Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
That sucks. I am sure you will find someone in network to care for your teeth.
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
Compared to going the through a private plan? His company insurance isn’t the best but it’s still likely the most bang for his buck.
Whatever you do, stick with a PPO plan or something like that. My only option is a CDHP with HSA or with HFA--seriously, the only choice I get is with the savings account that's not actually a savings account because a family uses it's benefits.
My OON coverage is basically non-existent, which is really funny because with my $6000 family deductible, it's not like my insurance is doing a whole lot of paying out. I've found that the only way I don't pay OOP is if I go to a CVS minute clinic--no other pharmacy clinics. So a large portion of our acute care is there instead of an urgent care or pediatrician since those visit cost me at least $100--anything that's not preventative. It only makes sense to get the kids seen at their pediatrician for their annual physicals, because that costs me nothing OOP, but the minute we have to deal with a sickness, the deductible is turned on and we end up having to pay out.
If you want to get even more mad, mosey on over to the New York Times and read their series of articles that showed how "network discounts" for insurance companies are not actually discounted at all. Most of the time, hospitals charge people with insurance 2 or 3 times what their cash price is. This means that if you have any medical plan with deductibles, you are paying more for your care than the cash price of the hospital (for the most part). This wasn't felt by the consumer in traditional HMO insurance products, but when the cost started being passed to us in the form of deductibles, we are paying twice for insurance--once when we pay our monthly premiums and then again, when we use our benefits, and we are price gouged at both intersections.
No they aren't helpful--and the more I am reading about Medicare Advantage plans, those hornswoggle seniors when they try to use benefits too. The only real better option is a nationalized medical system or M4A. But if we do that and abolish private insurance, some people would stop making a lot of money. So we aren't going to do the thing that helps millions of people because a handful of people would lose money. It's the American way.
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
Yikes. I know my company's plan is good, but sometimes it takes numbers like this to remind me of just how good (and even then, co-workers who have more years in than I do complain about how much worse it is now than it used to be) compared to what other people have access to.
My deductible is less than half that for a family of 4, and my company still automatically contributes $1600 into my HSA on January 1 to offset that.
6000 is what the deductible would be for the CDHP as well. I have no plans of choosing it. Because I would get zero prescription drug coverage until my deductible is met.
Yeah, we use the Good Rx app instead of our benefits for my son's medication because it's cheaper that way. I've also figured out through trial and error which ER room to go to--there are two and one has nothing but OON docs working there. It's absolutely ridiculous that I never know what I am going to have to pay when I go get anything done medically. I just cross my fingers and hold my breath that it's under $1000.
The crazy thing is they really try to sell the CDHP. They really push it saves you money if you are young and healthy.
I just don't see how it does unless you never need anything more than a annual physical and are on no prescriptions.
I just don't see how it does unless you never need anything more than a annual physical and are on no prescriptions.
waruv
Well-Known Member
The CDHP / HDHP has a niche. Either for young, healthy folks who can afford to stash money in the HSA annually or for folks who can max out their HSA easily and are willing to take a chance. I'm not a huge fan of it for a lot of people but if you are a person who doesn't have regular scripts to fill or doesn't usually see the doctor, the HSA is an actual, real benefit. I've been in one for the last eight years and it's been a reasonably easy way to stash several thousand dollars in the HSA for that usage despite some usage on my part. It's often the cheapest option premium wise and is one of the few where you don't just take a complete loss if you don't use your insurance if you contribute to the HSA.
My issue is that a lot of employers make it the only option and it's really a terrible choice for those with kids or those who know they'll have notable medical expenses.
In my view, OON coverage for medical is really just a fool's investment unless you know you will be heavily utilizing OON providers to the point where you'll surpass the deductible and your reimbursement will start to get close to the premium difference between In Network and Out of Network. Now if they offer it regardless at a similar cost, that's a-ok, but I saw a lot of people pushing for an OON who will never ever really benefit from it to how they need to.
Generally, most plans these days are only helpful in cases of true, expensive medical emergencies. In many ways, that is like every other insurance really. Home, auto, etc. generally only cover those catastrophic situations. It's just that everyone in the process thinks insurance should also pay a slew of other things and our financial systems have been built on the expectation. The modern plan design wouldn't be so bad if, like, people got paid extra money to apportion to medical costs. But for most it doesn't and its a distaster.
