Bernie Sanders drops out of Presidential Race

[notimp]

At no point did I mention the cost of healthcare, I mentioned the funding mechanism. The cost of healthcare has more to do with how that system is ran, not with how it's funded. A $5 band-aid is $5 regardless of whether the Fed spends $1 or $1,000,000,000 on the military, the problem is the $700 "emergency room facility fee" that comes with the band-aid.

But that is a quotient of how it is run.

Public health care systems are established to be able to set quotas for 'what a band aid - and a certain consultation of a physician can cost'. Both are not fixed forever, but are evaluated to what makes any economic sense. But for this to work, and not be 'top down enforcement' you need a critical number of people paying into only a small number of health insurance systems, so they are able to negotiate with the health care industry.

If you do it like in the US, and have 1000 and one health care providers each only focused on getting most money out of their clients, each and every one of those has no chance to go into price negotiations which pharma multis.

And both band aids, and treatment options with a higher than usual demand tend to explode in cost for no reason. (And thats past 'recouping' your investments in research and development, which can be extensive (or not)).

US health care system is past the point where you could fix it 'with more competition'. You need entities that look at prices rationally and start saying - for you (producers) to make any money at all - you need to cut costs in half, because we dont believe you, that you need to be charging, what you tend to charge, for what you are providing. And the only way to get there is to group a significant amount of clients.

Also - emergency care (for free, for people that cant pay) usually is more expensive than routine medical care (for free for everyone). So there is a balance to be struck, certainly not in the favor of how the US does it.

 

[notimp]

For anyone wanting to read up between the differences in social safety net models:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...rces/281945-1124119303499/SSNPrimerNote25.pdf

OECD again.

Alesina and Glaeser (2004) look at the differences between the size of the welfare state (publicly financed education, health and social protection) in the US and the EU, and investigate a wide range of factors that might be associated with the different levels of spending. Surprisingly, their research finds no correlation between economic factors postulated as important by different theories, such as differences in pre-tax inequality; efficiency of the tax system, social mobility, and the propensity to spend on the welfare state. Much of the gap in spending seems to be explained by differences in political institutions (type of political representation, federalism vs. national states, the system of checks and balances), racial fragmentation, or beliefs about the nature of poverty (laziness vs. lack of opportunity).

US citizens simply want to believe people are lazy and politicians are corrupt, regardless of job opportunities in their country, or the economy, or occurring periods of crisis in any of them.

(Talking about real snobism. The kind that allowed them to develop that attitude, uninterrupted, for the better part of seven decades.)

And if you judge it by the education level of the average gbatemp visitor, you know, that they need to stick to very simple believes, or it fries their entire model for existence.

Example?

Bidens voters overwhelmingly were 60 years or older - yet no one is allowed to in the US to discuss issues with age cohorts in mind (social dynamite).

Everything is discussed in a matter of 'are you on the light, or on the dark side - and which is wich, discus', which is entirely idiotic. But try to tell that to people in here, that want to believe, that they are on the right side of history... I've never seen anything more moronic.

Population aging in many countries has led to increasing dependency on not only social insurance, but targeted social assistance benefits for the low-income elderly. However, the greatest challenges in terms of aging remain in the future, as OECD populations continue to live longer and birth rates drop.

Its hard to out-patriot this, if you think about it.

 

[Seliph]

Actually statistically more females graduate from colleges then males. The idea of only a white man graduating from college in huge numbers isn't accurate.

I never said anything to disprove that fact. I simply said that the people in power and the people with money are mostly white men who have graduated from college. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most millionaires. Only about 18% of millionaires are female.

 

[SG854]

But that is a quotient of how it is ran.

Public health care systems are established to be able to set quotas for 'what a band aid - and a certain consultation of a physician can cost'. Both are not fixed forever, but are evaluated to what makes any economic sense. But for this to work, and not be 'top down enforcement' you need a critical number of people paying into only a small number of health insurance systems, so they are able to negotiate with the health care industry.

If you do it like in the US, and have 1000 and one health care providers each only focused on getting most money out of their clients, each and every one of those has no chance to go into price negotiations which pharma multis.

