Denmark was actually recently found as the happiest country in the world, but what the story doesn’t tell is that Denmark was also the country where people expected the least from life. I do not completely agree with the way republicans see the world, but don’t believe the fairy tale version of social europe that Thom is trying to make up.

I also believe Thom should take another trip to the States, because obviously he didn’t do his homework while being there. Although I haven’t seen Texas, I’ve been to California 5 times and never seen anything that resembled the horror stories that socialist propaganda medias in europe display. And you know why? Because those stories take some horrible abandoned city out in some nowhere state and say This Is America. So Thom, would you like me to conclude Holland is a shithole because I can find some terrible town somewhere out in nowhere in eastern europe? I thought not. So don’t judge all of america the same way.

Also keep in mind that it is true they will try make you apply for jobs if you are unemployed around here, it is trivially easy to avoid getting that job. And while I do appreciate the fact that I can study on an university without paying for it in Denmark, it also has the side effect that people studying do not care as much for it, since they did not have to sacrifice anything in life to get it. And while I didn’t pay for my eye doctor appointment, waiting for 3 months and meeting a doctor that didn’t give a shit about it didn’t really improve my impression of the superiority of the socialist welfare state model.

While I’m at it, we can also mention the fact I cannot buy an environmental friendly car in Denmark because the 180% registration tax makes any hybrid car only for millionaires in this country. Oh and while we are so environmental friendly not to have nuclear power, we instead power everything with the coal powerplants - you know, everything for the environment!

I can understand if some people believe government is better at handling certain parts of society, but calling people that think a minimal government is better for nutjobs seems pretty childish to me.

It is sometimes healthy to take a critical look at your own country too for a change and while I’m not dutch I am sure I can ask some of my dutch friends to come up with a list of things not working well in your country. After all, political murders don’t happen if everything was perfect in your country, now would it?

Although the idea of having to carry a heavier burden if you earn more money is a great idea in principle, I have to comment on this blog. For example no country in the EU pays more money to the EU per inhabitant than the Netherlands. Also, I feel that some groups in our society are being targeted way out of proportion, for example car owners. Also, I feel that if our government really felt we all needed to stop smoking, they would ban it all together instead of raising the taxes for tobacco to ridiculous heights. And what about health care? Our gevernment is now allowing hospitals to determine their own prices, so the poor and needy are going to get put on a much longer waiting list than the rich. So this system, while basically fair, screws certain parts of the population more than it does others and does not offer a fair distribution of goods and services in return for it in my opinion. Just wanted to mention it.

Sjaak

The problem I see with that is that I don’t trust individuals at all. At least when it comes to the NL government, I have the power to vote them out of office if they mess up. When it comes to privatised organisations - I have no control whatsoever, and the top of the organisation can enrich themselves in whatever way they deem fit.

I guess this will be our fundamental disagreement. I have the completely opposite view.

We also have the power to vote our officials out of office. The problem here is that the people who want the free ride and live to take advantage of the system can vote as well.

You also have control of private enterprise. You can vote with your wallet. If they’re not doing what you want or don’t agree with, do not patronize them.

In the US, churches and charities are not-for-profit corporations. The laws governing them are different than for-profit corporations. They have to have open financials for all to examine. They are only allowed to pay a minimal salary to the executives of the business and have very strict rules on what they can and cannot do with the funds they collect.

As for the costs - can you imagine how much money and manpower it would cost to keep track of everyone who needs welfare? Why not just use the system that’s already in place: the government! They have all the data, the manpower, the organisational skills to pull this off.

There need not be a central database of everyone who needs welfare. Each charity can handle their own paperwork. Yes, the government may have the data and the manpower, but if you think they’re organized you must have never visited our Department of Motor Vehicles! :)

In addition, politicians and their parties are not allowed to accept donations from companies and businesses, and personal donations are limited to only a small amount a year. All financial data must be open to the public …

If this is true, this would be one facet of your government that I would support and agree with.

I think that the next big challenge for the American government/politicians is to increase the trust its citizens have in it/them. This process will take years, but there will be a point where even enough will say, look, we trust these guys to distribute our wealth a little more evenly.

I refuse to believe that anyone knows how to run my life better than I do. I will never trust anyone to that extent - especially the government.

Your last sentence gets me every time. I work hard for what I get. No one and nothing has the right to tell me I’ve made too much or I have too much. Where is the motivation to achieve if one doesn’t get to keep what he has earned? I may as well work part-time flipping burgers if I’m going to end up getting as much as the corporate executive who works 80 hours per week. Why do more? The government’s going to hand me half his salary anyway.

Trust the government to redistribute our wealth? That phrase makes me physically sick. After my family is taken care of I will choose how and where to distribute my own wealth, thank you. Have you seen how our government spends money? Ask to see an invoice for a hammer next time you visit a government facility.

