T1B

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 4:55 pm**

Fatten them up in pens, and then feed them to the homeless.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 4:57 pm**

Poverty sucks?

So does laziness.

So does an unwillingness to accept help.

So does drug addiction.

So does Alcoholism.

So does craziness.

Plenty of contributing factors. Don't be so quick to blame poverty. Poverty is the result, not the reason.

I saw an interview with a local homeless guy. Said he'd been on the street 33 years.

33 years and you can't find a job, or a hand up? Bullshit. Dude likes his drink, and doesn't mind the street so much.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:03 pm**

Headhunter wrote:So does craziness.

I'll say!!
Back in upstate NY
we were
out of control
But at least we
kept our
craziness to
a manageable
level
Crazy!!

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:30 pm**

Allow the government to seize larger houses and ship the owner off to a labour camp.

Install the homeless into said houses.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:53 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:But then what do you do about them?

'Round these parts, we're no strangers to homeless. Some of the highest concentrations to be found anywhere.

And as a first course of action, we make sure they have something to eat. For the short cold season, we make sure they have gloves and blankets and whatnot.

The majority of them are mentally ill, and funding for housing/treatment for the nutcases is dwindling. Informal surveys show that many, if not most have tried to support themselves by working, but that doesn't always go well for mentally ill people.

Just comes down to how strong a moral obligation people feel to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. I know two different people who have started nonprofits to do just that. The big obstacle is that it's hard to walk a mile in the shoes of a crazy person, so empathy is hard to come by. But if you at least take care of the immediate physical needs like warmth and food, the crime associated with homeless goes way down, and becomes mostly limited to homeless-on-homeless crime.

Guess it goes to that whole "Judge Not," and that Good Samaritan dude.

I never give money to a homeless person, though. If I'm approached, I'll buy them something to eat at the burrito stand, or something. I think it's a good idea to remove the decision-,aking associated with the money from their hands(they did end up on the street, after all, so financial planning probably isn't their strong suit). If they don't want my charity in the form of food, then to heck with them.

That's the World According to Dinsdale.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:54 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:Plenty of contributing factors. Don't be so quick to blame poverty. Poverty is the result, not the reason.
Phrase it how you want to. But then what do you do about them?

Multi tiered question.

A good portion of the homeless are crazy.

Another portion are addicts.

Lock 'em up and get them help. Go from there.

Then you have the lazy...

Fuck 'em. Offer them the opportunity to help themselves. If they continue to refuse, imprison them for repeated trespassing. Lazy no good fuckers will do just enough to stay out of jail.

I'm all for a hand up. Helping those who need our compassion. As for the lazy fucks? Screw them. I've seen these fuckers turn down food, jobs, etc. Bottom line is that sometime "homeless" is a choice. By enabling them to create tent cities you make it harder to discern between those who genuinely need help, and those who are essentially lazy criminals.

Let me ask you a question, JSC. If you lost everything and everyone you cared about. I mean everything. No family. No friends. No money. Just the clothes on your back, and you don't know a soul on this planet. How long would you be homeless?

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:59 pm**

Headhunter wrote:Let me ask you a question, JSC. If you lost everything and everyone you cared about. I mean everything. No family. No friends. No money. Just the clothes on your back, and you don't know a soul on this planet. How long would you be homeless?

Shouldn’t take all that long before he’d have a room here:

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:02 pm**

Not without insurance, he wouldn't.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm**

I thought that is was no longer Homeless but Housing Impaired and that it was a disability....

I could be wrong though...

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:14 pm**

A good portion of the homeless are crazy.

Another portion are addicts.

Lock 'em up and get them help. Go from there.

Then you have the lazy...

Fuck 'em. Offer them the opportunity to help themselves. If they continue to refuse, imprison them for repeated trespassing. Lazy no good fuckers will do just enough to stay out of jail.

Ahh, Tejanos...they've never seen an empty acre that didn't have "future prison" written on it.

Do you have any idea what kind of public services you're describing with the bolded parts above? As a reminder - Reagan's administration eliminated all sorts of funding - exactly like what you're describing above - and turned the fuckers loose in the streets, crazies, addicts, disabled veterans, and the lazy alike.

Can I really be reading a Texan asking for increased state and federal expenditures so glibly? Who's supposed to pay for that, cowboy?

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:15 pm**

Headhunter wrote:Not without insurance, he wouldn't.

