NationStates Jolt Archive

There exists today many critics within the United States and Europe who argue against the privitized healthcare system the United States currently runs today. And if statistics are worth their weight in numbers, its clear there are many flaws in the American healthcare system. However, recent reports have come out indicitating that France´s healthcare system while being among the greatest in the world is no longer sustainable as tax dollars simply can´t pay for that that greatness forcing the government to run up high budget deficits. French citizens already pay out landish taxes to sustain this welfare state and now the French government is under great pressure from the EU to pull back on social welfare. So is the call for more welfare programs in the United states well founded ... or is privitization the most realistic answer

Maybe it would work if we stopped paying corporate welfare to some of the richest multinational companies in the world.

"The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history...Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30."

There exists today many critics within the United States and Europe who argue against the privitized healthcare system the United States currently runs today. And if statistics are worth their weight in numbers, its clear there are many flaws in the American healthcare system. However, recent reports have come out indicitating that France´s healthcare system while being among the greatest in the world is no longer sustainable as tax dollars simply can´t pay for that that greatness forcing the government to run up high budget deficits. French citizens already pay out landish taxes to sustain this welfare state and now the French government is under great pressure from the EU to pull back on social welfare. So is the call for more welfare programs in the United states well founded ... or is privitization the most realistic answer
Depends if you're concerned with social welfare or corporate prosperity. Seems like they are opposed in this case.

Maybe it would work if we stopped paying corporate welfare to some of the richest multinational companies in the world.
I feel that handouts, whether for business or social issues is never a good idea when the job is given to the government.
Private organizations do a better job of helping people in need, as do venture capitalists or banks of helping businesses.

The real issue with social welfare in the US and Europe is that we are gradually losing our young, working population. If we can encourage more immigration from countries that have higher birth rates, like India, we might be able to support ourselves.

So do you think the high and might French should now be forced to give up their beloved healthcare system (a model for all other welfare systems) because they are exceeding EU budget deficit allowances

Maybe if France did away with their subsidies for Airbus, they would be able to afford it.

Now, before all the Europeans flame me, yes, the United States could stop subsidizing Boeing, too :rolleyes: Both parties are guilty as charged.

And the poster who brought up ADM brought up another point...maybe if we did away with the corporate trough, and extricated our asses out of Iraq (thus ending corporate welfare for Halliburton and its evil ilk), we would be able to afford a decent nationalized healthcare system too. The Canadians did it.

I feel that handouts, whether for business or social issues is never a good idea when the job is given to the government.
Private organizations do a better job of helping people in need, as do venture capitalists or banks of helping businesses.

There's this little thing called 'greed' that prevents the free market from adequately addressing the demand for charity.

I thought the french has a quasi-private system of healthcare which was partly funded by the government and partly paid for as people used the service? Guess not.

The (edit:English) NHS is surviving reasonably well. It's hardly perfect but it seems viable - we're not in bucketloads of debt at the moment. The day english healthcare becomes fully privatised (irritatingly there are a number of PFI hospitals starting to spring up - a trend which must not continue) is the day i leave the country.

So yes, a welfare state is viable, and is infinitily preferable to the alternatives imo. I totally agree with Evil Woody Thoughts' scepticism of private 'welfare' initiatives, and Eichen - what the hell is the government there for if it's not to support the people? :/

I prefer charity over welfare

Candians also pay out 60 percent in taxes... im not sure if that even includes free education.. Even if it does.. its still a hard sell in America .. primarly because the people who know what they are doing and are actually sucessful will die before that happens.. and every other clueless joe wants every bit they can squeeze out of social programs since they can´t make it happen themselves .. Im not rich.. im not even decent middle class.. But i still think i can do it myself better then the government and beurocracies can.. (again who cares about spelling :) )

There's this little thing called 'greed' that prevents the free market from adequately addressing the demand for charity.
I'd like you to back that statement up please. Stats would be nice.

In Australia we have Public and Private hospitals as well as private health insurance.

The Federal Government gives people a 30% rebate on their private health costs to encourage their use of the private system. Freeing up the public system for those who can not afford private care.

The only stuff-up is that the Federal Government gives the private health rebate, runs medicare (pays some of your doctor's fees and minor pathology), administers a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (You don't pay full price for medication) and gives the States money for the hospitals which are administered by the State Governments.

If the State Governments stuff up the administration of the hospitals it does not matter how much money the Federal Government gives them because the system is not working.

