How welfare reform changed America
Wow, maybe Clinton wasn’t that big of a jerk afterall (of course, now all that extra money has just gone towards dropping bombs on Iraq) - From USA Today…
The law signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996, has transformed the way the nation helps its neediest citizens. Gone is the promise of a government check for parents raising children in poverty. In its place are 50 state programs to help those parents get jobs.
In the 12 years since caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in 1994, millions have left the welfare rolls for low-paying jobs. Nearly 1 million more have been kicked off for not following states’ rules or have used up all the benefits they’re allowed under time limits. Today, 1.9 million families get cash benefits; in one-third of them, only the children qualify for aid. About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.
Three in four families on welfare are headed by unmarried women. As a result, employment rates for all single women rose 25% before declining slightly since 2001. Earnings for the poorest 40% of families headed by women doubled from 1994 to 2000, before recession wiped out nearly half the gains. Poverty rates for children fell 25% before rising 10% since 2000.
Link via Johan Norberg’s blog
Indeed, there’s nothing like punishing children for the bad behaviour of their parents. Some people see children as innocents who should be protected even from bad parents but we all know that’s a crock. Children who live in poverty do so because they have an easy life. If their lives could be made harder they would exert pressure on their parents to buckle up and live the American Dream or better still, go out themselves and get jobs as child actors.
Nothing riles me more than an apathetic five year-old.
Comment by finnsense — Wed, Jul 26th, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
Wait
Clinton did not even want this bill. He and the Dems hated it. So now we give him credit?
Wow.
Comment by winter — Wed, Jul 26th, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
¨maybe Clinton wasn’t that big of a jerk afterall”
Wait
Aside from Monicagate, which is undeniably a disagraceful aspect of his presidency, but had nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy, what exactly did make him a jerk?
Comment by George — Wed, Jul 26th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
Wait
you’ve been listening too much to Rush Limbaugh.
Comment by tomia — Wed, Jul 26th, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
“Aside from Monicagate, which is undeniably a disagraceful aspect of his presidency;;;”
No, bringing Hillary to the White House was the most disgraceful aspect. Monica was a partial redress.
Anyway, I agree that welfare reform was needed, but I can’t help to wonder if it went too far. I mean, should it really be necessary for a mother to drive a semi-tractor trailer to keep her family afloat?
I don’t think it should be necessary. In fact, I find it kind of sick, in the societal sense.
Generally speaking, I also find that the lack of safety net in the States has caused a desperation among people that’s led them to turn against each other. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the United States has developed quite an ill-tempered underclass.
These people can’t cope with today’s challenges, so they lash-out at anyone who poses even the slightest threat. It’s probably manifested most by aggression on the highways, but that’s not the only place, by far.
It’s like the ghetto has arrived in the mainsteam.
I’m not saying that reform wasn’t needed–in fact, I beleive it was definitely needed. But unfortunately, I think it’s left too many people behind–broke, no health insurance, no pension, excessive debt etc. And their resulting behavior has lowered the quality of life for everyone else.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Jul 26th, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
“I mean, should it really be necessary for a mother to drive a semi-tractor trailer to keep her family afloat?”
What happened to equal rights, or does that only apply to certain women?
“Generally speaking, I also find that the lack of safety net in the States has caused a desperation among people that’s led them to turn against each other. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the United States has developed quite an ill-tempered underclass.”
- First there is unemployment
- Then there is welfare once that runs out
- When it runs out, children still get free health care
- Then there is:
- Food stamps
- Tax credits
- Income credits
- Rent assistance
- etc, etc, etc.
On top of all that is a low 5 something percent unemployment and a ton of unfilled jobs for both skilled and unskilled. So many that we need to import millions of illegals to do them all.
How much of a safety net do you want?
?
“But unfortunately, I think it’s left too many people behind–broke, no health insurance, no pension, excessive debt etc. And their resulting behavior has lowered the quality of life for everyone else.”
- Well at some point these people do need to be accountable for the lives that they have. Our system permits them to spend everything they earn (and them some) and then go and collect from the state.
- There is no reason for men at least from 18-65 to be on welfare (in the US) unless they have some health or disability issues. There are more than enough jobs to go around. If not where they live, then somewhere they can move to. Then there is also the military option.
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 1:18 am
If not where they live, then somewhere they can move to.
However, when one is poor, moving to where available jobs are is often an unfeasible option.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 8:17 am
What I want to know is how are the poor supposed to get those jobs that illegals are doing? How exactly are the legal unemployed supposed to compete in the job market?