My issue is that a lot of employers make it the only option and it's really a terrible choice for those with kids or those who know they'll have notable medical expenses.
In my view, OON coverage for medical is really just a fool's investment unless you know you will be heavily utilizing OON providers to the point where you'll surpass the deductible and your reimbursement will start to get close to the premium difference between In Network and Out of Network. Now if they offer it regardless at a similar cost, that's a-ok, but I saw a lot of people pushing for an OON who will never ever really benefit from it to how they need to.
Generally, most plans these days are only helpful in cases of true, expensive medical emergencies. In many ways, that is like every other insurance really. Home, auto, etc. generally only cover those catastrophic situations. It's just that everyone in the process thinks insurance should also pay a slew of other things and our financial systems have been built on the expectation. The modern plan design wouldn't be so bad if, like, people got paid extra money to apportion to medical costs. But for most it doesn't and its a distaster.
There are several companies heading down the path of only offering CDHP plans. That takes the choice away. Any many of people who have the plan can't afford to use it so they don't seek medical care.
The argument that this is like every other insurance is eh, I pay more for it each month than my auto and home insurances combined. The bigger problem here is that it has been empirically shown that these HDHP cost people more money--largely because providers bill higher for those with insurance--and this causes people to avoid getting care. The other problem I have with these plans is that with an HMO, you knew you had a fixed copay. You could go to the doctor with a $20 bill and be seen, and that was it. With these plans, it costs what it costs, and you don't actually know what it costs until they bill your insurance. There is no way to be the discerning customer that can choose a low cost site of care, because we have to figure out what our low cost sites of care are. There is no way to plan ahead for expenditures and even when you hit your deductible, this doesn't really change. Sure, I pay less, but how much less? I don't know until I get the bill.
As for the OON stipulations, the new big thing in health insurance is to create narrow network plans where you have a handful of docs that you can see. I keep seeing networks getting narrower and narrower, and it's obviously not going to be a good solution for a large portion of people, especially if this is in a larger city.
The biggest false equivalency here is that health insurance should be like home insurance. My house might get hit by a tornado or flooded, but how many times in my life will this happen? However, I sorta need to go to the doctor if I get an ear infection. And I probably should go each year to get my physical...and what about dental cleanings? Those need to happen every 6 months. So we either need to decide not to cover these general maintenance things ourselves, without insurance and only have HDHP for catastrophic medical events--which honestly, is the only way I can see this really working out for everyone, except M4A which I fully support. Otherwise, you are making people pay way too much per month for catastrophic coverage, while leaving them no money for regular routine medical care.
As trial approaches, judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters' -- but 'victim' isn't allowed
The men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in August 2020 can potentially be referred to at his trial as "rioters" or "looters," a Wisconsin judge said Monday while reiterating his long-held view that attorneys should not use the word "victim."
This just infuriates me.
The people Kyle Rittenhouse killed during last year's black lives matter protests cannot be called "victims" according to the judge. But they may be called "rioters" or "looters".
Victims are exactly what they were. And weren't the rioters and looters mostly trouble makers / counter protesters / the far right?
waruv
Well-Known Member
I certainly agree more than I disagree on this. HDHPs, as a general rule, will be costlier for people than HMO/EPOs/POS/etc. are, probably even with the savings accounts. The benefits are flat worse and people don't or can't (usually the latter) fund the spending mechanisms appropriately. I also agree that HDHPs are more likely to cause people to avoid getting services. I think it's a long-term medical loser.
The self-pay thing is tricky because logically providers will bill less because medical billing is costly and resource intensive. Contracted providers shouldn't be offering self-pay to insured members but we know they do. The issue in terms of not knowing your expenditures is a big issue though I think insurers are maligned for this when this should fall right on the providers who don't price out their rates for services in advance and won't answer those questions even if they know the answer.
