Welfare in the US

[Wonkish1]

@Wonkish1

You really seem to love the expression briefly and succinctly, as you use it in each of your posts...
FYI: It refers to MY question, which I didn't want to expound in more detail. Got it?

Alright, so you want a detailed discussion of healthcare policy?

Not quite. Chiefly, I want to know why so many (not most) Americans have a such violent aversion to something that is not worth discussing at all in every other industrial nation.

Okay, lets start off with the fact that most Americans are fairly content with the current system since most of the premium cost is "payed" by their employer and healthcare cost is payed by an insurance company and they essentially have close to limitless demand of the highest quality drugs, procedures, doctors, etc. they want with little personal expense relative to its cost. They don't want that to change.

Second, many Americans are scared of government imposed cost containment most commonly materialized in conversations about the "waiting lines" in other countries for expensive, but often times life saving expenditures. A fear that is warranted.

Third, they have a fundamental distrust of governments ability to manage a system that is about 1/8 of our entire economy. Given the disasters of government handling many, many things in the past this to makes sense.

Fourth, they believe in competition and government removes that from the system.

Fifth, they don't want the country more "welfarized" than it already is. I.e. they think the country already has enough transfer payments going on why add more.

Sixth, current public debt totals.

[greenforest32]

Since you asked for "briefly and succinctly" because they don't work well, they make matters worse, and negatively impact future growth(and thereby the standards of livings of future poor people).

I'm sorry to say the economical data in North, Central and West Europe (and also in Japan) prove you absolutely wrong.

America and Europe are almost incomparable. America is made up of states, which hold most of the power in this country on issues like Education and Healthcare. Germany takes up as much space as Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. I estimate that they make up 20% of the country in land. Its much easier for a Federally run government program to operate in small countries, like France, or the UK, compared to the US. So its best the states run these programs. And some states do have universal healthcare, like Massachusetts.

Personally, I think Universal Healthcare on a national scale would (and will) fail. You can't federalize these types of things, because each state is differant.

Except of course the power of funding. The EU and the US are indeed very different and one of the most striking differences is the tax base. The EU itself has virtually no tax base (no EU income, property, or sales tax) while its member states have the vast supermajority of the funding. Compare that to the US where the federal government has high direct tax rates (35% income tax, payroll taxes, estate tax, etc) and collects the majority of the taxes while the states have much lower rates (what is the highest state-level income tax? 11% in Hawaii. Compare that to 66% in Denmark).

We have a strong federal government and it's unlikely any state is going to double or triple its income tax rate to fully subsidize higher education or adopt single-payer healthcare. More likely is the federal government expanding its existing programs (Medicare, Pell grants/student loans) to individuals in every state.

As for the topic itself, I agree with these:

Many Americans want to feel they are economically independent, and that they can take care of themselves. They want to take care of themselves, their families and often their community, but not people they don't know in ways they don't have control over.

Briefly and succinctly, why are universal health care and especially social welfare so heavily frowned upon in the US?

One big factor is this garbage "American Dream."  Everyone thinks they are "going to make it" someday.  They all think they are going to "start a small business"  and "be their own boss."  Instead of realizing that most people will die penniless and instead work on a system that provides a reasonable social safety net they all want to shoot for the stars with no net.  In short... mass ignorance and psychosis.

Don't forget a healthy dosage of not wanting to help "those people" (see welfare queen, etc).

[Link]

Third, they have a fundamental distrust of governments ability to manage a system that is about 1/8 of our entire economy. Given the disasters of government handling many, many things in the past this to makes sense.

Actually private citizens and private industry caused the last two recessions in my lifetime.  The last one was the worst since the great depression.  Evidence would seem to suggest the private sector is pretty terrible at safe guarding grandma's retirement and healthcare.

*cough*Internet Bubble*cough*

*cough*Real Estate Bubble*cough*

*cough*S&L crisis*cough*

*cough*LTCM implosion*cough*

I need to get some cough drops.  My throat is killing me.

[Wonkish1]

Third, they have a fundamental distrust of governments ability to manage a system that is about 1/8 of our entire economy. Given the disasters of government handling many, many things in the past this to makes sense.

Actually private citizens and private industry caused the last two recessions in my lifetime.  The last one was the worst since the great depression.  Evidence would seem to suggest the private sector is pretty terrible at safe guarding grandma's retirement and healthcare.

*cough*Internet Bubble*cough*

*cough*Real Estate Bubble*cough*

*cough*S&L crisis*cough*

*cough*LTCM implosion*cough*

I need to get some cough drops.  My throat is killing me.

I guess that would depend on whether or not the root causes were from the private sector or from government. If you want to get into a discussion about financial markets with me knock yourself out, but keep in mind that is the topic I actually do for a living.


Also, when government owned and operated industries take on losses they don't self correct they just perpetually dip farther and farther into the treasury to make up for their mistakes. I would be hard pressed to find anybody that believes that is superior to market corrections.

