A wonderfully sharp, short essay. Particularly note worthy are the lines: Economics knows about incentives ... not the moral worthiness of forced philanthropy." and "The Nordic countries ... are pretty hard nosed about ...requiring people to work ... to receive benefits." Both of these are obvious if you think about them for longer than ten seconds. The problem of course is that people don't and the mainstream media is either too dumb to think or too politicized to allow themselves to think about it that long. The rest of us need to pay more attention. It's not wrong to expect people to work and contribute to society in order to receive the benefits of society. Even if some can only make a small contribution, making an effort matters.
They don't remove benefits if people don't work and have much broader, generous, and universal social assistance programs. They require people to look for work or get training if they are able-bodied, but it is more forgiving than the US system. Especially for healthcare.
If the US wants to adopt their system as superior, most all liberals would approve.
Your generalization may well be out of date. Just a few months ago, Sweden proposed a five year residency requirement in Sweden for non-EU migrants to live in Sweden and receive benefits. Social Minister Tenje notes that Sweden is not a community without demands on people who wish to share the benefits of the community. I count several Swedes among my friends. Most of them have frankly had enough of the disparity in work ethic between many non-EU migrants and Swedes. Underway are discussions about how to treat migrants already there under the proposed new rules. A similar problem exists in Iceland and Norway. I had never seen beggars on the streets of Oslo or Reykjavik until the wave of non-EU migrants hit Scandinavia. It's obvious their welfare states can not last if a non trivial and growing part of the population does not share their cultural values and work ethic. It's not about liberalism or conservatism; it's simply mathematics.
Glad to hear brother Cochrane endorsing Medicaid for all. $10k pa pp is a bargain compared to private healthcare costs. We can raise taxes on incomes (individual and corporate) to pay for it. Incomes will rise because employers won’t be paying for health insurance any more.
It’s a bargain because Medicaid reimbursements are below cost. Providers make up the losses by overcharging commercial. If all reimbursements became Medicaid reimbursements providers would go bankrupt, so naturally reimbursements would have to dramatically increase.
I could go on and on hear. What’s the cost of Medicaid members 65+. A heck of a lot more than an average mediciaid member (which includes a lot of low cost children). You throw all the Medicare people in Medicaid and it’s going to be a lot more than $10k. For reference dual eligibles (Medicare plus Medicaid) rack up $45k per year per member.
My daughter and son-in-law work at night (Generally 6 PM to 6 AM) cleaning public schools. They make a decent wage as they raise their two sons. (One in college with a degree in computer science and the other a junior in high school) My daughter one night explained to me that if she and her husband got divorced, the family would be eligible for various medical and financial benefits. Because they work, they make "too much" money to receive these benefits. I am proud of my daughter and son-in-law. They represent what is right in our nation. Just my humble opinion.
They are suckers and they should take advantage of the system more. The system hates them and they should be spending more time with their children rather than working all night long for no benefit.
The problem with government sponsored health plans is not the demand side, (Mr. Cochrane points out the intractable problems involved with government benefit programs) it's the supply side. Most health insurance is really a prepaid benefit plan that pay for routine, low cost health care instead of insuring against high cost or catastrophic medical issues. If the market for health care was completely deregulated and health insurance worked like auto insurance (covering mostly catastrophic costs) the market would create health care options, like subscription services, to meet the needs of almost all income levels. The government could then get involved to supply small subsidies for poor people to use the private market solutions. Your family members wouldn't have to worry about making too much money to get a gov. freebee since they could choose a much better market solution.
There is an inherent weakness with government funded assistance programs. In business, success is measured in sales & profits. In a government welfare bureaucracy success is measured by the size of one’s budget, number of people dependent on your services and political power. These metrics serve as disincentives to helping people transition of of government assistance programs, and serve instead as an incentive to push people onto more programs.
People never think about private health insurance quite right. Insurance is also a middleman similar in some ways to the government. They have their own unique risks of inefficiency, driving up costs, and selfish incentives that are not necessarily in the best interests of their customers. Who their customers even are is pretty obscure. Is it you? Your employer? The hospital? Why are medical costs so obscure?
One of the less appreciated parts of the ACA was to cap the margin that private insurance companies could take. Thus, they are now incentivized to increase volume of reimbursements and overall cost of reimbursements since they cannot increase the marginal profit on individual reimbursements. The only thing really keeping costs in check in this system is the risk of losing business to a cheaper insurance company.
