Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Based on my analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the United States is a unique nation regarding to efficiency. It seems to me that the US public sector is much more inefficient than its Western European counterparts. We have high per capita spending on education and produce poor results. We have by far the highest per capita spending on healthcare and the US healthcare system is largely incapable of providing its services to all citizens (for many reasons).
Many people on the left constantly point out Western European nations and Canada for their government run programs that serve the common good (education, healthcare etc) that their citizens are largely satisfied. But this does not mean it can work in a country like the US. Americans have a very different culture, outlook and attitude towards government run programs. After all, people came to the US to avoid authority and live life by their own means. It is the cultural and historical significance of anti-government sentiment in the US that has the public sector's track record look pretty bad.
Western Europe has a different history and their people have a different attitude towards government. People there are willing to pay higher taxes and receive public services, but that is not the case with Americans. Americans are largely divided between the "don't tread on me" crowd and the "sharing is caring" crowd. Western Europe and Canada have a more efficient public sector; good for them, but the US doesn't. For this reason, I am highly critical of large government run programs in the US because it will lead to severe inefficiency. American people are perhaps the most individualist people on Earth, while Europeans have more of the "sharing is caring" mentality than we do. This is why I believe Western Europe (and Canada to an extent) have better public sector efficiency than we do, hence, their "success" at providing services for the common good at lower costs. While I would certainly applaud some of these nations for doing a relatively good job of providing citizens with public services, I would think twice about having the US follow some of these nations.
Do you agree? Or am I just entirely wrong? Thanks for the input.
Based on my analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the United States is a unique nation regarding to efficiency. It seems to me that the US public sector is much more inefficient than its Western European counterparts. We have high per capita spending on education and produce poor results. We have by far the highest per capita spending on healthcare and the US healthcare system is largely incapable of providing its services to all citizens (for many reasons).
Many people on the left constantly point out Western European nations and Canada for their government run programs that serve the common good (education, healthcare etc) that their citizens are largely satisfied. But this does not mean it can work in a country like the US. Americans have a very different culture, outlook and attitude towards government run programs. After all, people came to the US to avoid authority and live life by their own means. It is the cultural and historical significance of anti-government sentiment in the US that has the public sector's track record look pretty bad.
Western Europe has a different history and their people have a different attitude towards government. People there are willing to pay higher taxes and receive public services, but that is not the case with Americans. Americans are largely divided between the "don't tread on me" crowd and the "sharing is caring" crowd. Western Europe and Canada have a more efficient public sector; good for them, but the US doesn't. For this reason, I am highly critical of large government run programs in the US because it will lead to severe inefficiency. American people are perhaps the most individualist people on Earth, while Europeans have more of the "sharing is caring" mentality than we do. This is why I believe Western Europe (and Canada to an extent) have better public sector efficiency than we do, hence, their "success" at providing services for the common good at lower costs. While I would certainly applaud some of these nations for doing a relatively good job of providing citizens with public services, I would think twice about having the US follow some of these nations.
Do you agree? Or am I just entirely wrong? Thanks for the input.
They keep saying that... and the people I know in those countries keep telling me otherwise.
Based on my analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the United States is a unique nation regarding to efficiency. It seems to me that the US public sector is much more inefficient than its Western European counterparts. We have high per capita spending on education and produce poor results. We have by far the highest per capita spending on healthcare and the US healthcare system is largely incapable of providing its services to all citizens (for many reasons).
Many people on the left constantly point out Western European nations and Canada for their government run programs that serve the common good (education, healthcare etc) that their citizens are largely satisfied. But this does not mean it can work in a country like the US. Americans have a very different culture, outlook and attitude towards government run programs. After all, people came to the US to avoid authority and live life by their own means. It is the cultural and historical significance of anti-government sentiment in the US that has the public sector's track record look pretty bad.
