San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak • Hacker News Board

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#81

Post by EGreg » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #80

EGreg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, this is NOT about forcing anyone to do anything. This is about ELIGIBILITY FOR UNCONDITIONAL BASIC INCOME. You can move anywhere you want -- but you are not guaranteed benefits. Should be obvious! If you don't allow communities to limit who can join, what is to prevent 50,000 people from various parts of California moving to Beverly Hills the next day and demanding enough UBI to live in a mansion and havi…

> You can move anywhere you want -- but you are not guaranteed benefits. Should be obvious! You're not explicitly forbidding them to stay, you're doing that implicitly, by correlating their getting financial assistance with them remaining in a specific place. It's the same thing with saying "you're free to leave your job anytime you want!" when you're full of financial responsibilities (rent/mortgage, kids, older rel…

No, inequality will always persist. You can't have 10,000 people come live in a place where water is expensive and then demand that society bring water to them. You speak of freedom - freedom brings inequality as different communities make different choices.

Back to your point - you are free to leave your job if another company will hire you. You are free to leave your community if another community will pay for your UBI. Or if you saved up enough to move, or if you actually make enough money now etc.

You do realize the UBI is on top of what you'd be making anyway, just to help you save up?

Perhaps the community will pay UBI only to those who move there and work there (contributing to the society), or prove inability to work. But then it wouldn't be unconditional anymore - and who gets to say that the "poet" who muses for 10 hours a day isn't doing some productive work? Communities would then be tying UBI to certain kinds of work.

But just giving unconditionally UBI to everyone is unsustainable because it just completely overlooks the cost of living in a certain area. If millionaires can afford super duper doctors and other gentrified stuff in that area, how would you figure out how much UBI to give to the people moving there? If you give the same amount to everyone everywhere, they STILL couldn't afford doctors in Beverly hills.

Now you are talking about price controls forcing an ace surgeon in Beverly Hills to take the same as someone who barely graduated medical school and never got better, who works in SomewhereCheap Kansas. That's unrealistic.

And you're forcing a water company that supplies water to a desert place to charge the same for that necessary good as a water company that delivers 100 feet from a local aquifer.

Think it through and tell me how your proposed UBI system without immigration quotas would even workz

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#82

Post by tjalfi » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 9:30 PM UTC

devmunchies wrote: post #69

marvin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway has practically zero homelessness, since everyone who are incapable of providing for themselves are paid a living wage by the state (and are also provided free housing). There are probably a few people who fall between the cracks in the system, e.g. illegal immigrants who are on the run from the authorities or people who are mentally ill and actively resist medical care or help from the government. But there a…

that isn't achievable or sustainable in the US at a national level. The entire country Norway has a smaller population than the largest county in the US. Maybe the long term plan should be to give homeless people a one way ticket to Norway. (sarcasm)

Nevada used to give homeless mental patients bus tickets to California [0][1].

[0] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/nevada-settles-b...

[1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/nevada-patient-bus...

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#83

Post by andirk » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 11:21 PM UTC

tjalfi wrote: post #32

drcross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That we still have a homeless problem indicates that the reason for long-term homelessness is something else. I presumed it was common knowledge that the vast majority of homeless people have mental health issues. America seems to lack any public mental health services. I was disgusted by the number of disturbed homeless people roaming the streets of California when I visited in ways you never see in most of europe.…

The following is an excerpt from [0]. Around the same time, the Court ruled, in O’Connor v. Donaldson, that a Florida man named Kenneth Donaldson had been kept against his will in a state psychiatric hospital for nearly fifteen years. The ruling added momentum to a nationwide campaign to “deinstitutionalize” the mentally ill. Activists decried the existence of mental hospitals that were filled, as one account put it,…

It's a lot easier to help a guilty person with "correctional" incarceration than it is to help an innocent person with a path to a decent life.

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#84

Post by thebooktocome » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 12:23 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #18

thebooktocome wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Follow this line of thought long enough, and you get to a hukou system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system

Is that good or bad? Listen, I support single payer systems, but how do they figure out how much to pay in each region? Same question for UBI. I have come to believe that UBI and all other safety nets have to come with immigration requirements. Not just everyone is going to be accepted to live among rich billionaires without concern for running out of money. And so on in every neighborhood. Thus, UBI needs for each a…

It doesn't work so well for the Chinese. You end up with second class citizens illegally immigrating within your own borders.

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#85

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

thebooktocome wrote: post #84

EGreg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that good or bad? Listen, I support single payer systems, but how do they figure out how much to pay in each region? Same question for UBI. I have come to believe that UBI and all other safety nets have to come with immigration requirements. Not just everyone is going to be accepted to live among rich billionaires without concern for running out of money. And so on in every neighborhood. Thus, UBI needs for each a…

It doesn't work so well for the Chinese. You end up with second class citizens illegally immigrating within your own borders.