Excellent point! The concept of insurance was to spread a risk that an individual was unable to shoulder. Thus the cost of a massive, but low probability risk (like one’s home burning down) was pooled amongst a community. This has morphed over time to where insurance is expected to cover the ordinary costs of living, such as routine exams & vaccinations. This burdens the cost of what would be routine transactions with the massive bureaucratic enterprise that files, processes & pays claims. Hidden in this system are taxes that pay to care for those who for whatever reason cannot/will not pay for their own care. I would be far better off paying for routine care out of pocket, with a catastrophic policy that kicks in when something dreadful happens. Unfortunately, Obamacare eliminated this option since it didn’t allow the system to tax me as much to provide care to others.
John, has anyone come up with a chart or graphic that would represent say just the situation for Cali residents. Although laws and limits change (really?) but don't we have a computer modeling program that could display these tradeoffs with simple input formulas and amounts or even link to requirements and benefit figures from govt entities? Seems like
I earned about 20k a year when I was in grad school. I was definitely a low income person. I know plenty of low income people. Not sure what weird point you're trying to make by pretending that something doesn't exist.
Hi John! An interesting read. Here in the UK we have our beloved NHS so most of these questions are not relevant here. But, your examples ring true to us here. We suffer from a benefits overlap that can lead to discourse by the ‘workers’ feeling they have to pay for ‘shirkers’ on benefits! And get workers also receive help with benefits to keep there low paid work sufficient with top up to live and warrant working. So similar questions are here in similar ways. When and how to fund benefits? And where to draw the line on limits which may also stop recipients from finding work and stay on benefits. So what are the answers or options? I have reached a conclusion on our economy that, would apply there in the US. We both have huge debts. Yours is 30 trillion dollars and ours is around 3 trillion pounds. Both are massive. We are similar in filling the gap between tax take and spending requirements of the governments. We both have spent ourselves silly whilst the rich live a high life. The thing about that is it’s totally undemocratic! The many, allow the few to hold almost all of the money!… it is said the top 5% of people hold 95% of money. Which if that’s correct then, 95% of people have just 5% of money to fight over! No wonder we two countries can’t make the books balance!! Now economists here have said it could be the top 5% hold maybe 60% of money. But whatever it is it’s too much! The US has more ability to allow such imbalance as we do accept it here. But honestly, it’s our downfalls. I’m not sure what tax is in US but here, the tax system is split 60/40 with 40% being income tax and NIC. So called income taxes. The rest are VAT and duty and all other taxes based on spending or sales. But in reality income taxes and NIC are paid by employers based on wages but, triggered by SPENDING on wages! So in my view all taxes are triggered by SPENDING! So I’d say 100% of tax is triggered by SPENDING or money having to move. Yet, money unspent, unused or idle triggers NO tax, NONE! So in my view, you then have two types of citizens. Those who spend all their money each month (the poor the benefit recipients, middle class working family’s and the disabled, unemployed and let’s say it, the unemployable!) whether they are workers or non workers they spend everything they get! So contribute 100% of their spending power on taxation. But those who don’t spend all y to the money, or spend nothing as they already have too much, pay no tax on their non spent money as no tax is triggered! So ironically those who earn well pay no tax if they hoard money and only spend a little! This is an interesting correlation in thinking. Workers assume they pay for the non workers! Whereas in fact they both contribute to tax take but more than the rich pro rata. In the same way, the private sector wrongly assume they pay for the public sector! The spending power of both earning groups in fact mean they both contribute to each others profits and wages. Both exist of each other not one off another. It’s the rich few that get away with taxes because they don’t spend all their money. But when the government needs to borrow they borrow from the rich group and as a result they get even richer without having to spend! So the rich get richer while the poor get even poorer. So the low paid snd debt ridden middle classes look at benefits as a scourge they don’t want to pay for! Whereas, they are a necessity in a democracy. Let’s face it a modern society must snd should look after those who can’t work and yes some are just unemployable! Who wants to employ a drug dependent who won’t work? Or a thief or a shirker!? But also must jobs could be filled by most disabled people just as well! So people in work must be lucky that they have that job! So be willing to pay others to stay at home! The killer is that some people on benefits earn more than some in work! Then that’s unfair. There needs to be a rise in all standards. Here and the US. We need more benefits not less! Why limit help? But at the same time show work is best by giving much higher wages so it shows work pays!… again, why do we limit paying really good wages! And how do we afford it, I hear you cry!…, well by making all that unspent unused idle money be spent back in to the economy that produces tax income! That money revolves around like a tsunami of flow! Vastly increasing tax revenue do benefits can be paid at a higher amount. It will produce much higher wages from all that new spending and ironically the rich will be even more wealthy! From spending and buying stuff! Be rich from things bought not by holding money itself. Put a ‘spend by date’ on all money electronically. Spend it in a month of lose it to the exchequer! Autonomous and perpetual money flow! Earn as much as you can and enjoy it! Be sure it will undoubtedly come round again. Then harmony snd happiness will take place of torture and fear. What do you think?