And both band aids, and treatment options with a higher than usual demand tend to explode in cost for no reason. (And thats past 'recouping' your investments in research and development, which can be extensive (or not)).

US health care system is past the point where you could fix it 'with more competition'. You need entities that look at prices rationally and start saying - for you (producers) to make any money at all - you need to cut costs in half, because we dont believe you, that you need to be charging, what you tend to charge, for what you are providing. And the only way to get there is to group a significant amount of clients.

Also - emergency care (for free, for people that cant pay) usually is more expensive than routine medical care (for free for everyone). So there is a balance to be struck, certainly not in the favor of how the US does it.

Doesn't that cause shortages when gov sets prices?

Can they keep up with the changing economy that changes by the week and properly set prices accordingly?

What may be $1.25 dollars of gas one week may be $1.75 then next. It's always fluctuating. Those little cents makes a huge different when hundreds of gallons are bought. Just like getting a 2 dollar raise at work seems small, but it is a $60-80 more in your weekly paycheck. Monthly it's over $200 more

Prices for bandaid change because of the materials used to make them change in price. Plastic, Cotton, Cloth, Rubber all change in price from supply and demand, and how well a specific farm can reduce costs to produce it. Different farms have different methods and some can do it better then others and reduce cost better.

Supply and Demand can change prices based on location. Even between street corners. One corner may have cheaper prices while another corner is a little more expensive for the same exact item. More people shop in one corner then another because it may be an area where more people pass by so it reduces costs. The other corner that doesn't sell as much has to raise prices to make the differnce so they won't lose money.

Another area may have high crime rate so prices are higher to make up the extra money lost to hire security and have extra security systems. And less items on display outside of the store so that people won't steal it, so less is being advertised and sold. And to make up the cost of stolen items. Prices are higher to make up that difference. While a safer area won't have to worry about these costs so prices are lower.

Can people working in gov properly price items depending on different costs to produce an item that every company does differently? Or the properly price depending on supply and demand that varies even on every single street corners? Or properly prices depending on the fluctuating prices that are happening with the many materials that are used to make the items?

Price controls have never worked because a few hundred people that work in gov can't properly do this. No amount of smarts and economics degrees can help someone manage hundreds and thousands of locations and items that changes in prices every week.

While the free market takes the power from a few working in Gov and puts that power in the hands of millions of people that can run their own businesses in a way that fits their specific needs. Individual people only have to worry about one location their own store rather then millions, and knows how prices fluctuate on their own stores because they are buying those items that fluctuate in prices. So they know their own costs to run their store and can properly price items so they won't lose money.

Whether is medical, food, tools. They all suffer from shortages if not handled properly. We have a food shortage at food banks right now to give to people that suffer from covid 19, which always happens because gov can't properly handle this job.

 

[notimp]

Doesn't that cause shortages when gov sets prices?

Can they keep up with the changing economy that changes by the week and properly set prices accordingly?

They dont. Prices for services rendered or drugs usually change annually. Unless there is a shortage.

Also government doesnt do it, but a few different (competing) entities that are government affiliated. You could get private insurance to 'top off' on better service.

If there is a shortage - and you are a large buyer of stuff - thats usually also favourable. (Depends on how severe the shortage is.)

The point is, that small health insurance providers have little to no benefits in any of those scenarios. (They can change your premiums more flexibly? ).

The issue I'm describing is one of pharma companies in the US acting anti competitively, and you needing something to counterbalance that.

Your out is not believing in that being a thing in the first place. (The US just gets best prices, because theres so much competition in the insurance sector! )


You are correct, that in any case, where there is a severe shortage (f.e. in expertise in a certain medical field) private health insurance paying more would have a clear advantage. And it has. So in those cases you have to counteract differently, by f.e. funding medical research colleges (/clinics) as a state. (So you basically also own top of the line expertise - for as long as those individuals arent 'established' in their field yet. Also because of networks, later in life they usually also arent just available for private patients exclusively, most often its a mix.)

