Smashing The Myth Of America's "Stingy" Welfare State | Zero Hedge

Smashing The Myth Of America's "Stingy" Welfare State | Zero Hedge
"...According to the World Health Organization, only Luxembourg, Norway, and the Netherlands spend more government money on healthcare per capita. 

In the US, the sum is $4,153 per capita, and in Norway it is $5,154. In the United Kingdom, the total is $2,716. 

This presents a problem for advocates for more government control of the healthcare system, of course. Often, their line of argument is that Americans are too "stingy" with social health benefits. 
When confronted with the fact that government spending is quite high, however, they switch tactics, and then declare that if the US adopted a more government-regimented system, then spending would actually be lower. 
This was a tactic employed by Bernie Sanders. 

This latter claim may or may not be so, but the one thing we do know is that the US already spends more taxpayer money on healthcare than most everyone else. So, it seems hard to fathom that the "problem" — whatever that may be — is a product of too little government spending on health care. 

If advocates for reform want to argue over how the money is spent, let them do so, but the debate should hardly include any proposals to increase government spending. 

In the US, government spending on healthcare as a percentage of total government spending, is one of the highest among wealthy nations. Although, by this measure the US is equal with Japan and the Netherlands. 

I am not a defender of the US government's gargantuan military budget, but even considering that huge expense, government healthcare spending still takes up an unusually large amount of government spending in the US. 

There is no shortage of articles in publications like Slate and The Nation stating that "the American social safety net does not exist" and that the US has a "stingy social safety net."

Now, if by "stingy" one means, "poorly administered," "ineffective," or "counterproductive," then one would be on to something. 

But if by "stingy," one means "underfunded," well, there's little evidence of that. 

Even many advocates for a reduced federal budget are likely willing to consider ideas that would spend taxpayer dollars more effectively. 

After all, if it's a given that one is going to pay a large federal tax bill, one usually would rather see that money go to something like housing for a single mother and her children who are living in a car..."

Read all!