Seriously? Around these parts he would. The uninsured regularly show up in our emergency rooms with issues that would otherwise be taken care of with an office visit. I don't believe the hospitals have the option of refusing care in anything remotely approaching an emergency. I'm sure that has nothing to do with skyrocketing costs.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:24 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Headhunter wrote:Not without insurance, he wouldn't.
Seriously? Around these parts he would. The uninsured regularly show up in our emergency rooms with issues that would otherwise be taken care of with an office visit. I don't believe the hospitals have the option of refusing care in anything remotely approaching an emergency. I'm sure that has nothing to do with skyrocketing costs.

Emergencies are one thing. Proper aftercare is a whole other ballgame. Why do you think there had to be a law passed banning outpatient mastectomies?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A960958260

Just wait until you have a stroke and the docs decide you're no longer "viable". Then see how long you can stay in a hospital.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:33 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Headhunter wrote:Not without insurance, he wouldn't.
Seriously? Around these parts he would. The uninsured regularly show up in our emergency rooms with issues that would otherwise be taken care of with an office visit. I don't believe the hospitals have the option of refusing care in anything remotely approaching an emergency. I'm sure that has nothing to do with skyrocketing costs.
Emergencies are one thing. Proper aftercare is a whole other ballgame. Why do you think there had to be a law passed banning outpatient mastectomies?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A960958260

Just wait until you have a stroke and the docs decide you're no longer "viable". Then see how long you can stay in a hospital.

Not sure why you chose to respond to my post, since your article had nothing to do with the uninsured, and everything to do with HMOs (read: health insurance).

I’ve been in local emergency rooms and watched people with no insurance be admitted because they have a nasty cough or a sore back.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:44 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Not sure why you chose to respond to my post, since your article had nothing to do with the uninsured, and everything to do with HMOs (read: health insurance).

I’ve been in local emergency rooms and watched people with no insurance be admitted because they have a nasty cough or a sore back.

My point is that the uninsured have even fewer options when it comes to aftercare. You may have seen those people admitted. But once their condition had been "stabilized", they were shown the door.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:49 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:
A good portion of the homeless are crazy.

Another portion are addicts.

Lock 'em up and get them help. Go from there.

Then you have the lazy...

Fuck 'em. Offer them the opportunity to help themselves. If they continue to refuse, imprison them for repeated trespassing. Lazy no good fuckers will do just enough to stay out of jail.
Ahh, Tejanos...they've never seen an empty acre that didn't have "future prison" written on it.

Do you have any idea what kind of public services you're describing with the bolded parts above? As a reminder - Reagan's administration eliminated all sorts of funding - exactly like what you're describing above - and turned the fuckers loose in the streets, crazies, addicts, disabled veterans, and the lazy alike.

Can I really be reading a Texan asking for increased state and federal expenditures so glibly? Who's supposed to pay for that, cowboy?

Easy there, Skids. You'll be hard pressed to see where I said anything about Prison until I got to the part about the lazy. You'll also notice that nowhere did I mention the feds. Fuck 'em. That should be a local issue. Starting at county, then on to State. See, a little mental health care can go a long way. As to who pays for them? Well, we can take care of that ourselves. So can Pennsylvania, and any other state.

And just because Reagan eliminated a "Federal" program, does not mean it doesn't have value at the State/Local level. It'd be nice if you folks would learn how to eliminate the term "federal funding" when looking to take care of your own. Gigantic federal programs are not the answer.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:53 pm**

The ones with one leg and crutches and look like death warmed over I have sympathy for. The ones who look good enough to flip burgers or come up with some lame-ass excuse like "I need gas money to get home" or "I need money for toilet paper" (no joke, I actually heard that one) I have nothing for. Always seems, though, they've got money for smokes and hooch.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:53 pm**

Headhunter wrote:And just because Reagan eliminated a "Federal" program, does not mean it doesn't have value at the State/Local level. It'd be nice if you folks would learn how to eliminate the term "federal funding" when looking to take care of your own. Gigantic federal programs are not the answer.

Great idea. Let's start with FEMA.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 6:58 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Not sure why you chose to respond to my post, since your article had nothing to do with the uninsured, and everything to do with HMOs (read: health insurance).

I’ve been in local emergency rooms and watched people with no insurance be admitted because they have a nasty cough or a sore back.
My point is that the uninsured have even fewer options when it comes to aftercare. You may have seen those people admitted. But once their condition had been "stabilized", they were shown the door.