Is that time now? I don’t think so, which is why I said that I don’t advocate that America turn its welfare system into what we have - but a few first steps could be made already, to improve the living standards of at least the poorest of the poor.

This is what I don’t understand … Why do you think there isn’t help for the poor here in the US? There are hundreds of programs and organizations that are state, federal, and privately run to give help to those in need. You make it seem that we all live on the streets and are starving. Is Sally Struthers coming here next? There is a much larger middle-class than there is the wealthy OR poor and I would be willing to bet that the people we consider to be poor here in the US would look like Bill Gates to the poor in other countries.

As a final note, please note that I strictly separate an individual’s ideas and beliefs from that person’s personality. In other words, you can be the biggest right-wing nutjob, but that doesn’t change how I will judge you on a personal level.

On this we agree. I may not like your politics, but I’d be more than happy to buy you a beer the next time you visit California.

Friend John gets hit by a car in a parking lot. His foot is broken. He has no insurance. He doesn’t call an ambulance because he knows the score. He calls me.

I pick him up, take all of his identification, drop him off at the emergency room. We check him with my address but under a fake name. They give him a cast, some painkillers and release him 4 hours later. The bill comes a week later. It is over a month’s salary, or 40 hours of my wages for each hour he was in the hospital. It costs so much because they need to cover the uninsured that don’t pay their share. We don’t pay because it costs so much.

Because we used a fake name, they can’t destroy his credit rating or send collection agencies to garnish his wages. Because we used my address, they can’t find him. They send angry letters. I ignore them.

The cycle continues.

The problem with government intervention in anything is that it costs twice as much or more than it would cost for private enterprise to do the same thing. Take the welfare programs and privatize them and more of the dollars will get into the hands of the people that need them.

The problem I see with that is that I don’t trust individuals at all. At least when it comes to the NL government, I have the power to vote them out of office if they mess up. When it comes to privatised organisations - I have no control whatsoever, and the top of the organisation can enrich themselves in whatever way they deem fit.

I prefer that control.

As for the costs - can you imagine how much money and manpower it would cost to keep track of everyone who needs welfare? Why not just use the system that’s already in place: the government! They have all the data, the manpower, the organisational skills to pull this off.

Of course, this requires a certain trust in your government. I can see why Americans tend to distrust their government, as over the years, it has given them little reason to earn your trust. In NL (our country code, by the way), there’s a high degree of transparency when it comes to politicians, in that political parties (we have about 10 in parliament, so lots of choice) must be completely financially transparent.

In addition, politicians and their parties are not allowed to accept donations from companies and businesses, and personal donations are limited to only a small amount a year. All financial data must be open to the public, and every penny needs to be accounted for, and any irregularity will be picked up by the media - as has often happened already. They simply can’t afford to mess around, because the media WILL find out.

I think it’s this strict openness that allows Dutch people to have a little more confidence in our politicians. Of course, I still don’t trust them, but I am reasonably sure that they’re not in it for their personal gain (salaries for politicians are actually quite low here), but that they’re really trying to make this country a little bit better. They fail, too, of course, and I disagree with just about all of them (this country has a lack of “larger-than-life” statesmen and women), but somewhere, some place in my heart, I know they’re not “wrong” (exceptions exist on the fringes of our political landscape).

America, on the other hand, has had lots of scandals where large corporations and lobby groups heavily influence politics, and this has led to an even greater scepticism among the American public than they already had. This is understandable. I think that the next big challenge for the American government/politicians is to increase the trust its citizens have in it/them. This process will take years, but there will be a point where even enough will say, look, we trust these guys to distribute our wealth a little more evenly.

Is that time now? I don’t think so, which is why I said that I don’t advocate that America turn its welfare system into what we have - but a few first steps could be made already, to improve the living standards of at least the poorest of the poor.

As a final note, please note that I strictly separate an individual’s ideas and beliefs from that person’s personality. In other words, you can be the biggest right-wing nutjob, but that doesn’t change how I will judge you on a personal level.

If you equate our welfare system to “socialism” in Soviet Russia, I think you need to study the subject some more, because right now, I don’t get the idea you really know what you’re talking about (as opposed to James).

Then we can continue to discuss this matter in more detail.

No! Of course I wouldn’t! That’s the beauty of it all. That’s what this is all about. If the government doesn’t step up and take care of the weak, no one will. If the government doesn’t stand up and appeal to our sense of compassion, no one will.

I guess I have more faith in people. Probably because of the youth programs, etc that I am personally involved in. There are many private groups who exist to take care of those who are in need, not counting the churches who do the same.

The problem with government intervention in anything is that it costs twice as much or more than it would cost for private enterprise to do the same thing. Take the welfare programs and privatize them and more of the dollars will get into the hands of the people that need them.

