I couldn't always get an appointment in the US - and this is a common issue with specialists.
At least here in Norway, if I have to wait for something and I'm sick, I get paid time off work. I'll never go bankrupt from medical bills. Taxes plus health insurance premiums was more expensive in the states than payroll taxes here.
There is an actual safety net. I'm unlikely to starve or be homeless for any length of time.
The VAT isn't nearly as bad since it is generally an upfront cost, included in price. Some exceptions apply with online shopping. ¨
Oh, and I'll mention that I can always get an appointment with my GP if I'm sick: They keep some time slots open for urgent things. I might wait a few weeks when it isn't urgent. And I won't lose my job for having appointments.
Norway has an enormous amount of wealth from oil and therefore it is not a good example to show any benefits from pooling wealth. Norway won the lottery, that is all.
They... they are still pooling wealth. Their wealth will simply be from other things than another country.
The US has oil they could pool wealth from. They have resources they could pool wealth from. Things they could invest in. But. They. Don't. They aren't even adequately taxing the folks that can withstand the tax the most: The wealthy. They used to, but it isn't like that now.
There are little things the US simply doesn't do either - just in healthcare. For example, the Norwegian system will send a home health nurse to you up to 6 times a day for short visits. This is because it is cheaper to do this than to house you in a nursing home, overall. Even if you are living on an island. The US expects you to have family take care of you: Poor people won't get home health visits, in no small part because when you don't pool your money together, things like home health care aren't affordable.
(sidenote: The home health visits aren't always adequate, but better than nothing).
Pooling money to increase everyone's wellbeing doesn't take winning a lottery.
It is the same in Denmark (and most other Scandinavian countries).
Also, Norways oil money, as you write yourself, go into their sovereign fund and does not directly fund wellfare.
There are many theories why the Scandinavian model works on Scandinavia but does not seem to work other places, but to my best knowledge, natural resources are not any of these explanations.
>Also, Norways oil money, as you write yourself, go into their sovereign fund and does not directly fund wellfare.
That's orthogonal. Having a massive sovereign fund as your rainy day fund goes a long way in your strategic long term thinking and budget planning compared to countries without that rainy day fund.
>There are many theories why the Scandinavian model works on Scandinavia but does not seem to work other places, but to my best knowledge, natural resources are not any of these explanations.
Because lack of corruption, government transparency and regulations plus a high trust society are also needed, not just pooling all our tax money for welfare.
And those qualities don't exist in many other countries. Scandinavian countries are the global exception, not the norm.
The norm everywhere else is "everyone for himself, fuck you I got mine, you go get yours, if you're poor it's your fault for being lazy", despite implementing various welfare programs similar to Scandinavian ones.
> despite implementing various welfare programs similar to Scandinavian ones.
There are many countries with welfare regimes similar in size to those of Scandinavia. They are qualitatively quite different. A rough categorization:
- Liberal regimes (means tested but with relatively equal benefits between participants, market oriented) are typical of the Anglosphere. Food stamps in the United States are an archetypical liberal program.
- Corporatist (aka conservative, Christian-democratic) regimes (many recipients with highly unequal benefits, often tied to family status or employment) are typical of continental Europe, especially. Unemployment insurance is an archetypical corporatist program.
- Social-democratic regimes (extensive universal benefits, direct provision of public services, full employment as an explicit policy goal) are typical of Scandinavia. The Finnish national pension system is an archetypical social-democratic program.
Of course no currently existing states are purely one of these ideal types, but they do cluster. Social-democratic welfare states (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and to some extent the Netherlands) significantly outperform conservative ones with comparable or higher levels of public spending (e.g. France, Austria, Germany).
What they’ve described in Norway is extremely representative of my experiences in the UK. Which is currently doing its level best to achieve the poorest economic outcomes in European area.
So don’t think calling Norway a bad example is justified at all.
Finland has a higher quality of state provided services, and they have no oil. Norway definitely has made a speedrun towards a welfare state, but Finland is the opposite example: not an old European power with generations of wealth, no single easily exploitable resource other than forests.
At least here in Norway, if I have to wait for something and I'm sick, I get paid time off work. I'll never go bankrupt from medical bills. Taxes plus health insurance premiums was more expensive in the states than payroll taxes here.
There is an actual safety net. I'm unlikely to starve or be homeless for any length of time.
The VAT isn't nearly as bad since it is generally an upfront cost, included in price. Some exceptions apply with online shopping. ¨
Oh, and I'll mention that I can always get an appointment with my GP if I'm sick: They keep some time slots open for urgent things. I might wait a few weeks when it isn't urgent. And I won't lose my job for having appointments.