4 ms·

On charity: I see two reasons for these different approaches to charity: first, Americans distrust big organizations and third world governments; they fear tha

On charity: I see two reasons for these different approaches to charity: first, Americans distrust big organizations and third world governments; they fear that money they donate to global causes will trickle away in bureaucracies somewhere. Second, Germans intuitively don't feel much of a need to help local organizations or schools: "that's the government's job, that's what I pay taxes for." I think the main driver for these different approaches is that the German state basically says "in the end we'll help you" while the US says "in the end you're on your own". The German approach in my opinion does more to alleviate outcast-scale poverty. However, the quality of helping loses because: a) those who would help mostly help people from other continents since they think that their countrymen are well off anyway b) those who do help, are put there to help in form of public officers But even with a strong social-net as in Germany there are still poor people. What happens when a)-people don't care and b)-people just follow orders is that our poors usually never get on their own feet and out of their dependency because their is no one telling them how to help themselves. That's what I mean with quality of helping. And yes, this article seems very outdated, but to me the subject would still make a promising headline. One thing I observed is that both countries got less different over the years: If you look at the policies regarding the social-net, Europe has tried to become more american (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept) while the US has tried to become more european (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer...).

yardie 14y ago
One thing I observed is that both countries got less different over the years: If you look at the policies regarding the social-net, Europe has tried to become more american (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept) while the US has tried to become more european (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer...). Countries in the EU have a mandate to bring down public debt and the easiest place to do that is the welfare system (depending on the economy, most voters think it's too generous in some cases). Since social welfare is so large in Europe there are many places you can "trim". In the US this is not the case at all. The welfare system has gotten aggressively more meager since the 80s. The AHCAA also isn't about more benefits but cutting public expenditure on healthcare in the long run. It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits. The same for birth control, pap smears, and breast exams. Treating early saves the government money. Don't confuse this act with the European welfare system, it is absolutely about saving money for the govt, your health is side benefit.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits. No, it's billed at ridiculously high rates. That's not the same thing. ER docs are not paid that much more than primary care docs. The cost of treating an infection in the ER is 1 hour of a doctor's time + drugs. The cost of a regular doctor visit is also 1 hour of the doctor's time + drugs. The hospital might bill at some ridiculous rate, but that doesn't mean it costs a lot. Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective (or even beneficial) for women under 50 (though oddly, congress demands they be provided). The idea that early action is always better is silly.
  - eru 14y ago
    I agree broadly. Some minor points: You are probably right about the direct labour costs of treating an infection in ER. However, to use the language of computing, the difference between a GP and ER comes down to latency. An ER should be able to react fast, clogging it up with ailments that could be resolved at a leisurely pace earlier, doesn't strike me as a good idea.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      An ER should be able to react fast, clogging it up with ailments that could be resolved at a leisurely pace earlier, doesn't strike me as a good idea. Fortunately this is a solved problem - the solution is called "triage". No matter how many coughing people are ahead of you in the queue, spurting blood gets immediate treatment.
  - yardie 14y ago
    When you go into an ER for an infection you know it's going to be expensive so you wait until the infection has advanced pretty far. Now it's far from 1 hour and may require many days of 24 hour monitoring. While the hospital might be expensive what are you paying for? 24 hour availability, rapid response, and knowledgable staff. Something that most GPs don't provide. Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective Please provide a citation. The idea that early action is always better is silly. So dying from easily treatable diseases (when they are caught) is so much better.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
The German approach in my opinion does more to alleviate outcast-scale poverty. I'd be curious how this actually plays out in practice. In the US, we have a great document called the American Housing Survey. It breaks down what percentage of poor people (and non-poor people) own various goods - e.g., 75% of poor people own a car, 65% own a washing machine and 45% own their home. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Do you know of a similar German document? It would provide some facts to support/dispute your opinion.
- r3m6 14y ago
  The key is that the basics are covered (like in most of Europe) 100% of poor people in Germany own a health insurance 0% own a house (you have to use up your own money first) 100% own a washing machine (paid for by the government) 50& own a car (my guess, but you dont really need it in big cities)
  - eru 14y ago
    That's basically true, but simplified. We also have homeless people in Germany, who don't own a washing machine. To get the government welfare, you have to navigate some bureaucracy: it's not hard, but there are still people who can't or don't want to do that. About the house: If your house is cheap enough, I am not sure whether you have to use it all up completely. (I heard that there's even the possibility under certain circumstances of the government helping you with mortgage payments instead of helping you pay for rent.) In general, you can live of the government welfare and even raise kids. But you need some skills for that, and they aren't that different from the skills that make for basic employability.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Do you have actual stats on this, or are you guessing? Also, access to financial services (e.g. health insurance) is irrelevant. Financial services are intermediary goods (like education or business suits) - irrelevant by themselves, but sometimes useful to get other things you really want.
- 14y ago
BvS 14y ago
One thing he didn't mention (directly) is that the average US citizen donates about 6 times more money to non-religious charities than the average German citizen, even if you adjust for GDP/capita.

