfare? Do you remember when welfare was "reformed" to deny it to moms who had husbands in the house, who, after all, should be supporting their families? That was intended to make the program more cost-effective, too. So what happened was that the husbands left so that their wives could get welfare. Then they just quit marrying. Yep, that sure fixed things.
If you set criteria where homeless people get housing and medical care, do you really think that the numbers will stay where they are now? All of a sudden the rest of the homeless people will find that they have some mental illness. A fresh new welfare industry will develop to give them that diagnosis. And then mentally ill people with homes but no health insurance will become homeless so they can qualify. And then moms with a very sick kid will head for the street. Oh, no, we'll have to fix that. And how do we fix that? Why with universal health care, of course.
Yep. Universal health care sure is conservative.
You can't cure homelessness by setting up an entitlement for the homeless. |
