"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... > In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > >> > > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| > > Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. Great - he will have a lot more bums.

"Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. >> >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. > > Great - he will have a lot more bums. Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some Republicans don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where it did not exist before. We see proof of how the opposite doesn't work in how Reagan's cuts in social programs in the early 1980s caused America's national debt to grow from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. By cutting social programs like subsidized college, it seemed on paper like it would save the government money, but in reality it cost the government more money.

"Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... > "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message > news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > > > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... > >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > >> > >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > >> >> > >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| > >> > >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. > > > > Great - he will have a lot more bums. > > Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some Republicans > don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means > they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where it > did not exist before. Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... >> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message >> news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... >> > >> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... >> >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| >> >> >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. >> > >> > Great - he will have a lot more bums. >> >> Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some > Republicans >> don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means >> they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where > it >> did not exist before. > Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who > place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy". Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:emu78n$et5$2@blue.rahul.net... > In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > > "Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... > >> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message > >> news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > >> > > >> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > >> > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... > >> >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > >> >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > >> >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > >> >> >> > >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| > >> >> > >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. > >> > > >> > Great - he will have a lot more bums. > >> > >> Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some > > Republicans > >> don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means > >> they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where > > it > >> did not exist before. > > > Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who > > place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy". > > Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the > underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts. I never said ALL of them were, but most of them clearly are. Get a clue, Mervin.

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:emu78n$et5$2@blue.rahul.net... >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: >> >> > "Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message >> >> news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... >> >> >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net&g t; wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com.. . >> >> >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> >> >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> >> >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest > stipend. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. > :O| >> >> >> >> >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. >> >> > >> >> > Great - he will have a lot more bums. >> >> >> >> Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some >> > Republicans >> >> don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass > means >> >> they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth > where >> > it >> >> did not exist before. >> >> > Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts > who >> > place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the > economy". >> >> Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the >> underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts. > I never said ALL of them were, but most of them clearly are. Get a clue, > Mervin. OK, delete "all:" "Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees most of the underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts." Happy now?

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > There are three main groups of homeless: > substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by > choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; > and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and > figurative banana peel. > > Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group > is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist > system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. > That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* > one, and while an inadequate safety net may be > implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole > story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent > families in which the couple are legally married > contained in this group. You do get some number of > single women with children, but we're not talking > professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid > off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work; > rather, they consist of never-married women who had > children out of wedlock, have little education and > almost no skills. These women made choices, and they > were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that > his group is the smallest one among all homeless. > > The first and second groups have a considerable > overlap, because long term substance abuse which may > have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness > and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining. > > It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people. > At one time a lot of them were involuntarily > hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy > administration undertook initiatives to get people out > of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed > for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and > return them to communities to be treated on an > outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and > wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who > formerly would have been confined are out and about, > and because we're a free society we don't compel them > to participate in programs if they don't want to > participate. > > Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able > people who disable themselves through chronic and acute > substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't > available to them to deal with their substance abuse. > If they won't avail themselves of these programs and > CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for > themselves, why should society have some obligation to > feed and house them? Answer: we don't. Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:en1404$vqj$1@blue.rahul.net... > > What fraction do you think are in each group, given > that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2? > And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional- > ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor > of California, and then moved to national policy. The > idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic > medications, which made it possible to control the > chronically mentally ill without physical confinement. > The original plan was that storefront locations would be > widely available so that they could get their medications > conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was > easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood > treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the > medication became somewhat difficult and of course many > who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we > have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are > mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not > getting it. The whole problem with this scheme was that liberals (and unfortunately, quite a few conservatives as well) assumed that people who were psychotic would take their medication voluntarily, without any need for supervision. Unlike most people who suffer some type of affliction, mentally ill people generally don't recognize that they are sick. As Mona Charen pointed out in her book "DO-GOODERS - How Liberals Hurt Those they claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)" (ISBN 1-59523-003-3) in a discussion about violent mentally ill people on the streets of NYC: "A series of liberal initiatives made treating the homeless mentally ill difficult to impossible. Involuntary commitment laws in many states were diluted to the point that a psychotic person would have to be caught in a violent act in order to be hospitalized without his or her consent. New York's law was particularly narrow, making it nearly impossible to hospitalize the mentally ill unless they requested it The catch-22, of course, was that the nature of the illness made many schizophrenics deny that they were mentally ill..."

"Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:7fbdc$45963f02$45035f0d$9043@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> There are three main groups of homeless: >> substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by >> choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; >> and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and >> figurative banana peel. >> >> Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group >> is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist >> system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. >> That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental illness occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary and are resolved when the person rests up and stops ignoring the physical ailments that need to be addressed. Often a person in this condition is dwelling on a personal problem too much, while at the same time ignoring and neglecting a real physical problem (flu, serious stomach viruses, extreme exhaustion, malnutrition, nerve damage due to a prior car crash thats causing extreme pain or discomfort, or any physical; illness, ailment or injury. Various psychology terms have no meaning because they have been tossed around so much for so little reason. The Catholic Church has long taught people to ignore the psychology field along with its confusing, complicated terms. Some people try to turn the psychology field into their "religion" while most people stick with their own religion and culture. d while an inadequate safety net may be >> implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole >> story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent >> families in which the couple are legally married >> contained in this group. You do get some number of >> single women with children, but we're not talking >> professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid >> off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work; >> rather, they consist of never-married women who had >> children out of wedlock, have little education and >> almost no skills. These women made choices, and they >> were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that >> his group is the smallest one among all homeless. >> >> The first and second groups have a considerable >> overlap, because long term substance abuse which may >> have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness >> and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining. >> >> It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people. >> At one time a lot of them were involuntarily >> hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy >> administration undertook initiatives to get people out >> of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed >> for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and >> return them to communities to be treated on an >> outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and >> wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who >> formerly would have been confined are out and about, >> and because we're a free society we don't compel them >> to participate in programs if they don't want to >> participate. >> >> Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able >> people who disable themselves through chronic and acute >> substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't >> available to them to deal with their substance abuse. >> If they won't avail themselves of these programs and >> CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for >> themselves, why should society have some obligation to >> feed and house them? Answer: we don't. > > Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts. > >

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:en1404$vqj$1@blue.rahul.net... >> >> What fraction do you think are in each group, given >> that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2? >> And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional- >> ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor >> of California, and then moved to national policy. The >> idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic >> medications, which made it possible to control the >> chronically mentally ill without physical confinement. >> The original plan was that storefront locations would be >> widely available so that they could get their medications >> conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was >> easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood >> treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the >> medication became somewhat difficult and of course many >> who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we >> have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are >> mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not >> getting it. > The whole problem with this scheme was that liberals (and unfortunately, > quite a few conservatives as well) assumed that people who were psychotic > would take their medication voluntarily, without any need for supervision. > Unlike most people who suffer some type of affliction, mentally ill people > generally don't recognize that they are sick. As Mona Charen pointed out in > her book "DO-GOODERS - How Liberals Hurt Those they claim to Help (and the > Rest of Us)" (ISBN 1-59523-003-3) in a discussion about violent mentally ill > people on the streets of NYC: I don't think liberals drove this at all; as above, it was Reagan who first pushed it in California, and, as most mental health professionals (unlike those in other aspects of health) tend to be liberal, putting all those docs, nurses, and attendants at mental hospitals out of jobs was not popular with the Left. Plus it was Reagan's idea which in itself was probably sufficient to secure the opposition of liberals. As far as taking medication...I'm far from an expert, but I've been told that patients, when on their anti-psychotic medication, recognize the need to keep taking it and, if convenient, will do so. However if they ever get off, they indeed don't recognize that they are having a problem and will probably not take medication even if put in front of them. > "A series of liberal initiatives made treating the homeless mentally ill > difficult to impossible. Involuntary commitment laws in many states were > diluted to the point that a psychotic person would have to be caught in a > violent act in order to be hospitalized without his or her consent. New > York's law was particularly narrow, making it nearly impossible to > hospitalize the mentally ill unless they requested it The catch-22, of > course, was that the nature of the illness made many schizophrenics deny > that they were mentally ill..." There is a real issue here. There were (and are) serious problems with people being involuntarily committed because their relatives, physicians, etc., find them a nuisance and a bother, and ask the authorities to have them declared mentally incompetent and committed. Hence the drive to make it more difficult to commit a person against their will. Frankly I'm amazed that conservatives are on the other side of this issue. What could be a more intrusive government act than to deprive a person of liberty without extensive due process? Shouldn't individuals be permitted all sorts of annoying, irrational, pointless behavior without being deprived of liberty, as long as they are not a danger to themselves or others: proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That would seem to me to be the proper position for conservatives who want individuals, not government, to be responsible for the way people behave.

