Announcement

Collapse

WCI Course Sale!

Fire Your Financial Advisor and Continuing Financial Education 2020 are on sale now through midnight MDT on July 13, 2020. Purchase either at 10% off and also get CFE2018, the Park City conference course, for FREE!
www.whitecoatinvestor.com/FYFASale
www.whitecoatinvestor.com/CFESale
See more
See less

Medical Convention Cancels on San Francisco Because Its Streets Are So Distressi

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ENT Doc
    replied







    The poop saga continues:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/san-francisco-poop-patrollers-make-185000

    “…the poop patrolers earn $71,760 a year, which swells to $184,678 with mandated benefits.”
    Click to expand…


    This is unreal.  Would the homeless people of San Francisco move off the streets is offered free housing?  There may not be much housing available in the city, but surely there are houses in some parts of California that sit empty.  Why not put a person in there?  Maybe if we met their basic needs they could focus on getting jobs or contributing to society as a whole.  Something tells me its not so simple and I’ve over simplified the issues.
    Click to expand...


    Homelessness is a multifactorial problem, as is poverty.  Throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it.

    Leave a comment:


  • FunkDoc83
    replied




    The poop saga continues:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/san-francisco-poop-patrollers-make-185000

    “…the poop patrolers earn $71,760 a year, which swells to $184,678 with mandated benefits.”
    Click to expand...


    This is unreal.  Would the homeless people of San Francisco move off the streets is offered free housing?  There may not be much housing available in the city, but surely there are houses in some parts of California that sit empty.  Why not put a person in there?  Maybe if we met their basic needs they could focus on getting jobs or contributing to society as a whole.  Something tells me its not so simple and I've over simplified the issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • CordMcNally
    replied




    The poop saga continues:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/san-francisco-poop-patrollers-make-185000

    “…the poop patrolers earn $71,760 a year, which swells to $184,678 with mandated benefits.”
    Click to expand...


    Only in California is this a real job and that is the total benefits package.

    Leave a comment:


  • ENT Doc
    replied
    The poop saga continues:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/san-francisco-poop-patrollers-make-185000

    "...the poop patrolers earn $71,760 a year, which swells to $184,678 with mandated benefits."

    Leave a comment:


  • portlandia
    replied
    It appears the intrepid and brilliant new mayor of San Fran has a solution to the dirty streets problem-tell people to clean up their "s*#t, literally. Ok, problem solved. I wonder why the previous mayor didn't think of that?

    https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Mayor-Theres-more-feces-on-the-sidewalks-than-Ive-ever-seen-488156431.html

    I hope she cures cancer next by telling it to stop being so "cancer-y".

    Leave a comment:


  • wideopenspaces
    replied
    I definitely agree with Lithium. I don't think a lot of these people need to be at the State Hospital, but they do require case management and a lot of services including health care, housing assistance, voc rehab, etc. This is expensive so I doubt it will change. The VA does a really good job caring for severely and persistently mentally ill vets. I worked on a team that provided intensive case management, in home mental health visits on a weekly or monthly basis, specialty medical care, all types of housing options, employment assistance, therapy, and social skills training and outings. It was awesome and a it was so interesting to see what people were capable of when given the proper level of support. I don't think many community programs provide this service any more and it's really unfortunate.

    Leave a comment:


  • portlandia
    replied




    I don’t think deinstitutionalization is bad in theory, but it looks like state governments have used it to escape the obligation to fund mental health services, as the funding for “outpatient treatment” to make deinstitutionalization viable has never been delivered.  I think the vast majority of these people could function at a basic level if they had supported housing and employment, widely available counseling and medications, insurance coverage, and could avoid drugs.  Some patients of course are so psychotic that they need to be in a hospital for a year or more to even take meds and stabilize on them.  If this is offered to competent patients and they reject it in favor of antisocial behavior and addiction, I’m fine with letting them end up in prison.  The problem with the asylum is that patients get too comfortable with the idea of being sick (also an issue with prison).  But really, anything is better than what we have now, which is drastically underfunding both institutions and community services.
    Click to expand...