Just like in America. And we see every day what that has led to: poverty, no healthcare, unhappiness, and probably, although that’s a bit of a stretch maybe, crime.

It seems all you hear about is the negative. Not surprising as the negative is about all that the news sources enjoy sharing. You paint a picture of the US that just isn’t the case. You say you’ve visited - did you spend your whole time on Skid Row? Poverty is relative … Poverty in the US means you’ve got 2 TV sets instead of 3 and only one car.

Okay, so I’m being a bit sarcastic, but I deal with this stuff every day … I am a real estate agent specializing in bank-owned property. When I go to a house that has been taken back by the bank because the borrower “couldn’t afford” to pay the mortgage 9 times out of 10 the people have two new cars in the driveway, a big screen TV, a boat, etc. They CHOSE to over extend themselves and PUT THEMSELVES in the situation that they are in.

Many Americans have this distorted idea that you can just hold up your hand and that money will come falling out of the sky perpetually. Trust me - it’s anything but around here. You won’t just get a welfare check, you’ll have to “work” for it, and you’ll have to accept any fitting job that you’re offered. If you don’t, it’s bye bye welfare.

The system you describe sounds like it is very similar to the system we have here. In the US up until a few years ago they didn’t have the work requirement - now we do and, surprise surprise, the number of folks on welfare started to decline here as well. Welfare should be a safety net, not a way of life. Unfortunately, many people learn how to game the system and become professional welfare collectors.

As far as health care goes, it is available to anyone who needs it whether they are insured or not. No one can get turned away for any reason.

Being self-employed for my entire life, I have never had insurance. Why? I can’t afford it. Why? Because doctors get paid way below their “normal fees” for insurance work so they find out ways to game the system and charge out for services they wouldn’t normally do so they can bill the insurance companies more. What do the insurance companies do? Raise the price of their policies to cover their costs.

Who’s the biggest victim of the game? The government-run insurance. Why? They pay the least and have the largest number of users.

How do I pay for medical care? I pay cash. I don’t go to the doctor for every runny nose like many people that have insurance do (another reason for increased insurance costs). My wife and I have two kids, and thankfully they have been reasonably healthy thus far. Do I wish that I could afford reasonable health coverage? Of course - It would be nice to have the extra safety net, but guess what … When my son broke his arm a few years ago we went to the county-run hospital and were taken care of for a minimal cost.

I probably have more to say but I need to get back to work and I’ve already made this too long … As a prior commenter said, it’s nice to have a civil debate. :)

All this means you’ve easily sidestepped the issue I put forward to you: what experience? What research? Why are Republicans so afraid of helping their fellow man in the only system that has been thoroughly proven to work in the fight against poverty?

I will make you a deal. Your hypothesis is ambitious: you wish to show that Socialism in the US would solve the problems you have listed. If you show me research and (I guess) experience which proves that, I will do the reverse. Mind you, you have to show that it would work IN THE US, not in the Netherlands. Until then, I am not willing to invest time in an argument where the other side cites his unsupported post as evidence enough. Deal? Think about it–you made the charges and are asking for a radical change. The burden of proof is on you. For now, I stand by my assertion that we do spend a lot of money, and “as evidenced by your post”, it does not help.

No offense, but, uhm, don’t be an idiot. You’re equating totalitarian undemocratic communistic dictatorships with old, well rooted parliamentary democracies, whose people are free in every possible meaning of the word. Equating the two is completely out-of-this-world, and you know it. You’re just doing it because that’s what Republicans have been doing ever since the days of McCarthy.

I think it is naive to represent the Soviets as just totalitarian thugs. If there hadn’t been millions of true believers in the faith of Communism, they wouldn’t have been nearly as formidable. Ideas matter.

But I take no offense. Again, I think you are reacting to the hyperbolic without taking account of the actual meaning: I equate them because to large degree, the philosophical underpinnings are the same. You did not address my question of the logical limits of sacrificing the one for the many at all.

Now, perhaps you are arguing that ideas are less important than results. That’s a thorny question. If I thought it could be that simple, I’d be liable to agree. So far, the failure of large scale social programs in the US to fix your complaints could be because of (at least) three things:

1 - The idea itself is bad, or
2 - The people who implement it are doing it wrong, or
3 - We spend a lot but it is not enough.

What you are asking me to believe is that only #3 is the case. This takes more faith than I have.

Finally, I’d like to ask you another question. In the United States, anyone who wishes to pay more in taxes than he is assessed may do so, and yet (by the statistics), basically no one does, even though many think taxes are too low here and that accounts for the failures you charge.

Since your tax dollars are so well used and you are so glad of that, and since more money is clearly better, do you pay more than you are assessed? If not, why not?