Every time

For any Americans - think of it like this:

The Nordic welfare state is basically not more complicated then a huge insurance policy.
Your taxes is you insurance payment, and for that you're basically insured against anything that can happen you personally.

This obviously works because EVERYONE pays - and according to ability. Which means that yes, the very, very rich pays a lot more in absolute figures - probably more then they will ever get back, unless they get a particularly nasty disease.
So many of the very, very rich doesn't like this system obviously - because they are the only one's rich enough to be able to pay for all of these things out of pocket themselves.
But for everyone else, it's a completely rational insurance policy - because we can all get that particularly nasty disease, or be hit with other misfortunes in life, and most of us wouldn't have a chance to cope with that financially.

Which of course is why you have insurance in America as well - but you have to pay that privately.

The big difference here is that our welfare insurance policy covers much, much more then any policy in the US does (you don't have policies covering your children's college education, do you?) - but also that our policy actually pays out when you need it.

The welfare state isn't there to make a profit off of you and it doesn't try to trick you with complicated terms or refuse to pay out when you end up needing the insurance.

Because the system is not based on a short-term profit calculation, like a private insurance company in the US is - but on long-term national benefits.

For instance:

It's a benefit to the whole nation that everyone can get the highest level of education they're suitable for - as a more well educated work force benefits the economy as a whole, and thus the nation as a whole.
With a higher general level of education, more specialized and advanced products and services can be made and offered, providing greater export profits, higher company profits and in the end higher tax payments from these companies back to the nation.

The citizen getting that higher level of education and that more specialized job, is also likely to be earning more in that job - meaning that he/she will be paying back more in taxes for decades to come to the nation.

So the investments the nation makes in the individual often pays of many times over, over their whole life.

The simple fact is, that from a national economic point of view, the socialist principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" actually works out very well.

If that hadn't been the case - none of the Nordic nation would obviously have succeed as well as we did, with this system.

(Well except Norway, who could probably live off the sale of it's oil alone for the rest of any of our lives, those rich bastards... ;-))

We all need a hand in life at some point - and if we return that favor when we are in a stronger position - that actually strengthen the nation as a whole.
Not only economically, but also in terms of social cohesion.

Most people happily pays into the system, because they appreciate the security the systems gives them, knowing that no matter what happens, they have this insurance. And if they're happy enough to not need that much help themselves - it will still be there for their children, and grand-children, and other people they love and care for - when they need it.

That's not to say there aren't people whining loudly about having to pay tax of course - both amongst the few very, very rich who actually could opt-out of the system entirely - but also amongst the many more who actually benefit from it.
But then there are always stupid and cheap people of course, who won't acknowledge anything they themselves received, but instead pretend all they've ever done is pay into the system.

But as I usually tell them - counting from their free delivery when they where born, through every free doctors visit, through their free daycare and free education - by the time they're around 18 and can start to fend for themselves, the average citizen has already cost the nation the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of US dollars.

Every penny in tax you pay for years to come from then as an average earner is just to pay back what you've already gotten for free.
And that's assuming you didn't have more then the average health problems growing up.

But still, some people will always whine whenever they have to pay anything of course.

@Nisse_Hult Yeah, so you lost every American the second you used the words "taxes" and "pays" in back-to-back sentences. I'm sure the rest of this comment was well-reasoned and rational, but... I'm American... so I'm not allowed to read it.

@Energynerd
Just try and you'll feel like a rebel in the States. What Nisse has written makes perfect sense, and it works.
What else can one ask ?

@Energynerd

As Daru said - don't you want to be a rebel? ;-)

And as he also said - it works. We've proven it does for decades.

I know American Republicans want to refuse that fact - but then many of them refuse proven science and believes that Jesus rode dinosaurs as well...

@Nisse_Hult You quoted Karl Marx as your "socialist principle". As an American and a capitalist, you already lost me on that line alone. But I'll try to work past it; Productivity due to free higher education - if what you say is true, you'd expect all of the Nordic countries to have a higher GDP than the United States. Only Norway is higher. Therefore I refute your assertion that free higher education leads to higher wages as the evidence does not support the claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita If you'd like to use a different measurement we can discuss.

Better health care access due to universal health care - This whole topic is a mess and there are benefits to both systems. The reason it is a mess is because in the USA, it is illegal for medical services to deny life saving treatments and a variety of lesser services. Nobody in the USA is turned away without treatment for life threatening conditions. Now it is true that if you have something killing you slowly, as cancer and other things can be, the government will not foot the bill. Sometimes treatments are indeed very expensive. On the other side, some expensive treatments are simply not covered at all in Universal Health Care systems of other countries, or the wait is so long that you will die waiting for the appointment. So if you want timely treatment, you must travel to another country and pay for it yourself. I don't like the way the American health care system is implemented, but I also don't trust our government to allocate the money effectively. I accept individual states implementing their own universal health care systems as they see fit, but I don't believe it is a federal issue. That's the nice thing about the State system in the USA, nothing is stopping each state from implementing its own take on the problem and finding a great solution. Many of our states have higher populations and GDPs than European countries, and as such should be fully capable of funding such experiments.

@AzureReaver

Well that principle doesn't actually come from Marx, even if he's credited with popularizing it.

The principle was expressed in that form by other socialist before Marx, and in other forms well before the term socialism was even invented.

In fact, as Wikipedia notes:

"Some scholars trace the origin of the phrase to the New Testament. In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

But then I've often noted that the historical Jesus (which we know to have existed) is basically the worlds first recorded socialist, if you look at his teachings and example.

Regarding the use of GDP for comparisons of wealth between nations, that's a very imprecise tool - which you see if you look at the lists in Wikipedia.

At or in the top you have several very small nations which all have hugely inflated numbers, because they're used for storing huge corporate or personal profits for tax purposes.
Luxembourg, Monaco, Bermuda or the Isle of Man for instance - their numbers are clearly inflated by influx of foreign money for tax purposes. Switzerland obviously have a huge banking sector that inflates it's number, Norway is a big oil exporter unlike any of the other Nordic countries, but that doesn't mean that the average Norwegian is personally more wealthy or productive.

Because that's the second problem with GDP of course - it doesn't actually say anything about the actual average wealth or productivity in a nation. Which you see from other nations listed high like Brunei or Saudi Arabia.

Sure - those countries are huge oil exporters and there are filthy rich people living there - but that doesn't mean that all citizens in those nations enjoy anywhere near the level of wealth or productivity that a per capita number of GDP may make you think.

So using just GDP per capita is actually a pretty clumsy way of comparing nations.