 

[SG854]

I never said anything to disprove that fact. I simply said that the people in power and the people with money are mostly white men who have graduated from college. This is obvious if you look at the demographics of most millionaires. Only about 18% of millionaires are female.

Kinda strange how most who graduate from college aren't Americans themselves.

And most women are gynecologists. Which is a well paid job. Half of women are pharmacists another well paid job. Looking at what group of people dominates what doesn't tell you the whole story.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

They dont. Prices for services rendered or drugs usually change annually. Unless there is a shortage.

Also government doesnt do it, but a few different (competing) entities that are government affiliated. You could get private insurance to 'top off' on better service.

If there is a shortage - and you are a large buyer of stuff - thats usually also favourable. (Depends on how severe the shortage is.)

The point is, that small health insurance providers have little to no benefits in any of those scenarios. (They can change your premiums more flexibly? ).

The issue I'm describing is one of pharma companies in the US acting anti competitively, and you needing something to counterbalance that.

Your out is not believing in that being a thing in the first place. (The US just gets best prices, because theres so much competition in the insurance sector! )


You are correct, that in any case, where there is a severe shortage (f.e. in expertise in a certain medical field) private health insurance paying more would have a clear advantage. And it has. So in those cases you have to counteract differently, by f.e. funding medical research colleges (/clinics) as a state. (So you basically also own top of the line expertise - for as long as those individuals arent 'established' in their sector. Also because of networks, they usually also arent just available for private patients exclusively, most often its a mix.)

Funding medical research colleges won't be enough because you need an industry to put that research into practice. To produce those items. Researching alone isn't enough. It needs a private entity to produce those medicines.

People usually blame that because it isn't a fully free market with gov overhead that medicine prices are expensive.

 

[Seliph]

Kinda strange how most who graduate from college aren't Americans themselves.

And most women are gynecologists. Which is a well paid job. Half of women are pharmacists another well paid job. Looking at what group of people dominates what doesn't tell you the whole story.

Right but that's irrelevant. I'm looking at the statistics for millionaires. You do realize that gynecologists and pharmacists can also be millionaires, right? And that still, regardless of that fact, only 18% of millionaires are women? I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove. Also, not like I don't believe you, but I'd be curious to see where you got your first statistic about college. Taking into account that colleges exist everywhere else in the world, and not just the US, it obviously makes sense that there are more college graduates that aren't American in the world because there are more non-Americans than there are Americans on a global scale.

 

[notimp]

Funding medical research colleges won't be enough because you need an industry to put that research into practice.

In Europe they are the same thing.

You need sick people to do research, optimally in large quantities. So the better research often comes out of those state funded larger facilities. Young physicians can study there - and research (clinical trials and normal treatments have to be clearly separated (patients have to give consent (and there are ethics boards)). But the people are there, and work there with everyday patients.

And this isnt just a theoretical, it works (for years now). (Take the NHS in britain if you want to look up a model that should be closer to US sensibilities.).

 

[Foxi4]

And yet the US has multiple forms of taxation too. It's not some tax free paradise.

See: several posts above. The tax burden in Europe is significantly higher than it is in the United States. Naturally it's not a tax free haven, but as a general rule Americans pay less, and as a result receive less in return.

But that is a quotient of how it is run.

Public health care systems are established to be able to set quotas for 'what a band aid - and a certain consultation of a physician can cost'. Both are not fixed forever, but are evaluated to what makes any economic sense. But for this to work, and not be 'top down enforcement' you need a critical number of people paying into only a small number of health insurance systems, so they are able to negotiate with the health care industry.

If you do it like in the US, and have 1000 and one health care providers each only focused on getting most money out of their clients, each and every one of those has no chance to go into price negotiations which pharma multis.

And both band aids, and treatment options with a higher than usual demand tend to explode in cost for no reason. (And thats past 'recouping' your investments in research and development, which can be extensive (or not)).

US health care system is past the point where you could fix it 'with more competition'. You need entities that look at prices rationally and start saying - for you (producers) to make any money at all - you need to cut costs in half, because we dont believe you, that you need to be charging, what you tend to charge, for what you are providing. And the only way to get there is to group a significant amount of clients.