For narrow network, absolutely a real issue. I see this in dental (as RM says) a lot and medical is often going that way for folks. My thought on OON benefits was that even in these situations, you're not really saving much of any money til you spend a lot at an OON Provider. Like, a $300 visit to an OON provider without OON benefits is $300 (or maybe even less if you agree to self-pay). A $300 visit to an OON provider with OON Benefits is still $300 with a small amount applied to a large OON Deductible which still needs to be paid. Even with a narrow network I'd generally only recommend OON services if you only have access to an OON Hospital in your area and/or you are seeing a regular medical professional OON (PT/OT, Behavioral Health, etc.) to where you really expect to meet the deductible and get to where the insurer pays out.
On the third point, isn't that part of the issue though? Like, a tornado or flood in medical terms isn't an ear infection, a tornado or flood is like breaking a hip or heaving a heart attack where heath insurance shows value. Whereas a thing like an ear infection is like a piece of siding on a house falling off or a shingle falling off a roof which home insurance really isn't engaged on generally unless it results in a larger issue or is a sign of such. If auto insurance also had to cover standard maintenance, tire replacement, headlight replacement, oil changes, repairing cars that are beyond repair, etc, you'd likely see a much pricier product with more of these carveouts. Health insurance is unlike any other insurance products in that we have it cover a much wider breadth of things than other products do and it's a product that insurers (morally, rightfully so now) have to cover as it gets dramatically more expensive with age curves The issue to me is that the rise of CDHP/HDHPs should be accompanied by a thing like a robust HSA/spending account or noticeably reduced costs so people could shift that money out of premiums and into medical spending as needed. What has happened is more predictable: every party in the process has pocketed a bit of those savings and left the end user with worse benefits for similar costs and no way to account for them, so the only person it really makes sense for is the non utilizer or the person rich enough to max out that account. And who has it in reality? Less wealthy folks who have this as their "affordable" option. I still think HDHPs have a real niche: it's been a better choice for me than a copay plan would have been for pretty much all but one of the past years, and in that one year, I was able to use my HSA savings to defray that a ton. But that niche is much smaller than the total number of people on HDHP/CDHPs.
I'd also argue that more things beyond the annual physical or bi-annual cleanings should be no cost items in the preventive sphere. As you and RM say, people are not going to their medical providers due to cost, and that's because too many items incur an end-user cost that should be treated to some extent as preventive.
On a personal level, I'd much prefer an M4A situation. I don't think it's nearly as rosy as many people think it would be but it's the most humane option by a long distance and should be the end goal for something like human health.
The self-pay thing is tricky because logically providers will bill less because medical billing is costly and resource intensive. Contracted providers shouldn't be offering self-pay to insured members but we know they do. The issue in terms of not knowing your expenditures is a big issue though I think insurers are maligned for this when this should fall right on the providers who don't price out their rates for services in advance and won't answer those questions even if they know the answer.
For narrow network, absolutely a real issue. I see this in dental (as RM says) a lot and medical is often going that way for folks. My thought on OON benefits was that even in these situations, you're not really saving much of any money til you spend a lot at an OON Provider. Like, a $300 visit to an OON provider without OON benefits is $300 (or maybe even less if you agree to self-pay). A $300 visit to an OON provider with OON Benefits is still $300 with a small amount applied to a large OON Deductible which still needs to be paid. Even with a narrow network I'd generally only recommend OON services if you only have access to an OON Hospital in your area and/or you are seeing a regular medical professional OON (PT/OT, Behavioral Health, etc.) to where you really expect to meet the deductible and get to where the insurer pays out.
On the third point, isn't that part of the issue though? Like, a tornado or flood in medical terms isn't an ear infection, a tornado or flood is like breaking a hip or heaving a heart attack where heath insurance shows value. Whereas a thing like an ear infection is like a piece of siding on a house falling off or a shingle falling off a roof which home insurance really isn't engaged on generally unless it results in a larger issue or is a sign of such. If auto insurance also had to cover standard maintenance, tire replacement, headlight replacement, oil changes, repairing cars that are beyond repair, etc, you'd likely see a much pricier product with more of these carveouts. Health insurance is unlike any other insurance products in that we have it cover a much wider breadth of things than other products do and it's a product that insurers (morally, rightfully so now) have to cover as it gets dramatically more expensive with age curves The issue to me is that the rise of CDHP/HDHPs should be accompanied by a thing like a robust HSA/spending account or noticeably reduced costs so people could shift that money out of premiums and into medical spending as needed. What has happened is more predictable: every party in the process has pocketed a bit of those savings and left the end user with worse benefits for similar costs and no way to account for them, so the only person it really makes sense for is the non utilizer or the person rich enough to max out that account. And who has it in reality? Less wealthy folks who have this as their "affordable" option. I still think HDHPs have a real niche: it's been a better choice for me than a copay plan would have been for pretty much all but one of the past years, and in that one year, I was able to use my HSA savings to defray that a ton. But that niche is much smaller than the total number of people on HDHP/CDHPs.