I'm no financial expert, but there are both American and international studies and comparisons done on this, and there are rankings released on all kinds of metrics each year - and the Nordic's will regularly be among the top.

(Which they all are using GDP per capita as well, just not above the US - except for Norway with it's oil then)

This ranking from Trump's Alma mater Wharton School of Business ranks Sweden as 6th overall best country in the world this year, based on rankings in several different categories for instance. The US comes in as number 8th and Denmark and Norway as number 11th and 12th respectively:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list

But there are several different categories they rate by, and in the category of "Quality of Life", the Nordic nations of Denmark, Sweden and Norway end up in 2nd, 3rd and 4th place respectively, with Finland coming in at 7th place.
The US came in 10 places below that, as 17th in the ranking:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-full-list

And this is a ranking system put out yearly by Americas most prestigious business school - it's not some communist manifesto.

"Therefore I refute your assertion that free higher education leads to higher wages as the evidence does not support the claim."

Well the "free" part isn't really relevant in that sentence, since how the education is paid for doesn't effect the effect of it.
And that a higher level of education is more likely to lead to a higher average life income is a pretty basic fact, not really disputed by anyone.
If that wasn't true there wouldn't be a need to ever educate yourself - unless you did it purely for your own enjoyment.

What you probably meant is that you don't think it's financially beneficial for a nation, from a strictly national economic standpoint, to afford it's citizens free higher education?

I don't really have the energy to dig anything up on that right now, but I'll state my opinion that I believe it is.
And I'd say the fact that the Nordic's - and so many other countries that follow that example - has done very well, is a strong indication that it is.
It's also something every party from left to right stands by in our nations, so it's not like it's a left-right political issue here.

"On the other side, some expensive treatments are simply not covered at all in Universal Health Care systems of other countries"

I can tell you that in the case of Sweden, the only thing not covered is procedures that are deemed as simply cosmetical. Unless you have an actual reason for cosmetic surgery that is - like burns or a sex change (yes, those are covered to).

"or the wait is so long that you will die waiting for the appointment."

That's very rare - but it has happened in Sweden, unfortunately. The problem there isn't actually the system, because this is not in any way normal, but that the system in recent years have become underfunded.
We had a right-wing government for 8 years that like every right-wing government everywhere cut taxes and that money obviously has to come out of somewhere as tax cuts doesn't pay for themselves.
Unfortunately some people had to pay with their lives for those tax cuts - just like many in the US have unfortunately been forced to pay with theirs through the years, because of the lack of free preventive care.

People with diabetes that for instance won't get the basic check-ups they need, but will be rushed to hospital in the US and treated for free in the ER - if they get acutely ill.

Which is one of the reasons why the US pays more for it's healthcare then any other nation - but get's worse health outcomes for it.
Because you subsidize the most expensive treatment, while not the cheaper preventive care - meaning that some people simply doesn't get any care at all, until they're acutely ill.
So instead of cheaper preventive care, they're rushed to the ER for the most expensive care whenever they get sick enough - which is terrible for their health, and your healthcare costs as well.

Cuba has far superior preventative care compared to the US - and lower infant mortality rate then the US because of it. Which means that fewer Cuban parents have to see their child die in infancy then US parents.
And Cuba has been under a US blockade since the 1960's...

"So if you want timely treatment, you must travel to another country and pay for it yourself."

No you don't. Private healthcare is available as well - it's not like it's banned or anything. Most people just don't use it, since the one we get for free is just as good - even if we may have to wait a bit for it.
Some people still travel abroad and get treatment because they don't want to wait for an operation, and if they get it approved before they get the procedure, it will still be paid by the Swedish healthcare system.

Also all Swedes are obviously covered while abroad. Any emergency medical procedure we need while abroad will be paid by our healthcare system.

"but I also don't trust our government to allocate the money effectively"

Well that's the rub - isn't it? Americans have been indoctrinated by the Republicans to believe that the government can't do anything properly.
Except conduct wars, or put a man on the moon, or enforce the law - you know, things the Republicans support.
But anything they oppose - the government is of course completely useless at doing any of that, and if you ever entrust it with that responsibility it will surely institute death panels and kill grandma.

@Nisse_Hult "Well that's the rub - isn't it? Americans have been indoctrinated by the Republicans to believe that the government can't do anything properly.
Except conduct wars, or put a man on the moon, or enforce the law - you know, things the Republicans support.
But anything they oppose - the government is of course completely useless at doing any of that, and if you ever entrust it with that responsibility it will surely institute death panels and kill grandma."

And you fundamentally misunderstand American history. The founding generation of our country saw, first-hand, the abuses of an over-powered and over-bearing central government. In response to it's abuses, we designed a more decentralized system that entrusts most power to the states, not the federal government. The federal government handled the national currency, regulated inter-state matters, maintained the federal army and navy, and dealt with foreign powers; these couldn't be entrusted to the states, because the states would abuse them to the point where we wouldn't even be one country anymore (see the Articles of the Confederation, which was the predecessor to the current Constitution). The people were also ensured the ability to retain arms in order to effect another revolution against an overbearing and over-powered federal government. Early Supreme Court cases clarified much, and expanded slightly.
FDR's New Deal changed that. It gave much more power to the federal government, justified, not with Constitutional amendments, but by arguing that pretty much everything under the sun affected interstate commerce. So, legally, all human activity could be regulated by the federal government (see Wickard v. Filburn). While this has been cut back some in the 1990's and the early 2000's, the government still justifies much of its activity with the Commerce Clause.
All this to say: distrust of government is inherent to our system. Giving it some authority and power is necessary, but we don't trust it implicitly with everything, because often it will abuse that power. See the New Deal, affecting change through twisting and perversions, not the legally acceptable means of change.

@AzureReaver
"Nobody in the USA is turned away without treatment for life threatening conditions. "- well.... financially motivated hospitals can always make someone wait till they give up and go to the next town, or set up a payment plan first, or just admit them, tell them they're fine and send them home. There are enough ways around that law.

"Many of our states have higher populations and GDPs than European countries, and as such should be fully capable of funding such experiments. " should-yes but aren't. So very much aren't.

@AzureReaver "if what you say is true, you'd expect all of the Nordic countries to have a higher GDP than the United States"

No you wouldn't, because there are other factors that factor into total GDP. Hours worked. Efficiency of scale from being a really big single market.

Also, PPP is interesting but not comprehensive. It tells us that many things are more expensive in Nordic countries -- but doesn't account for all the things that they don't have to purchase! It can also be distorted by geography (having to import stuff we grow in California or Florida, say) and by the lack of cheap labor -- the flip side of which is that no one has to *be* the cheap labor.

https://howmuch.net/articles/worlds-most-productive-countries has Norway, Iceland, and Denmark having more GDP/hour worked than the US, which is a somewhat better measure of productivity.