Also - emergency care (for free, for people that cant pay) usually is more expensive than routine medical care (for free for everyone). So there is a balance to be struck, certainly not in the favor of how the US does it.

You're right, to an extent. The way the system is funded has a degree of influence on how it runs, public systems are less efficient than private ones. This has to do with the problem of the bottomless pot - with a diminished profit motive there is no incentive to be efficient with spending, and with no competition there is no incentive to improve quality while cutting costs.

I will agree that the US system is well past the point of recovery though, and as I've mentioned earlier, I'm not a fan and I'm not planning to defend it. It's poorly organised, poorly funded and it would be much easier to just scrap the whole thing and go back to the drawing board. That's not due to its universality though, it's simply bad overall. Switzerland for example seems to have no issues whatsoever running a very high-quality private healthcare system, and although it is more expensive than the systems in the UK or other European countries, the life expectancy in Switzerland is leading the pack. The citizens also seem to be more well-off, both financially and in terms of their health, so comparatively speaking it's a win-win in my book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

As for price fixing, which is common in countries with universal and publically funded healthcare systems, it's specifically one of the causes of shortages that you mentioned - it's not just up to the drug companies or the market. This issue is ever-present and leads to long wait times, you can observe it in Canada which is pretty much in the same economic environment as the US, but has to ration care, as well as in the UK where the average wait time to be seen in A&E is 4 hours at minimum.

Overall, no system is perfect, and your ultimate goals with designing one is your value judgement on which parameters of it are more important. There is no cure-all in this sector, pun intended. I think I've made my preferences abundantly clear, so I think I'll call it a day with this discussion. We're at a stage where we'd be arguing which dessert is better, cookies or chocolates. In their perfect implementations both private and public systems have their merits in terms of the balance between universality, affordability and quality. Sadly, there are no perfect implementations, and the US one is very far from perfect.

PS: I think I gave off the impression that I'm from the US, judging by the responses in this thread. I'm not - I live in the UK. If I had to choose between going to an NHS hospital and going elsewhere, I'll happily stand in that queue at the vet's, my guts can't possibly be that much different, and at least I'll be seen in my lifetime. I jest, but I avoid the system like the plague.

 

[Waygeek]

(I'm european, dont go by the flag I used in my account preferences. )
Pseudo temporary accomodation it is. (In some cases, especially for people without families, hopefully not mostly the long term unemployed) Thats the entire point. Allow people to sustain existences as close to the jumping off point of getting into employment again - without falling too far below. (Much higher social costs for recovering from - so society stops caring, and simply writes them off.)

Thats the balance you try to strike,

Also most?

Show me studies, articles, something. (Basically show me something that states, that european social safety nets have stopped working as intended.)

Again, I'm heavily involved in this sector, don't need the mansplaining, you seem to have a platitudinous understanding at best.

No studies are required to show that most European countries are completely dropping the ball in terms of homelessness. Have a quick youtube around for yourself and see. 'Invisible People' is a good channel to start with, mostly american but a decent chuck of English people interviewed too.

See: several posts above. The tax burden in Europe is significantly higher it is in the United States.

This doesn't strike me as at all true.

 

[Foxi4]

Again, I'm heavily involved in this sector, don't need the mansplaining, you seem to have a platitudinous understanding at best.

No studies are required to show that most European countries are completely dropping the ball in terms of homelessness. Have a quick youtube around for yourself and see. 'Invisible People' is a good channel to start with, mostly american but a decent chuck of English people interviewed too.

I can atest to this, it's not uncommon to see people in sleeping bags sleeping in various nooks and crannies. The council's solution to people sleeping under the stairs at my local bus depot was to board it up. The idea that homelessness is not an issue in Europe is silly, the same problems can be observed in most metropolitan cities, like London or Paris.

This doesn't strike me as at all true.

And yet, it is, at least overall. With that said, the American tax system isn't geared towards people in the low-end and the country should adapt the same level of taxation of the poor as many European countries - 0%, we've explored that earlier.

