The Welfare State, A Crippling Thing

cisboss

As we all know, Ireland, the UK and most of western Europe are fairly socialist Welfare states, in that all public services are supplied to the people by the government via tax revenues. What we also note is that all across Europe we have inefficient public sector organisations, from the health services to the buses, into which we pour trillions of Euros every year.

I propose to say that this welfare state is grossly inefficient, the result of a lack of competition (if the buses don't run on time and the hospital lines are hours long, who is going to price the bus service and health service out of the market...?) that is inherent in its foundation (afterall, having two competing health services paid for by the government would be absurd.)

I would also point out to you all that in the United States, which has a much, much reduced welfare system (though they do have it, it is not like we have in Europe; more an emergency measure), and which has, over the past 25 years, consistently outperformed European economies in almost all areas.

In the US people pay less tax, don't get everything handed to them on a platter and yet, by some miracle if the socialists are to be believed, they don't all starve. In fact, the one area in which America has almost wholesale followed Europe in the welfare system, primary and secondary education, they suffer from all the same problems as we do in Europe. Then, in the other areas where they have not followed the European socialist model, they do wonders.

With competition in play prices are kept relatively low and efficiency is at an all time high in the USA - if you're left sitting in a waiting room in a US hospital for several hours, you can simply leave and take your business elsewhere, thus the hospital will run a tight ship, unlike our system where they could play with their fingers all day and be in no danger of going out of a job.

With less taxes people in the US have more to spend, both to afford these services if and when they require them, but also to invest in the economy. Consumer spending is the real mark of a successful economy; in the US at the moment they have high consumer spending and an economy that is coming out of a recession fighting. In Germany, however, consumer spending is not doing so great, and neither is the German economy.

Thus in the US I think there is the better model; competition, efficiency, good prices, good tax model, a baseline of social security to protect those who most need to avail of free healthcare and subsidised drugs (etc), and much more government capital freed up to do with whatever they wish - in the US if an epidemic breaks out they have the money to buy up stocks of whatever vaccine they require, and then through the efficient medical apparatus deal with a situation that would, in theory, cripple most of Europe's archaic and slow healthcare systems.

It also promotes much greater social responsibility - how many times have heard of dropout rates in college due to students not bothering to find the right course for themselves and taking a leap into the dark? They don't have to pay for their degrees directly, so why the hell should they care if it costs the government collective millions to let them experiment? In the US, and now in the UK as well, you can bet your arse that people will look into what degree they want to take, and the same is true across the board; many people will be much more wary of their health if they have to pay for the hospital bill.

I believe in helping the most needy, and giving everyone a chance, but I do not believe that our all encompassing, arcane and inefficient welfare state is the way to do it. I believe that if one wants to see a society that works, from its healthcare to its overall economic situation, I believe one should look to the United States.Of course, God love any politician who attempts to take away the gravy train from the people, who may not enjoy this new system, preferring instead the warmth of the decrepit blanket they currently shelter beneath to the outside world.... or at least, give the man a good spin doctor; but I truly believe that if we are to succeed as a nation and reach our full potential, and this goes for all other welfare states in the world, we need to adopt more a US style system (though of course, perhaps not exactly like our American cousins, but learn from their mistakes...)

A Dub in Glasgo

Is that pimped from another website?

As for the buses... here in Glasgow, MT deregulated the bus service and it is now in private hands. The service is crap outside peak hours and there are about 5 operators fighting for peak time space to the same destinations. That is progress all right. The Railways here have also been taken out of public hands and into private industry and it has been a failure of monumental proportions with the subsidy required now double (taxpayers money to fund private profit- don't ya just love it). Don't believe all the hype about all the ills of a public service being solved by private industry.

gandalf

Well after being in Texas in Jan I can tell you that the US is not all rosy. If you're middle class or higher you may have a decent standard of living but god help you if you slip below that. Bear in mind as well that the middle classes are now being squeezed.

