Doc, Homless in LA

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk,

Please note that Libertarianism, especially from our good friend EA, includes massive government funding and resources to be spent specifically on his sector where people like him would manage these funds and solve what you're addressing. He also believes, because freedom, that you should pay for as many babies, cradle to grave presumably, that someone on welfare is making, because its their right and your obligation to support them materially. This, without a doubt, makes everyone wealthier, the dollar stronger, and our society more progressive. And free. Because Libertarian.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Libertarianism isn't a free market religion you consult to get the right answers about what you should think. It's a political label that describes people who hold views that are economically conservative and socially liberal.

There are many libertarians think the government should be involved in securing a basic standard of living for people. Universal basic income is getting a fair amount of run in libertarian circles, for instance. If you read a libertarian like Milton Friedman, what you won't find the argument that the government should not be involved in any form of social welfare at all.

The "cradle to grave" support of babies comment is no doubt your defense of your coerced sterilization of impoverished people in need idea. If you ever want to spell that argument out further, go for it, because it's quite monstrous and a demonstration that you really aren't thinking things through much.

Regarding the idea that I only support government programs to help out the severely disabled because it just so happens to be what I am involved in for a living, you got the causality reversed. But, hey, do you think the severely disabled should just be allowed to die in the streets if charity cannot meet the need? Is that your view? Or are you just criticizing a position that nearly everyone holds because you think it works as a means to score some points against me?

[_Markk]

So how do these folks that are wandering the streets...who haven't changed their clothes in months or years...who just wander through the streets talking to themselves seek and receive help? Do you think they will make appointments and make sure they are followed up on.

Some seek and receive help or have family who do the same for them. Others are reported based on their behavior to a party such as the police that ultimately makes its way to some form of social services, who then know how to take steps to connect people to resources they can take advantage of (if those exist). Social services also use their connections to just go out and find people. Homeless people often congregate to resources for the homeless, such as day-shelters. This casts a wide net. The problem isn't in not knowing how to identify and connect with people who need help. It's in having enough qualified people to do that or enough help to offer.

And some how they are going to seek help, take their meds, and do follow ups?

I personally oversee some programs involving mentally ill, disabled people taking their meds and doing follow-ups who otherwise would be homeless. So, yeah, quite possibly yes?

You really need to take a visit down here, you would change your mind.

Lol. Now you're telling me I need to have your real-world experience with what I have real world experience doing that you do not.

So you would follow these folks, tens of thousands, around So CA. and make sure they take their meds every day. Would you implant GPS on them?

Where do the disabled people you deal with live. How do you find them?

[_Markk]

Some seek and receive help or have family who do the same for them. Others are reported based on their behavior to a party such as the police that ultimately makes its way to some form of social services, who then know how to take steps to connect people to resources they can take advantage of (if those exist). Social services also use their connections to just go out and find people. Homeless people often congregate to resources for the homeless, such as day-shelters. This casts a wide net. The problem isn't in not knowing how to identify and connect with people who need help. It's in having enough qualified people to do that or enough help to offer.

How many people are homeless in your town that you deal with, how many are on the streets? Do you think LAPD, or any southern Ca police deportment routinely play social service maid to the homeless?

Here, finding people is not a problem, there are thousands upon thousands on the streets EA.

So just to be clear, you would hire thousand of people to go out in the streets to follow these folks around and make sure they take there meds and keep off of drugs and alcohol at night?

[_Markk]

I personally oversee some programs involving mentally ill, disabled people taking their meds and doing follow-ups who otherwise would be homeless. So, yeah, quite possibly yes?

We are discussing those in the streets...tens of thousands. What is the population of you town, and how many folks are in your program that are mentally ill, that were on the streets?

Just to be clear, I don't believe you understand how bad it is, and how bad it is getting, and that it would be impossible to manage tens of thousand of people that are on the streets that do not want help, or don't even know what help is.

[_Markk]

You've already established that you don't believe in research, but suffice to say, there is plenty of evidence that access to methadone clinics drives down the rate of harm caused by opiate addiction where they are available.

Only for the person that wants help...which are few percentage wise.

Before I go further, do you believe all drugs should be legal?

[_EAllusion]

So you would follow these folks, tens of thousands, around So CA. and make sure they take their meds every day. Would you implant GPS on them?

Do you think So Cal is the only area in the country that has people disabled due to pervasive mental illness who would be homeless if not for services helping them? Yes, it is possible to set up programs where people are given access to psychotropic medication and, if needed, monitoring. This is actually quite common and is probably is going on around you in neighborhoods you are in all the time. This can help them be in a better position to do things that prevent them from being homeless. The range of services people need depend specifically on the nature of their disability. Some people just need someone touch base once a week and ensure medication is being taken. (There are systems that make this happen.) On the other extreme end, some people need 24/7 monitoring by caretaker.

I know that So Cal has a particularly bad homelessness problem. The weather is good and affordable housing is in short supply. That's a recipe for a serious problem. But the problems you are describing can be found in any metro area and aren't intractable. Madison, WI has had on-going problems with homelessness that you can trace the ebb and flow of almost perfectly to quality of policy response.

Where do the disabled people you deal with live. How do you find them?

I sometimes am involved in helping someone find housing, but mostly I support people who just live in the community in an apartment or house or whathaveyou. The way I find them is that they are referred to me. There are a variety of ways that people funnel into the system so referrals can be generated. Many transition into adulthood with there being a recognized need from childhood due to schools/CPS being aware and already providing services. Others have family report them. Others have police report them. The ADRC or APS are usually the first contact points, but it varies.

