> But equally europe needs more appreciation of self-reliance and entrepreneurship to enable a richer startup culture and let the EU become an economic leader instead of follower.
Does it? Is the purpose of a nation state to compete with others based on economic metrics? Yes, I know that most countries are doing that, but in a thread where we compare individualism/selfishness with nanny/"charity" state, shouldn't this competition be questioned?
Yes it should be questioned. Would I enjoy being filthy rich, while my neighbour is struggling with his hospital bills? Hell no. For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs.
> For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs.
For me, I'd say that society is about taking care of everyone -- government should merely (!) play the role of the administrator in that process.
I always feel that way too many people I speak to think that 'the government' is some kind of independent force, rather than a reflection of what society wants. (Sure, in many cases, it really is a reflection of what a tiny handful of people orchestrate -- but since we're talking idealism here...)
Exactly. The government should represent the will of the people. Too often I see people argue from the point that government is intrinsically some alien entity they have no control over, but when that's the case, that just means your government is wrong. Government should represent the people, and any government that doesn't, needs to be fixed. (The US government certainly needs to be fixed.)
that's really dangerous, because the will of the people can get really hairy.
Besides, if the will of the people is to take care of everyone through social services, then why do you need a government to do it? It should just happen naturally. What you are saying, is that a few select people that are chosen by a popularity contest should be given the authority to make people do things against their will.
Your alternative presumably is the current system, where a few self-selected people, kept in power exclusively by wealth, caste, and social connections - often in defiance of real wisdom or foresight - force everyone else to act in ways that benefit that self-sustaining governing class at the expense of everyone else.
No, how about many people act together voluntarily in a distributed system of social support that is resilient to attack by small numbers of powerful people?
Because people need to pool into something to be able to afford big projects for the benefit of all. Government is the effect of this, you collect taxes so you can afford to build a shiny new hospital to attend to a region.
If you want to pool resources collectively in a smaller scale you are just replicating this structure with different powerful people, or different structure of power, but a society will always need it, doesn't matter if resources are money, materials or labour.
> that's really dangerous, because the will of the people can get really hairy.
Yes, but that's a direct consequence of having an ill-informed, poorly educated , credulous, angry, compliant majority. Societies where the elite are looking to retain their power base will typically channel fewer resources to public education, and more to the institutions that reinforce their own position.
Difficult to undo once it's been started, and (IMO) it's been happening for a very long time in AU, UK, US -- and presumably almost everywhere else that self-identifies as a capitalist democracy.
So, yes, the will of the people can get hairy, but of the two options -- force the agenda of the elite upon everyone else, or work towards a better society -- the preferable option very much depends which of those groups you're in right now.
Also noting that if you're in the uninformed group, you may not recognise that, or think anything needs changing.
For me, I don't think the driving forces of capatilism are always compatible with 'caring for people' and that there are tasks that are better left to governmental organizations.
Yes, agreed entirely -- I didn't mean that more things should be privatised (I actually think many things should either remain, or be re-, nationalised). I meant that government should be acting in a way that reflects the will of an informed, thoughtful, responsible, empathetic society ... rather than 'inflicting' responsibility upon its citizens.
That's quite possibly the most inefficient way to handle such a thing. As a reminder: there's a very good chance that, with healthcare, inefficiency => people die.
Beyond that, it's an insulting way to avoid having a real discussion on this issue. If the charity of the rich were enough to solve this social problem, we wouldn't be talking about it. Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
You're the one saying we should effectively stick with the current mechanism, despite its flaws. The onus isn't on me to provide an alternative, it's on you to defend a problematic solution.
>You're the one saying we should effectively stick with the current mechanism, despite its flaws. The onus isn't on me to provide an alternative, it's on you to defend a problematic solution.
If the alternative is not flawless, then one needs to show that the disadvantages of the alternative vs the current situation are outweighed by its advantages over the current system.
> Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
So you agree we should stop massive government programs that have always resulted in centralization, bankruptcy, and systemic poverty? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Greece, Spain, Italy, China, ... How much more failure do you need to realize Government isnt the answer?
So your argument is that these statistics "prove" that Sweden and Germany's people are worse off than the citizens of most US states?
First, it would seem that all those people are too ignorant to understand how much better their lives would be if they were, for example, living in Michigan. If only we could teach them how unhappy they are!
Second, the claim that the people are "poorer" is not a cogent claim that their countries are failures. Your argument reminds me of something I tell my children:
"Human beings are the most successful form of life on Earth, by all the metrics that humans choose to measure success."
> a consistent reliable efficient health care system
what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
Either way... I personally don't care much whether it's run by the government or not, but rather that the government does what's necessary to have free/super low cost health care for everyone (On the order of $20 for a doctor's visit). Maybe the government runs it itself; maybe it provides the funding for private organizations to provide the health care.
Know what's awesome? Knowing that I can break my arm and have it taken care of with virtually no out-of-pocket cost.
Tax-wise, I'm totally speculating here because I don't know the ins-and-outs of the American tax system, but here we go.
I'm going off of $85,000USD/$106571CAD (equivalent today according to Google), and using California.
California: total tax paid $25,252.56USD, you keep $59,747USD
Saskatchewan: total tax paid $30,465CAD ($24,308.33USD), you keep $76,106CAD ($60,702.91USD)
So on the same amount of income, we pay about the same as California residents, but all of our health care costs come out of the taxes we've paid. Seems like a pretty good deal, not having to pay any health insurance premiums on top of that.
Doing a conversion of USD to equivalent CAD is not reasonable. Salaries are generally higher, dollar for dollar in the USD.
