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
Do you have a moral objection to a homeless man with asthma getting a primary care provider paid for by the government?

>>freeon+Ly
I have a moral objection to the government providing more support to a socially disruptive person than they give to someone who is more prosocial. I'm all for a government-provided healthcare that's free for everyone, but prioritising person A because they're more disruptive than person B is morally bankrupt.

>>lmm+PB
You've made quite a jump here from "has asthma" to "socially disruptive".

>>crooke+iC
The post I replied to was arguing from "the money the public is spending".