 

[Benja81]

Ok let me start out by saying, I am basically a moderate, for lack of a better phrase. I don't subscribe to the 2 party system, its archaic and makes it way to easy for archaic minded people to vote blindly for whoever their party nominates. That being said, the Democratic party is in trouble. In 2016 they nominated Hilary over Bernie, and now they are thinking Biden is going to beat Trump? I could be wrong, but I think he has ZERO chance to capture more than 40% of the vote or so. I have heard plenty of "Democrats" saying they hate Trump, but still wont vote for Biden. Thats a huge, self-inflicted problem for the Dems, and now we will have two elections in a row where many people wont even have the choice to vote for who they want to vote for (Bernie). Granted Bernie probably wouldn't win either, but I still think a lot of people would vote for him over Biden, so in that sense he'd at least have a better chance.

 

[Waygeek]

And yet, it is, at least overall.

Guess being Irish has given me a false sense of this issue considering our ranking https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

Ok let me start out by saying, I am basically a moderate, for lack of a better phrase. I don't subscribe to the 2 party system, its archaic

Yup. And worse, it breeds a black and white thinking process in americans.

 

[notimp]

Again, I'm heavily involved in this sector, don't need the mansplaining, you seem to have a platitudinous understanding at best.

And I dont need patronizing. Being Involved in the sector doesnt count for much in my book. Convince me with arguments, at least try, or dont participate at all.

I dont need someone reputation faking themself to a higher state of not having to interact with folks on grounds of actually having to bring any arguments.

Your feels on the matter, dont matter in a debate. Expert intuition often is wrong.

Btw, hows that entire - don't speak to me differently, because I'm a woman thing treating you in life, as a trump card? Flinging passive aggressive accusations, never being made by anyone in here in the first place.

I never treated you differently than I would anyone else in here, because you were female. But you wanted to feel exceptional in that sense?

You are the worst.

"You cant be correct, because I intuitively know its different." "You cant be correct, because you arent european." "You cant be correct, because you are mansplaining". You are definitely wrong on three accounts already - want wo make it four?

 

[Waygeek]

And I dont need patronizing.

What do you think mansplaining is? It's literally patronizing. No one is patronizing here but you.

Btw, hows that entire - don't speak to me differently, because I'm a woman thing treating you in life, as a trump card?

Did I say I was a woman?

Being Involved in the sector doesnt count for much in my book.

Literally no one cares.

 

[notimp]

Thank you for your input.

(What I'm dealing with in this case is a guy (?) that has internalized loaded language of the feminist movement. Is now accusing other guys of 'man-splaining' things to him, when he doesnt like them. Still is of the opinion that he doesnt need arguments, because of all the knowledge he picked up through osmosis, working in the field, whose first reaction was to hone in on the derogative use of the word bum (I'm at fault for that and sorry), that then extended the argument to 'you cant be right - because you are born in the wrong country', that then upon asking him twice still doesnt fully make/form his argument (you also must work with homeless people I guess - to understand), that still wants to remain ambivilant about what his gender is, just for good measure, that has now switched to - no one cares about you, but about me and the argument I'm obviously not making.

Thats some next level trolling. Kudos.)

 

[Waygeek]

when he doesnt like them.

Funny way to type 'when they have absolutely no basis in easily perceptible reality'.

 

[notimp]

Everyone - that homeless people are camping on streets (or parks?), in considerable numbers, in _most_ european countries is "easily perceptible reality" according to this guy.

Because everyone flies through europe, and takes surveys on that.

Also according to that guy, it is easily perceptible, that this is a result of social safety net systems failing structurally in most european countries, because - I mean, just look at it...

This is not how arguing works.

You give me any metrics (I've read about a 70% increase in homeless populations in europe, as a result of several national economic crises, housing crisis and migration crisis mixed in. Which still has not resulted in people having to sleep rough on a structural basis (basically "forced to, for a prolonged period of time"), as far as I'm informed.), and I deal with your argument. (I'm willing to learn.)

edit: We can start there:
https://www.eurozine.com/the-war-on-rough-sleeping/

 

[Waygeek]

Everyone - that homeless people are camping on streets (or parks?), in considerable numbers, in _most_ european countries is "easily perceptible reality" according to this guy.