In ba.general Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote: > Merlin Dorfman wrote: ... >> And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional- >> ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor >> of California, and then moved to national policy. > That's an absolute falsehood, and it is THE MOST widely > repeated falsehood about homelessness. It did *NOT* > start under Reagan as governor of California, and > Reagan as president had nothing whatever to do with it. If you want to go back to the very beginnings, it was in the 1950s: http://www.sfhsn.org/downloads/documents/issues/hsn_iss_oth_tolve_08-15-01.pdf "The push for non-profit integration into social services began in earnest with the mental health privatization movement of the 1950s. While nongovernmental organizations like the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) had long provided services in conjunction with the City, demand for non-profit services rose markedly after a watershed piece of Californian legislation: the Short-Doyle Act of 1957. Designed to inject a greater level of humanity into the treatment of mentally ill patients and to increase competition between local government and private organizations, the Short-Doyle Act ended the policy of incarcerating mentally ill patients and demanded a greater utilization of CBOs. The Short-Doyle Act stipulated that each county should utilize available private and non-profit mental health resources and facilities in the county prior to developing new county-operated services." Kennedy did indeed sign a Federal law that spoke in this same vein, based presumably on his observations of how his sister was treated in mental institutions: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/resources/timeline.html "1963 * President Kennedy, in an address to Congress, calls for a reduction, 'over a number of years, and by hundreds of thousands, [in the number] of persons confined' to residential institutions, and he asks that methods be found 'to retain in and return to the community the mentally ill and mentally retarded, and there to restore and revitalize their lives through better health programs and strengthened educational and rehabilitation services.' Though not labeled such at the time, this is a call for deinstitutionalization and increased community services. * Congress passes the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Health Centers Construction Act, authorizing federal grants for the construction of public and private non-profit community mental health centers." But as far as I can tell, nothing really came of this in terms of concrete appropriation of funds, implementing laws, etc. It was just an expression of a viewpoiont. The first real implementation was in California under Reagan. I'm not guessing, I lived in California then (as now), and I remember this, and that it did not follow on federal inititiatives or programs in other states: http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/article45.htm "How did it get to be this way? The short answer is 'deinstitutionalization.' During the 1960s, many people began accusing the state mental hospitals of violating the civil rights of patients. Some families did, of course, commit incorrigible teenagers or eccentric relatives to years of involuntary confinement and unspeakable treatment. Nurse Ratched, the sadistic nurse famously portrayed in the book and film 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest,' became a symbol of institutional indifference to the mentally ill. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. ... The LPS Act emptied out the state's mental hospitals but resulted in an explosion of homelessness. Legislators never provided enough money for community-based programs to provide treatment and shelter. Even the most modest programs encountered local resistance. 'No neighborhood wanted the mentally ill living among them,' recalled former state Sen. Tom Bates. Lanterman later expressed regret at the way the law was carried out. 'I wanted the law to help the mentally ill,' he said. 'I never meant for it to prevent those who need care from receiving it.' But that's exactly what happened for three decades." ... >> Just as >> the great majority of bankruptcies are not due to spending >> sprees but to medical bills, unemployment, divorce or other >> family crisis, > You don't have any support whatever for that claim. It > may or may not be true, but *YOU* don't have any > support for it; you're just repeating a belief you hold. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html "Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds February 3, 2005 Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children. Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most. Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care. The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records. Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: 'Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.' Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878." This study shows a correlation between bankruptcy and divorce, but stops short of a cause-and-effect conclusion: http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs/articles/docs/abi01sepnumbers.html "This is why studies about the causes of bankruptcy provide ambiguous or insufficient guidance for answering bankruptcy policy questions. The data always require interpretations that include a set of assumptions that go beyond the numbers themselves. Given different assumptions, the numbers will be interpreted differently. If we assume that there is less shame in society than there used to be, we are likely to interpret statistics regarding debt, divorce and bankruptcy differently than if we assume otherwise, but the current data don't prove the assumption either way. Our attitudes about debtors and about appropriate legal changes are, nevertheless, guided by our assumptions as well as our interpretations of the data." And here's the American Bankers Association, crowing about the atrocious bankruptcy "reform" of 2005: http://www.aba.com/Press+Room/100306bankruptcyreformeffects.htm "Divorce, job loss and illness - the most common causes of bankruptcy - will continue to drive bankruptcy filings." A bankruptcy lawyer is hardly the best source of unbiased information, but on the other hand they do see a lot of bankrupt people, so they probably know the truth (whether they choose to tell it or not). Note the sequence of "leading causes:" http://www.ifyouneedhelp.com/causes.html "Causes of Bankruptcy We believe it is important for our clients to understand the reasons for their financial difficulties. Although bankruptcy will give you relief from your debt, if you have not solved the underlying cause of your financial problems, you are likely to run into trouble again and again. Although not scientific by any means, from our experience in the bankruptcy courts and with our clients, we have determined these are the main reasons why people file bankruptcy: 1) Job loss or income reduction is by the far the leading cause of bankruptcy. Most New Mexicans are working paycheck to paycheck, with little or no reserve in the event they are laid off or their hours are reduced... 2) Illness and divorce are probably the second leading causes of bankruptcy. Both usually take people by surprise and cause economic upheavals. 3) Predatory lending practices are common in New Mexico and bankruptcy often is the only way out for people. Among the abuses caused by creditors are mortgage loans established in a manner that prevents the principal balance from ever being reduced no matter how long payments are made. Payday loans and title loans, with interest rates of 400 to 1000% per annum also make it almost impossible for most people to pay back the loans. Bankruptcy becomes inevitable. 4) A large number of New Mexico bankruptcies have to do with obsessive- compulsive behaviors. This disorder manifests as addictions to prescription and illegal drugs, gambling, pornography and dancers, prostitution, shopping, and alcohol. The common thread of each form of the disorder is it produces mood-altering states and the victim of the disorder remains in strong denial and refuses treatment. The disorder tends to be chronic, escalating, and produces withdrawal symptoms when the behavior is suddenly stopped. Victims of this disorder continue with their destructive behaviors even after suffering negative consequences. In fact, the negative consequences of their addiction often trigger more destructive behavior and the victim spirals downward. Needless to say, if you do not get help with the underlying disorder, bankruptcy will only offer a short-term solution to your problems."