No one will hire them, because that would mean the employers would actually have to pay the legal minimum wage instead of the well below minimum they are now paying the illegals.
Comment by Fat Bastard — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 9:28 am
Could someone tell me what the welfare reform was actually about? I seem to have missed that one.
Comment by Anzi — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Aside from Monicagate, which is undeniably a disagraceful aspect of his presidency, but had nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy, what exactly did make him a jerk?
That plus all his poor policy decisions. The size and debt of the federal government grew immensely. But compared to Bush, Clinton is a saint.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:14 am
Generally speaking, I also find that the lack of safety net in the States has caused a desperation among people that’s led them to turn against each other.
A safety net is supposed to be temporary, no? I mean, you can be riding the safety net all your life. But that’s what people do, and Cliton’n'friends limited that. Five years is long time to go without doing anything, if you can’t find a job in five years, then I’m sorry but that’s your fault.
I know I’ll get reamed for saying this but - when I was living in the innercity, I was surrounded by the poor and unemployed. These people had serious drug and alcohol problems, it ruled their lives. I am confident that any person free of drugs and lots of alcohol could find work. I just saw way too many people having children at insanely young ages, partying everynight, then at age 30-something they straighten up then get frustrated because they have to start at the bottom of the ladder and work their way up, meanwhile everyone else had started at the bottom of the ladder at age 20.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:29 am
Indeed, there’s nothing like punishing children for the bad behaviour of their parents. Some people see children as innocents who should be protected even from bad parents but we all know that’s a crock
That’s an excellent point and I agree with you on that. The U.S. dose provide the children with free education and free healthcare, and I know that Baltimore city provided every family with housing. 12% of Finland’s population is below the poverty line, they are provided with similar services from the state (although American kids get no free bed-box) but the big difference is, the public education system in Finland isn’t severely dangerous and fucked up, and the neighborhoods and housing aren’t extremely dangerous.
Even if the U.S. government provided more money for the children, do you think that money would get to the kids? I doubt it. The kids would be in the same situation. The point is that bad parenting will always be around and there’s nothing the state can do about it. There will be kids who will always be “punished for the bad behaviour of their parents” I think education is the key and right now, the US’s public schools are in shambles.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 11:36 am
“What happened to equal rights, or does that only apply to certain women?”
Regarding employment, I don’t support the notion of forcing everyone to perform equal work. But I do believe in helping people that need help.
”
- First there is unemployment
- Then there is welfare once that runs out
- When it runs out, children still get free health care
- Then there is:
- Food stamps
- Tax credits
- Income credits
- Rent assistance
- etc, etc, etc.
”
Yes, I know about all these things. I’ve also known Americans who’ve been unlucky enough to have required some of them. The compounding of debt, that results from sudden job loss, creates a very difficult poverty cycle that’s hard to escape–especially if the job wan’t that good to begin with. And it’s nearly impossible to avoid, even by living frugally. Bankruptcy helps for some, of course–it allows the cycle to start over :-/
“On top of all that is a low 5 something percent unemployment and a ton of unfilled jobs for both skilled and unskilled. So many that we need to import millions of illegals to do them all.”
Some of those immigrants can actually earn a good buck. I read somewhere that landscapers in California are offered upwards of $30/hr, yet they don’t get enough applicants to fill the positions.
However, I also know of people who’ve needed to support families by working multiple low-paying jobs (in fact, very low-paying ($8-$10 /hr)with no benefits), and, despite the hard work, they continued sliding into debt. I think that’s representative of the majority of cases.
“- Well at some point these people do need to be accountable for the lives that they have. Our system permits them to spend everything they earn (and them some) and then go and collect from the state.”
The concept works great for you as it would for me, but a large percentage of the population can’t cope. When 40-million of the US population doesn’t have health insurance, then I can only assume that the same number is stricken by poverty. Then there’s probably an even higher number that lives on the borderline of poverty.
“Then there is also the military option. ”
Yes, I know. Maintaining a huge underclass ensures that there will always be enough low-intellect types that are willing to risk their lives for the state–it’s their only choice.
My main point with all of this is: When you hold a large percentage of people over a barrel, with unreasonable expectations of them, then the societal structure will deteriorate.
People need to feel like they can contribute to society–and benefit of course. If they don’t feel like they have a chance to contribute and benefitâ€â€-perhaps, relative to those around them–then they will act out in unpleasant ways. I think the US is an unfortunate example of this.
