Somalis Drop Off Welfare Faster Than Everyone

[-Nomadique-]

Some cheerful news. For a second I thought the title to the thread was a joke. I was nicely proved wrong.

[Alisomali]

This is good news indeed.

The reason Somalis are getting off welfare in the US (especially in MN) and not in Canada and even in the EU is because of public policy differences in the two countries and not just b/c of it being harder to find jobs in Canada.

With the passage of the Welfare to Work Act under the Clinton administration it became exponentially harder to stay on welfare rolls. While this law has many serious flaws (forcing single mothers to leave their children to go to work, etc) it nonetheless had far reaching positive effects on the populace that is often on Welfare.

Something that needs to be understood is that there has been a strong paradigm shift to the far-right in the US, and the godfathers of the right, people like Ronald Reagan made it their mission to gut services that helped the poor. At the same time a shift to the far-right especially vis-à-vis social programs has not been witnessed in Canada and EU(especially in Scandinavian countries). Therefore, it is easier for a Somali to get by on hand-outs in the EU and Canada, as opposed to a Somali welfare recipient in the US.

Sadly, the tide that has gotten rid of Welfare for the most part in the United States is more menacing than just wanting people to be self-reliant. This same right wing tide is attacking workers rights in the US, especially when it comes to organizing their own unions. Paradoxically, I would argue it makes more sense for Somalis in the EU and Canada to get off their collective tushes and get a job, because your protections and benefits are much grader in the non-American western world.

[Castro]

^ You're spot on. In addition to what you mentioned, the US worker is increasingly lacking access to affordable health care even when employed full time, let alone when not. Though all that glitters is not gold, the economy here tends to cater to low skilled labor or highly technical people. In either case, you better hope not to get sick in America for you might have bigger problems than just temporary health setbacks.

[LANDER]

Originally posted by Libaax-Sankataabte:

 

Lander, saxib the province of Alberta has much more high paying opportunities than Minnesota today because of Alberta’s huge economy. The Canadian dollar is also closing in on the American one due to Canada's energy boom so it really makes not much sense to work in the States anymore. If you, as a young graduate, have been contemplating to move, don't go to Minnesota. Head to booming Alberta specially the city of Calgary. The only disadvantage of working in Calgary is the high cost of living (

crowded, everyone wants to be there

), but companies are for the most part eager to compensate for the difference.

All the talk is about Alberta these days. This past summer alone 4 large families moved from my area to Edmonton. I don't know what I have against Alberta but it never appealed to me even when I hear the astronomical salaries being payed to people who have little to no experience.

I don't know if it's the cold or maybe the Stephen Harper conservatives who knows but you may be right Libaaxow, rodeo country is the place to go these days. I wonder what they will do when and if the energy boom subsides though?

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

^^Lander, the boom is pretty well fueled by the skyrocketing oil prices. If oil prices plummet, Big Oil will almost certainly suspend current processing load or discover other means of cutting cost (cheap labor from China, Mexico). For now the high oil prices are feeding the insanity.

[Alisomali]

Your right Castro, the healthcare situation in the US is a scandal.

And all this talk about low unemployment rates in the US is a facade, because what ppl often dont mention is that millions of Americans are working 40hrs a week in dead end service jobs and cant afford to even buy medicine if they were to get sick. People that are on welfare in Canada and in european countries live way better lives than the much talked about "hard working American".

Heck at least Somalis in Canada and the EU dont have to worry about the constent threat of a "wallet biopsy" everytime they go to the hospital.

[Castro]

^ Here's the smoking gun. I read about this study when it first came out. It hits the nail on the head when it compares socialized medicine (in the UK, most EU countries and Canada) and private insurance health "care" in the US. Enjoy.

 

England beats US in health stakes

 

By Clive Cookson in London

 

Published: May 2 2006

 

Middle-aged English people are “much healthier” than their American counterparts, even though the US spends far more on medical care than the UK, according to a large international study published on Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Americans have significantly higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, lung disease and cancer than English people in the 55 to 64 age group.

 

Sir Michael Marmot, professor of epidemiology at University College London, who led the British arm of the study, said the findings would surprise international health policy experts. His US colleague, James Smith of the Rand Corporation in California, added: “You don’t expect the health of middle-aged people in these two countries to be too different, but we found that the English are a lot healthier than the Americans.”

 

The researchers who were funded by several US and UK government agencies, set out to look at the social and economic factors affecting health but shifted emphasis when large differences emerged between the two countries. The study looked both at the way people reported their own health and – to guard against any bias from self-reporting – at objective biological markers of disease from blood tests. Altogether there were about 15,000 participants.

 

Samples in both countries were limited to whites and excluded recent immigrants, so as to control for racial and ethnic factors.

 

“This study challenges the theory that the greater heterogeneity of the US population is the major reason the US is behind other industrialised nations in some important health measures,” said Richard Suzman, programme director at the US National Institute on Ageing, which co-funded the research.

 

As expected, people with higher socio-economic status, as measured by their income and education levels, tended to enjoy better health. But because the national differences were so great, those at the top of the education and income scale in the US suffered diabetes and heart disease at a similar rate to those at the bottom of the scale in England.

 

The researchers are struggling to explain their findings. Their analysis shows that lifestyle factors – particularly the fact that Americans are more obese and take less exercise – cannot account for the whole discrepancy. though they may provide a partial explanation.

 

Different health systems may also be part of the story. The researchers note that the US spends $5,274 per head on medical care while the UK spends $2,164, adjusted for purchasing power. But Britain’s National Health Service provides publicly funded medicine for everyone, while Americans under the age of 65 have to rely on private insurance.

 

Prof Marmot suggested that, while the healthcare provided by the British state health service was not superior to the private US system, it provided important psychological reassurance.

 

As the researchers say in the journal paper: “To a much greater extent England has set up programmes whose goal is to isolate individuals from the economic consequences of poor health in terms of their medical expenditure and especially earnings and wealth reduction.”

 

Financial Times

[Abu-Salman]

Health is primarily a matter of lifestyle.

 

As for Healthcare systems, the Cuban one is way more efficient than the US system despite huge difference in terms of spending.

 

Such waste of funds and obscene social inequalities are tolerated for ideological reasons; and ironically enough, even Communist China perform with some remarkable success in this field as shown by the succes of its universal primary healthcare program which is still considered also as a model alongside the Cuban experience.

 

Back to the topic, the inter-communities education and economic appartheid, even more than social class inequalities, discredit largely American hypocrisy of selective/unethical capitalism (not mentioning protectionism or agricultural subsidies which destroy Third World economies ect) though the Democrats plan to finally institute minimal wage in addition to healthcare reforms.

 

With status worship, consumerism and environmental destruction, this country epitomize not only economic irrationality but moral schyzophrenia for a nation which boast, among other things, about its Judeo-Christian "ethics"...

[Haneefah]

Good news, Masha'Allah.

[N.O.R.F]

As expected, people with higher socio-economic status, as measured by their income and education levels, tended to enjoy better health. But because the national differences were so great, those at the top of the education and income scale in the US suffered diabetes and heart disease at a similar rate to those at the bottom of the scale in England.

:eek:

 

You fellas better not get too rich out there in the states.

 

ahh the good ole NHS