3 ms·
I can see the argument making sense that with a strong safety net folks are more willing to take risk. I know for me and my family needing to shoulder the full
by patja 12y ago
I can see the argument making sense that with a strong safety net folks are more willing to take risk. I know for me and my family needing to shoulder the full burden of health care expenses, even with the ACA changes, was one of the major inhibitors to striking out on my own. Even with the ACA and the opening up of the individual direct insurance market, we end up with a catastrophic high deductible plan that makes me loathe to seek medical care for some issues that maybe I should take care of and that a citizen of a nanny state wouldn't think twice about going in to have checked out.
Unfortunately a strong welfare state often goes hand in hand with a stronger bureaucracy in general including many regulations, red tape, unfavorable tax codes, and other obstructions to entrepreneurship. This is where the US trumps the strong welfare states.
- noir-york 12y ago"Unfortunately a strong welfare state often goes hand in hand with a stronger bureaucracy in general including many regulations, red tape, unfavorable tax codes, and other obstructions to entrepreneurship." Often... in general... - too many maybes. I know for a fact that the UK and Ireland make it very simple and painless to start up. "This is where the US trumps the strong welfare states." Does it? Most regulations are set at the state level as well, so you're saying that, say, Massachusetts is more bureaucratic than North Dakota?