@AzureReaver "I accept individual states implementing their own universal health care systems as they see fit, but I don't believe it is a federal issue." Well the fact that the federal government just removed the deductability of state and local taxes basically torpedoes the ability of individual states doing that.

@AzureReaver
Instead of the faux-Marxist quote, listen to an American hero, who once said: "With great power comes great responsibility" ;)
Or "The broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load"? I've always considered it a very traditionally "manly" thing to be rich and pay your taxes happily. It's you, doing your bit for your country. It confuses me, that some people will gladly give up their life for their country, but their money...? Hell no!

@AzureReaver Late to the party, but I just wanted to point out some things from your first paragraph:
You cite GDP per capita as evidence that higher education doesn't equal higher wages, but let us think for a moment what GDP per capita actually measures. It says nothing about the population's wages or income. It says that if you were to divide it equally amongst the people, that's the value you get. To make a silly example: If a country has a population of 1 billion people living in extreme poverty out of the world's 7 billion people, but a single person in that country accounts for 90% of the world's GDP, then that country would rank as number one in GDP per capita by a large margin.

So if you want to argue for wage differences, median income would be better, but unfortunately that data is not as commonly collected and thus not as reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

Not sure what the "socialist principle" from Marx you're referring to, but irregardless of if you're a capitalist or American, you should not refute any claim based on that. Marx has actually pointed out a lot of inherent problems with capitalism which in themselves are fair. His predictions and suggested solutions are questionable though. Let's skip the narrative that "Marx and communism are bad" and actually discuss the issues at face value. Cheers!

@AzureReaver 1) He didn't mention Marx in that post. 2) GDP isn't directly related to wages. 3) GDP isn't directly related to standard of living.

And so on. BTW, the USA is a good proof against having a purely privatized health care system. It's expensive (public health care doesn't have to make a profit), inefficient (hospitals in the US bill *insane* amounts for even the most basic operations simply because they assume everyone to have an insurance and having to negotiate with insurance companies to get the final bill), unequal and whatnot.

The only people who benefit from the US system are the wealthy and healthy.

@Nisse_Hult I agree with free education, healthcare, and unemployment benefits, but every time I mention it to someone, they ALWAYS say “Yeah, but that will raise taxes.” Like drowning in debt is so much better, right? My dad was a cop and once he was called to a car crash. Some fool was driving drunk and hit somebody. So my dad is about to call an ambulance to help this guy with his broken leg, but even though he was in immense pain, he begged my dad not to call because he didn’t want to be financially ruined. That just shows how screwed our system is. Hell, I had to ride in an ambulance for about 5 minutes after an accident. They charged about $8,000. They tried to charge me $50 for goddamn saline! That’s fucking salt water!

@ComputerDweeb

It's real-life horror stories like the ones you're telling here that makes even our right-wing politicians defensive if they're ever accused of wanting a more American model for our countries.

American healthcare, education and over all social policy is a specter in the rest of the western world that basically no reputable politician want to be associated with.

But the good news is of course that it doesn't have to be like that. You're the richest country in the history of the world - you could easily afford the same things as all other western democracies have.
But then you have to get the real money from where it is - the super-duper rich and the corporations - and employ honest progressive taxation and some wealth distribution.

And that's "evil" socialism of course.

But if some socialist policies would make a nation into the likes of communist Soviet Russia (which is what the US Republicans pretend) - then ALL US western allies are like communist Soviet Russia, because they ALL have some such policies in place.
You know like communist Canada, or Britain...

@Nisse_Hult
"This obviously works because EVERYONE pays..."
The Swedish banks in the Baltics have practiced tax evasion and tax optimisation. And the rich scandinavians become residents of Monaco.
And the refugees and economical immigrants obviously do not pay. Thus, a welfare state is sustainable only in a pure nation state, and soon that is down to Japan, South Korea, Poland and Czech Republic. So - a nice idea, while the conditions were good.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Our banks pay their taxes here - or we drag them to court. You should try that.
Some rich citizens obviously try to avoid paying tax - they do in all countries, including the ones you list. Still doesn't break the system.
Immigrants pay just like everyone else - according to ability, and most of them work - just like most Swedes do.
Just because you're an ignorant racist, your bigotry isn't a serious argument.
So no, the welfare state - in Sweden and other Nordic countries - is chugging along as it has for decades.

The only real threat to it is right-wing tax cuts that in the last decade has cost the system hundreds of billions, leaving it underfunded.
Right wing tax cuts that our populist and anti-immigrant far-right party happily supported - while they like all racists of course blame all society's problems on immigration.

I don't know about Estonian politics and I don't care to learn either, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you too are voting for some right-wing populist idiots who promise everyone everything for free while blaming every problem in society on foreigners.

That kind of stupid populist rhetoric seems to attract idiots like you like shit attracts flies.

@Nisse_Hult
"Our banks pay their taxes here"
The funny thing about it is that the Swedish banks here have stated that they operate under "Nordic" "customs", thus one might conclude that without taking them to court, the Swedish banks would not pay their share. The Swedish banks here in Estonia have started to pay more of their share, but they are obviously still "optimising".

"Still doesn't break the system."
A thousand cuts will do it every time.
The fools do not notice until too late.

Just because you're an ignorant racist, your bigotry isn't a serious argument.
That kind of stupid populist rhetoric seems to attract idiots like you like shit attracts flies.

PS. The last time I checked, the most bang for buck in primary education and in healthcare was provided in Estonia. Not in Sweden, not in Norway, not in Denmark, not in Finland. It is just that here we do not idolize the currently operating systems.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

Well, this is where your stupid nationalist and racist views lead you - barking completely up the wrong fucking tree, viewing the world not as it actually is - but how you believe it must be.

Believing that everything must be the fault of evil foreigners and immigrants.

It's not that your own politicians have either been naive or corrupt in writing laws that doesn't check the big banks - oh no, it's those evil foreigners faults!
Of course any bank will be "optimizing" it's tax payments - they're not in the business of banking to make friends and give away money!
You could just as well complain about sharks eating the cute dolphins. Well that's what they do! Sharks eats dolphins and banks screw people over - if they get the chance.
Which is why you need strong regulations and people need to elect responsible politicians and not naive right-wing free-marketers who believe private companies do business out of the kindness of their hearts.

I suspect Estonia - like many of the eastern European states - naively introduced neo-liberal free-market reforms as soon as they became free from the old Soviet Union.

Well that's what you get for doing so - of course big business will be screwing you over when you invite them in like that.