Yeah, and they'll find that same door the next day for a return visit. Their aftercare is just another visit to the emergency room. If your point was "that the uninsured have even fewer options when it comes to aftercare", why did you link an article that only addressed HMOs, with no comment about the uninsured?

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:11 pm**

It'd be nice if you folks would learn how to eliminate the term "federal funding" when looking to take care of your own. Gigantic federal programs are not the answer.

I understand. Gigantic federal programs are set aside for...nation-building exercises, meaning someone else's nation.

As for the Federal government...why the hate? You're really that much more enthralled by your county commissioners and state politicians?

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:11 pm**

Headhunter wrote:Easy there, Skids. You'll be hard pressed to see where I said anything about Prison until I got to the part about the lazy. You'll also notice that nowhere did I mention the feds. Fuck 'em. That should be a local issue. Starting at county, then on to State. See, a little mental health care can go a long way. As to who pays for them? Well, we can take care of that ourselves. So can Pennsylvania, and any other state.

And just because Reagan eliminated a "Federal" program, does not mean it doesn't have value at the State/Local level. It'd be nice if you folks would learn how to eliminate the term "federal funding" when looking to take care of your own. Gigantic federal programs are not the answer.

Heartwarming post of the day.

The trashing of the Constitution that allows such top-heavy federal programs that don't work is killing this country. States and communities should decide for themselves how to deal with the problem...just like the Constitution says it should be.

A little les red tape and a lot more actual doing something would be a great first step in solving a lot of problems. Border security is actually the feds job, by definition. And find me one person who thinks they're doing a good job at that...one of the few duties the fed is actually supposed to be doing.

FEMA is a scam. Collect taxes, and allocate them to scams. Sorry, but I think Katrina and the Asian Tsunami were excellent examples of what Americans do whewn people genuinely need their help...they give until it hurts. And they do it gladly. And if the fed wasn't whacking them for such huge chunks of their income, they could afford to give a lot more, which history has shown they will...but fat cats don't get fatter that way.

If The People would get off their ass and stop letting themselves be stomped on, a wholebuncha problems would be much easier to deal with. But in our system, which has now become borderline socialism(like we spent so much fighting in previous generations), the only people who come out ahead are the ones working the system of government pork. If we did away with our new doctrine of "national offense," and imposed tariffs on imported goods(like the way it worked splendidly for the first 125 years or so in this country), and turned state's given duties back to the states, and let The People control how their money is spent, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

But instead, The People have become such complete fucking losers, that they'd rather hitch their wagon to a candidate they think is going to win, or the two-party system of self-feeding corruption, that they have no desire to get the ship righted.

Blame yourself. There's a much better way, and it's a well-proven one. But our "leaders" do their best to keep the campaign-of-fear going, so as to keep their spots atop the pecking order. Doesn't have to be that way, but I fear that only a truly cataclysmic event will wake people up...sad.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:12 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: But then what do you do about them?

Simple. Employ them all as mods in this shithole.

.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:23 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, and they'll find that same door the next day for a return visit. Their aftercare is just another visit to the emergency room.

That's not aftercare. Aftercare involves observation and treatment by hospital staff, ones primary care physician or, at the very least, a regular caregiver like a visiting nurse. What you're referring to is nothing more than periodic "band aid" care.

If your point was "that the uninsured have even fewer options when it comes to aftercare", why did you link an article that only addressed HMOs, with no comment about the uninsured?

The link was merely as a reference so that you wouldn't say that I was making up instances of "drive through" mastectomies and the resulting legal backlash. If you learned something about the plight of those facing substandard HMO coverage, then I guess that's a bonus.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:37 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, and they'll find that same door the next day for a return visit. Their aftercare is just another visit to the emergency room.
That's not aftercare. Aftercare involves observation and treatment by hospital staff, ones primary care physician or, at the very least, a regular caregiver like a visiting nurse. What you're referring to is nothing more than periodic "band aid" care.

Yeah, my original point was that the uninsured will still get admitted to my local hospitals, your non sequiturious posts notwithstanding.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:44 pm**

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/l ... 89,00.html

City wants homeless inside for convention
Emergency shelter will open during '08 Dem gathering
By Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News
May 15, 2007
Denver plans to clear downtown streets of the homeless during the Democratic National Convention here in 2008.
The city will open an emergency shelter normally used during winter deep freezes, and keep other shelters in the city open 24 hours during the August gathering. In addition, an army of outreach workers will fan out across downtown to persuade the homeless to come inside during the convention.

