Why can't the US adopt European-Style Social Systems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCIAGraduate

Guest
In my vastly limited perspective, many people in the US seem to suffer or have a more difficult time, whether through its a lack of health care, poor education or not being able to access needed social and human services. Additionally, I read somewhere on how Switzerland has a better work-life balance and how Norway not only provides humane accommodations its prison system but exhibits a lower incarceration rate.

Yes, I am missing a lot of context but why can’t the US adopt policies and systems that can alleviate the burdens, struggles and miseries so many experience?
 
Because we aren’t Europeans. The majority of American’s don’t want that. We believe in American Exceptionalism, Rugged Individualism, and self-reliance. We also don’t have a mostly homogeneous demographic that shares the same culture and values. We have a hodge podge mixture of various competing ideologies.

That is changing, and as more people come in from countries that want those programs and we allow them a say in government you’ll see the amount and type of services change, in my opinion, for the worse.
 
That’s a good question. I can think of a couple reasons why not.
  1. Huge U.S. population
  2. Enormous differences in demographics
  3. Enormous geographical differences
  4. Traditions of limited government involvement in personal lives
We in the U.S. have a far larger population than most other countries in the world, which would make providing all those services prohibitively expensive. Most of the countries where services are provided from cradle to grave have smaller populations without the same range of living conditions, cultures, education levels, etc. The U.S. spans everything from vast mountainous areas to coastal plains–even in 2018 geography plays a role. My in-laws live in a rural area. Despite being within 2 hours or so of some of the world’s foremost medical centers, it could still take over 30 minutes for an ambulance to get to their house if the roads are bad.

Also, USA-ers don’t like to pay taxes.
 
Well that’s a huge discussion. It should be noted that in some European countries they are moving away from those systems due to difficulties they have. One of the big reasons is cost. Most countries don’t support a military like we do and instead spend huge amounts of their GDP on health care instead.
 
The American system was built on the ideals of freedom… mostly individual freedom.
During WW2, the word “socialist” became a big bad word… probably worse than “nig**r”.

Then the government was taken over by the so-called corporate-America. Congress even has a wing dedicated to offices for lobbying representatives.

All while channeling so much of their budget to the military, as if anyone was going to attack them anytime soon… clearly not, so they have to attack others - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan… just naming a few…
A huge waste of resources that could be directed at themselves, at keeping them alive and healthy… But the health industry also wants to make their big bucks - if you can pay for health, why have it for free?!
Reminds me of the Nestle guy’s comments on access to clean water.

Governments exist to point the country in the right direction. To draw up the outline of where to go. America’s governments have made it so the corporations have priority… which works well enough while people are coming in to work for next to nothing, or are willing to have 2 or 3 jobs simultaneously… but that can’t last forever.
Why would I move out of Europe to the US, when I know that if I have an accident, I’ll be treated properly here and not be left in financial ruin afterwards… while in the US… no insurance, no bueno!

I think this sort of thing would be difficult to implement in one go, in the US… but perhaps it could start in a few smaller states, where the people are more receptive to such ideas, and then spread out, as the “experiment” turns out to be a positive one. Of course, the military budget will suffer, some taxes may increase a bit, but what does it matter, when you automatically increase everyone’s life expectancy and quality of life?
 
Why for the worst? Perhaps these people simply want to do right for their families and communities?

I believe most immigrant and minority communities wish for simple things, particularly a good education (and perhaps access to health care as a second) which they see as hope and opportunity for their kids.
 
Pardon my tone, I know I am being highly emotive at the moment.
 
Because those things are the responsibility of charities, not government, for those that can’t provide them for themselves.
 
pocaracas said:
Of course, the military budget will suffer, some taxes may increase a bit, but what does it matter, when you automatically increase everyone’s life expectancy and quality of life?
Click to expand...
👍

I do not believe Iraq was meant to be malicious but it appears to have become the Vietnam of our time. Instead of pursuing the common good in social spending initiatives or even spending and tax cuts which could redirected resources towards private initiatives like charities and non-profits, it seems like congress has been more interested in feeding the corporate good such as the military industrial complex. Again, I get that the national defense in an explicit responsibility of the national government but Iraq seems to have been a failure (further destabilizing the region, if not jeopardizing our security rather than making us safer) but the sunk costs could have gone into other worthy causes.
 