That does however have nothing to do with the nationality or ethnicity of the people in question.
Free-market capitalist will happily screw anyone over regardless of any of that - all they care about is making shitloads of money.
And I'm sure some of the people making that money where your beloved racially pure Estonians as well - greed isn't decided by peoples DNA.

Because obviously, there are greedy rich people that try avoid paying their taxes in every country - even those racially pure national states you dream of.
You're just plain stupid if you believe there aren't rich, greedy Poles, Czechs or Japanese fiddling with their taxes.

Which is why you have to have proper laws and regulation in place to stop the greedy rich and big corporations from screwing your nation over.
All the Nordic welfare states have been chugging alone nicely for decades, and they'll still be here when you're dead and gone I can assure you.

Regarding "bang for [the] buck", that's not actually all you want - as that says nothing about the overall level of service.
A nation where the doctors could fix broken bones by snapping their fingers would have great "bang for the buck" as they could fix broken bones for nothing - but if that was all they could offer, that wouldn't mean the overall healthcare was very good.

Now I know you, as a stupid nationalist, believe it's you job to extol Estonia every chance you get - but if you ever grow up, you might understand the truth is more complicated.

Estonia is probably better at some things then some other nations, while other nations are better then Estonia at doing other things.
A rational grown-up acknowledges that and can see both the good and the bad, and take inspiration from other places when they're more successful in a certain field.

Only stupid nationalists view the world as some zero sum game where they and their nation can only "win" by shitting on everyone else and rewrite history to support their ridiculous delusions of grandeur.

@Nisse_Hult
[Regarding "bang for [the] buck", that's not actually all you want - as that says nothing about the overall level of service.]

Oh, really? Estonia basically has the same healthcare system as in the Nordic countries, just younger and technically more advanced. Are you suggesting that the performance of the Nordic healthcare system is somehow dependent on the initial conditions? If so, then one should be careful not to blindly market it to the first country you come across.

Now I know you, as a stupid internationalist, believe it's you job to extol Sweden every chance you get - but if you ever grow up, you might understand the truth is more complicated.

PS. Estonian pension system reform was led by a social democrat, who no doubt was greatly influenced by scandinavian pension systems. It just so happened, that after the implementation, the pension funds in Swedish banks in Estonia have performed the worst within the EU, while the pension funds in the same banks in Sweden happened to perform among the best. Imagine that!

PPS. Immigrants of non-Nordic and non-Baltic origin mostly at work in Sweden? 3 months a year on 50% workload at a kebab shop? If there is anything the refugees and immigrants are really good at - it is how to game the welfare system.

@ThorsomeTarmukas

You obviously didn't understand the point I was making about "bang for the buck", so go back and re-read it.

"Now I know you, as a stupid internationalist, believe it's you job to extol Sweden every chance you get - but if you ever grow up, you might understand the truth is more complicated."

Copying what I say like a small child now?
But since you changed one critical word, that sentence now makes no sense.
Stupid nationalists - like you - extol their nations in every situation.
Rational people don't need to - we accept the world as it is.

"Estonian pension system reform was led by a social democrat, who no doubt was greatly influenced by scandinavian pension systems. It just so happened, that after the implementation, the pension funds in Swedish banks in Estonia have performed the worst within the EU, while the pension funds in the same banks in Sweden happened to perform among the best. Imagine that!"

Oh yes, it must be a conspiracy by those evil foreigners of course!
Christ you're a conspiratorial kook...

"Immigrants of non-Nordic and non-Baltic origin mostly at work in Sweden?"

Yes they are. They have higher unemployment figures then people born here, but the majority of them certainly work.
You'd know that if your understanding of the world was based on facts instead of ignorant racism.
But that would demand you actually read real news reports and the occasional book - and that's obviously way too hard for you.

@Nisse_Hult
I believe you have nothing substantial to add to what you already have, so I rest my case.
All the others can make up their own mind.

@Nisse_Hult The drawback with the system is, that privilege tends to make people into antisocial a-holes, there's scientific studies to prove it, so the people with money/power invariably will be less inclined to willingly contribute - they will try to dodge taxes - and so the system suffers. The amount of taxes owed to the Danish state by rich a-holes is staggering, and it doesn't seem like we'll be getting it back. I still vote we make the biggest and baddest tax-force in the world, special-ops accountants with license to indict. The cost will easily be covered by what they'll save.

@Qsigne

Yes, there is an ever growing body of studies showing that in different ways.
Here's one such study I happen to have linked to in an earlier comment on this site:

http://www.thejournal.ie/conservative-liberal-happiness-social-welfare-1671962-Sep2014/

But these attitudes doesn't come from nowhere - they are in fact heavily promoted by the US right-wing political establishment to grow their base of political support.

The donor class of the political right in the US is rich AF individuals and corporations that at all cost want to avoid the US moving to a more expansive welfare model like all of the rest of the western democratic world already has - because that would cost them, personally, more money - while giving them nothing.
They, being rich AF, has no reason to ever want such a model as they can already pay for everything they need out of pocket.

But the percentage of the population that is as rich as that is always tiny in every country, and they alone can't possibly win general elections - so they have to convince many, many more people to actively vote AGAINST their own economical interests to block this expansion of the welfare state.

From the point of the nation as a whole, the policy they want to keep is also clearly detrimental as the US for instance pays more for it's healthcare then any other nation - while still not achieving universal coverage.
So the broken system the political right is desperately trying to preserve simply benefits no one but the tiny clique of their rich AF donor base and the big corporation.

The vast majority of Americans - as well as the US nation as a whole - would definitely benefit from getting with the program and joining the rest of the democratic western world in the 21st century.

Which is of course why in every other western democracy, EVERY party from left to right supports the expanded welfare state system, as well as basically all unbiased policy experts and apolitical researchers studying these issues.

So from an honest policy debate perspective, the welfare state models has already won the debate - it's simply the best model.
Which leaves the forces on the political right that wants to block this development no other option then to lie, lie and lie about this, and use non-issue propaganda based on fearmongering and scare tactics in trying to persuade a majority of voters to vote AGAINST their own best interest.

And of course the same small clique of people in the countries that do have the expanded welfare state don't want to pay for this system either, so of course many of them do all they can to dodge their taxes.

So as you say - of course we in these countries would all gain by enforcing our tax laws strictly and make sure people actually pay what they owe.
If we did that we could in fact probably lower taxes, since we're easily talking about billions in state revenue lost to tax evasion each year.

Unfortunately you need broader cooperation between many countries to do this effectively, as otherwise the cheaters simply move their money around the world to avoid detection.
This has gotten better over time, but we're still a far way of from an optimal point.

