5 ms·

Comparing USA states to countries is a very common practice of uneducated Americans.

true_religion 6y ago
In the case of health care, it’s apt because the federal government cannot force states to take actions. They can only issue guidelines.
- HugoDaniel 6y ago
  Still there are a lot of variables to consider: production, distribution, shares, access, storage, etc... In comparison to USA states, the European countries are a real mess: lots of small autonomous areas, language barriers everywhere (with some places only speaking particular dialects), hospital networks and management with wild variations (with a crude mix of private / public / semi-private-public / church / volunteer), population distribution with radical variations between country (hey Spain, how are things?), train network that still doesn't quite commute between countries because someone 2 centuries ago said that there might be a war coming anytime soon, etc... To top all that, countries are much faster in claiming their autonomy than states (they are countries after all). This single fact has big implications in coordinated efforts.
  - Udik 6y ago
    European countries are not (just) states, they're sovereign nations. And that's the big issue of the EU. The whole system is organised in such a way that each nation can retain most of its power, which is almost always greater than that of the EU institutions.
- skissane 6y ago
  That’s due to being a federation. The US is not the only federation; Australia, for example, is one too, and just like the US, in Australia public health is primarily a state responsibility, the federal government provides most of the funding but the states own the public hospitals and control most of the operational decisions. Yet I never heard any Australian compare foreign countries to Australian states. Other federations include Germany, Canada and Mexico, yet I’ve never heard any German or Canadian or Mexican make that comparison either. It seems to be a peculiarly American habit.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Going from Idaho to New York is about the same shock as going from Idaho to Australia. The people who make this comparison are the ones who have actually been to many different American states instead of just reading about them on Reddit.
    - mtarasevicius 6y ago
      That's not the point, but even if it was, you could also say something like going from Kiryas Joel to New York City is as big of a "shock" as going from Idaho to Australia, even though these two places are in the same state and 30km away. Yeah the U.S is big and varied, but that doesn't mean that the political and societal structures are approximately the same as the EU.
      - deathgrips 6y ago
        It's probably because before the United States existed, they were separate states. Then they became a confederacy (twice). There's also the open ended clause where Texas thinks they can secede if they want to.
        skissane 6y ago
        > It's probably because before the United States existed, they were separate states. The same is true of Canada's provinces and Australia's states – before (con)federation, they were separate British colonies. The big difference between Australia/Canada and the US, is the American colonies rebelled first, and then federated after they had won their independence. The Australian and Canadian colonies federated (with the approval of London) into "dominions", which were more than mere colonies but rather semi-independent parts of the British Empire. (London's power over the dominions gradually declined over the decades to the point that it recognised them as fully independent countries, although neither Canada nor Australia was fully independent at the moment of their respective federations.) (Australians call it "Federation" and Canadians call it "Confederation" but it is the same thing. Canadian confederation never produced a Confederation in the sense that the American Articles of Confederation or the Confederate States of America were.) Also, even before the now-independent American colonies formed themselves into a federation, they already viewed themselves as a distinct nation. There was never really any point that New Yorkers (for instance) viewed themselves as New Yorkers rather than Americans or British or British North Americans. American states never functioned as national identities. (Even cases like independent Vermont and independent Texas, they saw largely themselves as Americans waiting to be allowed into the United States, there was never really any independent Texan nationalism or Vermont nationalism.) Prior to the American revolution, there was no difference between Americans and English-speaking Canadians – they all saw themselves as British North Americans. It was only after the American revolution that English-speaking Canadians stopped identifying with the label "American" and began to identify it with the other country to the south instead. The American revolution was really the formative event which split Anglophone Canada and the United States into separate national identities. > There's also the open ended clause where Texas thinks they can secede if they want to. Texas tried to secede as part of the Confederacy, and the attempt was crushed. Whatever rights of secession some Texans claim exist on paper certainly don't exist in practice.
vinay427 6y ago
Without bothering to stoop down to the ignorance in your comment, they didn't compare them to countries. They stated that it wasn't a singular effort, which is factually true as far as I can tell and refutes something you said.