"Shelters will be open the entire time to make certain everyone can go inside and that the outreach folks have a place to take any person from the streets," said Roxane White, Denver's manager of human services.

White said the effort is motivated by security concerns and is not just an effort to spruce up Denver's image at a time when the city will be under a media spotlight.

Special attention will be paid to the "security zone" around the Pepsi Center, which includes the South Platte River, a favorite campground for the homeless.

For several years Denver has operated an emergency shelter during winter cold snaps. The shelter, which has been in different locations, is intended to handle overflow from the city's permanent homeless shelters.

However, the ranks of the chronically homeless have been shrinking in Denver recently, and city officials have speculated they may not need to open the emergency shelter again. But that won't be the case come 2008, when there will be an all-out effort to bring everyone inside.

"They will have to clear the security perimeter, and we have already asked that our outreach workers be involved in those efforts," said White.

Other cities that hosted national political conventions have mounted similar efforts to get the homeless off the street. Cities try to put their best face forward during the events, which bring swarms of national media.

Denver's commission to end homelessness met Monday to approve revisions to its 10-year plan.

In the past two years, the group has moved hundreds of people into housing and treatment programs.

The commission soon will appeal to dozens of downtown restaurants to hire the homeless.

"Our goal is to have a way to reestablish the work ethic and get (the homeless) plugged into an industry that has a demand for them," said Deborah Ortega, director of the commission

The commission soon will appeal to dozens of downtown restaurants to hire the homeless.

WTF? Now they want the Homeless to do those jobs that Illegal Aliens won't do.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:48 pm**

put me down for the extension cords and trash can lid solution, with a slight modification.

You need a wider choice of weaponry. I would include car antennas as a substitute for extension cords.

I would have bum wars in addition to one on one fights. You could have moped riding cavalry. It'd be like fukking bum rollerball.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:52 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, my original point was that the uninsured will still get admitted to my local hospitals, your non sequiturious posts notwithstanding.

Talk about non sequiters. You're the one who proposed that the homeless and uninsured could all but kick their feet up in comfort at any one of the local hospitals in Madison. Maybe that's true in Madison (I doubt it), but I can tell you that is nowhere near the truth just about anywhere else in America. I've been in ERs here in Rochester and you have to be pretty fucked up to get admitted. They are not admitting people here with "nasty coughs" or "sore backs". Those people get a few tests, some drugs and a pat on the back as they walk out the door.

In fact, back to the original question about JSC, his chances of getting care (much less being able to sponge a free room) in Louisiana hospitals as an uninsured person will go down even more if the state sells another 6 charity hospitals to private interests.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repo ... R_ID=44982

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:17 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Yeah, my original point was that the uninsured will still get admitted to my local hospitals, your non sequiturious posts notwithstanding.
Talk about non sequiters. You're the one who proposed that the homeless and uninsured could all but kick their feet up in comfort at any one of the local hospitals in Madison. Maybe that's true in Madison (I doubt it), but I can tell you that is nowhere near the truth just about anywhere else in America.

Brian, I've witnessed it. Not saying that they stay indefinitely, but it's a known issue here that the uninsured use our emergency rooms in place of regular office visits. It's been covered here in the news. But feel free to chime in with some article about HMOs only covering 50% of liposuction treatments, or the percentage of dentists who sexually assault anesthetized patients.

BSmack wrote: In fact, back to the original question about JSC, his chances of getting care (much less being able to sponge a free room) in Louisiana hospitals as an uninsured person will go down even more if the state sells another 6 charity hospitals to private interests.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repo ... R_ID=44982

It doesn’t seem that cut and dried in the article, BTW.

The report stated, "The safety net of care for the uninsured should be broadened to include private hospitals for acute care and private clinics and physicians for primary care." Currently, nearly all of Louisiana's health care funding for the uninsured goes to charity hospitals.

However, Charles Zewe, a spokesperson for LSU, said, "If the Legislature does what PAR wants to do, the safety net would be dismantled." Zewe added that the recommendations are not detailed enough and are "politically unworkable"

Sounds like a recommendation from an independent group that merits further study as there is nowhere near a consensus on how that might shake out.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:34 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Brian, I've witnessed it. Not saying that they stay indefinitely, but it's a known issue here that the uninsured use our emergency rooms in place of regular office visits. It's been covered here in the news.

You have that everywhere. It's gotten to the point where around here where my HMO has a night office so their patients who need non-emergency after hours care don't have to fight their way through the hordes of uninsured at the ER. I don't deny that the uninsured are using the ERs as their primary care source. I simply wished to counter the idea that a homeless and uninsured person could wrangle a long term hospital stay without being at death's door.