The only real solution is for voters in every country to always vote for the party most willing to stand up for the welfare state - which usually means a left-wing political party.
That is what benefits not only most regular voters, but also the nations the most in the long run.

Yes, we pay with taxes. This is a feature, not a bug. I don't get the outright frothing hatred of taxes that come from Americans. I get that they can be irksome at times, but the benefits of a well funded social safety net far outweigh the minor nuisance of losing a couple of currency units each month.

@CrypticMirror We started a revolution over taxes. Of course we hate them!

@Mnementh Technically we started a revolution over not being properly represented in decision making that directly affected us, in addition to the fact that we considered ourselves to be British citizens but did not receive the same rights as actual citizens.

The tea tax was just one of the catalysts. But that doesn't seem to be what they teach kids in schools. Taxes bad... rebels good.

@wsdpii

That talk about representation was actually just pretence.

In praxis no representation could have worked, as the American colonials demanded that the representatives they wanted at the British parliament be allowed to travel home to consult with their voters before voting on any issue.

Considering the distance and the age, it would have gridlocked the entire workings of the British parliament if they had to wait for weeks on end to decide an issue whenever an American colonial representative wanted to travel home to consult his voters.

But using the argument of democratic representation of course sounded better then the actual reason - which was "we don't want to pay more in tax!".

And the "funny" thing is American colonials actually paid far less in tax then British subjects in Britain.
It was common practice for all colonial nations to have lower taxes in the colonies - to encourage immigration and economic development there.

What the British wanted was to raise taxes slightly on their American colonies, to help pay for the cost of the French and Indian War they had just fought with French, protecting those colonies from invasion by the French.

But nope, the Americans where too used to freeloading on the regular British taxpayer to ever accept that - so they invented that pretext of representation to in reality refuse ever paying more in tax.

Which the British obviously couldn't let stand, as then all other colonies would soon demand the same special treatment.

So you ended up going to war over taxes, yes.

That may not be the story you like to tell yourself as a nation - but that's what actually happened.

@Nisse_Hult

A big part of it was also just being on the other end of imperialism to begin with. The colonies were, at the time, the source of most of the resource's fueling Britain's growing industry, and a sizeable percentage of the market for their manufactured goods. Lots of colonists (mostly the merchant class) felt it was unfair that Britain could take the resources that they felt belonged to them, ship them away to the Isles to be put through a machine, and sell the final product back at a higher price. Yes, this is exactly how a large-scale economy works, but at the time it was still a relatively new process, and - with Enlightenment Philosophy fresh in mind - you could see how mobs of people could jump on the "Mine, mine, mine" bandwagon.

This probably wouldn't have been such a big deal if Britain didn't attempt to outlaw the Colonists' trade with other nations, which only made their "exploitation" all the more transparent to them. And then, when the black market obviously began to flare up, the East India Company outright declared a monopoly on some of the Colonies' most profitable goods. So say you're a Gentleman farmer in charge of a tea plantation. If you have no say in where your product goes or how much it's sold for by decree of an unelected King, at a time John Locke is literally all the rage, you're going to be upset.

@ItsAGiraffe

Everything you say is true (except for the part about putting resources through a "machine" - the industrial revolution was still only in it's infancy at the time of the American Revolutionary War) - but it also doesn't change the fact that the American colonies where also treated preferentially to mainland Britain in many ways.
Which, as I said, is what all colonial powers did initially, to encourage immigration to their colonies and financial growth in them.

What American colonialists saw as "exploitation" was actually the mother country beginning to peel back some of those preferential treatments, as they though the colonies where becoming strong enough to sustain higher taxation.

But it still wasn't a case of the colonies being taxed as heavily as mainland Britain - and even less so more heavily then Britain.

While the poor African slaves brought to the colonies against their will of course where treated terribly, the English settlers in the American colonies virtually all had a better life from the point of taxation and state control over them, then British subjects in mainland Britain.

Why else would people ever emigrate to a far of and strange land with dangerous natives and without many of the comforts of life they where used to at home?

That was the bargain made with the colonists as they left for the new world - you get this preferential treatment in return for daring to make the voyage and taking on the though job of building up a functioning economy from scratch.

But the colonial powers obviously never intended for this preferential treatment to last for ever - only long enough for the colonies to begin to thrive on their own.

But by then the American colonialists had grown accustomed to their low taxation and profitable conditions, and where in no mood to accept any change in their status.

@Mnementh Really? I thought it was because the British government was billeting troops inside private residences at the owners expense?

I'm sorry but...
...this is fucking beautiful.

I'm glad it works for the Nordics, and I wish that we here in the USA could get with the program. We always get to hear all of the damn excuses from the political Right, about why we can't or shouldn't do this, and in the end, it always boils down to one single, simple, ugly theme. When you strip away the pseudo-patriotic rhetoric, the cowboy mythology and the fantasy of American social mobility, what you have left is:
"I don't want to contribute to the society I derive direct benefit from, and which supports literally every aspect of the modern life I enjoy."

And of course, right now, some knee-jerk cretin who fancies himself to be either a cowboy or a capitalist is frothing at the mouth while his sympathetic nervous system is conjuring up irrational, half-informed, pseudo-intellectual, anachronistic poppycock with which to respond. It will involve some nonsense about "voluntary exchange" and attempt to resurrect the specter of the Soviet Union, while making demands of myself and others, that we think about whether or not we want a faceless bureaucrat dictating this or that to us. It will also completely ignore that the people of the United States already suffer under these conditions, and that the faceless dictator is in fact one of the unelected, unaccountable Wall Street set. This raging ball of antisocial entitlement will also declare that someone could choose to not have anything to do with "Our Way of Life", while simultaneously ignoring that every square inch of dirt in the US is owned, and that it is illegal in most places to sleep rough, hunt for food, build a campfire or even put together a shelter. In fact, in many places in the United States, it is becoming illegal to provide food to the homeless.

In short, Ladies and Gentlemen, the United States seems to be trying very, very hard to make poverty unavoidable, inescapable and illegal.
"Are there no Prisons? Are there no Workhouses?" Dickens would find modern America horrifically familiar.

'@TransitioningUSA' no, not beautiful.
you are so in love with communism you cant see that it does not work.

@slicergod You do know that is not communism ? Every single thing that is not capitalism is not necessarily communism, there is plenty of other things out of the "Every thing for me nothing for the others" thinking

@slicergod Have you studied the history of communists at all? Because I have. Communists are just people; maybe a little more idealistic than average, maybe a little angrier sometimes. They aren't intrinsically worse than feudalists or capitalists or fascists or libertarians. We all have strengths and flaws; we all get to make mistakes when we fight for some thing we believe in.