"Economists, at least those mindful of the limits of our expertise, really have nothing special to say about this sort of moral judgment. Except that it is entirely the wrong question to ask."
Whoa. There is no basis in economics for any government activity. The only basis can be philosophical: what is a proper use of force? Once the philosophical issue is answered, then economics can be tremendously valuable in assessing the effects of possible interventions, trade-offs, incentives. But moral judgments have to come first. That's true of economic questions, public health questions, social questions. Get the philosophy right first, then address the technical issues.
The point is not whether the government should provide Medicare. Agreed that’s a largely moral ethical or philosophical question. The point is, given that the government wishes to do so, how to do it effectively, without unintended consequence and at lowest cost.
Spot on. Years ago, when Clinton signed a similar bill, I owned a couple of auto parts stores. I decided to try to add delivery drivers who needed work to qualify. I quickly learned, people react (I knew this) to their incentives. In that bill, workers could go back on the dole after just 16 weeks of work and they did. Every single one I hired. Why, because the value of benefits way outweighed the value of work. The system did not fail, the incentives did.
The government assistance needs to be set to incentivize work until work skills can replace the subsidies. Until that happens, the cycle will not be broken.
BTW, the NPR and Dems people will die set me off too and my X posts said as much.
Keep up the good work. Love the Good Fellows program.
I can’t help but wonder if the idea here is that we will deport the undocumented workers who are milking cows 24/7 or picking peaches in 100 plus weather or some of the other awful jobs out there. I personally would not last half a day roofing a house in 100 degree weather. Then we tell the poor people to go fill those jobs or lose their benefits. And what about the people who are on SSI disability? If they are disabled, just exactly what jobs are they to fill? Are we really eliminating the freeloading or throwing out the baby with the bath water? Perhaps some of these legislators should spend a day doing the jobs that our “illegals” are doing before they condemn then.
One often hears that if people lose their medicaid the only option for them will be to go to the emergency room , which will cost society much more. Does anyone know if this is valid.?
Also, many people who receive medicaid are caregivers, and folks like that who cannot work at another job. Is this a large number of recipients who could be forced off.?
There is a huge incentive for both parties to emphasize how many people will lose coverage from work requirements.
The Republicans need it to be higher because that increases the “savings” in the CBO and lets them cut more taxes via reconciliation. It doesn’t matter if these savings materialize. And no, this is not unique. Democrats play bullshit CBO games too. The truth is the CBO process is garbage and people only care about it because the right score means you need 50 instead of 60 votes.
The democrats want it to have people lose coverage so they can run campaign ads. It doesn’t matter if the people actually lose coverage, just that the “fact checkers” can sign off on the campaign ads.
Remember that during this process the democrats voted against an amendment to raise taxes in the rich to fund rural hospitals because they wanted the bill to be worse for political purposes. They also tried get rid of the salt cap completely.
When the Nordic countries are mentioned, it is essential to consider their geographic size and population. Additionally, they have a homogeneous population with a culture that dates back several millennia. These factors make for a less stressful implementation of the welfare state. Once the supposed political decision is made that the State is better for welfare than private charity, the general population that finances it is placed on the horns of a dilemma.
Perhaps a perusal of the more recent times, the crime rates, and the actual immigration from other countries should be re-examined. Long term factors are greatly diminished by the numbers.
What a clear headed and appropriate way to view the problems of government, welfare, and the realities facing the country today. If read, and reread, by those seeking to spend other peoples money, perhaps better solutions would come from those responsible.
Second thoughts, everybody by the time that they get out of grade school should have been introduced to this, and read it with each successive school year.
Very well thought out, and it needed to be said.
A wonderfully sharp, short essay. Particularly note worthy are the lines: Economics knows about incentives ... not the moral worthiness of forced philanthropy." and "The Nordic countries ... are pretty hard nosed about ...requiring people to work ... to receive benefits." Both of these are obvious if you think about them for longer than ten seconds. The problem of course is that people don't and the mainstream media is either too dumb to think or too politicized to allow themselves to think about it that long. The rest of us need to pay more attention. It's not wrong to expect people to work and contribute to society in order to receive the benefits of society. Even if some can only make a small contribution, making an effort matters.
