3 ms·

== The US is very culturally diverse, so "one size fits all" is likely much more difficult.== Seems like something the “greatest” or “richest” country should b

== The US is very culturally diverse, so "one size fits all" is likely much more difficult.== Seems like something the “greatest” or “richest” country should be able to figure out. Are you suggesting the culture of rural Japan is the same one-size-fits-all as Tokyo? Or that Melbourne and inner-Australia are culturally the same?

luckylion 6y ago
> Seems like something the “greatest” or “richest” country should be able to figure out. As soon as we figure out how calling yourself some superlative and speaking of your exceptionalism makes things happen, it probably will, yes. > Are you suggesting the culture of rural Japan is the same one-size-fits-all as Tokyo? Much, much, much, much more so than that of San Francisco vs rural Montana, yes. Is this really controversial? The US culture is so fragmented that it matters what state you're in for plenty of things regarding taxes, laws, employment etc. That's unheard of in European countries.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  > The US culture is so fragmented that it matters what state you're in for plenty of things regarding taxes, laws, employment etc. That's unheard of in European countries. Then compare USA and EU. I would argue EU is even more diverse (former east block countries, and western etc. or areas like Guayana in Overseas France on South America) And they figured this out by putting different authority on different levels.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Then compare USA and EU. There is no EU-wide health system of any kind. The EU is much less integrated as the US, it's really not close to being the "United States of Europe", even though many are pushing towards that direction. > And they figured this out by putting different authority on different levels. As have the US, apparently. Each state does what its inhabitants want to do and pay for. The argument is that because European countries have federal systems, so should the US. If you now compare the US to the EU, then there is no federal level health care system in the EU, only at what would be the state level when compared in that way.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      The EU directly regulates pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Via different measures (for instance by regulation over cross border treatment) it defines some common ground rules. True, it's not a single integrated system, but variance in EU is lower than the difference to US.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > True, it's not a single integrated system, but variance in EU is lower than the difference to US. As in "there are public health care system in the EU", but that's not because of "the EU" but because of the nations making up the EU using similar approaches in that regard. It's not that we all had some random thing going and then the EU decided in 2004 that we should all do a public system when Eastern European countries joined. Please don't change history here. There is no EU-level health care system, the EU has not created public health care systems in member states and European countries do have varying approaches to health care, with more and less concentration on state-run programs.
        johannes1234321 6y ago
        Yes, historic reasons are relevant. However it drives some alignment. Among other things for new members chapter 19 of the enlargement negotions covers different aspects. Thus in order to join some aspects have to be changed in different countries and U.S. won't be able to join (of course U.S. is failing the initial test if being an "European" country in first place) And yes, there is quite some freedom, as British didn't want to replace the NHS, while Germany wants to keep their complex system, with private and public insurances and the assistance for state servants and all that ...
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    That's how the U.S. operates today. Schools are run by the state, although they do get some federal subsidies and those come with a lot of strings attached, they are largely run by the states individually. And in K-12 each school district has its own administration. The colleges and universities, except for the private ones, are run by the state.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  ==Much, much, much, much more so than that of San Francisco vs rural Montana, yes. Is this really controversial?== Four instances of the word “much” with zero instances of any evidence to back up the claim. Meanwhile, plenty of people move to Montana from California. In Italy, for example, Sicily is very different culturally from Turino. You haven’t proved that US differences are larger, you just claimed it had to be and moved on. ==That's unheard of in European countries.== Until you get to the section on Germany. A country with 16 states and strong Federalism built into their constitution. Belgium has 3 official languages. Your view seems pretty US-centric.

luckylion 6y ago

> Seems like something the “greatest” or “richest” country should be able to figure out. As soon as we figure out how calling yourself some superlative and speaking of your exceptionalism makes things happen, it probably will, yes. > Are you suggesting the culture of rural Japan is the same one-size-fits-all as Tokyo? Much, much, much, much more so than that of San Francisco vs rural Montana, yes. Is this really controversial? The US culture is so fragmented that it matters what state you're in for plenty of things regarding taxes, laws, employment etc. That's unheard of in European countries.

johannes1234321 6y ago
> The US culture is so fragmented that it matters what state you're in for plenty of things regarding taxes, laws, employment etc. That's unheard of in European countries. Then compare USA and EU. I would argue EU is even more diverse (former east block countries, and western etc. or areas like Guayana in Overseas France on South America) And they figured this out by putting different authority on different levels.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Then compare USA and EU. There is no EU-wide health system of any kind. The EU is much less integrated as the US, it's really not close to being the "United States of Europe", even though many are pushing towards that direction. > And they figured this out by putting different authority on different levels. As have the US, apparently. Each state does what its inhabitants want to do and pay for. The argument is that because European countries have federal systems, so should the US. If you now compare the US to the EU, then there is no federal level health care system in the EU, only at what would be the state level when compared in that way.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    The EU directly regulates pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Via different measures (for instance by regulation over cross border treatment) it defines some common ground rules. True, it's not a single integrated system, but variance in EU is lower than the difference to US.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > True, it's not a single integrated system, but variance in EU is lower than the difference to US. As in "there are public health care system in the EU", but that's not because of "the EU" but because of the nations making up the EU using similar approaches in that regard. It's not that we all had some random thing going and then the EU decided in 2004 that we should all do a public system when Eastern European countries joined. Please don't change history here. There is no EU-level health care system, the EU has not created public health care systems in member states and European countries do have varying approaches to health care, with more and less concentration on state-run programs.
      - johannes1234321 6y ago
        Yes, historic reasons are relevant. However it drives some alignment. Among other things for new members chapter 19 of the enlargement negotions covers different aspects. Thus in order to join some aspects have to be changed in different countries and U.S. won't be able to join (of course U.S. is failing the initial test if being an "European" country in first place) And yes, there is quite some freedom, as British didn't want to replace the NHS, while Germany wants to keep their complex system, with private and public insurances and the assistance for state servants and all that ...
- chrisco255 6y ago
  That's how the U.S. operates today. Schools are run by the state, although they do get some federal subsidies and those come with a lot of strings attached, they are largely run by the states individually. And in K-12 each school district has its own administration. The colleges and universities, except for the private ones, are run by the state.
take_a_breath 6y ago
==Much, much, much, much more so than that of San Francisco vs rural Montana, yes. Is this really controversial?== Four instances of the word “much” with zero instances of any evidence to back up the claim. Meanwhile, plenty of people move to Montana from California. In Italy, for example, Sicily is very different culturally from Turino. You haven’t proved that US differences are larger, you just claimed it had to be and moved on. ==That's unheard of in European countries.== Until you get to the section on Germany. A country with 16 states and strong Federalism built into their constitution. Belgium has 3 official languages. Your view seems pretty US-centric.