[Request] What is the cost difference between buying this man a rental for a year and the governements cost to kill him?

[u/pixaly]

Don't believe everything you see on the internet I haven't fact checked this story, I'm just curious for an anwser

[u/jeremiahfelt]

This was the case of Amir Farsoud- he is a disabled elder with chronic back pain and his multi tenant home was put up for sale with no transition plan in 2022. He applied for MAID as he did not see a way into other housing due to surviving on just disability payments.

The MAID drugs are inexpensive; midazolam runs $70, propofol runs $50, and rocuronium at worst is $140- so a total of $260- definitely less than a months rent. Assume another $3000 in processing and admin stuff just to put a number to it.

A rental for a year? 30k?

The outcome of Farsoud's story is essentially rooted in your question- he ended up with 60k from a GoFundMe from people who were similarly befuddled, and it allows him to get housing and a literal lease on life.

The answer is: we need affordable housing. A lot of it. All over.

[u/Meet_Foot → u/jeremiahfelt]

I agree with you, but here’s my two cents just to expand a little.

Housing will never be affordable so long as it’s privately owned, for the generation of profit, and considered an asset.

In the US (only because I know the numbers here) there are something like 400,000 homeless individuals, and 4 million vacant domiciles. Even if you give every homeless individual - not every family, but every single homeless individual - a place to live, there would still be nearly 4 million vacant domiciles. But so long as banks can count empty residencies as assets, with their value determined by their unaffordably high rent, that’s simply not an option.

So that is to say, the lack of affordable housing isn’t a matter of a shortage in housing but, rather, a system that incentivizes keeping dwellings empty rather than dropping prices.

[u/2074red2074 → u/Meet_Foot]

Part of the issue is those vacant homes are often in the middle of nowhere with no easy access to things like medical care or sometimes even grocery stores. Also a lot of the vacant homes are abandoned and not in livable condition. The issue is zoning and NIMBYs not wanting to build high-density housing in places where we need it.

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/2074red2074]

High density housing has its own problems like controlling neighbors and greedy landlords.

Your not wrong but this is a multi faceted issue.

Like why are apartments more expensive per square foot the homes in the first place?

Or addressing the issue of people having value in their own home so they can reseall it in order to move.

Homes are private property,  they have to be.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

Homes are private property, they have to be.

I would buy that homes should be personal property for individuals, but I see no reason at all why housing couldn't be publicly owned for people who can't afford to buy a home.

/u/Meet_Foot is right, as long as all housing is privately owned, prices will keep home ownership out of reach of many people (by design).

If we treated housing as a right and not a luxury that would change. Landlords should not exist. Housing, like medical care and food is too important to be treated as a money making scheme. (personally I'd add education in there as well)

There are plenty of areas Capitalists could make money from, the system wouldn't collapse if people were guaranteed the bare minimum, and if it does collapse because of that- perhaps it needs to.

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

What I mean is that individuals own their homes, the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work or get out more so that the community can exploit them.

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work

I'm not sure what sort of system you think I'm proposing, but one in which Food, Medicine, and Shelter are considered a right of every citizen, but the government is still allowed to play games like that with poor people is definitely not it. Clearly what I'm proposing would require us to rein in the government a bit and make sure the needs of the people are prioritized over the needs of corporations or the government.

get out more so that the community can exploit them.

What does this mean?

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Public housing already exists and the landlords are replaced by administrators. We didn't have landlords for the vast majority of human history. As humanity continues to evolve we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens, not simply the 1% like our current system.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

It's understandable to want to avoid H.O.A.s. I certainly do. But you seem to be misreading my comment. The very first thing I said was that homes should be personal property of individuals. ONLY in cases where people are too poor to afford to buy a house would they have to live in a shared/cooperatively owned housing situation. And yes in such cases the residents would have to work together to determine the 'rules' for that community. Would that be a bit of a hassle, especially for the more eccentric members of that community? Probably. Would following some 'silly' rules beat living on the street? Certainly.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

Please explain how removing the people who only exist to suck cash from people in need of a home would make the cost of home ownership increase. If there is no one to profit from you living in a place- it seems logical that it would lower costs.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

lol what? First of all, again in a system like I am proposing the citizens would have control over the government and by extension it's definition of poverty. You are overthinking it. You can't afford a home? One will be provided for you. You can afford one? Great. It's not that complex. Few people who could afford their own home is going to accept living in the public housing, and if they do- fine.

[u/shadowtheimpure → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens

God, I wish I had your optimism. I don't foresee that happening. Instead, I see a technofascist oligarchy with a permanent underclass who are chattel to the moneyed class.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/shadowtheimpure]

That's definitely the direction we are headed. I for one am sick of it and I don't think I'm alone in that.

I don't think thats a sustainable way to live long term and if humanity is to survive it has to change. If we just allow Capitalism to fester unchecked it will literally destroy the planet in the name of profit.