Because everyone flies through europe, and takes surveys on that.

It's easily perceptible to anyone in Europe. It's not the business of anyone outside of Europe to be commenting as if they're an authority. They're not. You don't see me or fox commenting on homelessness in Laos. Because we don't know. So we keep our mouths closed on that.

This is a skill you sorely lack.

 

[notimp]

For the second time, I'm a european citizen.

Then we can talk about the european comissions position on the issue as per a working paper from 2014:

Our main presumption is that destitution and homelessness are the result of both how society – politically, socially and economically – operates, and the very existence of formal legal structures which may include and exclude migrant groups. The social causes are dealt with in chapter 4. For the purpose of our analysis these social causes are divided into three ‘pillars’: the labour market, social security and the housing market. These pillars are considered to be the main sources of individual wellbeing and social safety. Our central line of reasoning is that at different levels migrants may be confronted with all kinds of obstacles preventing them from gaining full access to the goods and services provided by these pillars. We examine the obstacles that may confront migrants first at the structural level, where the amount and quality of the provisions and services are considered. We then look at the role of institutional mechanisms, particularly with regard to discriminatory and unfair practices. Finally we examine the individual level of the migrants involved, including the different aspects of human capital. This study of the social causes is based upon a critical evaluation of secondary literature. We address the legal causes in chapter 5. Depending on their specific status, migrant groups might be formally excluded from access to the labour market, social security services and the housing market in the host country. As will be explained, the deficit in legal protection for migrants does not only exist under national law but also under international and European law. Despite the efforts of the international community of states to improve the social protection of migrants, there are still inadequacies to be identified. This also applies for the EU. We will show that some of the legal causes of destitution and homelessness among migrants can be traced back directly to weaknesses in European protective regulatory standards. In addition to EU law, attention has been paid to the impact of Council of Europe human rights treaties on the position of immigrants. These treaties are proving to be of increasing importance for marginalised individual migrants and groups. This legal analyses is based upon a systematic study of legal sources, such as the EU Treaties, secondary legislation and case law of ECJ, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Social Rights Committee.

src: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d5bfc21c-eac6-4acc-9d0e-e4d6b7c488cf

(Longform for - we believe (in 2014) its mostly a copruduct of migration. (Again - we are talking about an increase of about 70% in recent years.))

Challenges for the EU include:

• Homelessness levels have risen recently in most parts of Europe. The crisis seems to have aggravated the situation.
• The profile of the homeless population has been changing and now includes more young people and children, migrants, Roma and other disadvantaged minorities, women and families are increasingly at-risk of homelessness.
• Lack of comprehensive data which would allow for monitoring homelessness in the EU.
• High social cost of not tackling homelessness, particularly regarding the health and justice services use.

Policy response

EU Member States have primary responsibility and competence to address homelessness. The EU's Social Investment Packageencourages them to:

• Adopt long-term, housing-led, integrated homelessness strategies at national, regional and local level
• Introduce efficient policies to prevent evictions.

Effective homelessness strategies may cover:

• Prevention and early intervention
• Quality homelessness service delivery
• Rapid re-housing
• Systematic data collection, monitoring and using shared definitions (ETHOS typology).

Again, for all I know you are another Trump drone, badmouthing social security systems in europe.

Bring other arguments than 'I've seen 'em!' (thats anecdotal).

edit: See also:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0042

(I'm reading that currently.)

edit:

In the past, homelessness was a short-lived experience for many people, especially those who, apart from their need for housing required little additional support. But the crisis is exposing more people to longer periods of homelessness. Deepening poverty and a sharp increase in unemployment have increased the general risk for homelessness. Budgetary consolidations have diminished the capacity of the welfare state to alleviate and prevent homelessness. Rising housing costs and prices combined with uncertain financial markets have increased the vulnerability of homeowners in a number of Member States. Mortgage or rent arrears plus high energy and utility bills have taken many people into financial trouble.