Add to this the fact we have State Administered hospitals, private hospitals and privately run public hospitals.

It gets confusing but the system generally works.

are you calling nationalized health WELFARE?

are you calling nationalized health WELFARE?
I believe he's calling it a social program, welfare being one of them.

The government should just get the chronically unemployed to pick up litter and clean up graffiti for their money.

I'd like you to back that statement up please. Stats would be nice.
who needs stats, i have two words: labor laws

who needs stats, i have two words: labor laws
If by labor laws you mean laws protecting citizens from force or fraud, I'm with you.

I feel that handouts, whether for business or social issues is never a good idea when the job is given to the government.
Private organizations do a better job of helping people in need, as do venture capitalists or banks of helping businesses.

the invisible hand doesnt work. self-correcting economies are myths. that was classical economics and we moved on, what, like 50 years ago? look at a graph of the way the economy used to grow... it looked like a roller coaster. there were huge depressions, including that great one in the 1930's. but thank god the economy wasnt being ruined by these big government people. laissez faire all the way!!!!1! handouts are there for a reason, and the reason is to stop things like the great depression. without welfare, unemplyment would shock the economy much more than it does now. you would lose consumers (demand) as well as workers, so both supply would be lost (in the form of lost labor) and the market would shrink (in the form of people without paychecks). handouts are good for the economy because it makes it more stable. messing with the interest rate, unemployment insurance, and making sure the unemployed dont die if theyre accidentaly between jobs is good overall for the economy but its hard to expect a private business to manage an economy so complex.

If by labor laws you mean laws protecting citizens from force or fraud, I'm with you.
i mean by labor laws we wouldnt need them if businesses wernt greedy bastards that only cared about themselves

I'd like you to back that statement up please. Stats would be nice.


I feel that handouts, whether for business or social issues is never a good idea when the job is given to the government.
Private organizations do a better job of helping people in need, as do venture capitalists or banks of helping businesses.

When you give me stats about private organizations adequately meeting the demand for charity, I'll give you my stats. Until then, you're the pot calling the kettle black.

I believe he's calling it a social program, welfare being one of them.
hmmmm
national health is just a different way of paying for health care. taxes instead of insurance + welfare

it has pros and cons. many countries think the pros are more important, in the US we mostly dislike the cons.

welfare is needed? it creats social stability? its not evil and actually good for business? anyone? look at me, look at me, im the most important person here

what the hell is the government there for if it's not to support the people? :/
You can't seriously mean that! The government is not there to be our nanny! When it is, society becomes dependent on it, and tyranny follows close behind. Government is there, IMHO, to maintain some semblance of order, and to organize those things that are not practical on a smaller scale, such as transportation across states, military, etc. I do not want to depend on the government for anything, it simply corrupts those who are in it. The smaller the government, the smaller the potential it has for screwing over its citizens.

I prefer charity over welfare
Amen! Think about it: My employer processes my tax dollars, sends then to the government. The treasury processes that. The Congress decides how it is spent. By the time it gets to someone that actually needs it, a great deal has been wasted, when I could have just given it to my local church, charity, or the homeless person on the corner, without any waste.

Where I live we had a Keyensian (sp) welfare state, and unemployment so low that our Prime Minister at the time once stated he could name every registered unemployed person in the country.

We underwent huge changes and now like most Western nations employing the neo liberal free market policies that were made popular by the University of Chicago, we have a continuing apparently irresolvable unemployment problem....apparently the trickle down we were all told to expect defied gravity and trickled upwards instead, with widening gaps between 'haves' and 'have not', children being the worst effected demographic.

Where I live we had a Keyensian (sp) welfare state, and unemployment so low that our Prime Minister at the time once stated he could name every registered unemployed person in the country.

We underwent huge changes and now like most Western nations employing the neo liberal free market policies that were made popular by the University of Chicago, we have a continuing apparently irresolvable unemployment problem....apparently the trickle down we were all told to expect defied gravity and trickled upwards instead, with widening gaps between 'haves' and 'have not', children being the worst effected demographic.
is there some reason not to name this place?

The British NHS costs us over £70billion a year, which actually works out as less per person than the cost of healthcare in the US.
The NHS here has really been improving a lot here in recent years, after decades of underinvestment by Tory governments more concerned with giving out tax cuts than improving public services. I don't like Blair and I don't like New Labour, but they are improving it.