Comment by WarOnPrivacy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarOnPrivacy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Between genealogy and caring for a MI spouse, I learned it went down like this.

Late 18th to early 19th c. people with compassion and insight opened sanitariums to provide care for folks with brain disorders. Much of the care was truly revolutionary and helpful. Some of it was other things. The public was impressed and inspired.

The founders died off and institutions continued on without their vision. The public lost interest; funds waned but need did not.

By the 1980s institutions were no longer safe or caring. The public had moved on. Few in power knew or cared.

Politicians saw funding streams they could grab w/o risking reelection and forced our MI population into homelessness.

We're still there. My 5 state institutions are dangerous hellholes. Homeless are everywhere here.

source: w/o long-term inpatient care, wife left the family to become homeless

I completely agree that mental institutions are important and need more funding/attention. However, your comment implies that all homeless people have mental problems that need treatment. Many are just very poor and most of their problems (mental or otherwise) are caused/exacerbated by homelessness itself. I consider myself sane but if I didn't have a permanent shelter and had to face the streets every night I'd go crazy too

It implies nothing of the sort. What it states, without making implications, is that the very mentally ill who would otherwise be in institutions, are instead homeless. Which is the case.

This sentence:

>We're still there. My 5 state institutions are dangerous hellholes. Homeless are everywhere here.

Implies that "Homeless are everywhere here" wouldn't be the case if the institutions were good. I disagree. I believe that if the institutions were good there would still be homeless people, unless somebody declares to be living on the streets to be a mental condition that warrants forced institutionalization.

A->B =/= B->A.

OPs view is that lack of MI (A) results in homelessness (B). You're taking that further and making the argument that the existence of homelessness (B) implies lack of good institutions (A) - an argument OP didn't make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com