Should the US have a Welfare System similar to Europe or have the Same System like some Third World

Let me start off by citing Britain.

Housing is provided FOC.
Unemployment payment is for life even if you did not work a single day in your life.
Medical treatment is FOC.
Schooling is FOC until you reach college when some payment is levied.

Now for the US.

Homeless people and beggars can be seen in most cities.
The pay-in unemployment payment is for 2 years max.
Medical treatment is a pay-in system if you have the money.
Food Stamps is eligible only for very low income person.

Quote: Deck007

Let me start off by citing Britain.

Housing is provided FOC.
Unemployment payment is for life even if you did not work a single day in your life.
Medical treatment is FOC.
Schooling is FOC until you reach college when some payment is levied.

Now for the US.

Homeless people and beggars can be seen in most cities.
The pay-in unemployment payment is for 2 years max.
Medical treatment is a pay-in system if you have the money.
Food Stamps is eligible only for very low income person.

Pay unemployment for life and you get lots of people unemployed for life. I am not sure how housing and medical care are "free?" Do doctors work for free? Do carpenters work for free to built the houses?

I will take the USA system anytime. Homeless and beggars are free to find jobs, though the ones with mental issues should be institutionalized in one form or another. If you can't find a job in 2 years you are a lazy slug.

The problem with Euro-style socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Quote: AZDuffman

Pay unemployment for life and you get lots of people unemployed for life. I am not sure how housing and medical care are "free?" Do doctors work for free? Do carpenters work for free to built the houses?

I will take the USA system anytime. Homeless and beggars are free to find jobs, though the ones with mental issues should be institutionalized in one form or another. If you can't find a job in 2 years you are a lazy slug.

The problem with Euro-style socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Housing and Medical care is paid for from general taxation.

"Pay unemployment for life and you get lots of people unemployed for life". Sure does. You have 3 generation households where nobody has a job.

"The problem with Euro-style socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money" You have the Scandinavian countries where their economy is doing better than in the US.

Quote: Deck007

Housing and Medical care is paid for from general taxation.

"Pay unemployment for life and you get lots of people unemployed for life". Sure does. You have 3 generation households where nobody has a job.

"The problem with Euro-style socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money" You have the Scandinavian countries where their economy is doing better than in the US.

Really? Scandinavian countries doing better than the US....by what measure? I haven't googled a single thing. But I'm going to guess the GDP of the United States equals that of all the Scandinavian countries combined. Probably all of the EU zone combined with the possible exception of Germany. Denmark is awash in turmoil due to a run amok welfare system.

So you can keep your welfare state...thanks very much.

Quote: Deck007

Housing and Medical care is paid for from general taxation.

But you said it was FOC? Is it FOC or does it need to be paid for?

Quote:

"The problem with Euro-style socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money" You have the Scandinavian countries where their economy is doing better than in the US.

Not from where I sit. Some do well because they are selling oil to places that produce wealth through work. Otherwise not so much. Other than Germany the EU is a basket case. Greece has indeed run out of other people's money, for example.

Quote: vendman1

Really? Scandinavian countries doing better than the US....by what measure? I haven't googled a single thing. But I'm going to guess the GDP of the United States equals that of all the Scandinavian countries combined. Probably all of the EU zone combined with the possible exception of Germany. Denmark is awash in turmoil due to a run amok welfare system.

So you can keep your welfare state...thanks very much.

The GDP of the US is huge. Total GDP isn't a good measure to compare quality of life of effectiveness of an economic system... the EU's GDP is a little ahead of the US's.

The GDP per capita of the US is about 10th, behind Norway ($63,000 to $53,000 based on IMF data). The US is about 10k above Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Germany ranks about the same.

Not sure GDP per capita is good measure either, mind.

Quote: vendman1

Really? Scandinavian countries doing better than the US....by what measure? I haven't googled a single thing. But I'm going to guess the GDP of the United States equals that of all the Scandinavian countries combined. Probably all of the EU zone combined with the possible exception of Germany. Denmark is awash in turmoil due to a run amok welfare system.

So you can keep your welfare state...thanks very much.

So you still want to maintain your US system

"Homeless people and beggars can be seen in most cities.
The pay-in unemployment payment is for 2 years max.
Medical treatment is a pay-in system if you have the money.
Food Stamps is eligible only for very low income person".