[Link]

Third, they have a fundamental distrust of governments ability to manage a system that is about 1/8 of our entire economy. Given the disasters of government handling many, many things in the past this to makes sense.

Actually private citizens and private industry caused the last two recessions in my lifetime.  The last one was the worst since the great depression.  Evidence would seem to suggest the private sector is pretty terrible at safe guarding grandma's retirement and healthcare.

*cough*Internet Bubble*cough*

*cough*Real Estate Bubble*cough*

*cough*S&L crisis*cough*

*cough*LTCM implosion*cough*

I need to get some cough drops.  My throat is killing me.

I guess that would depend on whether or not the root causes were from the private sector or from government. If you want to get into a discussion about financial markets with me knock yourself out, but keep in mind that is the topic I actually do for a living.

Expert or no expert I would love for a Republican to explain how the LTCM debacle is "all the government's fault."  Now that would be entertaining.  This is not just for Wonkish.  Any Republican can weigh in and straighten me out.  Let me get a good seat...

[Wonkish1]

Expert or no expert I would love for a Republican to explain how the LTCM debacle is "all the government's fault."  Now that would be entertaining.  This is not just for Wonkish.  Any Republican can weigh in and straighten me out.  Let me get a good seat...

I wouldn't say that LTCM is the governments fault. I also wouldn't call LTCM a systemic risk. Nor do I think it had to prevented from failing. Option trading has a winner and looser. Systemic risk doesn't come from that.

[Duke David]

So you want everyone else to quit posting until a few Red and Green avatars pop up.

I will never understand why Republicans are always misquoting someone else when they've run out of arguments...

Not quite. Chiefly, I want to know why so many (not most) Americans have a such violent aversion to something that is not worth discussing at all in every other industrial nation.

Because were incomparable to other Industrial nations.

Barry Goldwater said the same when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Duke David]

Don't forget a healthy dosage of not wanting to help "those people" (see welfare queen, etc).

LOL
I always wanted to know if there's an American version of Arno Dübel. And now I got to know both an American and a female version of him. They ought to beget children.

PS Merkel does have some huge orbs.  I never noticed that.  I'm reporting your signature.  I'm sure it's pornographic.

Yeah. Bush should have massaged her boobs instead of her neck.

[Link]

Expert or no expert I would love for a Republican to explain how the LTCM debacle is "all the government's fault."  Now that would be entertaining.  This is not just for Wonkish.  Any Republican can weigh in and straighten me out.  Let me get a good seat...

I wouldn't say that LTCM is the governments fault. I also wouldn't call LTCM a systemic risk. Nor do I think it had to prevented from failing.

I know you are a financial "expert" but plenty of other financial experts disagree with you including Alan Greenspan.  No offense but I'm going with Greenspan on this one.

[Link]

I wouldn't say that LTCM is the governments fault. I also wouldn't call LTCM a systemic risk. Nor do I think it had to prevented from failing. Option trading has a winner and looser. Systemic risk doesn't come from that.

LTCM was trading a lot more than "options" my friend.  Errr... that was kind of the umm.. problem.

[TJ in Oregon]

To try and answer the OP’s question in a way no one has answered it yet, I think most Americans take a long look at our federal government. Then we read  stories about building bridges to nowhere, social security mismanagement, partisan bickering, subsidizing ethanol not because it is a promising fuel source but because Iowa has the first presidential primary, courts ordering crosses put up in World War II taken down because they’re on public property, corporate loopholes, Solyndra, Halliburton, sex scandals by “family values” candidates, states getting payouts in exchange for senators’ votes on a bill, etc, etc…

And a lot of Americans ask, so we would have our healthcare system run by these people? Man, I’ll take the HMO…

[Duke David]

Doesn't prove $hit. None of those countries put up the growth numbers, per capita income(outside of couple countries/principalities like Monaco and Luxembourg), standard of living, etc. enjoyed by those of us in the US.

As a European I am used to such statements by now.
Whoever of my acquaintance visited the USA was asked questions like:
"Do you have cars? Have you ever watched TV? Have you ever opened a fridge? Do you have hospitals in your country? Do you still use outhouses?"
It doesn't even matter where I/they were traveling - Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, New York - the Americans think that they are the only modern, civilized, sophisticated country in the world. I'm afraid it's no prejudice. Almost all Europeans - in newspapers, on TV, on the Internet - tell of such experiences.
The same thing when Americans come to Europe; they are always astonish at our "modern" culture and technique.
Thus, statements like Wonkish's don't put me up any more.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread is an embarrassment to the forum.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Again, the answer is due to a historical lack of class consciousness (and the reason for that is a number of things, including the availability of cheap land in 18th and 19th century America and the ethnic, religious and national divisions in the country).

This, not to mention...the racism thing.

[Duke David]

This thread is an embarrassment to the forum.

Why?

[opebo]

...in the big leagues...

haha, wonk thinks he's in the 'big leagues'. 