I'd also argue that more things beyond the annual physical or bi-annual cleanings should be no cost items in the preventive sphere. As you and RM say, people are not going to their medical providers due to cost, and that's because too many items incur an end-user cost that should be treated to some extent as preventive.
On a personal level, I'd much prefer an M4A situation. I don't think it's nearly as rosy as many people think it would be but it's the most humane option by a long distance and should be the end goal for something like human health.
Oh yes, for young, healthy people without any dependents, something along the lines of a catastrophic policy works extremely well. It keeps costs low and saves your butt if you do get into a car accident or something like that. But research shows that this leads to people seeking out less medical care--including preventative visits--and people with HDHP are less likely to be adherent to their medication regime (this is a big problem for someone with something like diabetes, where things can go wrong very quickly. In other words, do you know how much a foot amputation costs?):
We performed a systematic review of methodologically rigorous studies that examined the impact of HDHPs on health care utilization and costs. The plans were associated with a significant reduction in preventive care in seven of twelve studies and a significant reduction in office visits in six of eleven studies—which in turn led to a reduction in both appropriate and inappropriate care. Furthermore, bivariate analyses of data extracted from the included studies suggested that the plans may be associated with a reduction in appropriate preventive care and medication adherence. Current evidence suggests that HDHPs are associated with lower health care costs as a result of a reduction in the use of health services, including appropriate services.
This makes sense. If I have to pay more, I'm going to use it less. I don't really think they thought out these implications when they put this product on the market. They were looking for a way to save money. The problem with this is that when a person who hasn't been getting preventative care or screenings finally does hit the medical system--they hit it hard. I remember going to a Medicaid talk in HIT where they pointed out the very familiar statistic many in health care know, 20% of the Medicaid patients made up 80% of the spend. It doesn't take but one catastrophic claimant to blow your medical spend out of the water. So you've saved yourself money in the short term, but you do eventually have to pay the bill in the long run. Now, let's consider we have this set of behaviors for an entire population. So we have a lot of people running around, not getting screenings, not being totally adherent with medication, and not regularly talking to a doctor (and instead getting their medical information online). This seems fine for now, but what happens in 10 years when the first millenials are turning 50? What happens when a generation of people didn't get the preventative medical care they needed for a good portion of their adult lives? What does our medical system look like? What will our costs be then? Are all these costs going to hit a Medicare or Medicaid (remember, you can get Medicare for things like end stage renal disease prior to turning 65--you just have to be in dialysis for 30 months)? And what will that cost tax payers?
I get that you were looking at this from an individual standpoint, but my background is in public health, so I can't help but take it here. The truth is that regardless of what insurance product one receives, data suggests that younger generations are not getting the medical care that older generations got in their youth. This will negatively impact us on a population level. As it is, you can easily tell if a person has money or not, based on their teeth. If you want to see the impact of no nationalized medical system, we need to look no further than our abysmal vaccination rates. What is the greatest predictor of whether or not you have a vaccine? It's whether or not you have insurance.
U.S. adults who aren’t yet vaccinated against Covid-19 are more likely to be uninsured and have lower incomes, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation released Friday.
Among people under 65, those without insurance make up 24% of the unvaccinated population, while only 12% of people with insurance haven’t gotten the jab, according to the report. Roughly two-fifths of all unvaccinated adults (42%) report earning less than $40,000 a year.
news.bloomberglaw.com
When uninsured people are asked why they aren't vaccinated, many respond that while they know it is "free" they do not believe it is actually free, because the federal government said the Covid tests were free, but providers started charging patients administration fees for these tests anyway. The other very, very big worry is that if they do get sick from the vaccine, they cannot seek out medical help because they have no insurance, and they are concerned with missing work because of adverse symptoms--because they don't have paid leave.