I think the European model is better. I would counter that we have the best of both worlds, the incentive of capitalism to better your own situation but with the umbrella of socialism so if things go wrong, be it employment wise or health that you will not be left in the gutter to die. The inefficiencies that are in the Health Service are the Governments fault for not taking the bull by the horns and modernising it, making it more customer orientated.

Its all very well harping on about low taxes and allowing people to benefit. But to have a real basis to allow people to prosper in monetary terms and in family terms services are needed like Healthcare, Police, Transport, Waste Management. The problem over here is that we the electorate do not hold our politicians to question on getting value for money. The problem over here is we do not have proper co-ordinated long term plans but appear to do things in a haphazard fashion.

Finally here is a little story about my experiences of the US Healthcare system. I was over in Boston around 4 years ago, on the flight over I blacked out momentarly. To be safe I went to an A&E of one of the larger hospitals over there. I can confirm that I waited a similar lenght of time to any waits I have had in Irish hospitals with them being more interested in my VHI number than anything else. When I eventually saw two doctors, lets call them Bill & Ben, the twits made a mess of the exam and told me I had all sorts of problems. When I came back to Ireland and had a full exam done in Vincents they told me that I was fine and these two really didn't have a clue (including not being able to do a basic ECG!). Yep that system looks like its working fine alright!

sovtek

gandalf wrote:

When I came back to Ireland and had a full exam done in Vincents they told me that I was fine and these two really didn't have a clue (including not being able to do a basic ECG!). Yep that system looks like its working fine alright!

...and "we" have the highest healthcare administration costs in the first world, yet 1/3 of the US population is without healthcare.
Yes...very efficient indeed.

monument

Before you read the below, don’t get me wrong here I’m not anti-American in the sense I hate everything American, I don’t, I’m quite an addict to most of their culture, and just on public services, I quite like LA County’s *GOVERNMENT RUN* ‘Metro’ http://www.mta.net/ … where ‘Metro’ is not just a transport system (bus and rail) but also the “regional transportation planner for all of Los Angeles County”.

cisboss wrote:

in that all public services are supplied to the people by the government via tax revenues.

Rubbish (no pun intended). Not all public services in Ireland, and the UK, are supplied to the people by government.

cisboss wrote:

In the US people pay less tax, don't get everything handed to them on a platter and yet, by some miracle if the socialists are to be believed, they don't all starve.

No thanks to the state…

Long queue at drive-in soup kitchen (November 3, 2003)
Dan Larkin is sitting in his middle-of-the-range pick-up truck. Since the glassware company he worked for closed its doors this time last year, he has found it hard to pay his bills. His unemployment benefits ran out six months ago and his groceries bill is the only part of his budget that has some give. He and his wife sometimes skip meals or eat less to make sure their six-year-old daughter has enough.
"I would have a real problem putting food on the table if it wasn't for this," Mr Larkin said, his car inching towards Logan's church-run food pantry. As the queue rolled forward, he reflected on the ironies of being a citizen of the world's sole superpower.
"They're sending $87bn to the second richest oil nation in the world but can't afford to feed their own here in the States."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1076608,00.html

Poor people of America (May 24, 2001)

The official story for most of the decade, supported by record low unemployment rates in the US, was that poverty was yesterday's "old economy" problem. Sure, food bank use is up 75% in some American cities, one in five US children live in poverty and 44.3m are uninsured, but you'd never know it as a casual media consumer. The occasional story may have appeared about the people prosperity "left behind" (as if by some cosmic typo), but in the major national media, there has been little very little appetite for these downer tales.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,495567,00.html

And just on health...

A bitter pill to swallow (November 7, 2003)

With a growing healthcare crisis in America, where 46m people have no health insurance, buying medicine online can literally be a life-saving alternative.

It's not just individuals looking to save a few dollars. Broke state officials are also getting in on the act. In some states, such as Kentucky, legalising the import of drugs from Canada has become a key election issue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1080078,00.html

shltter

health system is good if you can afford it in the US

had the misfortune to visit A/E over there last year nothing serious couple of blood tests out of there in about 2 hours

and the bill was $2800


it was quick it was effiecient and at those prices not surprisingly empty if you haven't got health insurance your ****ed
I would rather pay my taxes and keep our health service

Capt'n Midnight

The "american dream" can only be realised at the expense of others.
Bill Gates is richer than 40% of Americans.

