In DK; you have to go really far to be homeless. You'd have to wreck your government sponsored apartment two times or more, and then squander away the money you get to pay for the 3 month advance payment of rent. Then you'd have to be unwilling to do what the government ask of you (i.e stop wrecking apartments, perhaps take part in a program).
With such extensive safety nets, a homeless person in DK is one that either has mental problems, cannot control rage, is a substance abuser og just generally cannot function in a 'normal' society. With function I do not mean job; I just mean being able to keep ones apartment from being wrecked and being able to hold on the the advance payment money long enough to actually give them to the person you rent from. Very little is asked for here if you're a bum; if you're a responsible person, much more is required, but I digress.
The US lacks the majority of the welfare safety nets that are present in DK, and reaps a reward in form of more spending power and less direct government spending. The backside of course is that it's much easier to become homeless. My knowledge about homeless people in the US comes from documentaries, so it's probably highly biased. Anyway, in those documentaries, there were the 'common bums' - the slightly insane, the drunkards, the drug addicts. However, there were also homeless people of a type I haven't really seen here - seemingly normal people that for various economic reasons have been unable to pay their rent and consequently been thrown out. Some have had problems finding a job because most require the applicant to have some kind of a home address.
It really doesn't matter and since my knowledge is based on tv documentaries it shouldn't be seen as anything but a comment.
The issue as I see it: should the state (and thereby you) spend, say, 10 million dollars attempting to help those which can be helped, even though it knows that in the process, some of those 10 million dollars willbe lost? Perhaps only half of those getting help will end up back 'inside' in society. Or should one maintain that each person is responsible for whatever situation they're in and should therefore not be helped through government intervention?
I agree that the latter on the surface seems the fairer way. A tax payer should not be forced to 'donate' money to help someone else. On the other hand, there are at least some instances where a person is homeless through no, or just a slight, mistake of their own, and where a little help can go a very long way. Letting such a person spend a (short) life in poverty and misery seems a little heartless. So IMHO, a directed, targettet and focused approach should be employed where those likely to succeed would get aid. True, some will complain that then the help does not get to those who need it most. On the other hand, those that need the most might be incapable of using whatever help they're given. it all boils down to economics in the end though and to a certain degree selfishness. Do I want to take 1 cent of every dollar to get some stranger a home? A great deal of Americans would say no (a cultural difference between Americans and Danes).
Ripsnort said:
What are you talking about? All the un-insured patients end up in city hospitals, where YOU, the taxpayer, pays for it. Forget that the RN's know most of these drug addicts by first name basis..you'll continue to pay for it under the Good Samaritan laws.
Hm Ripsnort, just a question to clarify your position. If, say, someone was working hard, had four children to support and barely was making it could not afford a health insurance and then got mugged and shot on the way home from her third job, would you have a problem if YOU, the tacpayer, paid for her care?
If this is true, you're a pretty harsh man. It's akin to not stopping at a car accident where someone is yelling for help because doing so would mean you'd be late for work and thereby miss a few minutes worth of income. Then again, I agree that it should be your choice whether to stop or not (then again again, here there are laws requiring you to help out in such situations)
Guess what I'm trying to say is that poverty sucks, and selfishness doesn't make it better. The selfishness might even bite yer in the arse; you never know what happens in life, and you (or one of your loved ones) might end up piss poor without a place to live, unable to get a job because you stink, look like toejam and have no home.