'@niauropsaka' except communism always fails.

@slicergod Behold: exactly what I predicted.

Economics is not a binary equation. Nothing, and I mean literally nothing, that I said here equates to "Communism". In fact, I'll wager even money that you don't either no what the actual definition of Communism is, or understand that it is a system of economics, rather than a system of government.
You will now protest my assertion, and make a failed attempt to prove that I am either a Communist or a dupe, and then retreat into sullen silence, trying to convince yourself that I'm a horrible bitch, and probably stupid as well.
You will be angry and resentful of my predictions, and feel an ever increasing frustration and shame that you can't seem to escape them. At some point you will try to define me as a hypocrite, although you'll never be able to explain precisely what issue I am being hypocritical about. You will also descend into making slurs about my sex, gender and/or sexuality, even if only in your own head.
By now you've probably categorized me in your head as 'an elitist liberal who thinks they know better than everyone else', but the reality is much simpler. I've just seen this shit before, time and time again, for forty years, and as such I can I.D. it and predict the patterns with frankly boring accuracy. BUt hey, maybe you'll be the 'stable genius' who proves me wrong.
What have you got to say about the question of economic justice that hasn't already been regurgitated by a million other people just like you?

'@TransitioningUSA' "you don't either no"
what horrible grammar.
i know what i am talking about but apparently you cannot even spell.

@TransitioningUSA

There is an ever growing body of research data that supports the theory that people on the right end of the political spectrum has an empathy deficiency.
If they start out that way or end up that why, by rationalizing their world view according to their political beliefs, we don't know.
But the effect is that they're happy with living in less well functioning societies, because they believe that's how society is supposed to work.

Or as one study puts it:

"Conservative people report higher Subjective Well-being (SWB) because they ignore or rationalise away many of the factors that otherwise might negatively influence their SWB - unemployment, inequality, disparate health care and education."

http://www.thejournal.ie/conservative-liberal-happiness-social-welfare-1671962-Sep2014/

So yes - the right-wing mind is today, just as in the time of Dickens - perfectly OK with seeing others suffer around them.

And I can assure you this isn't just in the US - this is how right-wingers think in the rest of the world as well.
It's just that in the rest of the western world, we have socialist and liberal parties that have dragged the political right by the hair - kicking and screaming - into the 21st century.

The political right never voluntarily accepts any progressive reforms anywhere (unless it's a play to stop even more progressive reforms they know would be coming otherwise). Their entire ideological doctrine is based on trying to stop society progressing at all.
Which is obviously just stupid, since they never can and therefore only end up losing in the end.

So you have to beat them at the polls and enact those progressive changes you know are for the good of the country - against the screeching of the political right.
Then give in ten years or so to see them work - and then the political right sees how popular and well functioning the reforms are, and will start claiming they where always for them.

That's how universal healthcare was enacted in every other western democracy - not with the support of the political right, but against their fierce opposition.

And that's the same way you'll probably have to do it in the US as well.

But don't worry - when the systems is in place, costs are down and the voters happy with the service - the political right will start claiming they're the biggest defenders of the popular system, so then you don't have to fight them on that precise point anymore.

Instead you can move on to the next progressive development that you have to beat into the conservative brain before they accept.

@Nisse_Hult "That's how universal healthcare was enacted in every other western democracy - not with the support of the political right, but against their fierce opposition."

In Germany, the mandatory social insurance was introduced by Bismarck, who was about as right-wing as you can get.
However it still proves your point "(unless it's a play to stop even more progressive reforms they know would be coming otherwise)" because he did it to deprive the Social Democrats of a major campaigning point.

@mowny

Exactly - that's why I wrote what I did. :-)

And Germany is a prime example of this.

Marx was of course German - and many other early socialists came from Germany as well.
Socialist ideas where hugely influential in Germany already during the 19th century, the Social Democratic Party became the largest party in the German parliament already before the First World War and there was widespread belief in the world that if a socialist revolution ever was to occur, it was most likely to happen in Germany.

The political rights answer to all of this was Paternalistic conservatism, which was he idea that by giving workers small concession now, you could offset the risk of them demanding much more later - or at least delay those demands.

This was both implemented by leaders like Bismarck for entire countries - but also locally in many countries by individual factory owners who could for instance build better housing for their own workers, to blunt demands for higher wages or better working conditions.

It was never a case of the political right actually accepting that the workers had legitimate demands and a right to larger political influence, but always just a way to try to buy the support of workers with small benefits that would cost companies and business owners less.

It was a smart short term policy that avoided larger social conflicts - but in the end it obviously couldn't satisfy the legitimate demands for political power and larger social change that the socialist movement pushed for.

Preach it, sister.

USA: I will not adopt your system!
Sweden: Well, don't, then. It's your choice.
USA: Don't try and force it on me!
Norway: We're not trying anything. Leave us alone, please.
USA: It would never work here!
Denmark: I agree, it probably wouldn't. Now leave us alone.
USA: I will never adopt your system!
Sweden: You already said that, and that's fine by us.
USA: And you're not taking away my guns!
Norway: We're not trying to. Leave us alone.
USA: FINLAND!!! DON'T YOU TRY AND TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! I LOVE MY GUNS!
Finland: I've noticed. Hi guys, what's up?
USA: Leave my guns alone!
Finland: (annoyed) Fine! Keep your stupid guns, I don't care! (to the Nordics) What's up?
Sweden: We were thinking of hosting a Max von Sydow -movie marathon, and--
USA: Your system will never work for us!
Norway: We know that! Now fuck off!
USA: Finland! I will not adopt your school system!
Finland: That's your choice. Max von Sydow, huh? Can we watch "Hour of the Wolf"?
USA: Quit sending teachers to my schools, then!
Finland: Dude, YOU have sent teachers to MY schools, not the other way round!
USA:........I WILL NEVER ADOPT YOUR STUPID COMMIE, SOCIALIST, FREEDOM-HATING, HOMOSEXUAL, ATHEIST, FEMINIST, MONEY-HATING, GUN-GRABBING SYSTEEEEEMMMM!

***thirty minutes later***

Doctor: How's Brother America?
Nurse: Not good, doctor. He's got Sweden's hand wrapped around his throat, a live cod and Lego blocks stuffed in his ears, and a bottle of Finlandia rammed up his arse.

@DarkMage7280
Fabulous.
It's a pity for the bottle of Finlandia though. I hope, it was an empty bottle. I wouldn't want the booze to go to waste.

@Daru Hey, it's Finland. It's a safe bet the bottle was empty.

@DarkMage7280 Not necesarily empty but whatever was in the bottle it surely wasn't alcohol.

