Ah, but that's a different problem.

Indigence stemming from financial and personal disasters of a temporary kind can be addressed by HfH and other programs like it. Even (gasp!!) food stamps have a place in this, in the old "hand-up, not hand-out" tradition.

Street-crazies are in another whole category all their own. We're talking deinstitutionalized vs. institutionalized mental health treatment; civil rights of the mentally ill vs. maintaining the civic order; the problem of those without health insurance; the reluctance of insurers to provide mental health benefits to those who have coverage because mental illness usually chronic (possibly because it goes untreated when acute); and the reluctance of sufferers and their families to seek help because of the stigma attached to admitting the problem.

That last is a particularly difficult point, rather like seeking help for a problem with drugs. You can't fix the problem without help, but if you seek help people will know you have a problem. That means that your medical treatment can dog you whenever you seek a new job or a promotion, unless all such records are kept completely sealed and asking questions about health is forbidden in the workplace. But we all know that some jobs require the asking of such questions. So the issue is, is an undiagnosed mentally ill person less of a threat than one who goes to the shrink?

Picture this: A man loses his job because he seeks mental health treatment for ...I don't know... depression. So now he's still depressed, and out of work. Soon he'll be depressed, out of work, and broke. How far is that from sleeping in doorways? How far from suicidal? And do we sell him a gun while he still has the money to pay for one?

My personal opinion is that Tom is being flip, not heartless. But I got enough sleep last night. ;)

Regards--
Mary Anne