3 ms·

The Nordic countries are the size of a small US state(~6M), which is why many people in the US prefer to have these programs managed at a state level rather tha

The Nordic countries are the size of a small US state(~6M), which is why many people in the US prefer to have these programs managed at a state level rather than apply to ~310M US citizens.

mtgx 10y ago
I've never really understood this argument. Perhaps it would make sense if the U.S. was a poor country, but U.S. is a very rich country per capita. It can afford to pay everyone healthcare, especially if it was serious about increasing hospital and pharmaceutical competition as well as medical services transparency. It also requires changing some priorities like say not being involved in 7 wars at once. The current administration has just increased the military budget by another $60 billion. But in 2016 the media on both sides was all about how the U.S. "couldn't afford to pay $70 billion a year for free public college." It's bullshit. It's all about priorities. Saying it should be up to states makes no sense, because obviously a lot of states wouldn't be able to afford it this way. It would be like saying let's let the Nordic villages handle their own healthcare. That wouldn't work, would it? But it works at a more centralized level because the country is rich per capita. And so is the U.S.
- nonplus 10y ago
  Thanks for sharing, I had not really considered that viewpoint. I have just looked at the complexity cost of a system distributed to 10s of millions that can't afford to fail at any point. From that biased, simple, and domain specific view a smaller system has made more sense to me personally.
- narrowrail 9y ago
  >It would be like saying let's let the Nordic villages Were Nordic villages founded as sovereign states? Based on your comment history (I read enough HN comments not to have to look at your history), I think we agree FB has amassed too much power as a central entity? That was a major concern at the founding of the US. Power needs to be decentralized or its corrupting force will overwhelm a free people.
bjelkeman-again 10y ago
I don't disagree, as I consider part of the success in the EU is decentralisation of democracy. EU power is limited and the power it has is actually relatively well implemented, with notable exceptions such as the agricultural policy. The most successful countries are primarily smaller. I think they are essentially easier to run. Germany is an exception, but it is a federation of smaller states. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111 http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

The Nordic countries are the size of a small US state(~6M), which is why many people in the US prefer to have these programs managed at a state level rather than apply to ~310M US citizens.

mtgx 10y ago

I've never really understood this argument. Perhaps it would make sense if the U.S. was a poor country, but U.S. is a very rich country per capita. It can afford to pay everyone healthcare, especially if it was serious about increasing hospital and pharmaceutical competition as well as medical services transparency. It also requires changing some priorities like say not being involved in 7 wars at once. The current administration has just increased the military budget by another $60 billion. But in 2016 the media on both sides was all about how the U.S. "couldn't afford to pay $70 billion a year for free public college." It's bullshit. It's all about priorities. Saying it should be up to states makes no sense, because obviously a lot of states wouldn't be able to afford it this way. It would be like saying let's let the Nordic villages handle their own healthcare. That wouldn't work, would it? But it works at a more centralized level because the country is rich per capita. And so is the U.S.

nonplus 10y ago
Thanks for sharing, I had not really considered that viewpoint. I have just looked at the complexity cost of a system distributed to 10s of millions that can't afford to fail at any point. From that biased, simple, and domain specific view a smaller system has made more sense to me personally.
narrowrail 9y ago
>It would be like saying let's let the Nordic villages Were Nordic villages founded as sovereign states? Based on your comment history (I read enough HN comments not to have to look at your history), I think we agree FB has amassed too much power as a central entity? That was a major concern at the founding of the US. Power needs to be decentralized or its corrupting force will overwhelm a free people.

bjelkeman-again 10y ago

I don't disagree, as I consider part of the success in the EU is decentralisation of democracy. EU power is limited and the power it has is actually relatively well implemented, with notable exceptions such as the agricultural policy. The most successful countries are primarily smaller. I think they are essentially easier to run. Germany is an exception, but it is a federation of smaller states. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111 http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111