• esa@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s generally very hard to treat those problems when someone doesn’t have a stable residence. Some of the reasons for self-medicating also go away with a stable residence. It’s a basic need.

    But yeah, large concentrations of people with various problems isn’t good either, nor is bad urbanism.

    The better solution is generally good urbanism and dispersed municipal housing, so people who start needing it don’t have to move far, don’t need to have their kids switch schools, etc etc.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Simple to treat them without a stable residence… You house them in a clinic while you treat them and don’t release them until they are treated.

      Then you give them the tools they need to stay healthy.

      “Buh, buh… socialism!!!”

      • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, “not releasing them until they’re treated” just won’t fly. We have a lot of discussions about the loss of freedom in healthcare, and generally we can’t do something like that unless they’re an immediate danger to others or themselves.

        Once they’re very sick there are a variety of treatments one can try, but they’re neither a replacement for social housing for people who are just struggling economically, nor something to deny people who need to get a return to normalcy.

        It is also socialism, or at the very least social democracy here in the Nordics, and it works well :)