5 ms·

Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. This is

Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. This is a pretty variable part too, perhaps even more important than the actual "official" level of benefits. One of the bigger differences I've noticed moving from the U.S. to Denmark is not so much that the social welfare system is more generous (though that's true also), but especially that it's more proactive and less bureaucratic. If someone mentally ill is in need of support, qualifies for it, and cannot navigate the system themselves, a social worker will help them out. If they need somewhere to live and can't rent their own apartment, they'll get helped out there too. Someone will literally rent them an apartment, take them to it, make sure they settle in, and then check back later. In the U.S., none of that is true. I have some pretty recent experience with an American uncle who has advanced M.S. and has gotten basically no useful support. For a while he was unable to live alone, but officially the government didn't give a shit, so he did anyway, and injured himself regularly. He alternated between living in his apartment for a few weeks at a time, and ending up in the emergency room several times per month each time he injured himself. You might think: at this point, shouldn't he move to an assisted-living facility? It'd actually be more cost-effective, but nope, neither SSI Disability nor Medicare Disability cover that. SSI Disability will pay his rent to live at home, and Medicare Disability will pay his hospital visits, but neither will pay for him to move to somewhere that makes more sense. He would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members hadn't agreed to take over power of attorney, navigate the system on his behalf, and find money to pay for his rent. The U.S.'s joke of a stingy social system surely hasn't done anything on that front.

Crake 13y ago
>would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members...navigate the system on his behalf. This is what I've observed as well. Part of the reason I feel like I have to move out of the US as soon as I possibly can is that I have no blood relations to take care of me if I become fully disabled again. It's absolutely terrifying.
gcb0 13y ago
> but especially that it's more proactive this was my main shock moving to work in the US. americans sell the image of workaholics. but... from dmv, cafe baristas, to VPs on the fortune 500 companies... nobody, bloody nobody will move a finger to do something that is not strictly what they are being paid to do. sometimes i think that if any of my coworkers would drop a pen during a meeting, it would be socially acceptable as an excuse for not taking any notes, since it is not his job to pick up a pen.
- midas007 13y ago
  Spoiled children -> learned selfishness.
  - fauigerzigerk 13y ago
    In my experience, it's the people who fear that they are going to be taken advantage of the moment they do anything they don't absolutely have to. It seems unlikely that getting spoiled as a child causes that kind of distrust.
- yardie 13y ago
  That's just the power in the word "no". It's easy to say no, requires little thought, and no effort. This is not endemic to the US, I encounter it all the time in France as well. So you learn not to ask, just do it. Or use a bit of reverse psychology to get to why it can't be done.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    True, it is the very same I get in France. But french people does not sell themselves inconsistently as the americans. ;)
- Shivetya 13y ago
  if your looking for charitable people amongst those in cafes and such your looking in the wrong place. People who tend to those locations are more concerned about themselves than others. You want to find the people that care, go to the Goodwills, Salvation Army stores, and the like. Its not hard to find the charitable people if you would bother to look where they are instead of where you are comfortable. Besides, based on personal experience, many of the very higher ups in the companies I work for put more time into charity than the techies ever did.
mikeash 13y ago
This is the other face of the "personal responsibility" that you've no doubt seen many prominent American politicians talk about. It's good because it means that you can succeed on your own merits, but it also means that if you fail, it must be because you suck.
- _delirium 13y ago
  It's a bit strange to me, because several of the theorists who are supposed to be beloved across the ideological spectrum, even (especially!) on the right, also noticed this problem. One of F.A. Hayek's concerns through a number of his writings was: what about the risks common to all people, such as the risk you'll end up disabled and unable to work, or that you'll contract life-threatening cancer? The traditional solution was a form of "personal responsibility" that actually becomes collectivism: southern-European and Middle-Eastern families have large extended families who are expected to effectively provide the insurance policy. If you fall seriously ill, your family clan, religious sub-sect, or other such collective membership entity covers for you. To Hayek, this was not in keeping with the ideals of individual liberty. Instead, he preferred a state that assured everyone basic personal rights independent of their family/clan/religion, including both things like enforcement of contracts (even if you're not from an important enough family to enforce your own contracts) and protection against the threat of indigence (even if you're not from a close-knit religion that takes care of its own).
  - dagw 13y ago
    The number of so called Hayekians whom have actually read and understood significant parts of Hayek is depressingly small. (for what it's worth you can probably say exactly the same thing about Keynesians).
- jerf 13y ago
  That's really not a helpful reading of the situation, I think. In both cases, a significant pile of benefits is being given to the person in question. The US may very well be spending more on our person, since we're talking about pushing them through an expensive medical system with some frequency. But the US does it poorly. I think part of how we've gotten there is our political class is satisfied spouting exactly that sort of glib generalities about "the evils of capitalism" and then just throwing more money in the general direction of the problem from too high a level with too bureaucratic a process (Federal or State), instead of letting people think and act on their thoughts. Nobody in the US situation is allowed to think, all the benefits are too rigid, and probably being administered from a thousand miles away or more.
rayiner 13y ago
U.S. welfare is bureaucratic because it doesn't enjoy broad-based popular support. Conservatives don't believe it should exist, and liberals feel somehow guilty that it does exist.[1] This leaves no room for debate about how to improve service: all energy is spent simply defending the systems' existence. [1] Hence the liberals' lionization of Clinton, whose big push on the social welfare front was the very conservative goal of cutting welfare rolls.
- warfangle 13y ago
  The goal of any welfare is to get those that can survive off of it, off of it - through gainful employment and counseling if need be. And for those that, for whatever reason, cannot survive off of it, well.. don't they deserve at the very least respect over squalor, just by being human?
refurb 13y ago
Keep in mind that nearly all the social services in the US are run at the state level and there is a wide variability between states in terms of the services they offer. What you're saying is true though, most states in the US don't help out with home care at all.