In the case of health care, it’s apt because the federal government cannot force states to take actions. They can only issue guidelines.

HugoDaniel 6y ago
Still there are a lot of variables to consider: production, distribution, shares, access, storage, etc... In comparison to USA states, the European countries are a real mess: lots of small autonomous areas, language barriers everywhere (with some places only speaking particular dialects), hospital networks and management with wild variations (with a crude mix of private / public / semi-private-public / church / volunteer), population distribution with radical variations between country (hey Spain, how are things?), train network that still doesn't quite commute between countries because someone 2 centuries ago said that there might be a war coming anytime soon, etc... To top all that, countries are much faster in claiming their autonomy than states (they are countries after all). This single fact has big implications in coordinated efforts.
- Udik 6y ago
  European countries are not (just) states, they're sovereign nations. And that's the big issue of the EU. The whole system is organised in such a way that each nation can retain most of its power, which is almost always greater than that of the EU institutions.
skissane 6y ago
That’s due to being a federation. The US is not the only federation; Australia, for example, is one too, and just like the US, in Australia public health is primarily a state responsibility, the federal government provides most of the funding but the states own the public hospitals and control most of the operational decisions. Yet I never heard any Australian compare foreign countries to Australian states. Other federations include Germany, Canada and Mexico, yet I’ve never heard any German or Canadian or Mexican make that comparison either. It seems to be a peculiarly American habit.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Going from Idaho to New York is about the same shock as going from Idaho to Australia. The people who make this comparison are the ones who have actually been to many different American states instead of just reading about them on Reddit.
  - mtarasevicius 6y ago
    That's not the point, but even if it was, you could also say something like going from Kiryas Joel to New York City is as big of a "shock" as going from Idaho to Australia, even though these two places are in the same state and 30km away. Yeah the U.S is big and varied, but that doesn't mean that the political and societal structures are approximately the same as the EU.
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      It's probably because before the United States existed, they were separate states. Then they became a confederacy (twice). There's also the open ended clause where Texas thinks they can secede if they want to.
      - skissane 6y ago
        > It's probably because before the United States existed, they were separate states. The same is true of Canada's provinces and Australia's states – before (con)federation, they were separate British colonies. The big difference between Australia/Canada and the US, is the American colonies rebelled first, and then federated after they had won their independence. The Australian and Canadian colonies federated (with the approval of London) into "dominions", which were more than mere colonies but rather semi-independent parts of the British Empire. (London's power over the dominions gradually declined over the decades to the point that it recognised them as fully independent countries, although neither Canada nor Australia was fully independent at the moment of their respective federations.) (Australians call it "Federation" and Canadians call it "Confederation" but it is the same thing. Canadian confederation never produced a Confederation in the sense that the American Articles of Confederation or the Confederate States of America were.) Also, even before the now-independent American colonies formed themselves into a federation, they already viewed themselves as a distinct nation. There was never really any point that New Yorkers (for instance) viewed themselves as New Yorkers rather than Americans or British or British North Americans. American states never functioned as national identities. (Even cases like independent Vermont and independent Texas, they saw largely themselves as Americans waiting to be allowed into the United States, there was never really any independent Texan nationalism or Vermont nationalism.) Prior to the American revolution, there was no difference between Americans and English-speaking Canadians – they all saw themselves as British North Americans. It was only after the American revolution that English-speaking Canadians stopped identifying with the label "American" and began to identify it with the other country to the south instead. The American revolution was really the formative event which split Anglophone Canada and the United States into separate national identities. > There's also the open ended clause where Texas thinks they can secede if they want to. Texas tried to secede as part of the Confederacy, and the attempt was crushed. Whatever rights of secession some Texans claim exist on paper certainly don't exist in practice.

vinay427 6y ago

Without bothering to stoop down to the ignorance in your comment, they didn't compare them to countries. They stated that it wasn't a singular effort, which is factually true as far as I can tell and refutes something you said.