Homelessness Insurance: How come we don't see this? Could insurance companies market this?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

We see all sorts of insurance, from car insurance to house and apartment insurance, to medical and life insurance. How come we do not see companies offering "homelessness insurance"? This would work like this: Just as with other forms of insurance, depending on what level of quality someone wanted to pay into it, you could pay into it and the company would guarantee that if you ever became homeless in the future, or faced such a thing, since you paid into it in the past, they would make sure you are provided with some form of apartment or housing or shelter of some sort.

Doesn't that make sense, or, would such a thing be too difficult and too expensive to provide?

I know in one sense that is what retirement plans are for but how come we do not see private insurance companies offering this along with their other insurance programs?

[JD Spydo]

Well that is an excellent idea however to a large degree you could say that the "nursing home care" insurance policies that they are selling now sort of have the same objective. Also life insurance is kind of like the concept of HomeLess Insurance. I do like your initial idea and with the problem growing out of hand the way it is I bet it has been discussed at company board meetings.

When you think deeply about it there are probably a lot of families if they didn't have life insurance and the breadwinner were to see his/her untimely demise then most of those younger families would become homeless. And I'll bet that's worse than you might think it is in the present economic situation.

[awa54]

We see all sorts of insurance, from car insurance to house and apartment insurance, to medical and life insurance. How come we do not see companies offering "homelessness insurance"? This would work like this: Just as with other forms of insurance, depending on what level of quality someone wanted to pay into it, you could pay into it and the company would guarantee that if you ever became homeless in the future, or faced such a thing, since you paid into it in the past, they would make sure you are provided with some form of apartment or housing or shelter of some sort.

Doesn't that make sense, or, would such a thing be too difficult and too expensive to provide?

I know in one sense that is what retirement plans are for but how come we do not see private insurance companies offering this along with their other insurance programs?

It's too expensive on an individual level and as a Societal obligation it would be opposed by many in the US as Socialism.

[Bodog]

Because if you're in a bad enough spot to consider using the insurance you no longer have enough money to cover the premiums and deductible.

If that wasn't a concern then everyone would just buy the insurance and then quit their job and let the insurance pay for them to live.

[Evil D]

We already have this in the form of welfare and homeless shelters. The problem is some people choose them as a lifestyle/career choice instead of as a safety net.

[Bodog]

I'd rather have homelessness insurance instead of state mandated welfare.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

There is another way around the whole problem, but, it would require a very advanced and sophisticated society, and it still would have possible flaws, due to the moral nature of said people. If there was some way to upgrade every person no matter whom they are, and no matter what their previous genetics and enviroment, into highly-functional individuals, with the full capacity of ability, then there would be no homelessness or lack of skills. What I am speaking of would require a complete or almost complete understanding of the human mind and brain, and, the ability to transform a person into this new thing. Imagine taking a hobo off the street who can barely sweep floors, and transforming him using this method, into a neurosurgeon. Imagine taking a woman who is begging on the side of the road, and transforming her into an aerospace scientist. There are also civil liberty issues but who would object to having their minds changed for the better? In that world, there would be no "burger flippers" or street sweepers. Everyone from childhood would be at their best and greatest capacity. Everyone would be transformed into a "child prodigy".

[Bodog]

There is another way around the whole problem, but, it would require a very advanced and sophisticated society, and it still would have possible flaws, due to the moral nature of said people. If there was some way to upgrade every person no matter whom they are, and no matter what their previous genetics and enviroment, into highly-functional individuals, with the full capacity of ability, then there would be no homelessness or lack of skills. What I am speaking of would require a complete or almost complete understanding of the human mind and brain, and, the ability to transform a person into this new thing. Imagine taking a hobo off the street who can barely sweep floors, and transforming him using this method, into a neurosurgeon. Imagine taking a woman who is begging on the side of the road, and transforming her into an aerospace scientist. There are also civil liberty issues but who would object to having their minds changed for the better? In that world, there would be no "burger flippers" or street sweepers. Everyone from childhood would be at their best and greatest capacity. Everyone would be transformed into a "child prodigy".

No. Production is relative. Everyone already operates at their highest capacity. Doesn't matter who you look at, they're operating at the highest level possible for them. If you took literally everyone and advanced their minds and hearts, there would still be a disparity. The genetic engineers would look down on chemical engineers. Or whatever. People are tribal and there's nothing that will change that. People order themselves in castes and there's nothing that will change that. If you made everyone a genius then people with 250 IQs would look down on people with 180 IQs. That's how humans work.