Think about that - if one person went back to ordinary millionare status and the wealth distributed evenly , 2 in 5 americans would double thier net worth. Ain't gonna happen but on this side of the pond it's nice to know that bad and all as our welfare state is you won't suffer from malnutrition..

I agree that some people might see the welfare state as a way of dropping out and others fall into the long term unemployable category, but the US system is not an option if we are to put any value on quality of life.

In this country about 1/3 have health cards, 1/3 have VHI/BUPA and the other 1/3 ...

Captain Trips

This has got to be a troll - it's describing that great feature of articles called "talking nonsense like it's authoritative".

Myth 1: The US health system works

cisboss wrote:

As we all know, Ireland, the UK and most of western Europe are fairly socialist Welfare states, in that all public services are supplied to the people by the government via tax revenues. What we also note is that all across Europe we have inefficient public sector organisations, from the health services to the buses, into which we pour trillions of Euros every year.

1. We cannot compare ourselves too much to the central europeans. A more accurate comparison is to the UK and US whom culturally and economically we have much more in common.
2. The health service in the US is close to implosion. Managed care and PPO/HMO style management practices have syphoned off billions of dollars so that the patient is left with high fees. These are paid in part by employers but PPO/HMO systems have meant that costs are increasingly cut in the US. You don't like paying your tax for health care or VHI health steps for 4o a month? How about paying 500 a month like you would in the US.
For a topical but outside the scope of this troubled issue is http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/nyregion/27jail.html.

The overmanaged and overadministrated US private HMO system makes our health care system in Ireland look mean and efficient. Look instead to Germany and Australia which have perhaps better overall models.

Please go and do a simple Google search for Managed Care and HMO (Health Managerment Organisation) abuse of patients. Look forward to a clerk "associate" from BUPA discharging you home with a drip in your arm because it's cheaper (yes, this actually happens in the US, a lot).

Myth 2: Competition is universally good

I propose to say that this welfare state is grossly inefficient, the result of a lack of competition (if the buses don't run on time and the hospital lines are hours long, who is going to price the bus service and health service out of the market...?) that is inherent in its foundation (afterall, having two competing health services paid for by the government would be absurd.)

Simply because you have been told every evening on the TV that "competition this" "competition that" competition competition competition doesn't mean it's the best. Services like education and health care should be directly responsible to the citizen. I say citizens because we that and *not* "consumers" or "clients" despite corporate interests efforts to rebrand us. Competition is pushed because it increases profits. This is why US drug medications cost THREE TIMES as much as in Canada and why US pharm corps pushed to make it ILLEGAL for US citizens to purchase over the border. Who do you point the finger at when competition fails? Public service = accountability. We can blame Michael Martin, or Harney directly for inactivity. If we did not have this welfare supported system by governemtn representation, we'd be gimps.


Myth 3: The US has low tax and a better "economy"

I would also point out to you all that in the United States, which has a much, much reduced welfare system (though they do have it, it is not like we have in Europe; more an emergency measure), and which has, over the past 25 years, consistently outperformed European economies in almost all areas.

In the US people pay less tax, don't get everything handed to them on a platter and yet, by some miracle if the socialists are to be believed, they don't all starve. In fact, the one area in which America has almost wholesale followed Europe in the welfare system, primary and secondary education, they suffer from all the same problems as we do in Europe. Then, in the other areas where they have not followed the European socialist model, they do wonders.

1. The EU and US GDPs have been matched for the past decade. This has been discussed at nauseam in The Economist. US figures can show, for example, investment in computers as a plus, whereas on the EU side similar spending will be an expense. However, even so, GDP is matched within 100 million or so. The negative drain on Germany from the East integration has also been a toll. Do not compare earning figures or ability to buy cheeseburgers please. The US economy has gone down consistently over the past 25 years. This coincides with the rising oil output and sales from non-OPEC countries vs. OPEC countries.

