We started with an overview of some of the problems with mental health services in Milwaukee County. We also learned about Housing First programs for long-term homeless individuals.
Readings:
- Mother Jones investigation into Housing First programs
- Milwaukee County mental health system traps patients in cycle of emergency care
- Nationwide Study Reveals Just How Broken the US Mental Health System Is
- Are Milwaukee health systems failing a moral test?
Discussion questions:
Group 1
“You actually need housing to achieve sobriety and stability, not the other way around.”
[check in: They should be talking about being a good parent, productive worker, good student, voter, member of society, etc]
Groups 2/3
Is HF a worthwhile policy only for the chronically homeless? Who would not be better off with HF as an option?
[check in: Basically, no one would be worse off if there was a universal HF safety net. Likely differences of opinion on how big this program would or should be. There are many ways this discussion could go. Direct the group to discuss what their policy would look like in the real world.]
Groups 4/5
As seen in Utah, conservatives love HF. Is HF a way to challenge conservatives about capitalism? Can HF undermine conservatives’ deeply held beliefs about capitalism or the free market?
Group 6
HF has proven to be more cost effective than the status quo. Is this an argument that socialists should embrace? Why or why not?
[check in: The key point is that housing should be a human right. We don’t do stuff because it’s cost effective; we do stuff because it’s the right thing to do. My view is that socialists should emphasize the fiscal aspect, but then say “but frankly I don’t care that it saves money because it’s the right thing to do so we should do it.” Acknowledge the advantages, but seize the moral high ground; force reactionaries to admit they only care about people when it’s convenient for them. If one accepts that a social welfare program is valid only if it costs less than the status quo, then they are saying that people are less important than a few dollars.
What of the working poor? They might spend 60%+ of their already meager incomes on housing; just because HF for the working poor would be more expensive than the status quo HF doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do.]