People with a salary of 2,000,000,000 per year would look down on people with salaries of 1,000,000,000 per year. People with a 10,000 sq/ft house would look down on someone with a 5,000 sq/ft house. It's the keeping up with the joneses mentality. It's humanity and what drives innovation and production. Without that, we're dead.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Bodog, you are very correct on that. You have a very good grasp of reality and how things and people function, I must say.

Thank you.

[Bodog]

Bodog, you are very correct on that. You have a very good grasp of reality and how things and people function, I must say.

Thank you.

And i enjoy the discussions you generate. Thank you.

[kiwisailor]

Yep Bodog, SEF does come up with some interesting Conversation starters to be sure.
Cheers SEF

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Thanks, kiwi.

[Crux]

I'd rather have homelessness insurance instead of state mandated welfare.

If there was money to be made they would have already done this. It's a total non-starter from any financial model.

[Crux]

There is another way around the whole problem, but, it would require a very advanced and sophisticated society, and it still would have possible flaws, due to the moral nature of said people. If there was some way to upgrade every person no matter whom they are, and no matter what their previous genetics and enviroment, into highly-functional individuals, with the full capacity of ability, then there would be no homelessness or lack of skills. What I am speaking of would require a complete or almost complete understanding of the human mind and brain, and, the ability to transform a person into this new thing. Imagine taking a hobo off the street who can barely sweep floors, and transforming him using this method, into a neurosurgeon. Imagine taking a woman who is begging on the side of the road, and transforming her into an aerospace scientist. There are also civil liberty issues but who would object to having their minds changed for the better? In that world, there would be no "burger flippers" or street sweepers. Everyone from childhood would be at their best and greatest capacity. Everyone would be transformed into a "child prodigy".

No. Production is relative. Everyone already operates at their highest capacity. Doesn't matter who you look at, they're operating at the highest level possible for them. If you took literally everyone and advanced their minds and hearts, there would still be a disparity. The genetic engineers would look down on chemical engineers. Or whatever. People are tribal and there's nothing that will change that. People order themselves in castes and there's nothing that will change that. If you made everyone a genius then people with 250 IQs would look down on people with 180 IQs. That's how humans work.

People with a salary of 2,000,000,000 per year would look down on people with salaries of 1,000,000,000 per year. People with a 10,000 sq/ft house would look down on someone with a 5,000 sq/ft house. It's the keeping up with the joneses mentality. It's humanity and what drives innovation and production. Without that, we're dead.

Maybe some people look down but I have never had that mentality. Certainly have known quite a few people that are that way which is why I've never associated with money snobs. Money does not make someone better in anyway than someone who has less. Keeping up with the Jones is a vile and terrible characteristic of society.

[Bodog]

There is another way around the whole problem, but, it would require a very advanced and sophisticated society, and it still would have possible flaws, due to the moral nature of said people. If there was some way to upgrade every person no matter whom they are, and no matter what their previous genetics and enviroment, into highly-functional individuals, with the full capacity of ability, then there would be no homelessness or lack of skills. What I am speaking of would require a complete or almost complete understanding of the human mind and brain, and, the ability to transform a person into this new thing. Imagine taking a hobo off the street who can barely sweep floors, and transforming him using this method, into a neurosurgeon. Imagine taking a woman who is begging on the side of the road, and transforming her into an aerospace scientist. There are also civil liberty issues but who would object to having their minds changed for the better? In that world, there would be no "burger flippers" or street sweepers. Everyone from childhood would be at their best and greatest capacity. Everyone would be transformed into a "child prodigy".

No. Production is relative. Everyone already operates at their highest capacity. Doesn't matter who you look at, they're operating at the highest level possible for them. If you took literally everyone and advanced their minds and hearts, there would still be a disparity. The genetic engineers would look down on chemical engineers. Or whatever. People are tribal and there's nothing that will change that. People order themselves in castes and there's nothing that will change that. If you made everyone a genius then people with 250 IQs would look down on people with 180 IQs. That's how humans work.

People with a salary of 2,000,000,000 per year would look down on people with salaries of 1,000,000,000 per year. People with a 10,000 sq/ft house would look down on someone with a 5,000 sq/ft house. It's the keeping up with the joneses mentality. It's humanity and what drives innovation and production. Without that, we're dead.

Maybe some people look down but I have never had that mentality. Certainly have known quite a few people that are that way which is why I've never associated with money snobs. Money does not make someone better in anyway than someone who has less. Keeping up with the Jones is a vile and terrible characteristic of society.

