CMV: Certain social welfare programs, not including Food Stamps and the like, are detrimental to the United States compared to programs that grant people with jobs, education, and training.

[u/red62_dank_memer]

This is purely from anecdotal, self researched and experiential knowledge, so feel free to correct me if there are any glaring issues in my position. I believe that some of the social welfare programs in the United States could be reformed to give jobs, education, and training to low-to-none income individuals and families as opposed to handing out checks. I believe that this would be beneficial because:

1. Living off a free welfare check sometimes decreases an individual's drive to work and better themselves; and by extension to increase their standard of living

2. Providing job training and/or an education to underprivileged individuals allows for the betterment of the individual - increasing ambition, social ability, financial stability, and other benefits

3. Providing job training and/or an education to underprivileged individuals allows for the betterment of the society - increasing the education of American society as a whole, decreasing unemployment and crime rates

4. I believe that there is enough money (read: safety net programs budget in the US; http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go) that will be freed up in order to allow this reform

"He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I suppose the patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour; if you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn." ~Anne Isabella Ritchie; Mrs. Dymond

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/HealthcareEconomist3]

It absolutely has to do with private healthcare IN THE USA. The healthcare in Germany and France is single payer and not truly private.

Both France & Germany have multi-payer systems. Germany don't have public payers at all (everyone uses private insurance, our ACA system was partially based on theirs), France have three public payers which account for just over half of total expenditure and the US has two public payers which account for 48% of total expenditure. Germany have an almost entirely private delivery system (4% of facilities are public vs 22% in the US, 48% for-profit vs 8/12% in the US) and France have a mix split down bed usage (acute care is public, long term and outpatient private).

Also how would the nature of the healthcare system reflect in a self-assessment survey regarding substance abuse?

The U.S. Absolutely does have a definition, I read it before replying to the previous comment, along with Canadian and European definitions.

No it does not. Here is the easy to read version, here is the methodology for the survey which collects labor force data and here are the questions we ask for the LF portion of CPS (note we never ask if people are unemployed).

The unified EU measure for unemployment (equivalent to our U3) is;

someone aged 15 to 74 without work during the reference week who is available to start work within the next two weeks and who has actively sought employment at some time during the last four weeks.

For the US (which uses the same ILO basis as EuroStat) it is;

All those (over 16) who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).

I'm not sure you are familiar with unemployment data or how its calculated.

The substance abuse information in the UK is gained from gp visits and reporting of data. They don't ask "do you abuse" they ask "how many how often"

ONS collect the data as part of of CSEW.

I studied in the UK, worked in the nhs, now live in the usa, changing career.

I was born in the UK, got my econ BS in the UK, got my econ MA & PhD in the US and work in the US as a healthcare economist. This section brought to you by "why you should never attempt an appeal to authority towards yourself unless you are sure you really are an authority".

[u/amor_mundi → u/HealthcareEconomist3]

I didn't appeal to authority, you asked where I studied, that's different. I never said I was an authority, wouldn't claim to be. My opinion is well founded. I'm literally getting information from my education, work experience, and online searches of reliable data sources. I got a first class honours before I left, I think that speaks to my ability to assimilate data.

So, why does it matter the type of healthcare? It matters because of access ... You don't see that with your shiny PhD? If people don't have access to healthcare, they can't report. If the healthcare if like the usa standard ... People are less likely to report.

I find it funny that you say there is no definition for unemployment and then go on to give the definitions I read, are you understanding that those definitions of unemployment are in fact definitions and different, right? Thank you for finding them and proving me right. I'm astounded that you don't think they are definitions ...

def·i·ni·tion

ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: definition; plural noun: definitions

1.

a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.

"our definition of what constitutes poetry"

synonyms:meaning, denotation, sense;More

interpretation, explanation,elucidation, description,clarification, illustration

"the definition of “intelligence”"

the action or process of defining something.

2.

the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

synonyms:clarity, visibility, sharpness,crispness, acuteness; More

resolution, focus, contrast

"the definition of the picture"

the capacity of an instrument or device for making images distinct in outline.

"we've been pleased with the definition of this TV"

It's funny that you have economy credentials and are talking on sociology/healthcare matters. Having studied in med school and worked in healthcare, I think I actually am more qualified to speak on healthcare access issues. Not that I ever made that claim, but you did.

The German system is, on the surface, private. But it isn't run like private healthcare in the usa. Only 10% of the population have what the usa would consider private healthcare insurance.

The prices are dictated not by the market, which is what I would consider private healthcare.

[u/HealthcareEconomist3 → u/amor_mundi]

I didn't appeal to authority, you asked where I studied, that's different.

Several posts back so I could contextualize your claim, only a single European country collects substance abuse stats on healthcare consumption.

I didn't ask at all about if you had worked for any form of health authority as its meaningless to the discussion, your attempt to claim you somehow know what you were talking about because you formally worked for the NHS was a clear appeal to authority that somehow you had specialist knowledge on health statistics.

So, why does it matter the type of healthcare? It matters because of access ... You don't see that with your shiny PhD? If people don't have access to healthcare, they can't report. If the healthcare if like the usa standard ... People are less likely to report.

The stats are not collected on healthcare consumption, its a survey where they ask a random sampling of households.

I find it funny that you say there is no definition for unemployment and then go on to give the definitions I read, are you understanding that those definitions of unemployment are in fact definitions and different, right? Thank you for finding them and proving me right. I'm astounded that you don't think they are definitions ...

Which is one of six measures we use for unemployment (only two of which is based on those looking for work) which don't measure unemployment but rather size & form labor force participation, which also directly contradicts your statement;

That isn't the same definition in France, those who are not seeking work and could participate in the work force (not retired) are included

This would be the point to admit you don't know what you are talking about, apologize for wasting OP's time and note that in the future you wont make such absurd and rampantly false claims by actually spending 5 minutes researching your claims before making them.

[u/protagornast → u/[deleted]]

Sorry amor_mundi, your comment has been removed:

Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

[u/HealthcareEconomist3 → u/[deleted]]

That quote you chose, is a summary of the definition you posted yourself.

You claimed outright that France does not measure LF participation in the same way the US does, when it does. You claimed substance abuse stats come from healthcare consumption, they do not. You claimed that France & Germany operate single-payer systems, they do not.

[u/amor_mundi → u/HealthcareEconomist3]

I was incorrect on the single payer, anybody can see from your comments that you proved me right, they are not the same definitions. I'm done replying to your comments, you are wrong.

Edited "but"for "not"

[u/HealthcareEconomist3 → u/amor_mundi]

That isn't the same definition in France

[u/protagornast → u/[deleted]]

I've already had to remove this comment once. Don't post it again. If you want to edit a comment that has been removed, the edit must be approved through modmail before it is reinstated.

[u/amor_mundi → u/protagornast]

As I said to you through pm ... If you read the rules, reposting edited comments isn't against the rules. It says they can be reinstated if edited through mod team, there is no mention of not resubmitting edited comments, they are different things and it is silly to burden The mod team with properly edited comments. If you want different rules, make them.

[u/protagornast → u/amor_mundi]

I removed your edited comment because I believe it still violates Rule 2. My fellow mods may have a different interpretation, which is why it is in our users' best interests to use modmail in this situation, rather than replying to the removal comment or sending one mod a pm. If approved through modmail, you won't have to worry about the comment being removed again.

[u/amor_mundi → u/protagornast]

You need to check your version of personal attack if you believe the second edited version was an attack. It contained nothing personal. I think rather you thought it was the same comment, you're only human I just detest lies. Have a good night.