[deleted]

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#86

Post by Communitivity » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 11:05 PM UTC

devmunchies wrote: post #72

Frondo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's achievable, if you just look at the money. This is a vastly wealthy country, the money's there to provide for every social program imaginable. It's not culturally achievable because Americans buy into a just world fallacy for every social ill: all the wrongs in the U.S. are because whoever's suffering deserved it. For all the people who say capitalism is our national religion, I'd say this fallacy is o…

No, the American govt is too big and inefficient. That problems like this have never been solved by countries the size of the US is not a coincidence. If power was transferred from the central govt to the states, then each state would be able to function like a small country and better manage local problems like homelessness much like Norway. Socialism nor capitalism function efficiently at this large of a scale.

So you have two statements: (a) Norway's approach is impossible in the US (b) Norway's approach is impossible in the US without changing how inefficient the US government is In my opinion, (a) is false, while (b) is true. Moreover, I think we can change the government over time, and we'll also have to change how we treat corporations. For example, corporations will have to be taxed much more (perhaps as much as 50% of profits).

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#87

Post by WillPostForFood » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 3:52 AM UTC

pkaye wrote: post #77

WillPostForFood wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That question doesn't capture the full picture. A high school dropout who arrived in SF w/$250 dollars and lived in a SRO for a year could qualify as becoming homeless while living in SF. I'm looking for more recent numbers, but in the past the number of homeless in SF that had been there more than 5 years was ~33%. For a variety of reasons, SF attracts people living on the margin, and prone to fall into homelessness…

There is a homeless survey that SF does every few years which is comprehensive you can try searching for. In my recollection a majority of the homeless were longterm residents by any reasonable definition but I'm going off memory.

They don't ask the question. They only ask where the lived when they became homeless. IMO, they intentionally don't ask because the answer isn't helpful to increasing sympathy for the homeless.

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#88

Post by mnm1 » Wed, Sep 06, 2017, 6:33 AM UTC

Gustomaximus wrote: post #52

mnm1 wrote: post #38

There's a Hepatitis A vaccine and it's readily available, yet trying to get a doctor to give you one requires a lot of conning and manipulation. Why is this? They say this is a disease only found in other countries, so if you tell your doctor you travel a lot, they'll finally give in and give it to you. How about giving the vaccine as a default? Clearly, San Diego is not in another country. This should be a standard…

Wow. In Australia, Norway and England theyll give you A/B vaccines easily on request. I find it hard to believe they wouldnt do tbis everywhere bar a few exceptional circumstances.

Jus† got the Hep A. S†ill working to convince them about Hep B. Yup, we're really backward here in the states with our healthcare, even for people who have insurance / can pay. There are many, many other ways we're backward here. Let's just say outside of emergency care, healthcare here is just horrific. And that's putting it nicely. Insurance or no†.

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#89

Post by gamechangr » Sun, Sep 17, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #76

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of Section 8 apartments in my city. While I work my butt off trying to make my rent and have leaky faucets and 50 yr old single pane windows, the section 8 across the street has new windows, min splits, and granite counter tops... The landlord gets garaunteed income, huge waiting list of tenants, can VERY easily have them evicted for violations and actually get MORE than market rate brcause the govt pa…

To be clear, I am not for more Section 8 housing. I am for market based solutions. In the 60s and 70s, we tore down around 80% of the SROs we had because the Baby Boomers came from an unprecedentedly well off, large middle class and did not need minimal housing of that sort. Boarding houses used to also be common. Now, most housing is designed with a nuclear family in mind and our default expectation is that single a…

> "I want market based solutions".

What would that look like?

I assume it's not profitable for builders...or else there wouldn't be a problem? If it were, they would build them everywhere.

Re: San Diego Declares Health Emergency Amid Hepatitis A Outbreak

#90

Post by Mz » Sun, Sep 17, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

gamechangr wrote: post #89

Mz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I am not for more Section 8 housing. I am for market based solutions. In the 60s and 70s, we tore down around 80% of the SROs we had because the Baby Boomers came from an unprecedentedly well off, large middle class and did not need minimal housing of that sort. Boarding houses used to also be common. Now, most housing is designed with a nuclear family in mind and our default expectation is that single a…

> "I want market based solutions". What would that look like? I assume it's not profitable for builders...or else there wouldn't be a problem? If it were, they would build them everywhere.

My comment was written 13 days ago. I have since gotten off the street with a market based solution. I am in an SRO.

Historically, we had a lot more SROs and boarding houses than we do currently. Up to 80% of SROs were torn down in the 60s and 70s when they weren't needed by Baby Boomers, who were a demographic anomaly. As demographics returned to something more normal, we never rebuilt them.

They are less profitable than other land uses. This is not the same as being unprofitable.

In California, residential prices are skewed by protectionist government measures. Dismantling the government interference that pushes housing costs up in the state would very likely reduce the need for government vouchers et al for the poor.

I left California to find someplace I could afford.