I’ve heard the saying many times: “In the US, everyone fends for themselves.†That’s fine if you like it that way, but then you also have to accept living in very hostile surroundings.
Admittedly, I don’t have answers for how to fix the US (if it even needs fixing). And pouring money into the problem wouldn’t necessarily help either. I realize it’s a very complicated place with a diverse population. And the idea of ‘community’ probably isn’t even possible at this early stage in America’s evolution.
Maybe that’s why I like coming back to Finland, despite its shortcomings; there is still a sense of ‘working for the greater good of society.’ And, coincidentally, it’s not so antagonistic here…yet
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
“A safety net is supposed to be temporary, no? I mean, you can be riding the safety net all your life. But that’s what people do, and Cliton’n’friends limited that. Five years is long time to go without doing anything, if you can’t find a job in five years, then I’m sorry but that’s your fault”
Yes, I agree. The system needed to be changed. Maybe I should have made it clearer that my statement was addressing the broader issue of poverty. Getting people off welfare is great, but putting them in a position, wherein they have to work like slaves to squeak by–with constant threat of returning to abject poverty–causes hostility within society.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
“Could someone tell me what the welfare reform was actually about? I seem to have missed that one.”
Ok Anzi, I’ll give you the simple version…
Innercity Black women were having many children–a half-dozen-per-mother probably wasn’t unusual. Each additional child enabled them to collect more welfare payments. Living off the state became a way of life for a significant number of them.
Americans (read White Americans
) got tired of paying for it, so the system was changed. Apparently, it no longer pays to have children and live off the state.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Even if the U.S. government provided more money for the children, do you think that money would get to the kids?
It’s not economy, stupid! Well, not always in any case. There are other ways to change the society than just pumping more money here and there. Legislataion, for example, or schooling of government officials. The fact that there aren’t slums in Finland is not caused by magic but by rules regulating city planning, for example.
Comment by tomia — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
“However, when one is poor, moving to where available jobs are is often an unfeasible option.”
- I guess you never heard of “welfare shopping.” This is where poor people more from one state to another in order to take advantage of another state’s more generous welfare program.
Kristian,
““Then there is also the military option. †- Yes, I know. Maintaining a huge underclass ensures that there will always be enough low-intellect types that are willing to risk their lives for the state–it’s their only choice.”
- I don’t think you intended to do it on purpose, but you probably just insulted 2+ million Americans who chose to serve in the military. Believe it or not, Americans of all classes join the military and for those of the poorest class, the military is a perfect way to earn an education as well as escape being poor. There is also many employers who look to hire ex-military.
- Maybe that huge underclass is maintained by some politicians as a reliable voting block?
?
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
- First there is unemployment
- Then there is welfare once that runs out
- When it runs out, children still get free health care
- Then there is:
- Food stamps
- Tax credits
- Income credits
- Rent assistance
- etc, etc, etc.
â€Â
What is all this about? Who in their right mind would accept any of this from the Government? Just get out there and work.
We have super low unemployment, we need more more workers, the economy is going nuts, the stock market is buy buy buy.
Forget free stuff, you get much more, for less work, by just going out there into a job market.
Thank you Bush and those tax cuts.
Comment by winter — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
“- I don’t think you intended to do it on purpose, but you probably just insulted 2+ million Americans who chose to serve in the military. Believe it or not, Americans of all classes join the military and for those of the poorest class, the military is a perfect way to earn an education as well as escape being poor. There is also many employers who look to hire ex-military.”
I realize that there are plenty of intelligent people in the US military. My only point is that the underclass provides a disproportionatly large base for recruiting. And yes, it probably does help them escape poverty.
The problem (if we see it as a problem) is that they have to risk their lives to do it–especially these days. So, in effect, their poverty forces them to actively participate in wars that the state sponsors. In my opinion, that goes beyond just having an adequate job.
But one thing is for sure: It’s quite convenient for those in governent who support war.
“- Maybe that huge underclass is maintained by some politicians as a reliable voting block?”
Yes, that’s definitely true. If you make people reliant on the government, then you can control their voting bahavior. It’s a drawback, for sure.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
“The problem (if we see it as a problem) is that they have to risk their lives to do it–especially these days.”
- Not every person who joins the military has to join the army and end up in Iraq. They can join the Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard and have a close to 0 percent chance that they are ever handed a weapon after basic training, other than for training purposes.
