[Logophile]

Some can certainly afford to do so, but there are not enough of them. There would not be a homeless problem otherwise. The mentally ill need to live in hospitals - they must be maintained by others permanently. It's not the same as helping someone who is temporarily on hard times get back on their feet.

The "homeless" problem does not stem from a lack of funding for mental health programs. More important are the changes in vagrancy laws and the move toward de-institutionalizing mental patients. As long as alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill are allowed to wander the streets, there will be a homeless problem.

The core problem is that medical care and maintenance (psychiatric, nursing home, etc) are astronomically expensive. Once this issue is resolved, you'll see the private sector do more.

If, as you say, the core problem is that care is too expensive, how will more government interference improve matters? Governments are not more efficient at providing goods and services than the private sector--just the opposite.

There is nothing magical about government funding of health care. Whether the government writes the checks or a private organization does, the money eventually comes from the same source: those who work and produce. The difference is that private funding is more compatible with a free society.

[wordsofearnest]

I agree less government interference is the part of the answer along with tort reform. Defensive medicine adds quite a burden to the system.

Medicare and Medicaid don't pay their share they pay less than half and call it their share and force the provider to swallow the rest. That's why prices are so high for us left in the "non-govermental" part of the healthcare market. Cost shifting.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

The "homeless" problem does not stem from a lack of funding for mental health programs. More important are the changes in vagrancy laws and the move toward de-institutionalizing mental patients. As long as alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill are allowed to wander the streets, there will be a homeless problem.

In New York City, which is an hour away from me, the homeless problem was increased substantially when the government closed a lot of public mental hospitals because of lack of funding.

No one wants vagrants on the streets, but the private sector obviously can’t handle them all. Some of these mental cases have pushed people in front of trains on the subway. If the private sector can’t afford to care for them, then the government has to, just for the sake of community safety.

Governments are not more efficient at providing goods and services than the private sector--just the opposite.

Depends which goods and services you mean. The private sector is better at some, the government at others. It’s kind of short-sighted to think government does EVERYTHING worse.

Whether the government writes the checks or a private organization does, the money eventually comes from the same source: those who work and produce. The difference is that private funding is more compatible with a free society.

On that I will agree.