What then are your proposals for solving the problems of poverty rate and these?
If I could answer those questions, I would be somewhere else other than this thread. But what I do know [based on the statistical evidence]is that a phrase such as "Democratic Socialism is the cause of poverty" [I'm not quoting anyone in particular] is unsupportable. Dispensing of the rhetoric of Socialism. The countries in western Europe are more left than the US and have a lower poverty rate than US. Simply blaming Democratic policies seems to be in conflict with what we know about western Europe political structure. However, it does not necessarily follow that moving more left is the answer.
I've found that businesses that focus on perceived failures for change are not as successfull as businesses that focus on successes and move forward from there. I don't think that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs feels any shame from stealing ideas that were invented at Xerox. Dave of Wendy's stole his model of fast food restaurants from a hole in the wall restaurant outside of Columbus [including the square hamburgers, the little milkshakes and the left over cooked burgers turned into chili]; I'm not about to be critical of Dave. He was able to see a good idea and turn it into a square hamburger empire.
Poverty is a complex problem. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't take a closer look at the economic dynamics in Europe and steal the good ideas from them if we can.
On health care. I'm more familiar with the UK than the other countries. The health care system in the UK is more than those stats reveal. There is the NHS that covers the entire population; there is also a supplemental private system. If I wanted to be manipulative [and was opposed to national health care] I would say: There! The fact that there is a private health care system is undeniable proof that national heath care is an abysmal failure [Note the use of the words "fact", "undeniable" and "abysmal" and "failure". All selected to stir your negative emotions. If you consider the psyche, negative emotions are usually stronger motivators than positive emotions.]
But Europeans tend to hold the belief that all people should have reasonable access to health care and they are willing to pay for it through tax revenue. They also don't have any problem allowing a private health care system to supplement the NHS. That appears to result in a system where life expectancy is higher and it appears to be more cost effective in terms of % of GDP. Personnally, I find it difficult to throw off their concept by labeling it socialized medicine. There are too separate principles here. Should all people have reasonable access to health care and are you [the taxpayer] willing to pay for it. I know that a prince of Saudi Arabia has reasonable access to the US health care system. But there is also a large segment of the US population that is not covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private health insurance [I might be inclined to include the Medicare and Medicaid covered group in the percentage of those covered by public health care in the stats; no doubt someone would disagree with that]. IMO, that uncovered segment does not have reasonable access to the health care system, because they simply can not afford it. In the end, I think it's the American people that have a right to choose which system they want. Perhaps the American people believe that all people are not entitled to reasonable health care. Perhaps they do, but are not willing to pay for it with an NHS. Personnally, I believe that all people should have reasonable access to reasonable health care. For the forseeable future, I don't see any way to accomplish that without a combination of an NHS and a private health care system.
We could also throw around the notion [which is statistically supportable] that if you have better health access, your health is improved, you can work more payable hours, your income is higher, your discretionary income is higher and you have a higher standard of living. And if you have a higher standard of living you're more positive about life and that results in a healthier population. [Note that people that suffer from depression have a higher frequency of illness than people who are not. I don't have those numbers handy, but they are out there.]
And how do you define "poverty" for your computation of poverty rate?
The questions are always easier [shorter] than the answers <s>. Find ten sources for "poverty" and you'll find 10 definitions. Every one of them has a disadvantage.
The definition of "poverty level" here is defined as those making less than half of the national median.
The obvious objection to this definition is that different nations have different medians. The U.S. has the highest median in the world, so those under its poverty level might actually be doing better than the poor or even the middle class in other countries.
The poor in America are probably better off than the lower middle class in Third World nations. But when we are comparing the richest nations in the world, all of which have relatively high medians, this observation loses its force.
Perhaps poverty is a bit like pornography. I can't define it in a way that everyone will agree, but to steal a phrase. "I know it when I see it." I've been fortunate both in my career and my economic position to travel a lot. Often times going off the beaten track. Sometimes to explore, and frequently I just get lost. I've wandered around DC, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Baltimore, London, Zurich, Berlin [East and West - post reunification] Manchester, Edinburgh, Strassburg, and yada yada yada. Yada, yada is a very nice place. The worst I've seen, in Europe being Berlin and that didn't come close to the poverty seen in any of the US cities. Discount the observation if you want. If one can't stomach the notion that other countries might have a lower poverty rate, then they can fall on the notion that there is no poverty rate definition that doesn't have flaws, so therefore we shoudn't look or consider any of them.
Moving, anecdotally, to the middle class for a moment. I was in a small shop a few days ago. They refill printer cartridges and sell printer cartridges when they can't be refilled. There was an employee there, about 25, that I was dealing with; perhaps comparable in economic stature to the employee at Kinkos. He looked a bit ragged. In England, doing business transactions is an excuse to have a social interaction, ie. you chat. The dude just got back from two weeks in Australia on holiday. Then we talked about his vacation in the US; then we talked about how he likes this area from a vacation viewpoint. You can jump on a plane and be anywhere on the Continent in roughly an hour. Such travels on the part of the middle class are pretty common. I've seen the data, I don't understand how they do it. Every American here, has seen the economic comparisons in one form or another. They don't understand how the Brits do it. But we all know it happens. The British janitor where my wife works is going to the Canary Islands for two weeks; he does something similar every year. It's a conundrum.
Home ownership. The American dream...
Ireland 82%
Spain 80
Luxembourg 77
Norway 73
Belgium 72
Greece 72
Italy 68
United Kingdom 67
Canada 64
Denmark 60
Japan 60
United States 59
Portugal 59
Finland 58
Sweden 55
France 54
Netherlands 46
Germany 40
Switzerland 29
Are these the same people that hate us for our economic success? Why would I not want to examine what the economic dynamics are in Europe? Because they are socialist cesspools?
jttmab |