Western Europe has a different history and their people have a different attitude towards government. People there are willing to pay higher taxes and receive public services, but that is not the case with Americans. Americans are largely divided between the "don't tread on me" crowd and the "sharing is caring" crowd. Western Europe and Canada have a more efficient public sector; good for them, but the US doesn't. For this reason, I am highly critical of large government run programs in the US because it will lead to severe inefficiency. American people are perhaps the most individualist people on Earth, while Europeans have more of the "sharing is caring" mentality than we do. This is why I believe Western Europe (and Canada to an extent) have better public sector efficiency than we do, hence, their "success" at providing services for the common good at lower costs. While I would certainly applaud some of these nations for doing a relatively good job of providing citizens with public services, I would think twice about having the US follow some of these nations.
Do you agree? Or am I just entirely wrong? Thanks for the input.
Well, can we see your analysis? I would like to see your data and assumptions.
I have yet to see a quantitative measure for "social attitudes" that change efficiency of public projects based on location.
You do know an analysis is more then just pondering the problem for a few minutes or day dreaming on your daily commute?
Americans are not willing to pay upwards of 50%-60% of their income to the tax man. Businesses here are to stupid to price in tax increases on their products and services. The current market could never support government run health care, and all it's inevitable inefficiencies. There needs to be another way, but this ain't it.
I believe we need to pay a bit more attention to the insurance industry, and the effect it's having on the health care industry. With prices so high, you would expect doctors would be doing Ok, but most of the older one's I know are getting out now due to changes in the industry. The health insurance providers certainly aren't hurting though! Sounds like a bully shaking the change out of everyone's pockets.
The problem with healthcare in the US is people not giving a **** about themselves for 50 years and then wanting and getting high cost procedures in their 70's and 80's.
This **** costs money. Who do you think it paying for it? One bypass surgery and all of its associated pre and post op procedure eats up all of the tax money that the patient paid in their working lifetime.
Who pays for the guys 2nd bypass or his knee or hip replacement? That cost then becomes distributed across all consumers of healthcare.
The young are paying for the old. The fit are paying for the fat. The ascetic are paying for the gluttonous.
If we were as ethnically homogeneous as most European countries and Canada we'd probably be more willing to pay higher taxes for more public services. However, higher income American whites just have a huge problem with their money going to lower income minorities. They don't see them as equals and worthy of sharing resources with. This is the truth that's driving today's politics, particularly in the Republican party.
I have to laugh every time I hear people mention, "government-run healthcare." First of all the issue is health insurance, not healthcare. The health insurance companies don't want the existing system to change. They don't want to insure individuals, they want to deal with large employers. these same companies also manage most of the Medicare and Medicaid programs around the country. they make money on each transaction. The bottom line is we don't have competition for health insurance. We also have consumers who expect their health insurance policy to cover every health care expense they have. Insurance should only pay formajor expenses. When your health insurance pays for every expense, it is a group purchasing contract. It is another opportunity for insurance companies to get between the patient and the provider.
We should be asking ourselves why Europe and Canada can cover everyone at a lower cost than the US pays for covering 83%. Lower overhead is one reason. Better preventive care may be another. Note: Obamacare did not follow Europe's model but is pretty much a carbon copy of Massachusetts plan put into place by Romney.
I basically agree with the OP, and I'm a Canadian health care professional who thinks my country's current system is the right one for us. America is not Canada/Europe and it needs to adopt solutions that are culturally appropriate. A single payer system works well in Canada and in Europe partially because we heavily subsidize or pay for the educations of our health care workers. This is not the case in the USA and this, as well as many other aspects of the society you've built, conspire to make it a bad idea to graft one of our systems on to your country.
That doesn't mean you have to stick with the dysfunctional, very inefficient system you have, however. America can change, it always does, but I suspect America's eventual health care system will be a novel model appropriate to it's context.
*EDIT* @CAVA1990: Modern Canada is FAR from ethnically homogeneous, but what makes it viable here is that there isn't a great class divide between our different ethnic groups. The American issue that prevents this system from being established is class. Class is associated with ethnicity in America, but class is the underlying issue, and it hasn't been ameliorated because America doesn't have a comprehensive welfare state, just a patch work welfare system. This is another systemic reason why a policy like single payer health care, which comes from another culture, isn't politically viable in the US.
The Employer mandate doesn't work nor does the individual mandate, in every modern society the mandate is with the Government. It would be a great thing if employers could forget about health care and concentrate on business
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