@DarkMage7280 Finland does not talk a lot. Maybe he was talking with signs?

@JTTWloverchinese Finland communicate by waving his knife at people. It is actualy a very complicated sign language that few other than he and Sweden can understand.

@Rogers I know, but he also talks with signs.

@JTTWloverchinese Oh, with sufficient motivation I think he can talk.

@DarkMage7280 Sweden would stuff America into a IKEA box.

@Rogers Good point.

@DarkMage7280 Thank you. I LOVE this reply! Perfect.

@Nuuskamuikkunen14

I aim to please.

@Nuuskamuikkunen14 Oh, and make no mistake: I love your country, I have several American friends, but so many of you guys think America's perfect.
NO country's perfect, and Finland's certainly far from perfect.
If more of you could acknowledge the need for a change in some matters, America could be even greater than it already is.

@DarkMage7280
**Some painful hours later**
America: So how much are the bills gonna cost?
Doctor: Oh nothing much, just your entire paycheck for this month.
America: ...
*insert sad and hopeless violin*

(yes i know im terrible at this stuff)

@BadgeOfBall
Nah, that was good!

@DarkMage7280 Aww thank you! Im pretty new to having this account thing so im always pretty scared to mess it up and cause an uproar. That little compliment made my uhh...evening i guess? Thanks again

@BadgeOfBall Glad to hear that. And don't worry about any uproars, if somebody gets upset, let it roll off your back.

In my opinion, the reason why so many Americans are quick to point out that free healthcare, education etc. isn't free, but paid for through taxes, is that they misunderstand the meaning of the word 'free'. They think we mean 'free of cost', but what we mean is of course 'freely available'.

The further benefits of universal healthcare and education, are of course incidental, though they make good arguments in favour.

@arntfu The education isn't freely available. They only accept the best students, as they should. Why do you think so many Scandinavian students study medicine outside of Scandinavia? It's not available to them here.

@Rudde Every discrete type of education isn't freely available, no. That is left for each individual's aptitudes and whishes, and exam scores etc. to decide. But AN education is freely available for every citizen, which is the point. And economic support for students choosing to have their higher education abroad is very well developed, as the many Norwegian students taking courses in UK universities and colleges will attest to.

@arntfu No, there is no right for a higher education for Norwegian citizen, they have a right to a high school education. However they have good opportunities to get a higher education.

Yes, I know, I studies in the US for a while.

@Rudde What are you talking about, some years we have 38 % of our medical studies filled with Scandinavians and Nordic people here in Denmark, it's only resent it has fallen because we set the cut higher to avoid filling our classes with Norwegian, Finish and Swedish people. We always have to few spots to fill so of course some will studie in another country too, but we have not have half empty classes yet.

@Zen What are you even talking about? Of course Scandinavian schools are filled with Scandinavians when I'm saying the Scandinavian universities don't fill the demand causing Scandinavians to take the education outside.

What did you not understand?

@arntfu And we are still having word issues. Because in America - health care IS "freely available". Every hospital is required by law to treat anyone that walks in. Pharmacies sell quite a lot of basic stuff over the counter that is prescription-only in other countries. There is also extensive charity care and financial aid programs. Some of the top specialist hospitals don't actually take ANY money from the patients because they are exclusively funded by charities. True, there is more waiting and filling out forms then if you had insurance. (But that pretty much means the forms are filled out by the doctor instead of the patient)

The main disadvantage of our system is that its unevenly located, and finding the local free health care takes research. Most people don't want to bother unless they get REALLY sick. So lots of people don't do "preventive health care" unless their insurance specifically covers it. (They are paying for it - might as well use it!) The advantage is that rare and unusual illnesses get WAY better care and attention than other countries because Doctors are incentivized to look for the weird stuff in charity cases.

And oh yeah - most cities in America have homeless shelters that are underutilized. New York and LA keep making the news for overcrowded homeless shelters because of city policy of... well.... not having homeless shelters (because of zoning laws). Part of the reason for the news stories is to publicize the problem so it gets fixed. (or closer to fixed anyway)

@Kin I've heard a lot of stories of people killing themselves or at least going bankrupt after getting treated without insurance in the USA, as you still have to pay for it afterwards, and they just can't.

My father is Danish, and he honestly did not like the Danish way of governing. My parents lived in Denmark for a while in the mid-1970's, and my mother told me a story of how one morning he threw his paper down in rage and said "I'm paying enough for three other families!" He had dreamt of coming to America since he was a kid, so first chance he had to get out of Denmark, he was off.

My mom (who was from Birmingham, Alabama, USA) absolutely hated Denmark so much she actually left my dad over it and moved back to Alabama for a while until my Dad put in a transfer to Hong Kong where they got back together again and I was born in 1977.

My brother and I of course LOVE Denmark. We got to see our grandparents and have fun at Tivoli and Bon-Bon Land, and the Little Mermaid both with and without her head. My favorite memory was trying to chase pindsvins through the hedges! XD

My Dad received his citizenship to become an American in 1998. It was a proud, proud day for us all. Dad's lifelong dream came true.

I wish this story had a happy ending. My parents divorced when I was 11. At the end of her life, my mother sat with a broken back for 7 months that would not heal and with no medical care. She eventually killed herself in 2008. We lost our family home of 30 years being forced to pay back the state for her medical care. I've been homeless. I still have nightmares about it.

My father is currently 79 years old and sitting in an old folks home with severe dementia and can no longer speak. We his children are slowly being bled dry paying for all the care he needs.

I would like to stress that I consider us INCREDIBLY lucky to have at least had some resources to mitigate all this compared to many we know.

Years ago when W. Bush was still in office and before he lost his ability to speak, I was talking to my dad about how bad health care here was here in America and talking about how scared I was about what we were going to do for him when it came his time. I asked him in light of this if he was ever sorry he left Denmark or if he had the choice, would he go back? He shook his head and said, "No. Not in the slightest. I still feel I made the right decision and I'm still very happy to be an American."

So as his light fades, I try to take my own tiny place in American history by talking to people (including my state representatives) with the unique insight I've been gifted from the two countries I consider home.

@longtail4711

Thank you for sharing your story. Considering it's not an entirely cheerful one, you're very brave and strong to do so.

Your father sounds to me like the typical kind of person that could end up emigrating from a Nordic country to the US. They do exist, but there are not very many of them compared to the 19th century, when the Nordic's where poor countries.

Usually these are people with very strong right-wing political leanings, who believe they can better decide everything for themselves and who in their youth believe it's unfair they should pay taxes to support anyone else.
Most of them do tend to come back within a few years though, unless they become very successful.
Especially if they become ill and are in need of help.