According to an expert estimate for the year 2009, under categories 1 and 2 of the ETHOS definition - that is, when counting with the most vulnerable roofless and houseless people [23]- there could be as many as 410.000 homeless people on any given night in the European Union. This could imply that about 4.1 million people in the EU are exposed to rooflessness and houselessness each year for a shorter or longer period.[24]

That 410.000 number roughly comes out to 1 in 1000, which is still higher than expected.

edit:

The ‘traditional core’ of the homeless population is largely made up of middle-aged men with long-standing social problems, mental health issues and/or alcohol and drug addiction,[33] who usually require very complex and intensive support. But as of the late 1990s and increasingly since the onset of the crisis, the composition of the homeless population has begun to change.[34] Strongly influenced by the recession, the risk of homelessness has increased in particular among citizens from other EU Member States, migrants from third countries, young persons, the newly unemployed, victims of legal loan sharking and those who generally have a low income.

Women, single-parent and large families, older people, Roma and other minorities are also more exposed to homelessness. As is some parts of the rural population even if homelessness remains a predominantly urban phenomenon. The lower educated seem to be overrepresented among the homeless. A Commission study found that some 70 % of the homeless young had left school with no more than lower secondary education.[35]

The on-going inflow of migrants is an important driver of homelessness, particularly in urban areas. Migrants from within the EU are severely affected by the crisis. They are hit by massive layoffs and wage cuts and often lack a supportive social network. In particular, the employment rate in low skilled sectors such as construction and manufacturing, where many migrants used to work, was reduced by the crisis.

Identified as main causes:

Although migration policies vary across Member States, access of migrants without a residency status to emergency social care such as shelters, social benefits, housing, healthcare, education and labour market integration services is usually restricted everywhere. Undocumented migrants typically do not have access to the most basic services. Asylum seekers are only granted temporary protection in their first EU country of entry, resulting in a limited duration of any entitlements.[36] EU citizens who are mobile across the EU are usually in a better position than third-country nationals but they also do not have the same social security rights as nationals.[37]

People leaving institutions such as prisons, hospitals, mental health institutions and alternative foster care homes can be particularly vulnerable to homelessness[41] without adequate preparation for their after-care life and sufficient follow-up support e.g. to help them find housing. Many deinstitutionalised people do not have a family home to return to, have lost their own home during their care stay or cannot find suitable new housing. The homelessness risk for young people leaving care is greater also because they are often forced to become self-sufficient at a much younger age than their peers growing up in a family home. Incarceration can have a long-term exclusionary effect but stigmatisation is very common among institution-leavers in general.

Families get shortlisted for social housing:

Among the homeless more and more families with children are being seen,[42] even if they usually manage to stay in temporary or insecure accommodation rather than being exposed to rough sleeping.[43] Roma children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, undocumented or non-registered children and children leaving care are especially at risk. Spells of rough sleeping have been reported for children under the age of 12.[44]

And also sadly:

Life cycle transitions during adolescence, like leaving education, the parental home or a care institution for work or early parenthood may also increase the risk of homelessness. Youth homelessness has risen as a result of the high youth unemployment due to the crisis and early school-leaving. Many youngsters find themselves also in precarious jobs, on a temporary or part-time contract of employment without much access to social support.[45] A problematic harmful family background caused for example by sexual or physical abuse during childhood, loss of a parent and additional lack of a supporting network can also trigger youth homelessness.[46] A significant number of low-income families are struggling to support their children, especially during teenage years, at school.[47]

This I was familiar with already:

A considerable and growing number of older (over 50s) persons have been homeless or exposed to housing exclusion for at least a year.[48] Divorce, death of spouse and an inadequate pension are the major trigger factors. The growing lack of carers in ageing societies may also increase the vulnerability of older people to housing exclusion. Older people who depend on affordable home care and who are left struggling are exposed to homelessness.

[...]

Homelessness is generally triggered by a ‘complex interplay of structural, institutional, relationship and personal factors’.[52] The table below[53] shows that homelessness is usually due to an accumulation of vulnerability factors and not the result of a single trigger or cause. For example, unemployment and financial hardship or substance abuse – primary triggers of homelessness themselves – may put pressure on personal relationships, increasing the risk of family breakdown, which is another important trigger of homelessness.[54]