Quote: AZDuffman

But you said it was FOC? Is it FOC or does it need to be paid for?

As ever, Republicans fail to understand 'free at the point of use' over 'free overall'. There are indeed problems with 'free at point of use' models, just as there are problems with charging at the point of use for social goods. And thus we are about to go into a reworked debate of whether medicine is a social good or not.

A lot of the OPs original points aren't valid. In the UK, unemployment benefits expire... council housing (aka socially provided) isn't always free for life easier.

Quote: thecesspit

As ever, Republicans fail to understand 'free at the point of use' over 'free overall'. There are indeed problems with 'free at point of use' models, just as there are problems with charging at the point of use for social goods. And thus we are about to go into a reworked debate of whether medicine is a social good or not.

A lot of the OPs original points aren't valid. In the UK, unemployment benefits expire... council housing (aka socially provided) isn't always free for life easier.

"council housing" once you get it you get to live in it till you die.

"unemployment benefits" you can go on vacation for up to 2 weeks but by right you should inform the gov. but you have to pick up your payment in person at the gov. office every 2 weeks.

Quote: thecesspit

As ever, Republicans fail to understand 'free at the point of use' over 'free overall'. There are indeed problems with 'free at point of use' models, just as there are problems with charging at the point of use for social goods. And thus we are about to go into a reworked debate of whether medicine is a social good or not.

No, I get it completely. It is liberals who think it is "free." When a conservative points out that doctors and nurses do not work for free the liberals go nuts that health care is somehow "special" or "important."

Food is important. Why don't we just have higher taxes and "free at point of use" food? Simple reason, because everyone would load up on filet mignon and lobster, then waste a lot of it because it is "free." Eventually shelves would empty.

Medicine is NOT a social good. Health care is a service same as any other service.

Quote: thecesspit

As ever, Republicans fail to understand 'free at the point of use' over 'free overall'. There are indeed problems with 'free at point of use' models, just as there are problems with charging at the point of use for social goods. And thus we are about to go into a reworked debate of whether medicine is a social good or not.

A lot of the OPs original points aren't valid. In the UK, unemployment benefits expire... council housing (aka socially provided) isn't always free for life easier.

"unemployment benefits expire... " They have a better benefits than this. It is call Disability Benefits which pay more than normal benefits.
Complain of a bad back. No medical test available. So the gov. hire private contractors to test these people. Test is like able to carry a shopping bag and walk for 20 feet. Those who pass this test then lodge a complain/review and 30% get their Disability benefits restored.
It is plain sailing from here and get payments automatically with no questions asked.

The question you have to ask yourself with any welfare based system is who are you going to help. I think the vast majority of people side for people who genuinely need the help. People who cannot find gainful employment due to some disability, due to some disease, medical condition, mental condition etc. Where you will get resistance is in giving people freebies who are fully capable of caring for themselves who flat out refuse to do so.

You have to find the delicate balance in helping people who can't help themselves and showing some tough love to the people who refuse to help themselves

Quote: Deck007

"council housing" once you get it you get to live in it till you die.

"unemployment benefits" you can go on vacation for up to 2 weeks but by right you should inform the gov. but you have to pick up your payment in person at the gov. office every 2 weeks.

To much work.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, I get it completely. It is liberals who think it is "free." When a conservative points out that doctors and nurses do not work for free the liberals go nuts that health care is somehow "special" or "important."

And again, you mis represent the position for some misguided principal.

Quote:

Food is important. Why don't we just have higher taxes and "free at point of use" food? Simple reason, because everyone would load up on filet mignon and lobster, then waste a lot of it because it is "free." Eventually shelves would empty.

Medicine is NOT a social good. Health care is a service same as any other service.

I would argue, and have done repeatedly to deaf ears that Health Care is one of the most social of goods.

Cellphones must be an urgent special social good, too. That's got to be why we give away multitudes of them.

The OP is extremely confused, to put the most charitable possible interpretation on it. The tortured premise of the thread, to the extent it is coherent at all, bears very little relationship to any reality that exists or has ever existed.

Norway proposes to criminalise beggars and those who give money, shelter or food


http://www.straight.com/blogra/783851/homeless-vancouver-uk-treatment-beggars-has-roma-bigotry

Quote:

Under the headline “Arresting beggars doesn’t help anyone” Guardian newspaper columnist Suzanne Moore explains how some communities in the U.K. are increasingly resorting to the expedient of arresting beggars to clean the streets of their unsightly presence.

