« Special Forces in Iraq ( Spezialtruppen ) | Main | Hillary’s Left Legacy – Paradox »
February 24, 2008
What’s Next? Well, Government Provided Homes of Course!
by Tina Grazier
Last week I said the following in the comments section to my post, ‘UK Single Pay Medical Deemed “Deadly”’:
There is definitely something wrong when nearly half of the population of America has come to think it’s OK to force someone else to pay for their healthcare. It is sad that they think it’s OK for a dictatorial, strong-arm government policy to make the rich, corporations, or their next door neighbor to pay instead. What’s next, their mortgage or rent? How about car payments? Maybe they should just invoice government for their grocery bills as well.
“What’s next, their mortgage or rent?” I asked with a bit of cynicism. It should have caused red flags, bells and whistles…maybe even a few fireworks to go off in my head. You're not gonna believe this...
From a story by staff posted in the Boston Globe, “For the homeless, keys to a home”:
For decades, governments treated homelessness as an intractable problem, relying on a patchwork of shelters and services to look after people considered too troubled or too far gone to keep permanently off the streets. Now, following a national trend, Governor Deval Patrick is proposing a radical change in the way Massachusetts deals with the indigent - giving the homeless homes.
Patrick is proposing spending $10 million to lay the foundation for placing thousands of homeless people in their own apartments over the next five years. Administration officials say taking homeless people off the street - and out of a cycle through jail and emergency rooms - could lead to better lives and lower costs to care for them. ** In pilot programs, officials reported declines in costs for services from hospitalization to detox and imprisonment.
That’s one heck of a big Band-Aid for taxpayers to apply, and, without much hope that the underlying problems associated with “homelessness” will be solved as part of the bargain. It’s being sold to John Q-Public with the obnoxious claim that it will save money...both private and from tax dollars: “Providing homes for those people, researchers say, will ultimately save money, because agencies spend less on housing and other services than they do now on shelter beds, emergency rooms, and other healthcare costs for the homeless.”
But the article also hints at hidden costs (in addition to the output for intinally buying the housing) :
The manpower to oversee and care for the newly housed homeless apparently isn’t being added to the savings equation…and that is not only a shame, it is deceitful. But, this is how most programs born of tender mercies are justified, by leaving something important out. Logic and reason, which might actually lead to real solutions, are tossed aside as cruel offerings of heartless conservatives…and the waste in money, time and effort is ignored while the project is heralded as a great accomplishment to be repeated again and again!
"We're talking about changing the whole context for how we deal with homelessness," said Joe Finn, executive director of the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance, which over the past two years has overseen a $1.8 million state-subsidized program to house the chronically homeless. ** He and others point to the alliance's Home & Healthy for Good program - which has placed more than 230 people in apartments around the state - as evidence the effort can succeed on a larger scale.
Yippee…we can give all of them a home....that will fix everything!
If this catches on, in twenty years there’s a good chance that most Americans will be living in government “purchased and maintained” housing. “That’s crazy,” you say...but think about your kids, or yourself, for a minute. What incentive is there to work to purchase a home when government will provide you one? Why go to school or work to improve life…when just holding your hand out, palm up, will do? The feel good big bonus? You can do whatever you want and people will come to make you food and remind you to brush your teeth!
It is pathetic that we even have people living on the streets in America. The problem is not due to the lack of a home (or opportunity) it is a product of societal dysfunction...and the fact that too many of our good citizens scoff at solutions that would actually cause real and lasting change. The tolerant and caring have perpetuated this problem with emotion driven solutions that make them feel good but do little to actually uplift people or inspire them to realize their full potential. As for the truly mentally ill...they should be in hospitals receiving treatment as they once were.
Posted by Post Scripts at February 24, 2008 12:33 PM
Comments
Simple question:
What have you done to actually uplift people or inspire them to realize their full potential?
Posted by: Ann Ashley at February 24, 2008 05:41 PM
Thanks for the question Ann.
I'm a business owner. One thing I've done is hire college students and struggling musicians. In my interactions with them I do my best to encourage them in their personal endeavors and offer what I can to educate them about how business, and sometimes life, works. I'm not a distant business owner...we're more like family. I also believe they appreciate the work opportunity and the flexible schedule they can keep.
I like to think I've stepped into the gap when family and friends are in need. I have personal charities and organizations that I support.
I like to think that writing on this blog might inspire or assist others...I know I learn from all of the reading I do.
The larger question though is how do we as a society ensure that our citizens have the best opportunities to live fruitful lives in relative peace and safety?
The point in writing about this story is to say that what we have been doing doesn't work. To show that how we have been thinking about things is backwards. This country used to support the notion that people are stronger and more resourceful than they think they are and we expected more from each other. Someone once said you can 1. have life be hard...or 2. have it be sh**#y. When we take the easy way, when we give up responsibility, life turns out like #2. (no pun intended)
As a nation we held to certain standards for personal and public behavior and that encouraged people in maintaining a sense of responsibility in their lives. We had a strong work ethic; we believed in courtesy toward others. Simple things like spitting on the sidewalk or marking up someone else's property were discouraged. Respect for the property of others was an important aspect of life. Accomplishment, whether that meant becoming a truck driver or a college professor, a fashion model or a doctor, was valued and respected. Our schools expected, and got, high performances from nearly every student. The drop out rate was very low and cutting class was something the average student just didn't do. Once graduated from high school, young people were prepared for work or college. They understood that making their way in life was up to them, including paying for insurances, healthcare and retirement. This was true in poor households as well as wealthy households. Whatever need there was was met through religious and charitable organizations.
The numbers of indegent or addicted people were small and usually a matter addressed by family or the church.
I hope this answers your question, and thanks for posting. I for one would like to know what you think about this story, or my answer...if you'd care to share your thoughts.
Posted by: Tina at February 24, 2008 08:46 PM
I could be wrong, but I really think your
sensible generousity and help was not what she wanted to hear.
Liberals think they are the only ones doing anything to help the poor underclass. The "help" liberals give is of course all this free housing, free meals, free medical and a monthly stipend. Of course every thinking person knows this has the opposite effect of uplifting. It is a path into slavery that keeps people dependant on liberal's for the next handout with your money.
Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2008 09:09 AM
Jack you maybe right but since I don't know Ann Ashley, I figured I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she did ask with all sincerity rather than the sometimes bating or cynical fare we often get here at Post Scripts. She seemed genuinely interested.
What say you Ann?
Posted by: Tina at February 25, 2008 04:28 PM