yardie 14y ago

One thing I observed is that both countries got less different over the years: If you look at the policies regarding the social-net, Europe has tried to become more american (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept) while the US has tried to become more european (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_Amer...). Countries in the EU have a mandate to bring down public debt and the easiest place to do that is the welfare system (depending on the economy, most voters think it's too generous in some cases). Since social welfare is so large in Europe there are many places you can "trim". In the US this is not the case at all. The welfare system has gotten aggressively more meager since the 80s. The AHCAA also isn't about more benefits but cutting public expenditure on healthcare in the long run. It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits. The same for birth control, pap smears, and breast exams. Treating early saves the government money. Don't confuse this act with the European welfare system, it is absolutely about saving money for the govt, your health is side benefit.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits. No, it's billed at ridiculously high rates. That's not the same thing. ER docs are not paid that much more than primary care docs. The cost of treating an infection in the ER is 1 hour of a doctor's time + drugs. The cost of a regular doctor visit is also 1 hour of the doctor's time + drugs. The hospital might bill at some ridiculous rate, but that doesn't mean it costs a lot. Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective (or even beneficial) for women under 50 (though oddly, congress demands they be provided). The idea that early action is always better is silly.
- eru 14y ago
  I agree broadly. Some minor points: You are probably right about the direct labour costs of treating an infection in ER. However, to use the language of computing, the difference between a GP and ER comes down to latency. An ER should be able to react fast, clogging it up with ailments that could be resolved at a leisurely pace earlier, doesn't strike me as a good idea.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    An ER should be able to react fast, clogging it up with ailments that could be resolved at a leisurely pace earlier, doesn't strike me as a good idea. Fortunately this is a solved problem - the solution is called "triage". No matter how many coughing people are ahead of you in the queue, spurting blood gets immediate treatment.
- yardie 14y ago
  When you go into an ER for an infection you know it's going to be expensive so you wait until the infection has advanced pretty far. Now it's far from 1 hour and may require many days of 24 hour monitoring. While the hospital might be expensive what are you paying for? 24 hour availability, rapid response, and knowledgable staff. Something that most GPs don't provide. Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective Please provide a citation. The idea that early action is always better is silly. So dying from easily treatable diseases (when they are caught) is so much better.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

The German approach in my opinion does more to alleviate outcast-scale poverty. I'd be curious how this actually plays out in practice. In the US, we have a great document called the American Housing Survey. It breaks down what percentage of poor people (and non-poor people) own various goods - e.g., 75% of poor people own a car, 65% own a washing machine and 45% own their home. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Do you know of a similar German document? It would provide some facts to support/dispute your opinion.

r3m6 14y ago
The key is that the basics are covered (like in most of Europe) 100% of poor people in Germany own a health insurance 0% own a house (you have to use up your own money first) 100% own a washing machine (paid for by the government) 50& own a car (my guess, but you dont really need it in big cities)
- eru 14y ago
  That's basically true, but simplified. We also have homeless people in Germany, who don't own a washing machine. To get the government welfare, you have to navigate some bureaucracy: it's not hard, but there are still people who can't or don't want to do that. About the house: If your house is cheap enough, I am not sure whether you have to use it all up completely. (I heard that there's even the possibility under certain circumstances of the government helping you with mortgage payments instead of helping you pay for rent.) In general, you can live of the government welfare and even raise kids. But you need some skills for that, and they aren't that different from the skills that make for basic employability.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Do you have actual stats on this, or are you guessing? Also, access to financial services (e.g. health insurance) is irrelevant. Financial services are intermediary goods (like education or business suits) - irrelevant by themselves, but sometimes useful to get other things you really want.
14y ago

BvS 14y ago

One thing he didn't mention (directly) is that the average US citizen donates about 6 times more money to non-religious charities than the average German citizen, even if you adjust for GDP/capita.