    State governments loved the idea of closing/scaling back the state funded mental hospitals in favor of an outpatient model paid for, in part, by federal dollars. In the end, as you note, appropriate treatment was not delivered and results have been terrible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lithium
    replied









    Tens of thousands have traded in their homes for “wheel estate.” They are “the Okies of the Great Recession”: grandparents living in school buses and vans seeking seasonal work cleaning toilets at campgrounds, picking blueberries in Kentucky, sometimes for wages, sometimes for just a parking spot — “not necessarily paved but hopefully level.”



    Click to expand…


    And these people are by and large not a problem.  They’re just poor, not anti-social (much less dangerous), and poverty isn’t a crime and is something we can (and should!) help them with.




    It used to be that the proper disposal of human waste was seen as a moral good as well as a sign of an advanced civilization, owing to its hugely beneficial effects on public health. Sadly, now it appears that the tolerance of public defecation is a bizarre badge of sophistication and moral virtue.
    Click to expand…


    It’s bigger than that:  it’s the bizarre idea that we the general public are obligated to tolerate all sorts of frankly anti-social behavior in the name of “personal freedom.”  I call BS:  there is no legitimate “right” to be free to behave in public in frankly antisocial ways.  No one, whatever their mental state, has the “right’ to be openly drunk, stoned, or high in public, to be shooting up drugs in public (and then discarding their needles on the sidewalks and streets), to be floridly psychotic in public, to behave aggressively or threateningly toward passerby, to relieve oneself on the public streets and parks, or to trash public facilities (such as fountains and public bathrooms – that is why SF has few public toilets, they removed them because junkies were shooting up in them, prostitutes were turning tricks in them, and mental patients were turning them over and spilling the contents out).

    Make it crystal-clear to EVERYONE that such behavior is completely unacceptable and WILL result in incarceration (in either prison or a mental institution), and the problem will quickly become much smaller and much more manageable.  Simple poverty we can deal with without too much trouble, and it by itself won’t drive away visitors (who spend money when they visit the city) or sane working-class or middle class locals (who pay taxes, but don’t have enough money to insulate themselves completely from street-level problems the way the ultra-rich can, and who therefore can only cope with the issue by moving and taking their tax money with them). It’s the anti-social behavior that needs to be stopped ASAP.
    Click to expand…


    Agreed.

    It is estimated that 25% of the homeless population suffers from severe mental illness, the kind that makes caring for yourself extremely unlikely/impossible. These people used to be cared for in mental hospitals, but since the 50s and accelerating after the 1963 Community Mental Health Act, these people have been turned out of these institutions to fend for themselves while receiving “outpatient treatment”. The results of this 50+ year social experiment have not been good-neither for the mentally ill nor for society. Many end up homeless, acting out in antisocial ways that destroy the quality of public spaces. These folks are also not receiving any sort of meaningful treatment, so the chance to carry on a life with dignity and purpose is extremely low.

    So what is the answer? I would like to hear the psychiatrists chime in on this, but it seems to me that these folks should be institutionalized. There, they would receive treatment and 3 square meals a day with the goal of trying to reintegrate them into society, but short of that, at least allowing them to live with dignity while protecting the public from the anti-social behaviors we all abhor.
    Click to expand...


    I don't think deinstitutionalization is bad in theory, but it looks like state governments have used it to escape the obligation to fund mental health services, as the funding for "outpatient treatment" to make deinstitutionalization viable has never been delivered.  I think the vast majority of these people could function at a basic level if they had supported housing and employment, widely available counseling and medications, insurance coverage, and could avoid drugs.  Some patients of course are so psychotic that they need to be in a hospital for a year or more to even take meds and stabilize on them.  If this is offered to competent patients and they reject it in favor of antisocial behavior and addiction, I'm fine with letting them end up in prison.  The problem with the asylum is that patients get too comfortable with the idea of being sick (also an issue with prison).  But really, anything is better than what we have now, which is drastically underfunding both institutions and community services.