- There are other options available to them, they can become policemen, and firemen, or even a mailman. There is a certain level of risk with every job, but these are the jobs that pay much more than minimum wage and offer free training to go with it.
- Here in Washington, DC they are actually actively recruiting in Chicago, of all places. One reason is that the unemployment/welfare benefits are too good that there is not enough incentive for a person here to take the job. There is also the issue that they will not take you (even the military) if you have too dirty a criminal record.
For me, I already have to support a stay-at-home wife and a child. How many other people do I have to support with my taxes? We are lucky that we do not need two salaries, but it is sad for someone to suggest that my wife “should be working” because there is “nothing wrong with her.”
So I understand welfare pretty well, since I administer a mini welfare-state. What is left of my salary once the Government is done with it is taxed by the family.
.
Comment by Fred Fry — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
.Americans (read White Americans
) got tired of paying for it, so the system was changed.
According to the article, “About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.”
The whites and blacks are just a few points apart. Kick any hillbilly white person in the balls if they say welfare is mostly a black thing.
And look at those evil Hispanics, they’re using the least amount of welfare.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
“According to the article, ‘About 38% of those still on welfare are black, 33% white and 24% Hispanic.’
The whites and blacks are just a few points apart.”
Yeah, I know. In absolute figures, that’s true. But a much higher proportion of blacks were on welfare than whites. I suspect you’d see a huge difference in those terms.
Generally, I think that welfare is seen less negatively in Europe because of the relatively homogeneous cultures here. In other words, a Finn is less likely to resist paying welfare to another Finn who needs it.
Conversely, a white American is less willing to pay for a black American.
IMO, it’s a matter of a cultural bond. Blacks and whites in the US have lived separately for a long time. Hence, they have effectively grown into separate cultures. Maybe it’s changing now, but I think that’s how it was not so long ago.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
Phil:
Five years is long time to go without doing anything, if you can’t find a job in five years, then I’m sorry but that’s your fault.
Quite possibly. Yet the same person who said this moans about the plight of the teenager who is too stupid and/or lazy to sit on her ass and read some books for a couple of months to get into the university program of her desire.
Seriously, if reading books is that disgusting, why apply into a university in the first place? I’m a firm supporter of numerus clausus.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
something twisted, sick and quite funny
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
For those reality based (stop reading, winter) the welfare reform was always a central part of Clinton’s strategy. We have this semantic difficulty when talking about the subject in a combined US/Nordic context. In Scandinavia the welfare state actually means in the American sense something like a Social Security state - structures which still are very close to the heart even in the USA. George W. has even partially been increasing the benefits and is very half hearted about any real reform - as Social Security and Medicare are wildly popular. For Finns US “welfare” would I suppose basically mean living out of “Sossu” - something not centrally connected what is meant with “hyvinvointivaltio” in Finland.
Comment by mjr — Thu, Jul 27th, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
It’s actually funny that, when we are seeking those who consume the most welfare money are not the inner city blacks and rural toothless poor. If you really want to find the welfare bums, the ones that burn the big bucks, you have to look to the direction of big business and acricultural section. Layers upon layers of subsidies, tax breaks and holidays, protective tarrifs and on and on. Literally billions are spent for the no good for the population at large and given to the richest of the rich. Saddest thing about it is that, it distorts the market place and does it in a manner that harms not the U.S. alone but screws the developing world for good measure. Yup, it seems that the old adage; “money attracts money”, is true.
Comment by Petteri — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 1:24 am
“but screws the developing world for good measure”
I hate to agree here with Petteri.
But hay, I am not so bad a person after all. When my neighbor is supprised by a gov check for farming, he cashed it, and got a boat. He did not need the money, and could have cared less, but like everyone, is willing to abandon principles for cash.
Its what the welfare state is all about. Buying those income votes. No help was ever intended.
Comment by winter — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 3:14 am
I used to be among the 40 million uninsured. In fact, the entire group I ran with from about 18-25 was uninsured. Many of them still are. The all have car payments that are bigger than their insurance premiums would be, monthly alcohol budgets larger than insurance payments, restuarant food budgets larger than insurace payments, entertainment budgets(movies, concerts, taxi cabs, flat screen TVs, surround sound systems) larger than insurance premiums.
They are rampant consumers. Many of them could be insured through work but chose to blow their employers health insurance allowance on their lifestyles. They also know that if anything happens to them, they be able to figure out a way to have the government or some other entity pay for it. Most of them work construction or are fresh out of college and take their health for granted.