Really?! Responsibility of charities?!!
That doesn’t work.

Charities offer relief. Responsibility is not their cup of tea.

The government is responsible for keeping the country going… And keeping the population healthy and educated is a part of that job. Building new infrastructure, and maintaining it should also be in there… not to mention encouragement of technology advancement.
The Muslims knew that was important when they ruled over the Iberian Peninsula (that’s Spain), back in the early 1000’s.
See how far we’ve not traveled… -.-’
 
I have a fundamentally different view of the necessary role of government then you then. That’s fine, you can vote for who you want and I’ll do the same.
 
The government is responsible for keeping the country going… I agree

And keeping the population healthy and educated is a part of that job. - I disagree

Building new infrastructure, and maintaining it should also be in there… I agree

not to mention encouragement of technology advancement. - I disagree
 
Yes, I can see that, and I can see how local and regional governments such as the counties and states can be utilized to fulfill to cover the gaps of private initiative yet what about factors like social stigma, discrimination and apathy which might hinder aid for those in need. It seems tragic that some people are left in the cold.

For example, there are some comments I read on online articles about societal issues like foster care and homelessness and it seems like they’re those who won’t have a happy ending. But what if we had the social infrastructure that could have prevented those occurrences from happening in the first place?

P.S: I can see how social programs can cause dependency which can be construed as problematic and I get I am being a bit emotional and presumptuous at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I can understand that, I do wish you a Happy New Year and would like to read your point of view.

If I may ask, do you consider yourself a constitutionalist?
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
The government is responsible for keeping the country going… I agree

And keeping the population healthy and educated is a part of that job. - I disagree
Click to expand...
How do you expect the country to keep going, if the population is not healthy? If the population has no prospects of improvement?
JanSobieskiIII said:
Building new infrastructure, and maintaining it should also be in there… I agree

not to mention encouragement of technology advancement. - I disagree
Click to expand...
So… if it’s not the Government encouraging, then who?
Would humanity have gone to the moon if it wasn’t for NASA?
 
There will never be a cure for poverty or any other societal ill. Poverty is the default human state, we should do all we can to help them, but not if it involves immoral means to help them.

Taxation is theft. It may be necessary theft but it is still the forceful taking of what one person earned and the government taking it. No matter how altruistic the motives are it’s still theft. I understand and agree it is necessary for the functioning of society, but it needs kept to a bare minimum. Infrastructure, defense, courts, contract enforcement. These are legitimate uses of tax dollars. Caring for the poor and sick is our duty as Christian’s, not a secular governments.

If we lived under a different form of government, such as a Catholic Monarchy, the government would have a moral imperative to fulfill some of those rolls, but that is not the case in the US.
 
Humanity has gotten along fairly well before government healthcare came along. The United States in particular grew from a colonial backwater to the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth without it, so that argument is a non starter.

Who pushed anyone to innovate anything? Why did Eli Whitney invent the cotton gin? Was it because the government encouraged him to or because he had an idea?

Did the government push the development of aircraft? No, people had dreams and aspirations of their own and made it happen.
 
The same reason European countries can’t adopt US-style military programs, money 😉
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Humanity has gotten along fairly well before government healthcare came along. The United States in particular grew from a colonial backwater to the most powerful and prosperous nation on Earth without it, so that argument is a non starter.
Click to expand...
So… immigration en masse didn’t help in there, huh?
Should we pull out life expectancy statistics, per country, or even just compare how those evolved between the US and Europe?
JanSobieskiIII said:
Who pushed anyone to innovate anything? Why did Eli Whitney invent the cotton gin? Was it because the government encouraged him to or because he had an idea?

Did the government push the development of aircraft? No, people had dreams and aspirations of their own and made it happen.
Click to expand...
Examples can be found on both sides…
The government pushed for the development of the Atom Bomb and Space Travel… and who knows how many others could try out their ideas, thanks to some grant from some government agency?..
It’s mostly only the government who can afford (or is willing) to spend money on research of some unknown/unproven idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top