> There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown.
Really? My understanding was that without state-subsidized healthcare, many don't have access to non-emergency healthcare, and so miss out on the kind of preventative measures that can do a lot for your general health. So while the American poor might be wealthier in some narrow sense than the European poor, their quality of life is worse than in nations with state healthcare.
The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons.
Note the difference between "overstated" and "false", and I'll even more explicitly say that that isn't proof that everything's hunky dory and nothing needs to be changed. But it's hardly like it's paradise for the poor in Europe and in the US you're just left out on your own... it's way more nuanced than that. (Everybody's books have to balance.)
> The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons.
Brit here. Enlighten me as to how not being able to afford to visit a GP is 'overstated'.
As I understand it, if you are poor in the USA, there's a real chance you won't be able to pay for the pills you need, or for mental health treatment, etc. That simply doesn't happen here in the UK.
> Everybody's books have to balance.
But that doesn't mean anything. Different countries invest different amounts in welfare.
The trouble comes when you are just over the threshold, but still can't afford health insurance, or just didn't bother to sign up. Or have insurance, but the part it didn't cover bankrupts you anyway.
So if we exclude those people from the "poor" category, perhaps "the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated" makes a little more sense.
Certain US states (the largest ones being Florida and Texas), never underwent this thing called "Medicaid expansion", as a kind of political protest against "Obamacare", and so if you're lucky enough to live in one of these states (very populated states too like Florida and Texas), you're not eligible for Medicaid for merely being in abject poverty. You don't even qualify for healthcare subsidies since the cutoff for those is perversely 133% of the poverty line, or something like that.
SNAP policies (supplemental nutrition assistance ie. food stamps) can vary greatly from state to state too. I've lived in states that provide unconditional benefits to anyone below a certain income level, but my current state (Florida), only provides a few months of benefits at a time, and then after that you have to continually re-qualify, providing proof that you're still looking for work if you're unemployed, things like that. It's incredibly easy to fall through the cracks with these proof requirements though.
Being poor certain places in the US is misery. People do go hungry plenty, and adults and especially children often suffer severe lasting health problems from malnutrition here.
Really? My understanding was that without state-subsidized healthcare, many don't have access to non-emergency healthcare, and so miss out on the kind of preventative measures that can do a lot for your general health. So while the American poor might be wealthier in some narrow sense than the European poor, their quality of life is worse than in nations with state healthcare.