U.K. authorities are using the dusty provisions of a 190-year-old anti-vagrancy law.

There has been a dramatic 70 percent rise in arrests of homeless beggars this year across England and Wales under the 1824 Vagrancy Act.

French city installs anti-homeless cages around benches

Quote:

French mayor accused of a shameful lack of Christmas spirit after placing metal cages over public benches to banish homeless from city centre

http://www.givemebackmyfivebucks.com/2012/09/26/living-in-europe-the-panhandlers-and-beggars/

Their problems are not the sort that can be solved by shoveling more of someone's money or your politics at them, never have, and never will, anywhere, ever.

There's been a lot of discussion about the homeless in the wake of the VA Administrator "special forces" debacle. Turns out, it's cheaper and more productive to identify the hardcore homeless, which is about 5% of the homeless population at any given time. (Lots of people are homeless for a few days, a week, a month, but figure something out and get shelter. So the homeless population rotates out for the most part.

If they identify and house that 5% at public expense, and have short-term help/guidance available for the rest to start over, there would soon be few if any homeless, and the government would save huge, really huge, amounts of money. The problem is political. How do you pay to house just a few, and let the rest pick themselves back up, in this society? The perception is devastating to local and national leadership.

Personally, I think you can run the numbers by the American people and change the course of the perception. But the experts think it would be a bloodbath for those in office along the way to understanding.

It's a Malcolm Gladwell essay, I think, but I can't remember for sure. But the answer is counter-intuitive and so perception rules. For now, anyway.

Quote: beachbumbabs

There's been a lot of discussion about the homeless in the wake of the VA Administrator "special forces" debacle. Turns out, it's cheaper and more productive to identify the hardcore homeless, which is about 5% of the homeless population at any given time. (Lots of people are homeless for a few days, a week, a month, but figure something out and get shelter. So the homeless population rotates out for the most part.

If they identify and house that 5% at public expense, and have short-term help/guidance available for the rest to start over, there would soon be few if any homeless, and the government would save huge, really huge, amounts of money. The problem is political. How do you pay to house just a few, and let the rest pick themselves back up, in this society? The perception is devastating to local and national leadership.

Personally, I think you can run the numbers by the American people and change the course of the perception. But the experts think it would be a bloodbath for those in office along the way to understanding.

It's a Malcolm Gladwell essay, I think, but I can't remember for sure. But the answer is counter-intuitive and so perception rules. For now, anyway.

But we already pay billions to have government housing! How is paying even more going to solve the problem?

Look at San Francisco, a city that spends huge on public services of all kinds that is located in a state that spends equally as huge. They have a homeless problem of the first order. I was there once and never had been panhandled by bums of all sorts. They have homeless publishing a newspaper about street life! More money is clearly not the answer.

Quote: AZDuffman

But we already pay billions to have government housing! How is paying even more going to solve the problem?

Look at San Francisco, a city that spends huge on public services of all kinds that is located in a state that spends equally as huge. They have a homeless problem of the first order. I was there once and never had been panhandled by bums of all sorts. They have homeless publishing a newspaper about street life! More money is clearly not the answer.

We don't need to pay more. We need to openly discriminate about who gets to use it, and pay significantly less. That's the point. There are those who simply can't. And there are those who can, but have and will accept an easier way at others' expense. That option has to be taken away for the problem to cease. But it takes not just guts and an apparent heart of stone, it takes acceptance that this is actually better, not just for the public, but primarily for the homeless. It's along the lines of "feed a man a fish..."

However, I can't give you more than the idea as to quotes and details. So I'll not engage further.

Quote: beachbumbabs

We don't need to pay more. We need to openly discriminate about who gets to use it, and pay significantly less. That's the point. There are those who simply can't. And there are those who can, but have and will accept an easier way at others' expense. That option has to be taken away for the problem to cease. But it takes not just guts and an apparent heart of stone, it takes acceptance that this is actually better, not just for the public, but primarily for the homeless. It's along the lines of "feed a man a fish..."

However, I can't give you more than the idea as to quotes and details. So I'll not engage further.