With competition in play prices are kept relatively low and efficiency is at an all time high in the USA - if you're left sitting in a waiting room in a US hospital for several hours, you can simply leave and take your business elsewhere, thus the hospital will run a tight ship, unlike our system where they could play with their fingers all day and be in no danger of going out of a job.

With less taxes people in the US have more to spend, both to afford these services if and when they require them, but also to invest in the economy. Consumer spending is the real mark of a successful economy; in the US at the moment they have high consumer spending and an economy that is coming out of a recession fighting. In Germany, however, consumer spending is not doing so great, and neither is the German economy.

2. US Tax: No, income tax isn't as high. It averages around 28-33% overall. Which by remarkable coincidence, is also just about like Ireland as we are 20% and 42%. Most average earners would get around 30% overall income tax. Don't forget: Federal tax, State Tax, Income tax. it can top 35% in NY alone. They don't have more to spend: look at the figures for credit. The "economy boom" in the US really means --> regulations about giving people 20,000 limits are gone. Debt in the US is massive, even MSN reports on it weekly and no, buying your German car and Korean computer and Japanese TV doesn't count as boosting the US economy.

What is this "the economy" thing you keep talking about? What are you referring to exactly? Savings in Germany dwarf US savings (per citizen). Just because they don't spend on credit and have money in the bank is it so bad?

Myth 4: The US model is better than our model overall

Thus in the US I think there is the better model; competition, efficiency, good prices, good tax model, a baseline of social security to protect those who most need to avail of free healthcare and subsidised drugs (etc), and much more government capital freed up to do with whatever they wish - in the US if an epidemic breaks out they have the money to buy up stocks of whatever vaccine they require, and then through the efficient medical apparatus deal with a situation that would, in theory, cripple most of Europe's archaic and slow healthcare systems.

Competition: going steadily down. The likes of Walmart see to that. Read about it.
Efficiency: need we talk about the legal system and how it deals with issues between citizens and corporations?
Good prices: ...for goods that were imported 2 years ago. Watch with interest now how the new E-Class Mercedes no longer has leather as standard and the price climbes up in the next 12 months. Same with Jap imported electronics and anything else purchased on long contracts that will run out soon.
Drug Prices: that are astronomical. Again, look on the NY Times for many many stories on how "competition" has driven up prices.

A comparitve example of competition is our own ESB. At one stage, we had the 2nd cheapest electricity in europe. Now we have one the most expensive - driven up artificially to create a "need" for another electricity supplier. This means basically, another company can get some action and some profit and we will no longer have control over another basic need (at this stage in the 21st century). No finger to identify the culprit and collusion (aka Vodfaone, O2 - lead to us having some of the highest prices for mobiles in EU).

Myth 5: The vaccines......this has to be a troll now

in the US if an epidemic breaks out they have the money to buy up stocks of whatever vaccine they require,

Mate, did you not see the TV shots over Christmas of the lines for hours of people desperate for the flu vaccine? Stocks ran short in every single US state, demand was rampant and it was like bread lines in Soviet Russia. The reason? Competition: > 50% of the the vaccines were being supplied by a UK company because they were cheaper than a US supplier, and it couldn't be brought over in enough quantity.


Myth 6: people will be in control with private systems

many people will be much more wary of their health if they have to pay for the hospital bill.

I shouldn't say a Myth, because it's fact. You too will feel very much in control when you get a bill of €200, cardiac enzymes €70 for that episode of chest pain you were worried about. Turns out it was nothing but VHI won't pay as you lost your job 6 months ago and your insurance is no longer valid. http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/001399.html. Plus, you don't even exist as being "unemployed" now as your taken off the list after a certain period of months to make the "low unemployment rate" look better than it's 10% reality.

I believe in helping the most needy, and giving everyone a chance, but I do not believe that our all encompassing, arcane and inefficient welfare state is the way to do it. I believe that if one wants to see a society that works, from its healthcare to its overall economic situation, I believe one should look to the United States.

