Compared with the other two books that I've reviewed, this one is a story collection. It's harder to write a summary. As a result, I picked the most thought-provoking story to share with you.
The Homeless Conundrum
A homeless person can cost the government over $100,000 a year if they are long-term homeless. They can have a smoking habit, some problems staying sober, drug use, and even poor health conditions leading to lower immunity. Normally, they're resuscitated after being rushed into ICU and then released back out to the wild but to come back in several hours later.
It's not just costly on government finance but also on people around them. For example, nurses are burnt out because they feel their effort lead them to nowhere. Is there a cost-effective way to address this problem?
Yes! We offer them an apartment contract and care worth $15,000 a year. If they get a job and start saving and paying their rent, the annual cost lowers to $6,000. So they can start saving and pay their rent. Ergo, they can merge into society again rather than being pushed out. However, there are more than a catch.
First, why do we prioritize subsidizing the homeless with an apartment? There are people who don't have a house yet. (Like myself.) Second, a homeless may not cherish this opportunity. One man in the story trashed the apartment and broke a window. Third, how does the public think about this? It's not enough to put social cost and efficacy into consideration. People will tell you that they can't believe you're helping the homeless by providing them apartments. After all, many are leasing on their own, including myself.
Is there a better way to handle this case? How to strike a balance among social cost, efficacy, and public perspective?
Comments
Post a Comment