    Leave a comment:


  • portlandia
    replied






    Tens of thousands have traded in their homes for “wheel estate.” They are “the Okies of the Great Recession”: grandparents living in school buses and vans seeking seasonal work cleaning toilets at campgrounds, picking blueberries in Kentucky, sometimes for wages, sometimes for just a parking spot — “not necessarily paved but hopefully level.”



    Click to expand…


    And these people are by and large not a problem.  They’re just poor, not anti-social (much less dangerous), and poverty isn’t a crime and is something we can (and should!) help them with.




    It used to be that the proper disposal of human waste was seen as a moral good as well as a sign of an advanced civilization, owing to its hugely beneficial effects on public health. Sadly, now it appears that the tolerance of public defecation is a bizarre badge of sophistication and moral virtue.
    Click to expand…


    It’s bigger than that:  it’s the bizarre idea that we the general public are obligated to tolerate all sorts of frankly anti-social behavior in the name of “personal freedom.”  I call BS:  there is no legitimate “right” to be free to behave in public in frankly antisocial ways.  No one, whatever their mental state, has the “right’ to be openly drunk, stoned, or high in public, to be shooting up drugs in public (and then discarding their needles on the sidewalks and streets), to be floridly psychotic in public, to behave aggressively or threateningly toward passerby, to relieve oneself on the public streets and parks, or to trash public facilities (such as fountains and public bathrooms – that is why SF has few public toilets, they removed them because junkies were shooting up in them, prostitutes were turning tricks in them, and mental patients were turning them over and spilling the contents out).

    Make it crystal-clear to EVERYONE that such behavior is completely unacceptable and WILL result in incarceration (in either prison or a mental institution), and the problem will quickly become much smaller and much more manageable.  Simple poverty we can deal with without too much trouble, and it by itself won’t drive away visitors (who spend money when they visit the city) or sane working-class or middle class locals (who pay taxes, but don’t have enough money to insulate themselves completely from street-level problems the way the ultra-rich can, and who therefore can only cope with the issue by moving and taking their tax money with them). It’s the anti-social behavior that needs to be stopped ASAP.
    Click to expand...


    Agreed.

    It is estimated that 25% of the homeless population suffers from severe mental illness, the kind that makes caring for yourself extremely unlikely/impossible. These people used to be cared for in mental hospitals, but since the 50s and accelerating after the 1963 Community Mental Health Act, these people have been turned out of these institutions to fend for themselves while receiving "outpatient treatment". The results of this 50+ year social experiment have not been good-neither for the mentally ill nor for society. Many end up homeless, acting out in antisocial ways that destroy the quality of public spaces. These folks are also not receiving any sort of meaningful treatment, so the chance to carry on a life with dignity and purpose is extremely low.

    So what is the answer? I would like to hear the psychiatrists chime in on this, but it seems to me that these folks should be institutionalized. There, they would receive treatment and 3 square meals a day with the goal of trying to reintegrate them into society, but short of that, at least allowing them to live with dignity while protecting the public from the anti-social behaviors we all abhor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hank
    replied
    Bring back the tramp chair.

    Leave a comment:


  • artemis
    replied



    Tens of thousands have traded in their homes for “wheel estate.” They are “the Okies of the Great Recession”: grandparents living in school buses and vans seeking seasonal work cleaning toilets at campgrounds, picking blueberries in Kentucky, sometimes for wages, sometimes for just a parking spot — “not necessarily paved but hopefully level.”



    Click to expand...


    And these people are by and large not a problem.  They're just poor, not anti-social (much less dangerous), and poverty isn't a crime and is something we can (and should!) help them with.




    It used to be that the proper disposal of human waste was seen as a moral good as well as a sign of an advanced civilization, owing to its hugely beneficial effects on public health. Sadly, now it appears that the tolerance of public defecation is a bizarre badge of sophistication and moral virtue.
    Click to expand...