This entire quote is simply utter bollocks. Well sign me up!!! I also want the possibility of military service! I've been smoking crack all day!

Hairy Homer

cisboss wrote:

As we all know, Ireland, the UK and most of western Europe are fairly socialist Welfare states, in that all public services are supplied to the people by the government via tax revenues.

Bollox.

cisboss wrote:

I propose to say that this welfare state is grossly inefficient, the result of a lack of competition (if the buses don't run on time and the hospital lines are hours long, who is going to price the bus service and health service out of the market...?)

You know what you sound like? One of those insufferable 'young conservatives' in Britain back in the 1980s who muscled their way into the chattering classes with a hugely inflated sense of their own importance, a smattering of the most basic elements of Free Market Theory and a fawning admiration for Maggie Thatcher.

They loudly applauded the destruction of the coal industry, the privatisation of just about everything important and the 'opening up' of the housing market which resulted in a generation of young British people being crippled by negative equity and house reposessions. (Couldn't happen here)

The net result is that the Tories were kicked out of power and even given that a Labour government has lied to bring them into a seriously unpopular war, the Conservatives are still so loathed it will probably be at least another five years (if not 10) before they get a smell of Number 10 again.

It's now the 21st century. You're such a bloody cliche.

cisspool? wrote:

Thus in the US I think there is the better model; competition, efficiency, good prices, good tax model, a baseline of social security to protect those who most need to avail of free healthcare and subsidised drugs (etc), and much more government capital freed up to do with whatever they wish -

Well that's true. Didn't PJ O Rourke say on the Late Late recently: 'The trouble with Europeans is they'd rather spend their tax money on dental treatment than building aircraft carriers.'?

dumb Young Conservatve 1980s throwback wrote:

I believe in helping the most needy, and giving everyone a chance, but I do not believe that our all encompassing, arcane and inefficient welfare state is

Our what? Most people above subsistence wages here have voluntary health insurance. You have to pay for your bins. You frequently have to pay for your schooling. You have to pay for your dental care. What the hell do you think 'all-encompassing' means?

see above wrote:

I believe that if one wants to see a society that works, from its healthcare to its overall economic situation, I believe one should look to the United States.

I truly believe that if we are to succeed as a nation and reach our full potential, and this goes for all other welfare states in the world, we need to adopt more a US style system (though of course, perhaps not exactly like our American cousins, but learn from their mistakes...)

And God bless us every one.

[ Daithí ]

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is that pimped from another website?

Yes.
http://forum.theleet.net/viewtopic.php?t=3261

gandalf

dumb Young Conservatve 1980s throwback

Hairy attack the post and not the poster !!! Last warning.

Hairy Homer

gandalf wrote:

Hairy attack the post and not the poster !!! Last warning.

Suitably chastised, Gandalf. I plead advanced years and the ensuing fact that I've had to endure these idiotic arguments for longer than most.

BlitzKrieg

this was in a textbook during the 80s wasnt it? a case study or something?

SkepticOne

Captain Trips wrote:

A comparitve example of competition is our own ESB. At one stage, we had the 2nd cheapest electricity in europe. Now we have one the most expensive - driven up artificially to create a "need" for another electricity supplier.

This is an example of pseudo-competition. Where a regulator rigs the situation in order to create the illusion of competition. Another example would be in the telephone market. Proper competition really does bring down prices but, due to the late liberalisation and poor and often unnecessary regulation we have seen little of this to date.

I think the important thing is there is no magic formula for running a country's economy. Some areas socialist priciples are best utilised. In other areas market forces are best. A country's culture needs to be taken into account. What works in, say, Sweden or France may not work in Ireland.

Redleslie2

cisboss wrote:

I believe that if one wants to see a society that works, from its healthcare to its overall economic situation, I believe one should look to the United States.

Well you know where the airport is.

