What you're describing is universal healthcare being cheaper in the long term, which I would agree with. What is described in this article absolutely does not sound like a productive use of taxpayer money at all. Any one of the ranger's clients that gets semi-permanent shelter is someone else who doesn't. At best, we're pay a full-time salary for someone to play a zero sum game. IMO, it's actually worse than that because such housing is more efficiently allocated to those who are able and willing to navigate the bureaucracy of public housing themselves are more likely to rebound successfully.