They don't remove benefits if people don't work and have much broader, generous, and universal social assistance programs. They require people to look for work or get training if they are able-bodied, but it is more forgiving than the US system. Especially for healthcare.
If the US wants to adopt their system as superior, most all liberals would approve.
Your generalization may well be out of date. Just a few months ago, Sweden proposed a five year residency requirement in Sweden for non-EU migrants to live in Sweden and receive benefits. Social Minister Tenje notes that Sweden is not a community without demands on people who wish to share the benefits of the community. I count several Swedes among my friends. Most of them have frankly had enough of the disparity in work ethic between many non-EU migrants and Swedes. Underway are discussions about how to treat migrants already there under the proposed new rules. A similar problem exists in Iceland and Norway. I had never seen beggars on the streets of Oslo or Reykjavik until the wave of non-EU migrants hit Scandinavia. It's obvious their welfare states can not last if a non trivial and growing part of the population does not share their cultural values and work ethic. It's not about liberalism or conservatism; it's simply mathematics.
Glad to hear brother Cochrane endorsing Medicaid for all. $10k pa pp is a bargain compared to private healthcare costs. We can raise taxes on incomes (individual and corporate) to pay for it. Incomes will rise because employers won’t be paying for health insurance any more.
It’s a bargain because Medicaid reimbursements are below cost. Providers make up the losses by overcharging commercial. If all reimbursements became Medicaid reimbursements providers would go bankrupt, so naturally reimbursements would have to dramatically increase.
I could go on and on hear. What’s the cost of Medicaid members 65+. A heck of a lot more than an average mediciaid member (which includes a lot of low cost children). You throw all the Medicare people in Medicaid and it’s going to be a lot more than $10k. For reference dual eligibles (Medicare plus Medicaid) rack up $45k per year per member.
source: trust me bro
My daughter and son-in-law work at night (Generally 6 PM to 6 AM) cleaning public schools. They make a decent wage as they raise their two sons. (One in college with a degree in computer science and the other a junior in high school) My daughter one night explained to me that if she and her husband got divorced, the family would be eligible for various medical and financial benefits. Because they work, they make "too much" money to receive these benefits. I am proud of my daughter and son-in-law. They represent what is right in our nation. Just my humble opinion.
They are suckers and they should take advantage of the system more. The system hates them and they should be spending more time with their children rather than working all night long for no benefit.
The problem with government sponsored health plans is not the demand side, (Mr. Cochrane points out the intractable problems involved with government benefit programs) it's the supply side. Most health insurance is really a prepaid benefit plan that pay for routine, low cost health care instead of insuring against high cost or catastrophic medical issues. If the market for health care was completely deregulated and health insurance worked like auto insurance (covering mostly catastrophic costs) the market would create health care options, like subscription services, to meet the needs of almost all income levels. The government could then get involved to supply small subsidies for poor people to use the private market solutions. Your family members wouldn't have to worry about making too much money to get a gov. freebee since they could choose a much better market solution.
There is an inherent weakness with government funded assistance programs. In business, success is measured in sales & profits. In a government welfare bureaucracy success is measured by the size of one’s budget, number of people dependent on your services and political power. These metrics serve as disincentives to helping people transition of of government assistance programs, and serve instead as an incentive to push people onto more programs.
People never think about private health insurance quite right. Insurance is also a middleman similar in some ways to the government. They have their own unique risks of inefficiency, driving up costs, and selfish incentives that are not necessarily in the best interests of their customers. Who their customers even are is pretty obscure. Is it you? Your employer? The hospital? Why are medical costs so obscure?
One of the less appreciated parts of the ACA was to cap the margin that private insurance companies could take. Thus, they are now incentivized to increase volume of reimbursements and overall cost of reimbursements since they cannot increase the marginal profit on individual reimbursements. The only thing really keeping costs in check in this system is the risk of losing business to a cheaper insurance company.
Excellent point! The concept of insurance was to spread a risk that an individual was unable to shoulder. Thus the cost of a massive, but low probability risk (like one’s home burning down) was pooled amongst a community. This has morphed over time to where insurance is expected to cover the ordinary costs of living, such as routine exams & vaccinations. This burdens the cost of what would be routine transactions with the massive bureaucratic enterprise that files, processes & pays claims. Hidden in this system are taxes that pay to care for those who for whatever reason cannot/will not pay for their own care. I would be far better off paying for routine care out of pocket, with a catastrophic policy that kicks in when something dreadful happens. Unfortunately, Obamacare eliminated this option since it didn’t allow the system to tax me as much to provide care to others.
