I guess what I said just sounds callous to people who are aware of homelessness but don’t have direct experience trying to help them. It’s a complex problem and there’s a reason beyond graft that it hasn’t been fixed.

As with many things I’m sure 80% of the resources are going to the 20% of people who are the most difficult to handle. Many homeless people are normal people who are just very down on their luck. But those homeless people are often “invisible” to the general public since they usually don’t sleep rough, yell at people on the street, etc.

Finland can probably solve it because they fund “inpatient mental health services” which is what can actually fix homelessness for the most difficult people suffering it. That is super expensive though.

On the other hand, you cannot force people into the wards unless they pose grave danger to themselves or the society.

And the current sentiment is that yelling slurs or urinating in a subway is not grave enough to justify involuntary confinement.

Not quite true in California - being "gravely disabled" also justifies involuntary detainment and treatment: "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter."

In reality though, the lack of funding for such people means that only the most severe are treated under this category. What's required is the funding and political will to enforce it, the necessary legal structure is already in place.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

From what I’ve heard from mental health professionals, in practice simply being able to answer some very basic questions (like “Are you hungry? If so, what should you do?”) with plausible answers (“I should eat”) is sufficient to pass the “gravely disabled” test.

> "A condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter."

Wait a minute. Does it also apply to all these infamous unemployed college graduates who still live with parents?

This really isn’t funny or comparable. Unemploymed college graduates do not lack the capacity to do these things, they have a choice to do them or not do them.

People with mental health issues that compromise their ability to care for themselves don’t have a choice.

Not funny, indeed, but how do we tell people who "can, but don't want" from those who want, but cannot care for themselves?

In most cases, that’s fairly easy to tell by looking at their history, current living situation, and cognitive abilities.

Also, are those who are lazy really the majority case here? Or a straw man being used to justify ignoring the problem?

The difference might be that mental issues are identified and cared for much earlier, before people end up on the streets and things worsen more and more. Locking people up into wards is not the only option.

Not at all an expert in this, but it sounds like there are much more mentally ill people in the streets in the US compared to other places.

I'd bet more American families kick their problem relatives out instead of caring for them within the household. "Not my responsibility."

The article shows that Finland is spending less money solving the problem. The complete opposite of what you are arguing. Does that in any way make you consider, even for a second, that your pre-conceived ideology/religion might get in the way of you understanding what the reality is?

Sounds like those people belong in an asylum then, not an apartment.

I know some asylums are mismanaged and let’s just pretend they’re not here and that states properly fund and regulate them.

It's a gray area. There are people who, with care and looking-after, can be useful-if-weird members of society, but who without that support would spiral out of control. "Crazy"/"not-crazy" isn't a binary.