I also know of a few uninsured families. All they would have to do to receive quality insurance is contact the State of MN and apply for MinnesotaCare. A family of 4 qualifies if their income is under $46,000 a year. A good sob story will get you on if you make more. The only reason they don’t have insurance is because they are to lazy to take the time to fill out a few papers and jump through a few hoops. My family was on it for a while, it wasn’t that hard.
A third, and very large segment of the uninsured, is on Medical Assitance. It’s free health care, no copays, no premiums, no money out of pocket whatsoever. It’s technically not insurance so these people are counted as the uninsured in any survey. Many inner city welfare recipients are on this program. I was on this also for a few months when I first moved back from Finland and had no real income, no savings, and a family of 3. I have 2 employees on this program. I pay them both $16 an hour and they work an average of 10 hours of overtime a week. They could be on out companies insurance but they prefer the FREE healthcare. I don’t know how they qualify. They are both Mexican immigrants so I think they receive special consideration. They are my best workers so I don’t hold it against them, I would do the same thing if I could.
My point is that there should be very few people in the State of MN without some form of reasonably good insurance, yet we have several hundred thousand. I grew up well under the poverty threshold as a child. I had great govt. insurance, my University of MN education was %100 paid for by the goverment for the first 2 years.
People in our state, with very few expections, who do not have health insurace CHOOSE not to have it. The exceptions are people between jobs who had private insurance at the previous employeer and have not worked long enough at the new employer to qualify.
Minnesota is a more generous state than others in this regard, but in any state all children and seniors can qualify under federal plans(I’m not %100 sure on this).
I aplogize for the long post but I feel the debate has been rather civil on this thread so hopefully people will read with an open mind. I feel this issure has been totally twisted by the powers that be and end result is that people outside(and many in) the US think 40 million Amercicans are getting a hose job.
Winter, I would recommend you visit the doctor and get checked for rabies or mad cow. I’m sure your plan would cover it.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 3:42 am
You know, one thing that helps poverty a great deal is to have a public transit and bicycling infrastructure. I’d say that a big part of the reason why Europe has been successful at managing poverty is because people don’t necessarily need to own a car with all its high expenses. This, makes it possible to live well on very small amounts of money.
Walking to catch a bus or tram and bicycling is also a great approach to managing healthcare costs, since those in the lower economic strata are most likely to benefit from the increased exercise–that is, poor people are usually the least informed or concerned about nutrition; hence, they’d usually be the fattest and unhealthiest (as in the US). But they’d also be the most likely to use such options if they’d be available.
Transit here in Finland is sort of good…I mean, at least we have it. It’s more expensive than in central Europe though, and it can be more sparse, especially during the summer months. The bike infrastructure (paths, painted bike lanes, etc.) is really good though. It just isn’t integrated it with the train/bus system well enough.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
Cars are expensive in Europe, they are not in the US.
Even in Helsinki where public transport is good, it still took 40 minutes to get to work by bus instead of 20 minutes by car.
The major cities in the US have excellent public transportation (NY and DC for example.) The people in the cities there are no healthier for it. In Finland it drove me nuts waiting for the bus with all the other people at the bus stop smoking. A small minus on the health meter.
Americans do walk. Maybe not like Europeans but we do as my Finnish friends have discovered. Have you ever seen how big those malls are?
Good theory though.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
“Cars are expensive in Europe, they are not in the US.”
In Finland, especially, due to the tax regime. But not in central Europe. And gas is more expensive in Europe, although the distances tend to be shorter.
“Even in Helsinki where public transport is good, it still took 40 minutes to get to work by bus instead of 20 minutes by car. In Finland it drove me nuts waiting for the bus with all the other people at the bus stop smoking. A small minus on the health meter.”
And people spitting is kind of gross too
Admittedly, Helsinki isn’t a great example. However, I still like using public transit more than driving–much more. It’s a great chance to relax and read. Even for my job, I sometimes take a break and just ride somewhere to read something work-related. For me, it’s better than sitting behind a desk all the time…or behind a steering wheel.
I couldn’t stand the stress of sitting in my car, like I did in the States. Plus, my waistline expanded out of control.
“The major cities in the US have excellent public transportation (NY and DC for example.) The people in the cities there are no healthier for it.”