You're also ignoring the multiple tax breaks available in the US that aren't an option in Canada: mortgage interest deduction, uncapped 401K contribution, etc.
Median family income in California: $70,187 USD
Median family income in Saskatchewan: $86,970 CAD ($69,516.86 USD)
The currency conversion seems pretty reasonable. And yes, I'm ignoring the various tax breaks available on both sides, as well as a number of other perks (e.g. 55% paid maternity/paternity leave for 35 weeks). We're in the same ballpark here though.
Every OECD country except the United States and, at one point, Mexico—though they may now, too—has universal healthcare largely driven by government mandates, though the systems may be either direct government programs, mandated private insurance, or a combination.
I see nothing that could end the general health care system. Unlike political opinions, science and technology progress (only).
European politicians prognose bad times because of the demography (too many old persons, too few young persons).
IMO politicians and many experts are very bad at predicting the future. Like many other people, they feel smart when they prognose problems and anounce austerity.
IMO technology and automation could and probably will solve any poverty problem soon enough for most Europeans. Even today, most poverty in the world is a political problem and not a natural or technical necessity.
If you look at the broad scope of history, health care is useless or worse. 1950 onwards is a major anomaly in nearly every area. We’re in that anomaly, so looking to earlier eras for lessons in things they didn’t have and wouldn’t have imagined is pointless.
Is medical care something people need? That's how you tell if the government needs to provide it or subsidize it -- the market like US politics has schizophrenia which doesn't lead to a terribly efficient mechanism for allocating certain resources - it's great at giving people what they want. The right will come around eventually and maybe it will a little harder since there is a larger population to draw from to form a critical mass of stupidity. You just need to wait for the entrenched living carcasses that have been in the game since the 70's & 80's to die out gradually before anything will really change -- I will bet anything this is why kings and emperors were convinced to drink mercury.
Life is not a need or a natural right. Nature can continue to grind on regardless of what you think. It seems you think that having other people enforce a system that offers you guarantees is something you are automatically entitled to having -- how much security you get is dependent upon the resources of the larger group, just like all other rights.
Saying people don't need healthcare is like saying people don't need food. Whether a country's government should let people starve or die of cardiac arrest on the streets is another question, but I would say from a moral standpoint that it shouldn't.
There's a mechanistic reason why it's a bad choice. Government is by necessity a hierarchical system, by its very nature its process of allocating resources requires a concentration of wealth and power. From first principles, there's no way around it. Any system that enforces 'good feels' top-down is unstable and has a half-life; systems of social support will eventually be redirected to benefit the wealthy. For example, if we go to single payer healthcare, it eventually will become a vector for lining the pockets of phamaceutical companies.
'Good feels' there you have it. You think empathic people are just virtue signalling, totally ignoring the benefits of a more social democracy. You believe in a system that's totally unfair to a lot of people, ignoring that I am from a country that proves that there's absolutely another way.
Doing what is right isn't the same as "good feels" -- does conceding your own personal self interests on behalf of a group feel good? Trying to empty the ocean with a bucket is "good feels". You present a theoretical reason against a system that works already in other jurisdictions -- this is not some far off space age shit with flying saucers, it can be done and if done and it functions well enough will improve the lives of A LOT of people.
You can't solve the underlying bugs because it's impossible for you to force your neighbor to make good choices and to live a net productive life. The only question that needs answering is how much of your productive output should be diverted to someone else, someone whose life choices you get no influence on, but somehow they are allowed to have influence on yours.
This is the standard myth of personal irresponsibility which excuses "punishment" for failure.
The reality is that the opposite is not just possible, but encouraged - right-wing governments in the US consistently use economic policy to prevent social mobility, economic freedom, and the kind of collective social investment that generates long-term social, political, and economic benefits.
It's all about concentrating economic power among an increasingly narrow sub-group, and economically disenfranchising the rest of the population.
Well, I am forced to pay for my jobless neighbor. I also pay for the road between me and him. I also pay for the guy on the corner with mental health problems and for the cops that are patrolling the streets at night. I am more than happy to pay for everyone, because it's this system that enables to me to focus on my job.
And I voted for a system like this. Just like my parents, my neighbor, the guy on the corner and my jobless neighbor.
You're not paying for everyone - a significant chunk of the transfers you're endorsing are paid by deficit spending, so you're still signing up other people who don't get to vote to pay for what you want.
Of course there are probably government spending you disapprove of (long-term prison sentences for drugs, war on drugs, "bridge to nowhere", and military/foreign wars are likely candidates)
Everyone disapproves of some government spending, but it involves compromise between differing perspectives on what government should be doing.
But couldn't his money go farther if we had a more efficient health care system? Do you realize that they passed a law specifically making it illegal for the government to negotiate the price for medicine.
Maybe his neighbor would? If the culture of self reliance is so important, shouldn't people who take handouts from others be shamed and vilified? Sure seems like that's the Republican party line.
Whereas if healthcare was properly regulated, his neighbor could pay for it himself and actually be independent in his community.
I'd rather be independent among my peers and neighbors even if I have to rely on a supra entity to regulate my food quality and organize my warfighting than the other way around. We're all dependent at some level even if just to the past, no matter what "Atlas Shrugged" says.
>For me government is about taking care of the sick, poor and vulnerable as much as taking care of wannabe millionairs.
You're free to donate as much of your income to people in need as you want, but you need to stop thinking you should be able to make other people do the same thing. You may not like it but we have a right to our labor and freedom to spend it how we please.
Does it? Is the purpose of a nation state to compete with others based on economic metrics? Yes, I know that most countries are doing that, but in a thread where we compare individualism/selfishness with nanny/"charity" state, shouldn't this competition be questioned?