Your father probably severed those ties when he became an American citizen (as I guess he had to give up his Danish citizenship?).
Any way, people who've made life changing decisions are seldom willing to acknowledge they've made a mistake later in life, as most people find it too painful to admit that.
I'm not saying that's the reason in his case, but psychological research tell us that's often a factor.
He might genuinely believe his life was better for becoming American - especially as he may factor in meeting your mother and having you children.

But from a strictly level-of-care point of view, your mother would never have been without medical care, no one would ever have taken your home for not being able to pay medical bills, and you children would never be bled dry paying for care for your father today, in any of the Nordic countries.
Things like that simply doesn't happen in a system such as we have - and I don't believe it does anywhere in the rest of the democratic west either.

But yes, of course you and your parents before you on the other hand would have had to pay more in taxes.
That's the deal we've made to afford the financial security and standard of universal welfare for all members of society we have.

In the end only American voters can decide if they too want to chose that way.

Whatever happens I wish only the best for you, your siblings and you father.

@longtail4711

Deepest sympathies. I have had a considerably less stressful time looking after my mother for the last couple of years until she died recently. Being in the UK and despite 40 years of Thacherism there is enough left of mid-20thC social/community values that the state was overall a great help rather than a barrier. Mum was able to stay in the council house she had been in for ~30 years, with effectively no rent and with a considerable amount of help from the local authorities. While we paid for most of the bill for the carer who came in daily they paid for a stair-lift and various aids about the house. There was some paper work but she got a disability badge so that a friend was able to drive her about and park in disability spaces. Plus most of all the medical treatment was free. Despite having my own home, having paid off the mortgage a while back I didn't need to worry about losing it or running down my saving to pay for her care.

Its difficult to say I hope you don't end up too deeply in debt because that implies that your father dies fairly soon but I hope your father doesn't suffer too much and family manage to come through without being shattered either financially or socially by the stress of what you going through. My best wishes to you in the difficult times your facing.

@longtail4711 The mid seventees was a trying time for the Danish welfare state, a high percentage of homelessness and unemployment, in fact one of the highest in Europe, leading to large squatter movements especially in the big cities settling the abandoned industrial areas and former military bases, the general sentiment was "atleast the farmer has food" so by no means was it an easy time for the people who had an income and paid taxes, and the US was a thriving economy at that time, can't really fault your dad for leaving when he did. Setting up a welfare state requires many sacrifices, sacrifices alot of people aren't willing to do often with good reason, but once established it is definently the better alternative.

USA: All taxes bad! Your taxes are too high.
Europe: But the benefits are worth it.
USA: No! All taxes bad!
Europe: But actually, we end up saving money in the long run because—
USA: NONONO!!! ALL TAXES BAD!!!!! BADBADBAD!!!!!
Europe: (sigh)

@Finngall Yet you are taxed even though you live overseas. Figures.

Hey, those taxes could go towards something USEFUL!

The president needs to pay for his golf trips somehow!

Because people here seem to be concerned more with their own bottom line. "I have mine, fuck the rest" is basically the motto of the GOP. They're also too stubborn to admit that the amount their taxes would go up to improve society the same way Nordic countries do would more than likely if not assuredly lower their own personal expenses by more than that increase.

Some of us actually realize that it's possible to move forward. But it's hard when the people who don't are the ones in power.

@Schiffy Go ahead, move forward. Just leave the rest of us (and our hard-earned money) alone.

@StoicObjectivist No. You are a part of this society, and you _will_ contribute. We outnumber you, and we see that we have nothing left to lose. If you don't want to be a part of society, then _you_ leave. I'm sure you imagine yourself capable of providing yourself all of the things you take for granted today.
I look forward to seeing you learn the extent of that error.

@StoicObjectivist You want to put your hard-earned money where your mouth is? Stop using any and all publicly paid for services. Stay off the roads, don't expect anyone to come pick up your trash, don't bother sending your kids to school unless you want to pay their tuition at a private school, or teach them yourself. The world's moving forward whether you like it or not. If you want to get left behind, I will not stop you.

@Schiffy I will. You don't have a right to be a fucking obstructionist, or to damage your children in the name of clinging to a frontier cowboy mythology that was never true in the first place, and certainly isn't true today. You play, and you _will_ pay your share.
Does this sound slightly less-than-democratic? Good, glad you picked up on that. Because that's how we feel, and have been feeling.

@TransitioningUSA I think you misread the comment chain. I was replying to the same jackass you were.

@Schiffy I know, I was just pointing out that you're far more permissive than I am at this point.
I've spent my entire life having the scales peeled off my eye es and I have concluded that I'm not longer willing to allow obnoxious faux-cowboys to screw things up for the sake of their egos.
The level of interconnectivity and interdependence in the modern world (which shows no sign of rolling back, or even slowing) means that 'choosing to get left behind' is now functionally identical to obstruction. I will no longer tolerate it.

@Schiffy I like that within hours, someone comes along to prove the veracity of your second sentence.
It's always funny how some people can't seem to comprehend money as anything but numbers in their own bank account.

You could also see it as people who don’t want universal healthcare and education wants a sicker and dumber population since they want to limit the amount of people who can get the healthcare and education they need. In other words, if you don’t want freely available universal healthcare and education for your people then you’re intentionally harming your own country which makes you a traitor.

@Scanian_dreng
Well said SD. You show a great deal of maturity for a 16-year-old. The best of luck in your studies.

@Daru Ok, excuse my paranoia. I got a bit confused since SD is also the abbreviation of a Swedish political party. So thanks.

@Scanian_dreng
Oops. I didn't mean to make a pun, Scanian Dreng.
I've just checked and it is indeed a party I'd rather not vote for. My excuses if I hurt you. "Dreng" is that Swedish for "boy" ?
Anyway, I really liked your comment.

@Daru It’s fine. I myself have some mixed feelings about SD (I don’t feel like going into a debate about that now though). ”Pojke” from the Finnish word “Poika”, is the most common word for boy in Sweden, “dräng” also means boy but is not as frequently used, it is however used more often in Skåne than in the rest of Sweden. I also wrote “dreng” and not “dräng” because Swedish letters weren’t allowed in the username.

@Scanian_dreng

Now just shower that stew with an unhealthy seasoning of racism and prejudice and you've got yourself the American Dream trap where only the top 1% continue to benefit. They manipulate the rest of the population and cling to their wealth as if they'll take any of their belongings into the afterlife. There aren't enough years in a human lifespan to enjoy that amount of wealth. Not in the slightest. Death itself isn't racist, it comes to collect anyone when their time is up.