zlacker

>>NaOH+(OP)
Viewed from 10,000ft it could even be cheaper in the long term, as an overall outcome. Personal attention, guidance through the system, vs constant background EMT interventions, more costly health outcomes, Policing and ultimately incarceration risks.

I don't like reductive economics logic over what is a humane response, but I do like that it may not only be nicer, but actually financially sensible.

>>ggm+Z8
If they could get the guy with asthma regularly seeing a PCP, the money the public is spending on his constant ER trips would more than pay for housing and the time the ranger has to spend on helping him.

>>sarche+1a
If

(Also note that if that's your general policy then you effectively allow anyone to blackmail you to get whatever they want, just by making it slightly more expensive to not give them what they want)

>>lmm+Vc
Is this not only reductive reasoning, but also both devils advocating, and functionally an artefact of the US health system economics?

>>ggm+zg
> Is this not only reductive reasoning

Maybe. Reductive reasoning is usually a good idea.

> devils advocating

No.

> functionally an artefact of the US health system economics?

So what? If and when you manage to fix the US health system for the working poor then it might become reasonable to provide free healthcare to the disruptive homeless, sure. But until then it isn't.