I do not believe that M4A will solve everything, but at minimum, we can put teeth in people's mouths so they can get proper nutrition. There is a false idea that no spend is good spend, but this isn't the case. There are very low cost, preventative medical procedures that should be done at regular intervals. For people who are prone to certain disease like heart failure or diabetes, regular maintenance and check ups cost less than open heart surgery or foot amputation. That doesn't mean catastrophic things never happen, but if your population has a certain level of health, it could decrease catastrophic incidence. Long ago, when I visited Finland, the woman I was with asked if we could walk to lunch instead of drive. I was fine with it and she said, that she likes to walk places so that she can keep herself healthy so that medical attention could go to those who were really in need. And this is where we need to be as a country. We have to realize that there is an interplay of genetics, individual choice and population health/population health expectations at work here. We, as Americans, seem to understand the individual choice aspect of this, but we fail at the population health piece.
We performed a systematic review of methodologically rigorous studies that examined the impact of HDHPs on health care utilization and costs. The plans were associated with a significant reduction in preventive care in seven of twelve studies and a significant reduction in office visits in six of eleven studies—which in turn led to a reduction in both appropriate and inappropriate care. Furthermore, bivariate analyses of data extracted from the included studies suggested that the plans may be associated with a reduction in appropriate preventive care and medication adherence. Current evidence suggests that HDHPs are associated with lower health care costs as a result of a reduction in the use of health services, including appropriate services.
High-Deductible Health Plans Reduce Health Care Cost And Utilization, Including Use Of Needed Preventive Services | Health Affairs Journal
Enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has greatly increased in recent years. Policy makers and other stakeholders need the best available evidence about how these plans may affect health care cost and utilization, but the literature has not been comprehensively synthesized. We...
www.healthaffairs.org
This makes sense. If I have to pay more, I'm going to use it less. I don't really think they thought out these implications when they put this product on the market. They were looking for a way to save money. The problem with this is that when a person who hasn't been getting preventative care or screenings finally does hit the medical system--they hit it hard. I remember going to a Medicaid talk in HIT where they pointed out the very familiar statistic many in health care know, 20% of the Medicaid patients made up 80% of the spend. It doesn't take but one catastrophic claimant to blow your medical spend out of the water. So you've saved yourself money in the short term, but you do eventually have to pay the bill in the long run. Now, let's consider we have this set of behaviors for an entire population. So we have a lot of people running around, not getting screenings, not being totally adherent with medication, and not regularly talking to a doctor (and instead getting their medical information online). This seems fine for now, but what happens in 10 years when the first millenials are turning 50? What happens when a generation of people didn't get the preventative medical care they needed for a good portion of their adult lives? What does our medical system look like? What will our costs be then? Are all these costs going to hit a Medicare or Medicaid (remember, you can get Medicare for things like end stage renal disease prior to turning 65--you just have to be in dialysis for 30 months)? And what will that cost tax payers?
I get that you were looking at this from an individual standpoint, but my background is in public health, so I can't help but take it here. The truth is that regardless of what insurance product one receives, data suggests that younger generations are not getting the medical care that older generations got in their youth. This will negatively impact us on a population level. As it is, you can easily tell if a person has money or not, based on their teeth. If you want to see the impact of no nationalized medical system, we need to look no further than our abysmal vaccination rates. What is the greatest predictor of whether or not you have a vaccine? It's whether or not you have insurance.
U.S. adults who aren’t yet vaccinated against Covid-19 are more likely to be uninsured and have lower incomes, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation released Friday.
Among people under 65, those without insurance make up 24% of the unvaccinated population, while only 12% of people with insurance haven’t gotten the jab, according to the report. Roughly two-fifths of all unvaccinated adults (42%) report earning less than $40,000 a year.
Unvaccinated Adults Are More Likely to Be Uninsured, Study Finds
U.S. adults who aren’t yet vaccinated against Covid-19 are more likely to be uninsured and have lower incomes, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation released Friday.