"History" <history@nospam.net> wrote in message news:hNOdnV5q7pGVqArYnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message > news:7fbdc$45963f02$45035f0d$9043@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> There are three main groups of homeless: > >> substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by > >> choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; > >> and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and > >> figurative banana peel. > >> > >> Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group > >> is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist > >> system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. > >> That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* > > > That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental illness > occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor > nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary You clearly know nothing about mental illness.

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message news:jexlh.8778$X72.8414@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Stan de SD wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> There are three main groups of homeless: > >> substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by > >> choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; > >> and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and > >> figurative banana peel. > >> > >> Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group > >> is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist > >> system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. > >> That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* > >> one, and while an inadequate safety net may be > >> implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole > >> story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent > >> families in which the couple are legally married > >> contained in this group. You do get some number of > >> single women with children, but we're not talking > >> professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid > >> off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work; > >> rather, they consist of never-married women who had > >> children out of wedlock, have little education and > >> almost no skills. These women made choices, and they > >> were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that > >> his group is the smallest one among all homeless. > >> > >> The first and second groups have a considerable > >> overlap, because long term substance abuse which may > >> have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness > >> and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining. > >> > >> It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people. > >> At one time a lot of them were involuntarily > >> hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy > >> administration undertook initiatives to get people out > >> of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed > >> for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and > >> return them to communities to be treated on an > >> outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and > >> wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who > >> formerly would have been confined are out and about, > >> and because we're a free society we don't compel them > >> to participate in programs if they don't want to > >> participate. > >> > >> Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able > >> people who disable themselves through chronic and acute > >> substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't > >> available to them to deal with their substance abuse. > >> If they won't avail themselves of these programs and > >> CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for > >> themselves, why should society have some obligation to > >> feed and house them? Answer: we don't. > > > > Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts. > > I always do that. You, uh, frequently don't. Show me where I don't...

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "History" <history@nospam.net> wrote in message > news:hNOdnV5q7pGVqArYnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com... ... >> That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental > illness >> occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor >> nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary > You clearly know nothing about mental illness. Although I have heard it said that the average neurosis will clear up by itself in two years, or, if helped by psychiatric treatment, in four years :-)

In ba.general Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote: > Merlin Dorfman wrote: ... >> If you can lay off the four-letter words for a few minutes, >> there is a later message in this thread that addresses the >> question. If you are looking for the ultimate original idea >> for de-institutionalization, you have to go back to the 1950s. > The actual governmental action was a product of the > Kennedy administration. A law was passed. Little or nothing happened, because no funding came with it. I can tell you first-hand that nothing happened in California, and I gave you references to that effect. Things began to happen in California after Reagan became governor, of course with the cooperation of the legislature. Other states followed--Reagan can't be blamed for that, just for the idea of state initiative and funding. I never said he did anything along this line as president, it was all over by then. >> If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and >> mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California >> legislature) are it. > Not for the US as a whole. In other words, you agree that real action along this line started in California, when Reagan was governor, at his initiative. > You're still trying to cling to the myth, because > you're a partisan liar. One last four-letter word you need to drop: "liar." And "partisan" cuts both ways.

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167773194.927561.197550@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid >> liberal belief that economically displaced persons >> comprise any appreciable part of the homeless >> population at all. It's just unsupported myth. > > And an "unsupported myth" supported by just about by one or another > reporter / columnist in every media in this country (INCLUDING in the > Los Angeles Daily News article which initiated this discussion thread), The trouble is that these "reporters" see only what they want to see and are largely unqualified to see the real problem. That is that the majority of the homeless suffer from mental illness. It has been the LEFT (represented by the media and ACLU) that has insisted that these people be turned out on the streets to fend for themselves when they can't, instead of being safe and well cared for in institutions. The insane rarely want to be locked in rubber rooms, that isn't the point, the point is that is where they are usually safest and best cared for.

In ba.general Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote: ... > Nope. You are a partisan liar, little leftist > "merlin". You have your comfy little hate-based myth, (Plonk)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... > In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > >> > > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| > > Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. Great - he will have a lot more bums.

"Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. >> >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. > > Great - he will have a lot more bums. Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some Republicans don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where it did not exist before. We see proof of how the opposite doesn't work in how Reagan's cuts in social programs in the early 1980s caused America's national debt to grow from $1 trillion to $4 trillion. By cutting social programs like subsidized college, it seemed on paper like it would save the government money, but in reality it cost the government more money.

"Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... > "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message > news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > > > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... > >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > >> > >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > >> >> > >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| > >> > >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. > > > > Great - he will have a lot more bums. > > Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some Republicans > don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means > they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where it > did not exist before. Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... >> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message >> news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... >> > >> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... >> >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| >> >> >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. >> > >> > Great - he will have a lot more bums. >> >> Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some > Republicans >> don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means >> they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where > it >> did not exist before. > Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who > place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy". Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:emu78n$et5$2@blue.rahul.net... > In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > > > "Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... > >> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message > >> news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > >> > > >> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > >> > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... > >> >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in > >> >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering > >> >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest stipend. > >> >> >> > >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O| > >> >> > >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. > >> > > >> > Great - he will have a lot more bums. > >> > >> Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some > > Republicans > >> don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means > >> they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where > > it > >> did not exist before. > > > Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who > > place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy". > > Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the > underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts. I never said ALL of them were, but most of them clearly are. Get a clue, Mervin.

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:emu78n$et5$2@blue.rahul.net... >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: >> >> > "Economics" <economy@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > news:BJGdnfcJq-XjbQzYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message >> >> news:d8ca6$4591e65c$45035f0d$8913@msgid.meganewsservers.com... >> >> > >> >> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:emrq3v$eht$4@blue.rahul.net... >> >> >> In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net&g t; wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > news:1167105893.401272.148780@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com.. . >> >> >> >> President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in >> >> >> >> Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering >> >> >> >> street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest > stipend. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. > :O| >> >> >> >> >> >> Chavez has a lot more money than SF does. >> >> > >> >> > Great - he will have a lot more bums. >> >> >> >> Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some >> > Republicans >> >> don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass > means >> >> they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth > where >> > it >> >> did not exist before. >> >> > Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts > who >> > place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the > economy". >> >> Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the >> underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts. > I never said ALL of them were, but most of them clearly are. Get a clue, > Mervin. OK, delete "all:" "Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees most of the underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts." Happy now?

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > There are three main groups of homeless: > substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by > choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; > and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and > figurative banana peel. > > Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group > is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist > system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. > That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* > one, and while an inadequate safety net may be > implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole > story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent > families in which the couple are legally married > contained in this group. You do get some number of > single women with children, but we're not talking > professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid > off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work; > rather, they consist of never-married women who had > children out of wedlock, have little education and > almost no skills. These women made choices, and they > were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that > his group is the smallest one among all homeless. > > The first and second groups have a considerable > overlap, because long term substance abuse which may > have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness > and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining. > > It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people. > At one time a lot of them were involuntarily > hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy > administration undertook initiatives to get people out > of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed > for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and > return them to communities to be treated on an > outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and > wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who > formerly would have been confined are out and about, > and because we're a free society we don't compel them > to participate in programs if they don't want to > participate. > > Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able > people who disable themselves through chronic and acute > substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't > available to them to deal with their substance abuse. > If they won't avail themselves of these programs and > CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for > themselves, why should society have some obligation to > feed and house them? Answer: we don't. Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts.

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:en1404$vqj$1@blue.rahul.net... > > What fraction do you think are in each group, given > that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2? > And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional- > ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor > of California, and then moved to national policy. The > idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic > medications, which made it possible to control the > chronically mentally ill without physical confinement. > The original plan was that storefront locations would be > widely available so that they could get their medications > conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was > easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood > treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the > medication became somewhat difficult and of course many > who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we > have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are > mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not > getting it. The whole problem with this scheme was that liberals (and unfortunately, quite a few conservatives as well) assumed that people who were psychotic would take their medication voluntarily, without any need for supervision. Unlike most people who suffer some type of affliction, mentally ill people generally don't recognize that they are sick. As Mona Charen pointed out in her book "DO-GOODERS - How Liberals Hurt Those they claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)" (ISBN 1-59523-003-3) in a discussion about violent mentally ill people on the streets of NYC: "A series of liberal initiatives made treating the homeless mentally ill difficult to impossible. Involuntary commitment laws in many states were diluted to the point that a psychotic person would have to be caught in a violent act in order to be hospitalized without his or her consent. New York's law was particularly narrow, making it nearly impossible to hospitalize the mentally ill unless they requested it The catch-22, of course, was that the nature of the illness made many schizophrenics deny that they were mentally ill..."

"Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:7fbdc$45963f02$45035f0d$9043@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> There are three main groups of homeless: >> substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by >> choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; >> and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and >> figurative banana peel. >> >> Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group >> is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist >> system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. >> That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental illness occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary and are resolved when the person rests up and stops ignoring the physical ailments that need to be addressed. Often a person in this condition is dwelling on a personal problem too much, while at the same time ignoring and neglecting a real physical problem (flu, serious stomach viruses, extreme exhaustion, malnutrition, nerve damage due to a prior car crash thats causing extreme pain or discomfort, or any physical; illness, ailment or injury. Various psychology terms have no meaning because they have been tossed around so much for so little reason. The Catholic Church has long taught people to ignore the psychology field along with its confusing, complicated terms. Some people try to turn the psychology field into their "religion" while most people stick with their own religion and culture. d while an inadequate safety net may be >> implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole >> story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent >> families in which the couple are legally married >> contained in this group. You do get some number of >> single women with children, but we're not talking >> professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid >> off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work; >> rather, they consist of never-married women who had >> children out of wedlock, have little education and >> almost no skills. These women made choices, and they >> were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that >> his group is the smallest one among all homeless. >> >> The first and second groups have a considerable >> overlap, because long term substance abuse which may >> have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness >> and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining. >> >> It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people. >> At one time a lot of them were involuntarily >> hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy >> administration undertook initiatives to get people out >> of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed >> for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and >> return them to communities to be treated on an >> outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and >> wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who >> formerly would have been confined are out and about, >> and because we're a free society we don't compel them >> to participate in programs if they don't want to >> participate. >> >> Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able >> people who disable themselves through chronic and acute >> substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't >> available to them to deal with their substance abuse. >> If they won't avail themselves of these programs and >> CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for >> themselves, why should society have some obligation to >> feed and house them? Answer: we don't. > > Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts. > >

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote in message > news:en1404$vqj$1@blue.rahul.net... >> >> What fraction do you think are in each group, given >> that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2? >> And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional- >> ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor >> of California, and then moved to national policy. The >> idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic >> medications, which made it possible to control the >> chronically mentally ill without physical confinement. >> The original plan was that storefront locations would be >> widely available so that they could get their medications >> conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was >> easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood >> treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the >> medication became somewhat difficult and of course many >> who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we >> have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are >> mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not >> getting it. > The whole problem with this scheme was that liberals (and unfortunately, > quite a few conservatives as well) assumed that people who were psychotic > would take their medication voluntarily, without any need for supervision. > Unlike most people who suffer some type of affliction, mentally ill people > generally don't recognize that they are sick. As Mona Charen pointed out in > her book "DO-GOODERS - How Liberals Hurt Those they claim to Help (and the > Rest of Us)" (ISBN 1-59523-003-3) in a discussion about violent mentally ill > people on the streets of NYC: I don't think liberals drove this at all; as above, it was Reagan who first pushed it in California, and, as most mental health professionals (unlike those in other aspects of health) tend to be liberal, putting all those docs, nurses, and attendants at mental hospitals out of jobs was not popular with the Left. Plus it was Reagan's idea which in itself was probably sufficient to secure the opposition of liberals. As far as taking medication...I'm far from an expert, but I've been told that patients, when on their anti-psychotic medication, recognize the need to keep taking it and, if convenient, will do so. However if they ever get off, they indeed don't recognize that they are having a problem and will probably not take medication even if put in front of them. > "A series of liberal initiatives made treating the homeless mentally ill > difficult to impossible. Involuntary commitment laws in many states were > diluted to the point that a psychotic person would have to be caught in a > violent act in order to be hospitalized without his or her consent. New > York's law was particularly narrow, making it nearly impossible to > hospitalize the mentally ill unless they requested it The catch-22, of > course, was that the nature of the illness made many schizophrenics deny > that they were mentally ill..." There is a real issue here. There were (and are) serious problems with people being involuntarily committed because their relatives, physicians, etc., find them a nuisance and a bother, and ask the authorities to have them declared mentally incompetent and committed. Hence the drive to make it more difficult to commit a person against their will. Frankly I'm amazed that conservatives are on the other side of this issue. What could be a more intrusive government act than to deprive a person of liberty without extensive due process? Shouldn't individuals be permitted all sorts of annoying, irrational, pointless behavior without being deprived of liberty, as long as they are not a danger to themselves or others: proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That would seem to me to be the proper position for conservatives who want individuals, not government, to be responsible for the way people behave.

