Who are you voting for in the Dem primary for mayor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mamdani is going to take a ton of heat when some mental health worker is sent to deal with a situation without a police officer and gets injured/killed. Having a mental health professional accompany a police officer isn't a bad idea (though very expensive). Having them go in alone is dumb.

And this problem would be greatly reduced if there were something to do with those with extremely severe mental health problems rather than take them to the hospital then release them. It is not doing them any favors. It is letting them rot away.

Deinstitutionalization is the cause

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mamdani is going to take a ton of heat when some mental health worker is sent to deal with a situation without a police officer and gets injured/killed. Having a mental health professional accompany a police officer isn't a bad idea (though very expensive). Having them go in alone is dumb.

And this problem would be greatly reduced if there were something to do with those with extremely severe mental health problems rather than take them to the hospital then release them. It is not doing them any favors. It is letting them rot away.

Deinstitutionalization is the cause

Completely agree. And no one is willing to do anything about this. Anyone who has spent 30 seconds in New York (or many other cities) can easily identify people who are very, very clearly not capable of taking care of themselves and a potential danger to those around them. The do-gooders think it is somehow violating their civil rights to institutionalize them. Personally, I think it is violating their civil rights to let them live like this. They should be institutionalized and helped. And this doesn't have to happen in New York City. Facilities can be more efficiently and cheaply built outside of the city. If there truly is a reason that the patient needs to be kept in the city, fine. But for many, I'm guessing this is not necessary.

I don't understand why this is controversial.

[Anonymous]

Institutionalizing people long term is *incredibly* expensive; even the small number of people we do that with now are a tremendous drain on financial resources, both the government's and hospitals'.

It's much cheaper to do a better job of getting them into shelters; more temporary housing, faster access to temporary housing, more case workers to help them do the basic things they need to do (doctors' appointments, check-ins with various government agencies, etc) to stay housed, etc.

Basically, even if you're fine with the idea of rounding up all the homeless people in NYC who annoy you and putting them in a hospital somewhere far away where you don't have to think about them anymore, you're really, really not going to like your share of the bill for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Institutionalizing people long term is *incredibly* expensive; even the small number of people we do that with now are a tremendous drain on financial resources, both the government's and hospitals'.

It's much cheaper to do a better job of getting them into shelters; more temporary housing, faster access to temporary housing, more case workers to help them do the basic things they need to do (doctors' appointments, check-ins with various government agencies, etc) to stay housed, etc.

Basically, even if you're fine with the idea of rounding up all the homeless people in NYC who annoy you and putting them in a hospital somewhere far away where you don't have to think about them anymore, you're really, really not going to like your share of the bill for that.

It’s cheaper to kill them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Institutionalizing people long term is *incredibly* expensive; even the small number of people we do that with now are a tremendous drain on financial resources, both the government's and hospitals'.

It's much cheaper to do a better job of getting them into shelters; more temporary housing, faster access to temporary housing, more case workers to help them do the basic things they need to do (doctors' appointments, check-ins with various government agencies, etc) to stay housed, etc.

Basically, even if you're fine with the idea of rounding up all the homeless people in NYC who annoy you and putting them in a hospital somewhere far away where you don't have to think about them anymore, you're really, really not going to like your share of the bill for that.

Ah, the woke guilt trip (and I'm an old school uptown Dem who hates the term woke). This is not "so I don't have to think about them". This is for their own good. And secondarily the safety of those they might harm. You were actually making some decent points until you started getting childish and nasty.

I'm not talking about those who are a bit different. I'm talking about those who completely unable to normally function. Yesterday at a subway station I saw something half naked rolling around on the ground screaming gibberish. They need more than you are offering.

I agree that this is extremely expensive and I don't love the idea of paying for it. Which is part of why I suggest doing it outside of NYC, where at least it will be slightly cheaper. Providing all of the supports you are suggesting will not be dramatically cheaper.

There is no good answer. But leaving them to their own devices where they can do harm to themselves and others is not the right answer.