John, has anyone come up with a chart or graphic that would represent say just the situation for Cali residents. Although laws and limits change (really?) but don't we have a computer modeling program that could display these tradeoffs with simple input formulas and amounts or even link to requirements and benefit figures from govt entities? Seems like
There is no such thing as "a low income person"-
That's a piece of poetry worthy being on an additional track of a reissued album of Desire.
Everytime I'm reminded of your sinecureship, I pray the Hail Mary to cure me of Envy
I earned about 20k a year when I was in grad school. I was definitely a low income person. I know plenty of low income people. Not sure what weird point you're trying to make by pretending that something doesn't exist.
You truly are an Unimpressive Malcontent.
The pluperfect Unimpressive Malcontent,
Respect!
Here, let me explain it to you in terms leftists understand:
“No human being is illegal.”
Leftists who repeat this mantra aren’t actually pretending that the millions of people who are in this country illegally don’t exist.
That is close to the same point JHC was making with that specific claim.
Make sense now?
Hi John! An interesting read. Here in the UK we have our beloved NHS so most of these questions are not relevant here. But, your examples ring true to us here. We suffer from a benefits overlap that can lead to discourse by the ‘workers’ feeling they have to pay for ‘shirkers’ on benefits! And get workers also receive help with benefits to keep there low paid work sufficient with top up to live and warrant working. So similar questions are here in similar ways. When and how to fund benefits? And where to draw the line on limits which may also stop recipients from finding work and stay on benefits. So what are the answers or options? I have reached a conclusion on our economy that, would apply there in the US. We both have huge debts. Yours is 30 trillion dollars and ours is around 3 trillion pounds. Both are massive. We are similar in filling the gap between tax take and spending requirements of the governments. We both have spent ourselves silly whilst the rich live a high life. The thing about that is it’s totally undemocratic! The many, allow the few to hold almost all of the money!… it is said the top 5% of people hold 95% of money. Which if that’s correct then, 95% of people have just 5% of money to fight over! No wonder we two countries can’t make the books balance!! Now economists here have said it could be the top 5% hold maybe 60% of money. But whatever it is it’s too much! The US has more ability to allow such imbalance as we do accept it here. But honestly, it’s our downfalls. I’m not sure what tax is in US but here, the tax system is split 60/40 with 40% being income tax and NIC. So called income taxes. The rest are VAT and duty and all other taxes based on spending or sales. But in reality income taxes and NIC are paid by employers based on wages but, triggered by SPENDING on wages! So in my view all taxes are triggered by SPENDING! So I’d say 100% of tax is triggered by SPENDING or money having to move. Yet, money unspent, unused or idle triggers NO tax, NONE! So in my view, you then have two types of citizens. Those who spend all their money each month (the poor the benefit recipients, middle class working family’s and the disabled, unemployed and let’s say it, the unemployable!) whether they are workers or non workers they spend everything they get! So contribute 100% of their spending power on taxation. But those who don’t spend all y to the money, or spend nothing as they already have too much, pay no tax on their non spent money as no tax is triggered! So ironically those who earn well pay no tax if they hoard money and only spend a little! This is an interesting correlation in thinking. Workers assume they pay for the non workers! Whereas in fact they both contribute to tax take but more than the rich pro rata. In the same way, the private sector wrongly assume they pay for the public sector! The spending power of both earning groups in fact mean they both contribute to each others profits and wages. Both exist of each other not one off another. It’s the rich few that get away with taxes because they don’t spend all their money. But when the government needs to borrow they borrow from the rich group and as a result they get even richer without having to spend! So the rich get richer while the poor get even poorer. So the low paid snd debt ridden middle classes look at benefits as a scourge they don’t want to pay for! Whereas, they are a necessity in a democracy. Let’s face it a modern society must snd should look after those who can’t work and yes some are just unemployable! Who wants to employ a drug dependent who won’t work? Or a thief or a shirker!? But also must jobs could be filled by most disabled people just as well! So people in work must be lucky that they have that job! So be willing to pay others to stay at home! The killer is that some people on benefits earn more than some in work! Then that’s unfair. There needs to be a rise in all standards. Here and the US. We need more benefits not less! Why limit help? But at the same time show work is best by giving much higher wages so it shows work pays!… again, why do we limit paying really good wages! And how do we afford it, I hear you cry!…, well by making all that unspent unused idle money be spent back in to the economy that produces tax income! That money revolves around like a tsunami of flow! Vastly increasing tax revenue do benefits can be paid at a higher amount. It will produce much higher wages from all that new spending and ironically the rich will be even more wealthy! From spending and buying stuff! Be rich from things bought not by holding money itself. Put a ‘spend by date’ on all money electronically. Spend it in a month of lose it to the exchequer! Autonomous and perpetual money flow! Earn as much as you can and enjoy it! Be sure it will undoubtedly come round again. Then harmony snd happiness will take place of torture and fear. What do you think?