But feel free to chime in with some article about HMOs only covering 50% of liposuction treatments, or the percentage of dentists who sexually assault anesthetized patients.

Nah, I'll let Michael Moore cover those angles.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:45 pm**

BSmack wrote:I simply wished to counter the idea that a homeless and uninsured person could wrangle a long term hospital stay without being at death's door.

Which is not something I ever suggested.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:57 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:But then what do you do about them?
'Round these parts, we're no strangers to homeless. Some of the highest concentrations to be found anywhere.

And as a first course of action, we make sure they have something to eat. For the short cold season, we make sure they have gloves and blankets and whatnot.

The majority of them are mentally ill, and funding for housing/treatment for the nutcases is dwindling. Informal surveys show that many, if not most have tried to support themselves by working, but that doesn't always go well for mentally ill people.

Just comes down to how strong a moral obligation people feel to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. I know two different people who have started nonprofits to do just that. The big obstacle is that it's hard to walk a mile in the shoes of a crazy person, so empathy is hard to come by. But if you at least take care of the immediate physical needs like warmth and food, the crime associated with homeless goes way down, and becomes mostly limited to homeless-on-homeless crime.

Guess it goes to that whole "Judge Not," and that Good Samaritan dude.

That's the World According to Dinsdale.

Thank you for this wise and thoughtful analysis. What I remember of Portland, wonderful as it is, is that it is more vagrant-friendly than any place I've ever been - I'd say you know something about the situation.

There was a similar discussion here recently. Sure there's maybe a few knockabouts like Otis from Mayberry, but the reason we see so many homeless, as Mvscal pointed out in that discussion, is because so many mental facilities closed in the 80s when federal funding was cut.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:59 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Gainesville

haha....

[PI]Send them to mexico. See how they like it[/PI]

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:00 pm**

What to do with them?

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:00 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack wrote:I simply wished to counter the idea that a homeless and uninsured person could wrangle a long term hospital stay without being at death's door.

Which is not something I ever suggested.

Then maybe you could explain this:

Goober McTuber wrote:
Headhunter wrote:Let me ask you a question, JSC. If you lost everything and everyone you cared about. I mean everything. No family. No friends. No money. Just the clothes on your back, and you don't know a soul on this planet. How long would you be homeless?
Shouldn’t take all that long before he’d have a room here:

It sure does imply that the homeless just need to belly up to their local hospital for a free room and some hot meals.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:05 pm**

Mr T wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:Gainesville
haha....

[PI]Send them to mexico. See how they like it[/PI]

wouldn't it be nice if we could have an exchange program? Sure we'll take that wetback: say hello to this here annoying street lunatic.

I'll bet they'd help us build that wall.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:18 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack wrote:I simply wished to counter the idea that a homeless and uninsured person could wrangle a long term hospital stay without being at death's door.

Which is not something I ever suggested.
Then maybe you could explain this:

Goober McTuber wrote:
Headhunter wrote:Let me ask you a question, JSC. If you lost everything and everyone you cared about. I mean everything. No family. No friends. No money. Just the clothes on your back, and you don't know a soul on this planet. How long would you be homeless?
Shouldn’t take all that long before he’d have a room here:

It sure does imply that the homeless just need to belly up to their local hospital for a free room and some hot meals.

Jesus Fucking Christ. It was a joking reference to jsc’s health issues. And as serious as his have been, he would have gotten a room. I never said how long he might stay there.

Obese and obtuse. Yeah, you’ve really got it going on.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 10:05 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:it's hard to walk a mile in the shoes of a crazy person

'specially when you're tryin' to wear 'em on your hands.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 10:56 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:it's hard to walk a mile in the shoes of a crazy person
'specially when you're tryin' to wear 'em on your hands.

Rack it.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 12:00 am**

Get a goddamn job. You've got a negative attitude. That's what's stopping you. You've got to get your act together. I'll help you.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 12:40 am**

Patrick Bateman wrote:Get a goddamn job. You've got a negative attitude. That's what's stopping you. You've got to get your act together. I'll help you.

RACK this great troll.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 12:52 am**

Raydah James wrote:RACK this great troll.

^^^ off this diarreah of the mouth spewing shit poster, once and for all.

T1B

What to do with the homeless?

Re: What to do with the homeless?

Re: What to do with the homeless?