[© tweed]

This thread is an embarrassment to the forum.

not possible, the Forum is as itself an embarrassment, a collection of people who have failed in one form or another.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread is an embarrassment to the forum.

not possible, the Forum is as itself an embarrassment, a collection of people who have failed in one form or another.

This may be true, but it's hardly wrong to demand at least a few standards...

[Duke David]

This thread is an embarrassment to the forum.

not possible, the Forum is as itself an embarrassment, a collection of people who have failed in one form or another.

This may be true, but it's hardly wrong to demand at least a few standards...

Why is Sibboleth always pussyfooting around?

[Wonkish1]

Expert or no expert I would love for a Republican to explain how the LTCM debacle is "all the government's fault."  Now that would be entertaining.  This is not just for Wonkish.  Any Republican can weigh in and straighten me out.  Let me get a good seat...

I wouldn't say that LTCM is the governments fault. I also wouldn't call LTCM a systemic risk. Nor do I think it had to prevented from failing.

I know you are a financial "expert" but plenty of other financial experts disagree with you including Alan Greenspan.  No offense but I'm going with Greenspan on this one.

Greenspan also created the conditions for the housing bubble to occur so "going with Greenspan" may not be all that great of a pick.

There is kind of a bubble of thought in Wall Street that any write downs that occur among a few of their banks means systemic risk. I definitely do not agree with that sentiment and believe that is largely a symptom of handful of people that think that the key to the financial system is to prevent them from taking any write downs even when they aren't very large.

Also, I should point out that around the time that LTCM started seeing huge growth in its debt(leverage) is about the time that you could tell that the FFR was a little bit artificially low in conjunction with other money supply controls(capital, collateral, and reserve requirements) also being lax that created an environment for leverage, credit and therefore the money supply to start ramping up a bit. In the case of the 90s that new credit showed up in one area more than others collateralized lending to equity portfolios(essentially hedge funds, margin accounts, etc.).

So while the amazing amounts of leverage in LTCM was due to its founder and board being able to convince banks that they had a full proof formula for pricing options(Black Sholes) the Fed had definitely created the conditions for that type of leverage to be accumulated. Its almost a shame LTCM wasn't allowed to fail because that would have been some cheap write downs to signify to the banks that the amount of new credit they were pumping into stock buying(courtesy of the Fed) was riskier than they were acting like it was. A problem that eventually culminated in a couple years later when the bubble popped.

But at that time LTCM wasn't allowed to fail not because it would cause wide scale losses throughout the financial system(that notion is a joke), but that it represented a likely end to a very profitable stream of income--issuing credit to those that were playing the markets.

[Wonkish1]

I wouldn't say that LTCM is the governments fault. I also wouldn't call LTCM a systemic risk. Nor do I think it had to prevented from failing. Option trading has a winner and looser. Systemic risk doesn't come from that.

LTCM was trading a lot more than "options" my friend.  Errr... that was kind of the umm.. problem.

That and some derivatives was where the vast majority their money was being put.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread is an embarrassment to the forum.

not possible, the Forum is as itself an embarrassment, a collection of people who have failed in one form or another.

This may be true, but it's hardly wrong to demand at least a few standards...

Why is Sibboleth always pussyfooting around?

Because I like cats.

[Wonkish1]

Doesn't prove $hit. None of those countries put up the growth numbers, per capita income(outside of couple countries/principalities like Monaco and Luxembourg), standard of living, etc. enjoyed by those of us in the US.

As a European I am used to such statements by now.
Whoever of my acquaintance visited the USA was asked questions like:
"Do you have cars? Have you ever watched TV? Have you ever opened a fridge? Do you have hospitals in your country? Do you still use outhouses?"
It doesn't even matter where I/they were traveling - Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, New York - the Americans think that they are the only modern, civilized, sophisticated country in the world. I'm afraid it's no prejudice. Almost all Europeans - in newspapers, on TV, on the Internet - tell of such experiences.
The same thing when Americans come to Europe; they are always astonish at our "modern" culture and technique.
Thus, statements like Wonkish's don't put me up any more.

Where in my statement do you see my point to most of the Europe not being "civilized" not being "modern", or developed or anything?

The fact that the US has historically thrown up better growth and unemployment numbers that Europe is a fact. That doesn't mean you guys are back in the dark ages.


When we travel to Europe we get treated like Americans want to run around killing poor people from other countries whenever we can find an excuse. Kind of ironic giving Europe's past if you ask me. I wouldn't act like lowest common denominator of internationally ignorant people in our respective countries are typical of the people on this site though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

U.S unemployment figures have historically been low because U.S unemployment figures are even more of a joke than unemployment figures in most 'Western' countries (so a complete joke rather than a relative joke). For what that's worth.

[Wonkish1]

U.S unemployment figures have historically been low because U.S unemployment figures are even more of a joke than unemployment figures in most 'Western' countries (so a complete joke rather than a relative joke). For what that's worth.

By any standardized model, the US has maintained lower average unemployment numbers over any 10 year period of the last half century than the rest of Europe.