Sleepy

Captain Trips wrote:

Myth 2: Competition is universally good

Simply because you have been told every evening on the TV that "competition this" "competition that" competition competition competition doesn't mean it's the best. Services like education and health care should be directly responsible to the citizen. I say citizens because we that and *not* "consumers" or "clients" despite corporate interests efforts to rebrand us. Competition is pushed because it increases profits. This is why US drug medications cost THREE TIMES as much as in Canada and why US pharm corps pushed to make it ILLEGAL for US citizens to purchase over the border. Who do you point the finger at when competition fails? Public service = accountability. We can blame Michael Martin, or Harney directly for inactivity. If we did not have this welfare supported system by governemtn representation, we'd be gimps.

Interesting that the example you give is one of a LACK of competition. In a truly competitive market, US citizens would be able to cross the boarder an purchase the drugs at the lower prices. Your case in point is a perfect argument against protectionism and the inefficiencies it creates.

Where competition is "bad" is where it isn't applied properly. True competition will invariably lead to the consumer receiving the best price. This is also the problem faced by the developing world, because their products can be produced far cheaper than they can in the first world (due to lower wages) trading blocks such as the US and the EU apply levies to their produce in order to allow their domestic producers of those products to "compete" (completely unfairly) with them. This is not competition. A truly competitive world would be one without tarrifs, levies or restrictions on trade (aside from legal matters e.g. trade of dangerous chemicals, weapons etc.). This is what we should be aiming for.

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

Where competition is "bad" is where it isn't applied properly.

Or where it makes no sense (i.e. the situation of a "natural monopoly").

True competition will invariably lead to the consumer receiving the best price.

Doesn't that only apply when one presumes that (in addition to the absence of a natural monopoly) all participants (consumers, suppliers, etc.) have perfect access to perfect information,

Needless to say, this is a situation which simply doesn't exist in the real world.

This type of thing always reminds me of the story of the chemist, physicist and economist on a desert island with only a rock, a tree, and a supply of tins of beans. The chemist & physicist both pull wildly complicated methodologies using chemistry, physics to explain how to open the tin and heat the beans in the process to keep them in food. The economist starts by saying "lets assume we have a tin opener...."

I don't mean to denigrate economics, merely to point out that the basis from which the "competition is always good" mantra comes requires that certain assumptions be made which do not necessarily hold true in a real-life situation.

jc

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Or where it makes no sense (i.e. the situation of a "natural monopoly").


Doesn't that only apply when one presumes that (in addition to the absence of a natural monopoly) all participants (consumers, suppliers, etc.) have perfect access to perfect information,

Needless to say, this is a situation which simply doesn't exist in the real world.

I take it you're referring to information assymetry?

Redleslie2

Sleepy wrote:

A truly competitive world would be one without tarrifs, levies or restrictions on trade

But with strict restrictions on movement of labour I suppose.

bonkey

That would be a restriction on trade in the strictest sense.....wouldn't it

Of coruse, if we had teh conditions for a truly competitive world, we'd probably also meet the conditions for any other number of utopias.....

(and yes, information asymmetry was what I was referring to)

OfflerCrocGod

Sleepy wrote:

True competition will invariably lead to the consumer receiving the best price.

No it doesn't. It leads to a monopoly.

SkepticOne

Information asymmetry is a particular problem in relation to state and former state monopolies and their regulators. In these situations, the regulator (or government in the case of state owned utilities) is dependent on the monopolist for information upon which to base prices. Unfortunately, in these situations, even the informed consumer can do nothing. Proper competition is the only way to deal with this sort of thing.

DublinWriter

Have you ever been to the states?

Have you ever lived there for any great length of time?

Have you seen the huge amount of poverty in cities like Washington and Seattle?

Do you know the average middle-class American family is only three paycheques away from poverty?

Do you know the average American teenager doesn't know who won WWII and when it was fought?

Have you any idea of the corruption that goes on in that country at the highest political levels?

Did you know that Germany and Belgium have higher rates of productivity per capita on a scale of about 15%?

So what's your answer? Kill the poor? Reopen the Magdelene launderies?

Really, do us all a favour and take off the rose tinted glasses. Spend some time over there rather than basing your options on Republican party literature and repeats of the Six Million Dollar Man.