Is Welfarism Effective?
< Return to subforum
Welfarism
"the set of attitudes and policies characterizing or tending toward the establishment of a welfare state"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfarism
Welfare state
"a state in which the welfare of the people in such matters as social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions is the responsibility of the government."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare+state
Is Welfarism Effective?
By
admin |
Sep 19 2015 6:59 PM True Capitalist Acolyte:
How do you define effectiveness?
In my personal view, yes, it is effective.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
Effective in the sense that is the welfare state effective at what it's supposed to be doing.
I would state it is effective but not efficient since it is reliant on a scheme. The scheme does what it is supposed to do but is reliant on a certain number of contributers. This is why the welfare state will inevitably collapse in most first world countries unless they are reliant on new migrants. Simply put the most developed countries are not producing enough children to pay for the scheme and there will be problems in the future.
By
admin |
Sep 20 2015 10:22 AM True Capitalist Acolyte:
That would only be true if one person cannot support more than one person through welfare. It also takes no account of population demographics.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
I agree that it is slightly effective at temporary poverty alleviation. To anyone with half a brain, it is unsustainable and ineffective at fulfilling the roles it was established to fullfill.
The first part of what tophatdoc is saying is correct.
Welfare drains money out of the economy at extremely high rates, and disproportionately affects money producers in favor of non-producing consumers. Resources dwindle, prices get higher, and that black hole of artificial wealth resurges the new economic depression.
The first world often assumes they can fix problems by throwing money at them, but all that is doing is advancing the problem, and not finding the solution. It also creates a culture of dependency that has made our species weaker and more pathetic than our past descendants.
The peak of socio-political understanding occured during the late 1700's, when Jacobinism was in full swing in France and the Americas, while also taking a foothold through various radical groups and philosophers in Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
admin:
True to some extent. The welfare state is not based on one person supporting another. The welfare state is based on multiple people supporting one person. It is similar to insurance in the sense that there must always be more contributors than beneficiaries. As a result, the problem becomes whether there are enough contributors to support the beneficiaries. Most first world countries are having two children or less and that won't be enough to sustain the welfare state.
By
admin |
Sep 20 2015 12:32 PM True Capitalist Acolyte:
See, I disagree. I think a significant function of technology is that each individual can contribute a greater proportion of another person's needs. This has made welfarism relatively increasingly attractive as time has gone on. Where 2 people may currently be required to work to support 1 person, in future 1 person could easily support 1 other. And eventually, 1 person might support 2+.
I also think a 2-child-average society where population is stabilized inherently has no problems in this respect, because the demographics are still that people spend the majority of their lives working in such a society. We don't need unlimited population growth to live comfortably.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
In theory, that is true but you are negating the increase in the cost of living standards, the increasing healthcare costs of being elderly, and the constantly decreasing birth rate(not stabilizing).
In terms of healthcare, for example, a young person may be able to get away with not going to the hospital or receiving a check up. However that is not the case with most elderly people who have to see their physician multiple times a year, may require physical therapy, and probably needs to purchase medication. Healthcare costs will steadily increase, that does not mean that the value of the contributions into the welfare state increase.
Most first world countries probably will not stabilize with 2 children at this point because the birth rates are dropping drastically in developed countries from France(2.01) to Japan(1.4). So the only option is to open borders for migrants or figure out a way to get the population to produce children(notably these subsidies have failed in Japan). As one commentator said "the most developed countries have adopted a one child policy without any state intervention for this policy."
It seems to me that there are two forms of welfare: Supplementary Welfare (you have a job but it isn't quite enough to get by or it's very hard to get by with what you make and the difference is paid for by welfare) and Total Welfare (you don't have a job and your livelihood depends on welfare).
In the former, conventional welfare would do just fine. In the latter, federal employment should be necessary to ensure that you continue to receive it. These kind of jobs should be easily available to the otherwise jobless.
People shouldn't have to starve, but if they can help it they should be required to work for it.
Thumbs up from:
By
admin |
Sep 20 2015 5:32 PM True Capitalist Acolyte:
No, cost of living is decreasing in most aspects (actually in the first world the key thing decreasing is food). When you say healthcare costs are rising, what you're really referring to is that standard of care is increasing faster right now than costs are declining in much of the first world. Generic drugs that didn't even exist 50 years ago are now often incredibly inexpensive. In ages past, most people couldn't afford any healthcare because it was prohibitively expensive.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
I had to go to the doctor the other day, for the first time in years. I have a persistent infection which was affecting my ability to work. It would have gone away eventually in its own but I wanted it gone faster.
Thanks to government subsidies, it cost me $30 to see an emergency doctor, (had to wait an hour) and it cost $5 for a prescribed two week course of aggressive anti biotics. This has cleared up my infection and allowed me to work more effectively.
In other news, my friend recently discovered she's pregnant. More government subsidies mean that, not only is her total natal care free, including a mid wife for nine months and the actual birth itself, but she also gets a year's maternity leave at full pay with an option to apply for a second year at the boss' discretion. This obviously lessens the burden on the family, but also allows her to focus on giving her child the best start in life instead of stressing about getting back to the grind stone as soon as possible.
I like living in a country with welfare.
nzlockie:
Yeah, but that money is coming from someone elses wallet.
It should be your responsibility to find a cost effective health insurance plan that fulfills your needs.
By
admin |
Sep 22 2015 2:01 PM Blackflag:
Not necessarily. For example the cheaper medication, in New Zealand, is the result of a sole-buyer system that we use for distributing many medicines known as Pharmac. Aside from the administrative costs of Pharmac itself, the cheaper cost of the medicines simply means we pay less per unit to the pharma companies, not that another tax payer is picking up that burden.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag:
You'll struggle to find anyone in NZ who would be a fan of getting rid of free healthcare.
I'm happy to have my tax dollars go to helping those in my country who need a hand. And if there are some that abuse the system, that's a price I'm prepared to pay.
nzlockie:
Your tax dollars
, but you are comfortable forcing what you would like to do on everyone else?
Two questions.
1. Do you pay more in overall taxes (property, sale, federal income, ect.) than potential health expenses?
2. Why not donate your own money to a reliable health foundation instead of forcing others to follow a distributive, money costing policy?
By
admin |
Sep 22 2015 11:35 PM Blackflag:
I can only answer for myself, but:
1. No
2. Because not all of the benefits of this policy are realized through taking money out of people's pockets, even with the assumption that a non-government entity could somehow do it better.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag:
I don't force anyone to do it. I can honestly say that I've never even heard anyone from New Zealand suggest we should not have things like free education or universal healthcare.
Some people do moan about various unemployment benefits, but even that is pretty minor compared to what I see in the US.
If my society doesn't want this system, the mechanisms are in place for them not to have it. I'm good with that.
1. I suspect that I have paid more in tax than I've taken out in health care, (not that all my tax goes to healthcare) however I suspect that over my lifetime, I'll come out ahead. I've certainly had tangible benefits to free healthcare though. The Government paid for my contact lenses because I have kerataconis. Each lens cost about $300, ($600 per set) and I've gone through about 40 sets. That doesn't count consultations either.
I've also had numerous surgeries for my ears which were 100% subsidised.
2. Because I like this system better. It ensures that a good minimum standard of healthcare is available to ALL Kiwis, regardless of economic status.
When my solo mother was a beneficiary raising eight kids, she would not have been able to afford to fix the various health issues we had growing up without incurring crippling debt.
By
admin |
Sep 23 2015 1:50 PM nzlockie:
In fairness, New Zealand doesn't have free tertiary education (though we do a ton of stuff to make it affordable).
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!