In ba.general Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote: > Merlin Dorfman wrote: ... >> And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional- >> ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor >> of California, and then moved to national policy. > That's an absolute falsehood, and it is THE MOST widely > repeated falsehood about homelessness. It did *NOT* > start under Reagan as governor of California, and > Reagan as president had nothing whatever to do with it. If you want to go back to the very beginnings, it was in the 1950s: http://www.sfhsn.org/downloads/documents/issues/hsn_iss_oth_tolve_08-15-01.pdf "The push for non-profit integration into social services began in earnest with the mental health privatization movement of the 1950s. While nongovernmental organizations like the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) had long provided services in conjunction with the City, demand for non-profit services rose markedly after a watershed piece of Californian legislation: the Short-Doyle Act of 1957. Designed to inject a greater level of humanity into the treatment of mentally ill patients and to increase competition between local government and private organizations, the Short-Doyle Act ended the policy of incarcerating mentally ill patients and demanded a greater utilization of CBOs. The Short-Doyle Act stipulated that each county should utilize available private and non-profit mental health resources and facilities in the county prior to developing new county-operated services." Kennedy did indeed sign a Federal law that spoke in this same vein, based presumably on his observations of how his sister was treated in mental institutions: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/resources/timeline.html "1963 * President Kennedy, in an address to Congress, calls for a reduction, 'over a number of years, and by hundreds of thousands, [in the number] of persons confined' to residential institutions, and he asks that methods be found 'to retain in and return to the community the mentally ill and mentally retarded, and there to restore and revitalize their lives through better health programs and strengthened educational and rehabilitation services.' Though not labeled such at the time, this is a call for deinstitutionalization and increased community services. * Congress passes the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Health Centers Construction Act, authorizing federal grants for the construction of public and private non-profit community mental health centers." But as far as I can tell, nothing really came of this in terms of concrete appropriation of funds, implementing laws, etc. It was just an expression of a viewpoiont. The first real implementation was in California under Reagan. I'm not guessing, I lived in California then (as now), and I remember this, and that it did not follow on federal inititiatives or programs in other states: http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/article45.htm "How did it get to be this way? The short answer is 'deinstitutionalization.' During the 1960s, many people began accusing the state mental hospitals of violating the civil rights of patients. Some families did, of course, commit incorrigible teenagers or eccentric relatives to years of involuntary confinement and unspeakable treatment. Nurse Ratched, the sadistic nurse famously portrayed in the book and film 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest,' became a symbol of institutional indifference to the mentally ill. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. ... The LPS Act emptied out the state's mental hospitals but resulted in an explosion of homelessness. Legislators never provided enough money for community-based programs to provide treatment and shelter. Even the most modest programs encountered local resistance. 'No neighborhood wanted the mentally ill living among them,' recalled former state Sen. Tom Bates. Lanterman later expressed regret at the way the law was carried out. 'I wanted the law to help the mentally ill,' he said. 'I never meant for it to prevent those who need care from receiving it.' But that's exactly what happened for three decades." ... >> Just as >> the great majority of bankruptcies are not due to spending >> sprees but to medical bills, unemployment, divorce or other >> family crisis, > You don't have any support whatever for that claim. It > may or may not be true, but *YOU* don't have any > support for it; you're just repeating a belief you hold. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html "Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds February 3, 2005 Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children. Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most. Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care. The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records. Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: 'Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.' Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays, and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer had average medical debts of $35,878." This study shows a correlation between bankruptcy and divorce, but stops short of a cause-and-effect conclusion: http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs/articles/docs/abi01sepnumbers.html "This is why studies about the causes of bankruptcy provide ambiguous or insufficient guidance for answering bankruptcy policy questions. The data always require interpretations that include a set of assumptions that go beyond the numbers themselves. Given different assumptions, the numbers will be interpreted differently. If we assume that there is less shame in society than there used to be, we are likely to interpret statistics regarding debt, divorce and bankruptcy differently than if we assume otherwise, but the current data don't prove the assumption either way. Our attitudes about debtors and about appropriate legal changes are, nevertheless, guided by our assumptions as well as our interpretations of the data." And here's the American Bankers Association, crowing about the atrocious bankruptcy "reform" of 2005: http://www.aba.com/Press+Room/100306bankruptcyreformeffects.htm "Divorce, job loss and illness - the most common causes of bankruptcy - will continue to drive bankruptcy filings." A bankruptcy lawyer is hardly the best source of unbiased information, but on the other hand they do see a lot of bankrupt people, so they probably know the truth (whether they choose to tell it or not). Note the sequence of "leading causes:" http://www.ifyouneedhelp.com/causes.html "Causes of Bankruptcy We believe it is important for our clients to understand the reasons for their financial difficulties. Although bankruptcy will give you relief from your debt, if you have not solved the underlying cause of your financial problems, you are likely to run into trouble again and again. Although not scientific by any means, from our experience in the bankruptcy courts and with our clients, we have determined these are the main reasons why people file bankruptcy: 1) Job loss or income reduction is by the far the leading cause of bankruptcy. Most New Mexicans are working paycheck to paycheck, with little or no reserve in the event they are laid off or their hours are reduced... 2) Illness and divorce are probably the second leading causes of bankruptcy. Both usually take people by surprise and cause economic upheavals. 3) Predatory lending practices are common in New Mexico and bankruptcy often is the only way out for people. Among the abuses caused by creditors are mortgage loans established in a manner that prevents the principal balance from ever being reduced no matter how long payments are made. Payday loans and title loans, with interest rates of 400 to 1000% per annum also make it almost impossible for most people to pay back the loans. Bankruptcy becomes inevitable. 4) A large number of New Mexico bankruptcies have to do with obsessive- compulsive behaviors. This disorder manifests as addictions to prescription and illegal drugs, gambling, pornography and dancers, prostitution, shopping, and alcohol. The common thread of each form of the disorder is it produces mood-altering states and the victim of the disorder remains in strong denial and refuses treatment. The disorder tends to be chronic, escalating, and produces withdrawal symptoms when the behavior is suddenly stopped. Victims of this disorder continue with their destructive behaviors even after suffering negative consequences. In fact, the negative consequences of their addiction often trigger more destructive behavior and the victim spirals downward. Needless to say, if you do not get help with the underlying disorder, bankruptcy will only offer a short-term solution to your problems."