"Economists, at least those mindful of the limits of our expertise, really have nothing special to say about this sort of moral judgment. Except that it is entirely the wrong question to ask."
Whoa. There is no basis in economics for any government activity. The only basis can be philosophical: what is a proper use of force? Once the philosophical issue is answered, then economics can be tremendously valuable in assessing the effects of possible interventions, trade-offs, incentives. But moral judgments have to come first. That's true of economic questions, public health questions, social questions. Get the philosophy right first, then address the technical issues.
The point is not whether the government should provide Medicare. Agreed that’s a largely moral ethical or philosophical question. The point is, given that the government wishes to do so, how to do it effectively, without unintended consequence and at lowest cost.
John,
Spot on. Years ago, when Clinton signed a similar bill, I owned a couple of auto parts stores. I decided to try to add delivery drivers who needed work to qualify. I quickly learned, people react (I knew this) to their incentives. In that bill, workers could go back on the dole after just 16 weeks of work and they did. Every single one I hired. Why, because the value of benefits way outweighed the value of work. The system did not fail, the incentives did.
The government assistance needs to be set to incentivize work until work skills can replace the subsidies. Until that happens, the cycle will not be broken.
BTW, the NPR and Dems people will die set me off too and my X posts said as much.
Keep up the good work. Love the Good Fellows program.
Michael Klein
No problem with work requirements that are not unnecessarily hard to prove compliance.
I can’t help but wonder if the idea here is that we will deport the undocumented workers who are milking cows 24/7 or picking peaches in 100 plus weather or some of the other awful jobs out there. I personally would not last half a day roofing a house in 100 degree weather. Then we tell the poor people to go fill those jobs or lose their benefits. And what about the people who are on SSI disability? If they are disabled, just exactly what jobs are they to fill? Are we really eliminating the freeloading or throwing out the baby with the bath water? Perhaps some of these legislators should spend a day doing the jobs that our “illegals” are doing before they condemn then.
One often hears that if people lose their medicaid the only option for them will be to go to the emergency room , which will cost society much more. Does anyone know if this is valid.?
Also, many people who receive medicaid are caregivers, and folks like that who cannot work at another job. Is this a large number of recipients who could be forced off.?
There is a huge incentive for both parties to emphasize how many people will lose coverage from work requirements.
The Republicans need it to be higher because that increases the “savings” in the CBO and lets them cut more taxes via reconciliation. It doesn’t matter if these savings materialize. And no, this is not unique. Democrats play bullshit CBO games too. The truth is the CBO process is garbage and people only care about it because the right score means you need 50 instead of 60 votes.
The democrats want it to have people lose coverage so they can run campaign ads. It doesn’t matter if the people actually lose coverage, just that the “fact checkers” can sign off on the campaign ads.
Remember that during this process the democrats voted against an amendment to raise taxes in the rich to fund rural hospitals because they wanted the bill to be worse for political purposes. They also tried get rid of the salt cap completely.
When the Nordic countries are mentioned, it is essential to consider their geographic size and population. Additionally, they have a homogeneous population with a culture that dates back several millennia. These factors make for a less stressful implementation of the welfare state. Once the supposed political decision is made that the State is better for welfare than private charity, the general population that finances it is placed on the horns of a dilemma.
Perhaps a perusal of the more recent times, the crime rates, and the actual immigration from other countries should be re-examined. Long term factors are greatly diminished by the numbers.
What a clear headed and appropriate way to view the problems of government, welfare, and the realities facing the country today. If read, and reread, by those seeking to spend other peoples money, perhaps better solutions would come from those responsible.
Second thoughts, everybody by the time that they get out of grade school should have been introduced to this, and read it with each successive school year.