While i don't and never will accept the idea that money makes the man, i do and likely will always accept the idea that everyone always performs at their highest capacity. Money isn't the bar to jump over. People will, nonetheless, perform at the highest level they can achieve on their own. Race, religion, economics, none of that matters. People will rise to where they naturally should be. If a person isn't where they want to be or think some system is keeping them down, then they're failing themselves or they simply aren't capable of being anything more than they achieve. Life is a funny thing. Everyone from every background is capable of great things no matter what surrounds them. If someone doesn't rise to where they think they should be they can only honestly blame themselves. That's just real life.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

What do you all think of this? Various persons have proposed a "Constitutional Ammendment to end homelessness", on the basis that it is unconstitutional for people to have to remain outside and out of doors and without shelter and housing if they do not desire to be in that situation?
Here is some text from one such proposal:

" CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO END HOMELESSNESS IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
By Ruben Botello, JD
Founder, American Homeless Society
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (U.S.
Constitution, http://constitutionus.com/)
The above-quoted Preamble to our U.S. Constitution ordains and establishes a binding
legal document of, by and for the founders of our nation and their Posterity including
today's and future U.S. generations:
I. To form a more perfect Union,
II. To establish Justice,
III. To ensure domestic Tranquility,
IV. To provide for the common defence,
V. To promote the general Welfare, and
VI. To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
"We the People" and future U.S. generations are constitutionally obligated, to work
toward the above six goals, as Posterity and Good Citizens. Of the People, By the
People and For the People, our government was established by our Constitution, to help
us achieve these goals. The framers of our Constitution knew changes to this great
document would be required, to achieve their stated goals, as time passed by. For
example, "We the People" includes the least among us, i.e, our nation's homeless
struggling to survive on a daily basis, but why does liberty, equality and justice for all not
apply to them? Why are the homeless not equally protected by our nation of laws?
The Founders sought to form a more perfect Union, not a far-from-perfect Union wherein
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of indigent men, women, children and entire
families are forced to subsist on the streets and alleys of our cities and towns, and in our
wilderness areas, in abject poverty and despair.
Article V of our Constitution established the procedure for We the People to change or
amend it. We need to amend our Constitution, in order to abolish homelessness -- like
slavery was abolished over 150 years ago -- by force of law, now.
The first 10 Amendments to our Constitution (Bill of Rights) were ratified, December 15,
1790, and the last Amendment was ratified, May 7, 1992. Our Constitution is not a dead,
dying or idle document, it lives and breathes within us, as we conduct our day-to-day
human affairs, in a civil and lawful manner in accordance with the laws enacted
thereunder.
Our Constitution must change when We the People fall far short of our Preamble, as it
applies to all Americans, in the richest and most powerful nation on earth. The American
Homeless Society (AHS) believes the only way homelessness will be abolished in the
United States of America is by force of law.
Thousands of government agencies, charities and individuals work hard, to stop the
needless death, pain and suffering homeless people are forced to endure from
day-to-day. These caring people have done a lot of good for the destitute, but few have
been able to reduce homelessness in their target areas, to any significant degree.
Most available homeless services are of a short-term or temporary nature. They help
keep homeless people alive, but seldom is permanent housing provided these destitute
individuals and families. Without housing, the able-bodied homeless among them are not
likely to gain meaningful employment nor to otherwise get back on their feet, in any
manner, shape or form.
AHS appreciates the meeting of short-term homeless needs, but our advocacy group
has never taken its eyes off the primary need of the homeless, i.e., housing. Regardless
of income or ability to pay, everyone in the U.S. should have constitutional and therefore
legal rights to housing and other fundamental human needs.
President Abraham Lincoln led the drive to end slavery after the Civil War. His 1863
'Emancipation Proclamation' was followed by the 13th Amendment of our U.S.
Constitution that abolished (outlawed) slavery, but this and the other Constitution
Amendments have not helped the homeless much, at all. A new Amendment is therefore
needed, to abolish homelessness in America once and for all.
Most of our nation's homeless adults are U.S. citizens who are unemployed,
underemployed and(or) unemployable. The majority of these indigent Americans are
malnourished, unhealthy, poorly educated, unkempt and otherwise ill-prepared to gain
meaningful employment in order to work their way out of homelessness, and there are
multitudes of homeless children, teenagers, women, veterans, seniors and entire
families with special problems that block them out of mainstream society, too.
We the People have permitted all this homelessness to be institutionalized by our
government. For many, homelessness is a very cruel 'death sentence' that leads
destitute Americans into their early graves for no good or just cause whatsoever.
Abolishing homelessness means housing everyone who needs and wants housing. It is
abundantly clear only an Amendment to our Constitution will end homelessness
throughout the United States of America."

Source for this document:

https://works.bepress.com/ruben_barrera ... /download/

I do not know anything about the author, I just found it posted online.

Is that very potentially dangerous ground, to consider making more Constitutional Ammendments in order to solve that problem?

Also, how effective would it be if this was seriously attempted, and what downsides could there be to it?

[Crux]

No.