When uninsured people are asked why they aren't vaccinated, many respond that while they know it is "free" they do not believe it is actually free, because the federal government said the Covid tests were free, but providers started charging patients administration fees for these tests anyway. The other very, very big worry is that if they do get sick from the vaccine, they cannot seek out medical help because they have no insurance, and they are concerned with missing work because of adverse symptoms--because they don't have paid leave.
I do not believe that M4A will solve everything, but at minimum, we can put teeth in people's mouths so they can get proper nutrition. There is a false idea that no spend is good spend, but this isn't the case. There are very low cost, preventative medical procedures that should be done at regular intervals. For people who are prone to certain disease like heart failure or diabetes, regular maintenance and check ups cost less than open heart surgery or foot amputation. That doesn't mean catastrophic things never happen, but if your population has a certain level of health, it could decrease catastrophic incidence. Long ago, when I visited Finland, the woman I was with asked if we could walk to lunch instead of drive. I was fine with it and she said, that she likes to walk places so that she can keep herself healthy so that medical attention could go to those who were really in need. And this is where we need to be as a country. We have to realize that there is an interplay of genetics, individual choice and population health/population health expectations at work here. We, as Americans, seem to understand the individual choice aspect of this, but we fail at the population health piece.
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Just to make sure you got it all straight. The OON deductible is a separate deductible from the IN deductible. So, like say you have 1500 in network and 1500 out of network, then you're halfway through each deductible.
I saw on the local news this morning that there is a dentist shortage going on. Especially in New Hampshire right now. Approx 1/3 of dentists retired during COVID or went back to teacher dentistry. In some areas the shortage is so bad that scheduling your 6 month cleaning is impossible. They are booking 10 months to a year out because of the shortage.
That is just crazy.
That is just crazy.
It’s clear capitalism isn’t working when US politicians try to bring back child labor | Arwa Mahdawi
There is something very, very wrong with a system that would rather recruit more kids instead of paying better wages and providing more benefits to adults
www.theguardian.com
If this doesn't strike home about how capitalism isn't working and is just exploiting the many for the profits of a few I don't know what else does.
Paid family leave and lower costs for prescription drugs for seniors have now been cut as social safety nets from the economic bill.
When asked why he wouldn't support paid family leave, Joe Manchin said it was because of his grandchildren. He doesn't want the costs of paid family leave to be passed on to his grandchildren. He's worried about sky rocketing national debt that future generations will have to pay for.
Even after all those concessions of the economic bill last week. This afternoon Joe Manchin is still a no go for the bill. He want's to hold off on the bill until "we better the economic impact of the bill".
Moving onto to another topic. Last nights episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was all about homelessness and is well worth the watch.
When asked why he wouldn't support paid family leave, Joe Manchin said it was because of his grandchildren. He doesn't want the costs of paid family leave to be passed on to his grandchildren. He's worried about sky rocketing national debt that future generations will have to pay for.
Even after all those concessions of the economic bill last week. This afternoon Joe Manchin is still a no go for the bill. He want's to hold off on the bill until "we better the economic impact of the bill".
Moving onto to another topic. Last nights episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was all about homelessness and is well worth the watch.
It's raining tacos
Basically to summarize Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, over the past 10 years there have been a sharp increase in laws against being homeless. New or more restrictive loitering, trespassing laws or laws that simply make it illegal to be homeless or sleep in the public. Sleeping in your car is the fastest spreading new law in many cities.
Here in America we seem to be resolved to criminalize being homeless over solving the issue. One guy they interviewed who has been homeless for 9 years says he has spent 1 out of every 3 nights in jail. As soon as he sits own he's "trespassing". If you think about it, that means he's spend 3 years in jail just for being homeless.
Since the Reagan administration we have been making economic policies that have only resulted in increased homelessness and cuts to the social safety nets that provide subsidized housing. As Reagan put it, "they are homeless by choice" and that belief is still heavily ingrained in people today. Homelessness isn't caused by the fact that the cost of housing has vastly out paced wage growth and economic policies have cut subsidies according to them. But rather mental health and addition. And while it's true a lot of homeless people suffer from addiction. Addiction wasn't the cause of homelessness, but rather the result of homelessness.
One lady they interviewed who became homeless earlier this year says it was because her landlord raised her rent by $150 a month suddenly. She couldn't afford it. When she was short of being able to cover rent in full she was evicted. Her landlord didn't want to negotiate or work out a deal. He was very much if you can't pay rent I sure as hell can find someone else who can attitude.