I realize that the US has some good examples of public transit. It even has some bike-friendly cities. But, overall, I think the US has only remotely embraced this type of urban planning. I know it’s not economically feasible in some places though, due to geography, etc. But if gas prices keep rising, then who knows. Maybe they’ll even get the rail system going again to get some of those big trucks off the roads.
When I lived in Germany, everybody rode their bike to work for at least part of the time. It’s actually a great way to live. Sometimes we’d go to the biergarten or pub after work… I’ll take that lifestyle over the American driving lifestyle any day.
And it was a great way to save money–gas, depreciation, repairs, etc. My car would sit for weeks at a time, unused.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
In major metropolitan areas in the US, one can live life with out a car. Many people, including many middle class, do so.
Cars are also very inexpenisive(my first 5 or 6 cars were well under $1000, one was even $1) so people typically have the option to drive, if they have a valid liciense.
Fat Americans are fat because they eat prepackaged “junk” food and do not cook meals from scratch. The only food they cook consists of mixing prepackage, well preserved junk together and simmering it for awhile, then eat and wash everything down with a coke. %50 of our grocery stores are filled with this crap. Its reletively cheap, easy, and fast. It also tastes good to people who have never developed a taste for “real” food and are two lazy to cook. These people also are the biggest consumers of health care.
In finnish grocery stores the wholesome options are endless and prepackaged junk is not common. Also, Finns will walk or bike to any place that they need to go to near their home. Americans on the other hand will not walk farther than the end of their driveway.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Jul 28th, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
Maksalaatikko
Your point is very few people (In MN) do not have Insurance unless they chose not to bother even applying for it?
Well tick me off, I will get out there and fire some more workers so your numbers can show more un-insured in MN.
Can NOT have the welfare state of Finland compare well to the self choice state of MN.
And you guys pay 60% Income taxes for what?
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Jul 29th, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
A local newspaper did a bit 5 years ago about the uninsured. They found about 20 of them and tried to find them insurance. Insurance was found for all except for those who had to much money. Private insurance was found for those people but some would sign up because they didn’t want to pay for it. The paper tried to spin that into a reason for coverage for all through the government.
It went over like a lead ballon.
Comment by maaksalaatikko — Sat, Jul 29th, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
It went over like a lead ballon.
1. You are allowed to actually fail here in America
2. The Gov is only a safety net, not a stupid net.
I do think that in the EU you have a “Stupid Net” of social welfare, but here in the USA we think thats just going to far, and it does not work anyway.
Comment by winter — Sun, Jul 30th, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
I do agree that Europe has a “Stupid Net”, but, unfortunately, stupid people exist–both here and in the states. The difference is that, here, in Europe, people aren’t willing to let a huge underclass grow. It’s commonly felt that this hurts everyone–not only those who are directly affected by poverty.
That’s being facetious of course; not all poor people are stupid. There are many reasons for why someone might be poor. For example, one might own a house, have ample savings and a job, only to be completely wiped-out by medical bills because he couldn’t qualify for govt assisted medical care. Now, suddenly, the person belongs to the impoverished underclass. I’ve seen that scenario reported many times by the US press.
So, it’s not just the poor who are affected; it could be anyone at anytime. I’ve always felt that this possibility creates an undertone of stressful anxiety and hostility in the US–maybe even explains the psychology of why people take such short vacations; that is, maybe it’s better to keep working…just in case. That anxiety and hostility doesn’t exist so much here in Europe, and I think people want to keep it that way.
Actually though, America DOES have a Stupid Net of sorts: It’s called Prison. And judging by the percentages (I read that the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison, compared to the rest of the world–even higher than China) it’s clear that Americans DO support it rather overwhelmingly.
The costs might not be in direct monetary terms, but we all have to pay somehow.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Jul 30th, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Ah prison, as the stupid net. Good point.
Also the prison as a Darwin net as it tends to keep the gene pool constrained.
Comment by winter — Tue, Aug 1st, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
wergoki mokaret garati minik
furniture http://Raskdita.jobmidt.info/sitemap12.html [url=http://Raskdita.ha9vbi1.info/sitemap18.html ]long[/url]
Comment by Raskdita — Thu, Jan 3rd, 2008 @ 4:40 am
desos benipeme gokma
hypu http://ni512286.luos6rc.net/sitemap18.html [url=http://ni512286.luos6rc.net/sitemap18.html ]liky[/url] veveg
Comment by ni512286 — Sat, Feb 2nd, 2008 @ 9:39 am