Crake 13y ago

>would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members...navigate the system on his behalf. This is what I've observed as well. Part of the reason I feel like I have to move out of the US as soon as I possibly can is that I have no blood relations to take care of me if I become fully disabled again. It's absolutely terrifying.

gcb0 13y ago

> but especially that it's more proactive this was my main shock moving to work in the US. americans sell the image of workaholics. but... from dmv, cafe baristas, to VPs on the fortune 500 companies... nobody, bloody nobody will move a finger to do something that is not strictly what they are being paid to do. sometimes i think that if any of my coworkers would drop a pen during a meeting, it would be socially acceptable as an excuse for not taking any notes, since it is not his job to pick up a pen.

midas007 13y ago
Spoiled children -> learned selfishness.
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  In my experience, it's the people who fear that they are going to be taken advantage of the moment they do anything they don't absolutely have to. It seems unlikely that getting spoiled as a child causes that kind of distrust.
yardie 13y ago
That's just the power in the word "no". It's easy to say no, requires little thought, and no effort. This is not endemic to the US, I encounter it all the time in France as well. So you learn not to ask, just do it. Or use a bit of reverse psychology to get to why it can't be done.
- gcb0 13y ago
  True, it is the very same I get in France. But french people does not sell themselves inconsistently as the americans. ;)
Shivetya 13y ago
if your looking for charitable people amongst those in cafes and such your looking in the wrong place. People who tend to those locations are more concerned about themselves than others. You want to find the people that care, go to the Goodwills, Salvation Army stores, and the like. Its not hard to find the charitable people if you would bother to look where they are instead of where you are comfortable. Besides, based on personal experience, many of the very higher ups in the companies I work for put more time into charity than the techies ever did.

mikeash 13y ago

This is the other face of the "personal responsibility" that you've no doubt seen many prominent American politicians talk about. It's good because it means that you can succeed on your own merits, but it also means that if you fail, it must be because you suck.

_delirium 13y ago
It's a bit strange to me, because several of the theorists who are supposed to be beloved across the ideological spectrum, even (especially!) on the right, also noticed this problem. One of F.A. Hayek's concerns through a number of his writings was: what about the risks common to all people, such as the risk you'll end up disabled and unable to work, or that you'll contract life-threatening cancer? The traditional solution was a form of "personal responsibility" that actually becomes collectivism: southern-European and Middle-Eastern families have large extended families who are expected to effectively provide the insurance policy. If you fall seriously ill, your family clan, religious sub-sect, or other such collective membership entity covers for you. To Hayek, this was not in keeping with the ideals of individual liberty. Instead, he preferred a state that assured everyone basic personal rights independent of their family/clan/religion, including both things like enforcement of contracts (even if you're not from an important enough family to enforce your own contracts) and protection against the threat of indigence (even if you're not from a close-knit religion that takes care of its own).
- dagw 13y ago
  The number of so called Hayekians whom have actually read and understood significant parts of Hayek is depressingly small. (for what it's worth you can probably say exactly the same thing about Keynesians).
jerf 13y ago
That's really not a helpful reading of the situation, I think. In both cases, a significant pile of benefits is being given to the person in question. The US may very well be spending more on our person, since we're talking about pushing them through an expensive medical system with some frequency. But the US does it poorly. I think part of how we've gotten there is our political class is satisfied spouting exactly that sort of glib generalities about "the evils of capitalism" and then just throwing more money in the general direction of the problem from too high a level with too bureaucratic a process (Federal or State), instead of letting people think and act on their thoughts. Nobody in the US situation is allowed to think, all the benefits are too rigid, and probably being administered from a thousand miles away or more.

rayiner 13y ago

U.S. welfare is bureaucratic because it doesn't enjoy broad-based popular support. Conservatives don't believe it should exist, and liberals feel somehow guilty that it does exist.[1] This leaves no room for debate about how to improve service: all energy is spent simply defending the systems' existence. [1] Hence the liberals' lionization of Clinton, whose big push on the social welfare front was the very conservative goal of cutting welfare rolls.

warfangle 13y ago
The goal of any welfare is to get those that can survive off of it, off of it - through gainful employment and counseling if need be. And for those that, for whatever reason, cannot survive off of it, well.. don't they deserve at the very least respect over squalor, just by being human?

refurb 13y ago

Keep in mind that nearly all the social services in the US are run at the state level and there is a wide variability between states in terms of the services they offer. What you're saying is true though, most states in the US don't help out with home care at all.