A city in Texas blasts 2 different children's songs at sleeping homeless people at night hoping to disperse them.
The story is the same city after city. The number of beds available in shelters is only a fraction of what is needed for each and every homeless person. For example, one city they listed has 345 beds but more than 1500 homeless.
In San Francisco the city only has 16 bathrooms (porta potties) accessible to nearly 4000 homeless people. To make matters worse they remove them at night because they don't have proper security.
News covers about homelessness is almost always through the lense of people living in homes. It's about how much a nuisance homeless are. One of the most reported topics is about human waste in the streets. But homeless people often do not have access to bathrooms at businesses and situations like in San Francisco leave people no choice. There is no place else to go.
The number of homeless people is also drastically undercounted in our country. They only count the number of homeless 1 night a year. And it only accounts for people in the shelter systems.
The leading cause of homelessness today is unaffordable housing. Of low income americans, there is only enough housing available for 40% of them.
$34,000 on average is spent per homeless person by taxpayers for medical and policing expenses for homeless people each year. They have calculated that it would only costs taxpayers a little over $10,000 a year total per homeless person if they subsidised housing. Yet time after time policy makers choose not to subsidise housing. They don't want people to become "spoiled", believe they are lazy and/or choose to be homeless.
Whenever policy makers try to do something to find housing for homeless people they get aggressive opposition from nimby's. The story is always the same. People believe something should be done about the homeless, but they do not believe their community is the spot to do it. They are worried about crime, their safety and how it will affect the local businesses.
Here in America we seem to be resolved to criminalize being homeless over solving the issue. One guy they interviewed who has been homeless for 9 years says he has spent 1 out of every 3 nights in jail. As soon as he sits own he's "trespassing". If you think about it, that means he's spend 3 years in jail just for being homeless.
Since the Reagan administration we have been making economic policies that have only resulted in increased homelessness and cuts to the social safety nets that provide subsidized housing. As Reagan put it, "they are homeless by choice" and that belief is still heavily ingrained in people today. Homelessness isn't caused by the fact that the cost of housing has vastly out paced wage growth and economic policies have cut subsidies according to them. But rather mental health and addition. And while it's true a lot of homeless people suffer from addiction. Addiction wasn't the cause of homelessness, but rather the result of homelessness.
One lady they interviewed who became homeless earlier this year says it was because her landlord raised her rent by $150 a month suddenly. She couldn't afford it. When she was short of being able to cover rent in full she was evicted. Her landlord didn't want to negotiate or work out a deal. He was very much if you can't pay rent I sure as hell can find someone else who can attitude.
A city in Texas blasts 2 different children's songs at sleeping homeless people at night hoping to disperse them.
The story is the same city after city. The number of beds available in shelters is only a fraction of what is needed for each and every homeless person. For example, one city they listed has 345 beds but more than 1500 homeless.
In San Francisco the city only has 16 bathrooms (porta potties) accessible to nearly 4000 homeless people. To make matters worse they remove them at night because they don't have proper security.
News covers about homelessness is almost always through the lense of people living in homes. It's about how much a nuisance homeless are. One of the most reported topics is about human waste in the streets. But homeless people often do not have access to bathrooms at businesses and situations like in San Francisco leave people no choice. There is no place else to go.
The number of homeless people is also drastically undercounted in our country. They only count the number of homeless 1 night a year. And it only accounts for people in the shelter systems.
The leading cause of homelessness today is unaffordable housing. Of low income americans, there is only enough housing available for 40% of them.
$34,000 on average is spent per homeless person by taxpayers for medical and policing expenses for homeless people each year. They have calculated that it would only costs taxpayers a little over $10,000 a year total per homeless person if they subsidised housing. Yet time after time policy makers choose not to subsidise housing. They don't want people to become "spoiled", believe they are lazy and/or choose to be homeless.
Whenever policy makers try to do something to find housing for homeless people they get aggressive opposition from nimby's. The story is always the same. People believe something should be done about the homeless, but they do not believe their community is the spot to do it. They are worried about crime, their safety and how it will affect the local businesses.