WASHINGTON -- We Americans pride ourselves on not having a "welfare state." We're not like Europeans. We're more individualistic and self-reliant, and although we may have a "social safety net" to protect people against unpredictable personal and societal tragedies, we explicitly repudiate a comprehensive welfare state as inherently un-American.
Dream on.

Call it a massive case of national self-deception. Indeed, judged by how much countries devote of their national income to social spending, we have the world's second-largest welfare state -- just behind France.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... z3K9n6goSI
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Warren Dew wrote:

WASHINGTON -- We Americans pride ourselves on not having a "welfare state." We're not like Europeans. We're more individualistic and self-reliant, and although we may have a "social safety net" to protect people against unpredictable personal and societal tragedies, we explicitly repudiate a comprehensive welfare state as inherently un-American.
Dream on.

Call it a massive case of national self-deception. Indeed, judged by how much countries devote of their national income to social spending, we have the world's second-largest welfare state -- just behind France.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... z3K9n6goSI
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 24769.html

- We Americans pride ourselves on not having a "welfare state

mrjonno wrote:

- We Americans pride ourselves on not having a "welfare state

That is a very strange idea, what is opposite of a welfare state a no welfare state?

Loren Michael wrote:America has (and has had for a long time) the most expensive healthcare system in the world; this is hardly a mystery and the article notes it:

It [the United States] ranks 23rd in the world with social spending of roughly 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This is slightly below the OECD average of 22 percent. France is the champ at nearly 32 percent. (The data are generally the latest available, including some estimates for 2014.)

But wait. Direct government spending isn't the only way that societies provide social services. They also channel payments through private companies, encouraged, regulated and subsidized by government. This is what the United States does, notably with employer-provided health insurance (which is subsidized by government by not counting employer contributions as taxable income) and tax-favored retirement savings accounts.

When these are added to government's direct payments, rankings shift. France remains at the top, but the United States vaults into second position with roughly 30 percent of its GDP spent on social services, including health care. We have a hybrid welfare state, partly run by the government and partly outsourced to private markets.

along a lot of metrics, it's also relatively bad:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ng/372828/

The United States healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but when it comes to health outcomes, it performs worse than 11 other similar industrialized nations, according to a new report released today by the Commonwealth Fund.

The nonprofit examined the health systems of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, and it found that the U.S. was last or near-last in measures of health access, efficiency, and equity.

my takeaway is that a lot of countries have more efficient welfare states than the US

mrjonno wrote:The word 'welfare' to me in a first instant means 'caring', which is why I find the idea of being against a caring state pretty strange

Nicko wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The word 'welfare' to me in a first instant means 'caring', which is why I find the idea of being against a caring state pretty strange

The problem is that for a large chunk of the US electorate "welfare" means, "Big government giving handouts to lazy good-for-nothings who just spend it on drugs and alcohol anyway. like they did in Communist Russia."

Appeasing these morons means that a goodly proportion of social spending is funneled through pseudo-capitalist fronts. The way the US provides healthcare - as Loren has pointed out - is a good example of this.

One upside to catering to this ideology is that it produces champagne comedy moments like these:

And after all, isn't laughter the best medicine?

Well, with the exception of, you know ... actual medicine.

mrjonno wrote:

- We Americans pride ourselves on not having a "welfare state

That is a very strange idea, what is opposite of a welfare state a no welfare state?

laklak wrote:Calling the U.S. government "inefficient" is like calling a Krakatoa eruption a "bit of lava".

Thommo wrote:

laklak wrote:Calling the U.S. government "inefficient" is like calling a Krakatoa eruption a "bit of lava".

Although ironically the inefficiency is in the private sector in this instance. The US spends 250% of the OECD average on healthcare and has done since before Obamacare, for average-ish results. Every single one of the best and most efficient systems are managed by central government, with the outlier (the US) being the only system primarily in private hands.

The private sector is demonstrably failing in this area - catastrophically. I know this goes against the general trend of public sector inefficiency and bloat, but there are reasons for it.