"History" <history@nospam.net> wrote in message news:hNOdnV5q7pGVqArYnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message > news:7fbdc$45963f02$45035f0d$9043@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> There are three main groups of homeless: > >> substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by > >> choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; > >> and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and > >> figurative banana peel. > >> > >> Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group > >> is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist > >> system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. > >> That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* > > > That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental illness > occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor > nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary You clearly know nothing about mental illness.

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message news:jexlh.8778$X72.8414@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Stan de SD wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > > news:MFTkh.7925$X72.5062@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> There are three main groups of homeless: > >> substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by > >> choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care; > >> and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and > >> figurative banana peel. > >> > >> Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group > >> is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist > >> system with an inadequate safety net is at fault. > >> That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest* > >> one, and while an inadequate safety net may be > >> implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole > >> story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent > >> families in which the couple are legally married > >> contained in this group. You do get some number of > >> single women with children, but we're not talking > >> professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid > >> off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work; > >> rather, they consist of never-married women who had > >> children out of wedlock, have little education and > >> almost no skills. These women made choices, and they > >> were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that > >> his group is the smallest one among all homeless. > >> > >> The first and second groups have a considerable > >> overlap, because long term substance abuse which may > >> have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness > >> and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining. > >> > >> It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people. > >> At one time a lot of them were involuntarily > >> hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy > >> administration undertook initiatives to get people out > >> of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed > >> for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and > >> return them to communities to be treated on an > >> outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and > >> wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who > >> formerly would have been confined are out and about, > >> and because we're a free society we don't compel them > >> to participate in programs if they don't want to > >> participate. > >> > >> Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able > >> people who disable themselves through chronic and acute > >> substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't > >> available to them to deal with their substance abuse. > >> If they won't avail themselves of these programs and > >> CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for > >> themselves, why should society have some obligation to > >> feed and house them? Answer: we don't. > > > > Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts. > > I always do that. You, uh, frequently don't. Show me where I don't...

In ba.general Stan de SD <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote: > "History" <history@nospam.net> wrote in message > news:hNOdnV5q7pGVqArYnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com... ... >> That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental > illness >> occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor >> nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary > You clearly know nothing about mental illness. Although I have heard it said that the average neurosis will clear up by itself in two years, or, if helped by psychiatric treatment, in four years :-)

In ba.general Rudy Canoza <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote: > Merlin Dorfman wrote: ... >> If you can lay off the four-letter words for a few minutes, >> there is a later message in this thread that addresses the >> question. If you are looking for the ultimate original idea >> for de-institutionalization, you have to go back to the 1950s. > The actual governmental action was a product of the > Kennedy administration. A law was passed. Little or nothing happened, because no funding came with it. I can tell you first-hand that nothing happened in California, and I gave you references to that effect. Things began to happen in California after Reagan became governor, of course with the cooperation of the legislature. Other states followed--Reagan can't be blamed for that, just for the idea of state initiative and funding. I never said he did anything along this line as president, it was all over by then. >> If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and >> mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California >> legislature) are it. > Not for the US as a whole. In other words, you agree that real action along this line started in California, when Reagan was governor, at his initiative. > You're still trying to cling to the myth, because > you're a partisan liar. One last four-letter word you need to drop: "liar." And "partisan" cuts both ways.

"Barry Schier" <bschier@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167773194.927561.197550@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid >> liberal belief that economically displaced persons >> comprise any appreciable part of the homeless >> population at all. It's just unsupported myth.