The "core homeless" are often mentally ill to the point they need to be locked up. Since the 1960s we in the USA have stopped accepting the fact that both much mental illness cannot be cured and that those same people will never function. Some have family that watches over them and keeps them off the streets. Those that do not lead a wretched life.

But others are "lifestyle homeless." They have probably crafted a nice place to squat and would rather live that way and do dope than pull themselves up.

The first group cannot change, and any money spent should go to some kind of supervised living because to just put them in an apartment is to make life bad for both them and their neighbors. The second group will destroy whatever you give them to live in.

If there is any idea that should die a natural death, it has to be that "we should be more like Europe"

To still be thinking that is to be mighty selective about the news you follow. The European economy seems to be in a constant state of crisis. It probably is the reason the world economy just can't seem to get going again.

There are several key types of homeless people.

1. Those by choice- sometimes they are well educated, maybe even have a bit of money in the bank, but they enjoy the adventure and free feeling of not working and the homeless lifestyle. Or they just "don't want to be in the grind".
2. Those with disabilities- usually those who are mentally or physically unable to work and don't have anyone to take care of them.
3. Drug Users- Those who are so drug dependent they can't function in the real world and just have to live homeless.
4. Hard Times- sometimes people just lose their job and can't pay their mortgage and get kicked out. They may be super hardworkers but are just homeless while they transition in life.


1, 2, 3 and the hardest to help. 2 requires a large investment and they usually need a lot of care and oversight. 1 just does not want help and wants to be left alone. 3 also needs a lot of help, but may not want it either.

4. Usually is not a huge deal, this category usually crashes at a shelter or friends houses for a few weeks while they plan out what to do. And, this type is usually willing to jump at any opportunity to work.


As for the other categories, there is no easy answer. Throwing money at them usually will not solve the issue as they are incapable of being responsible, after all remember very few homeless people (almost none) grow up homeless. Most come from homes, and they live in a way that they devolve into homelessness.

Charities that can teach people to live better lives and find work contacts are usually the best option. Homeless people need a lifestyle change, they don't need loads of welfare money thrown at them, the fact that most of them have already lost their wealth and homes shows that they cannot manage free flow of money.

One thing the government can do that could be less costly than straight welfare, is start a volunteer program, where homeless people volunteer to join a community service organization where they do various manual labor around the community while living in barracks style housing where they can be coached on work skills at the same time. This could provide a labor source for the government for little cost. And it could teach people to become more functioning members of the workforce. And they can also bring in mass employers to offer them career fairs and make contacts to lead to a real job.

But even that could pose problems. If somebody does not want help, it does not matter, you can spend all the money in the world, they will not change. That's why the best change on an individual level, is to have a close family member or friend convince them one on one to change. I know this is not possible for everyone, but in scenarios where it is, it is the most effective.



-As for the other parts of the question. 2 years is perfect for unemployment. You should be able to find a job if you spend two years constantly searching and contacting (which is what you are suppose to do while collecting).
And every homeless person would qualify for foodstamps as they have no income. You can be a multi-milliarare and qualify for foodstamps if you have no employment or income.

Quote: AZDuffman

Medicine is NOT a social good. Health care is a service same as any other service.

Yet I benefit from not being surrounded by sick people, and society overall is improved if people are healthy...

Sure, it's a service, but medicine should be an infrastructure type service, like roadways. We do all benefit, so we should all pay. (I have no particular objection to a modest copay, not unlike the road tax portion of fuel charges... but they should be modest charges, on the order of 1x 1hr minimum wage per clinic visit.)

Quote: Dieter

Yet I benefit from not being surrounded by sick people, and society overall is improved if people are healthy...

So what? Society would be improved by many things. That does not mean they are a good idea.

Quote:

Sure, it's a service, but medicine should be an infrastructure type service, like roadways. We do all benefit, so we should all pay. (I have no particular objection to a modest copay, not unlike the road tax portion of fuel charges... but they should be modest charges, on the order of 1x 1hr minimum wage per clinic visit.)

So why medicine and not food? I do not benefit because someone else can see a doctor. They do not benefit when I do. I want minimal coverage at minimal cost. Some want a predictable cost and will pay more to level the cost. Some want every little thing covered. Why should we not have that choice?

I prefer more unemployment/assistance but a very short amount of time you can be on it unless you are permanently disabled.