    It's bigger than that:  it's the bizarre idea that we the general public are obligated to tolerate all sorts of frankly anti-social behavior in the name of "personal freedom."  I call BS:  there is no legitimate "right" to be free to behave in public in frankly antisocial ways.  No one, whatever their mental state, has the "right' to be openly drunk, stoned, or high in public, to be shooting up drugs in public (and then discarding their needles on the sidewalks and streets), to be floridly psychotic in public, to behave aggressively or threateningly toward passerby, to relieve oneself on the public streets and parks, or to trash public facilities (such as fountains and public bathrooms - that is why SF has few public toilets, they removed them because junkies were shooting up in them, prostitutes were turning tricks in them, and mental patients were turning them over and spilling the contents out).

    Make it crystal-clear to EVERYONE that such behavior is completely unacceptable and WILL result in incarceration (in either prison or a mental institution), and the problem will quickly become much smaller and much more manageable.  Simple poverty we can deal with without too much trouble, and it by itself won't drive away visitors (who spend money when they visit the city) or sane working-class or middle class locals (who pay taxes, but don't have enough money to insulate themselves completely from street-level problems the way the ultra-rich can, and who therefore can only cope with the issue by moving and taking their tax money with them). It's the anti-social behavior that needs to be stopped ASAP.

    Leave a comment:


  • portlandia
    replied
    It used to be that the proper disposal of human waste was seen as a moral good as well as a sign of an advanced civilization, owing to its hugely beneficial effects on public health. Sadly, now it appears that the tolerance of public defecation is a bizarre badge of sophistication and moral virtue.

    Leave a comment:


  • notadoc
    replied
    All this talk about public defecation reminds me of a blog from a few years ago called "Spot the Mainlander"  Someone in Hong Kong would post pictures of people defecating in the streets.  I guess it is very common on the mainland especially with children.  You'll have to do you own Google image search.

    Leave a comment:


  • notadoc
    replied




    There are more homeless people here for a few reasons.  One, the weather is nice, so some homeless people migrate here for the weather, just like rich people do.   Also, people move west until they hit the ocean.  Plus, since the weather is nice, it’s easier to live out on the streets where they are more visible.

    Also, a certain proportion of them are middle class people who missed a paycheck and got evicted.  They now can’t afford the high rent ( 2 months plus security deposit ).  Of course, most of the homeless seem to have drug and/or mental health issues.

    They defecate in the street because they have nowhere else to go.

    For years, I have noticed a long line of campers/RVs parked along the main drag here, El Camino Real, in front of some Stanford sports fields.  I had always assumed that  they belonged to families visiting students.  I just found out, through a newspaper article, that they belong to homeless people living in RVs.  That’s one of the only places they can park for days without being forced to move by the police.
    Click to expand...


    There is a book written about that (on a national level) called Nomadland: Surviving America in the 21st Century.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/books/review-nomadland-jessica-bruder.html

    “Nomadland,” by Jessica Bruder, an important if frustrating new work influenced by such classics of immersion journalism as Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Nickel and Dimed,” looks at one strategy older workers have devised for “surviving America.”


    Tens of thousands have traded in their homes for “wheel estate.” They are “the Okies of the Great Recession”: grandparents living in school buses and vans seeking seasonal work cleaning toilets at campgrounds, picking blueberries in Kentucky, sometimes for wages, sometimes for just a parking spot — “not necessarily paved but hopefully level.”


     

     

    Leave a comment:


  • artemis
    replied




    The situation is bad only in some neighborhoods, most of SF is still very nice.
    Click to expand...


    The problem, though, is that the places that tourists come to San Francisco to visit are in or very near the bad areas.




    Just one note of perspective — for anyone who thinks the homeless situation in SF is bad, go visit South Asia.  My parents are from Pakistan and we used to go every ~2 years, though I have not been in awhile for a few reasons.

    SF has nothing on Karachi (or probably Mumbai or other similar cities).
    Click to expand...


    Maybe "San Francisco - at least we're better than Mumbai!" should be the city's new tourism logo?  Or maybe "San Francisco - experience Third-World squalor without the expense of international airfare!' would work better?  

    I do feel sorry for the city, though - it's a tough problem to solve, especially when laws make it all-but-impossible to commit people to inpatient psych units and drug rehab against their will. It's not simply that their are a lot of homeless people there that is causing the threat to tourism, it's that a significant percentage of them behave in ways that make ordinary people feel unsafe.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X