[_EAllusion]

Maybe I should walk through a scenario.

Suppose you have a homeless person who gets arrested for aggressive panhandling. This person displays signs of psychosis in custody and is referred to social services. They assess and concur. They assist with getting this person established with MA and, if they won't voluntarily take medications, seek a court order on the basis of demonstrated risk of harm to themselves to administer medication. The homeless person, faced with a choice of involuntary patient care or community-supports, opts to take their medication.

The government hires a private agency to help this person take their medications and monitor their medication use. Twice a day, they send someone to where they are living to dispense medication to them and observe their taking it. That person is trained in understanding all the associated tasks of med admin such as documentation, understanding 'scripts, side effects, etc. Some people; however, know how to fake taking medication and do so. So that agency employs someone like me to oversee and train those people to recognize signs that person may be avoiding taking their medication such as reemergence of psychosis-like symptoms. The person being monitored sees a psychiatrist for routine medication reviews and receives blood-tests to measure if their medication levels are staying within the targeted therapeutic range.

For some people, this is the difference between being in a state of psychosis on the streets or independent living with gainful employment.

[Reflexzero]

One answer that I see is stop the drugs by any means necessary, and deal with the mentally ill...open up the hospitals that Regan closed. We have to stop heroin, speed, and other drugs that create most of the homelessness, and mental illness (burnouts).

Lately (in my very limited experience), speed has been the greatest problem in my area. It doesn't help that many of the drug houses/dealers in the homeless/low income areas have basically set themselves up as exchanges where money isn't the only option. You can trade just about anything that can be re-sold (ranging from canned goods, to clothing, to toiletries).

It is such a huge obstacle with returning to independence. I’m only aware of two nonprofits here that take people off the streets and place them into an intensive recovery program. Their programs include housing, addiction treatment and support, and employment partnerships. I’m not sure what their overall success rate is, but of the two people I’ve maintained contact with that have gone through programs, one yo-yos on and off the streets, and the other is an absolute inspiration to me (and a reminder that I shouldn’t discount people**)

Between the two non-profits, they can maybe take on 10-30 people at a given time (depending on resources) -- amongst a homeless population in the thousands.

For those with mental illness, there’s not really anything longterm. There’s the state facility, but they operate as essentially a revolving door. I’m sure that it didn’t exactly help California’s problem that for a while, Vegas was dumping patients there.

Article on patient dumping:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigatio ... 77189.html


-----------
** Downtown at one of the on street serving locations (we do food, clothing, hygiene, haircuts, etc., once a week), there was a gentlemen who was the bane of my existence for a while. The first time I “met” him, he had been up for several days, and was trying to instigate fights with just about everyone (including volunteers). Whenever I would see him, I knew it was going to be a long night for me of verbally deescalating multiple fights, and physically stopping at least one.

I stopped seeing him, and I had assumed he had moved on to a new area, or had passed away. A few months after I had last seen him, I had gone to a different location to drop off some donations that I was fortunate enough to have friends wrangle. Right there, behind one of the tables, handing out hygiene kits was this same young man. He was at least 20 pounds heavier (healthy weight), and had a smile as wide as his face. He had been accepted into one of the non-profit programs, was working at the facility/home, had been clean for 6 weeks, and had talked to one of his daughters for the first time in two years.

Last time I saw him was about two months ago. I dropped off a coffee maker to the house he is renting. He hasn’t relapsed, is working, and has regular contact with both of his daughters.

It is still a point deep personal shame that I saw him as a lost cause. I am glad someone else saw what I couldn’t, and was dedicated enough to help him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Libertarianism isn't a free market religion you consult to get the right answers about what you should think. It's a political label that describes people who hold views that are economically conservative and socially liberal.

There are many libertarians think the government should be involved in securing a basic standard of living for people. Universal basic income is getting a fair amount of run in libertarian circles, for instance. If you read a libertarian like Milton Friedman, what you won't find the argument that the government should not be involved in any form of social welfare at all.

The "cradle to grave" support of babies comment is no doubt your defense of your coerced sterilization of impoverished people in need idea. If you ever want to spell that argument out further, go for it, because it's quite monstrous and a demonstration that you really aren't thinking things through much.

Regarding the idea that I only support government programs to help out the severely disabled because it just so happens to be what I am involved in for a living, you got the causality reversed. But, hey, do you think the severely disabled should just be allowed to die in the streets if charity cannot meet the need? Is that your view? Or are you just criticizing a position that nearly everyone holds because you think it works as a means to score some points against me?

You're right, of course. My apologies.

Respectfully,

Dr. CamNC4Me

Markk,

Let's see what the standard definition of 'libertariansim' is from Google:

an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Hrm. That's weird. That doesn't really square up with some people's, uh, unique view of Libertarianism. I wonder if Wikipedia would be a bit more helpful?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertari ... t_currents

Boy, it's sure hard for me to figure out which Libertarianism is the right one. I tend to think what's being discussed by our board's, uh, whatever-he-is favors Left-Libertarianism because he's advocating more of what got SoCal into the mess it's in, and is in favor of securing your labor for the benefit of the people who are free to reproduce without end, take drugs in the street, and usher in more desperate people into an already desperate situation. I guess you Californians will just have to suck it up, throw more money at private organizations who are already solving the problem!

But then again, I'm not really sure what our resident expert-on-everything thinks the solution is because he really doesn't offer solutions other than: More of your money to him so he can solve homelessness. Of course he doesn't believe private donors will step up to any relevant degree so I'm fairly certain it's up to the government to levy more taxes on you so he can fix what he advocates creating more of. It's the perfect job security position if you ask me...

- Doc