People in the nordic countries including Finland have more trust in government authorities and public administration compared to for example Americans. A government agency given the task to given the task to produce some kind of recommendation of best practices is expected to do so reasonably well.

Nordic countries are the size of American cities, or at least metropolitan areas. I can tell you I have a lot more trust in the mayor and city council than I do in the president and my senators (even though I voted for all of them). If most government functions occurred at a more regional level I'm pretty sure Americans would have more trust too. I think SF (for all its problems) is doing a good job showing what can be done at a local level. It's telling that at least in SF politicians are talking about fixing poverty, while this discussion never really even comes up at the federal level, especially this election season.

That's a two way street.

There's huge parts of the country where government at every level is regarded as corrupt and dysfunctional.

When a higher authority (fed > state > town > individual departments > subgroup within a dept.) has to tell the offending institution to step in line it's usually very welcome. People being screwed tend to place their trust in the other parts of the government stack (the parts that haven't screwed them yet).

Agreed. Take Flint, Michigan for example.

While SF politicians seem to mean well, I have little confidence in the ability of the SF City Council to deliver as it is just a small part of the larger metropolitan area.

Bay Area housing and transport problems can only be solved at a metropolitan level. Compare to New York and London which have political bodies covering the majority of their metropolitan areas. This enables them override the nimbyism and beggar-thy-neighbour policies of most Bay Area municipalities.

Frankly, expectations for what government can achieve just seem far too low here. California seems constitutionally hobbled.

The state is not out to make a profit.

And you forget that in Scandinavian countries, the state is generally considered to be trusted by the citizens.

Have those governments done more to earn that trust? I'm honestly asking. All I know is that I'm American, and I know mine hasn't.

The United States were born out of inherent distrust of authority. That distrust continues on to the present, at our own peril in many cases (inability to have true national health care for example). Other countries do not necessarily have that same history and so the trust does not need to be earned; it was probably already there in the first place (at least moreso than the US.)

There's a significant fraction of Americans (myself included) who don't want their government to be in charge of healthcare. Don't assume that the lack thereof indicates an inability.

Ninja Edit: I'm not going into the reasons why because that's not what this is about.

So, you will turn down Medicare when it comes time that you can utilize it?

Ideally, we wouldn't need insurance "middleware" of any kind, but when you need some expensive care like a CAT scan or open heart surgery, the expertise and equipment required is simply too expensive for most people to afford without some sort of insurance coverage.

I agree that the government often mismanages large programs such as these, however, other countries with national health care tend to be more satisfied with their health care than Americans. [0]

[0] http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/0...

> So, you will turn down Medicare when it comes time that you can utilize it?

No, and I feel morally justified because I've more than paid into it with taxes. The healthcare isn't free. You just get to pick who pays for it.

Insurance as a way to reduce risk is a great idea. Doesn't mean the government has to do it, though.

I don't live in Scandinavia, Europe, or even the northern hemisphere but we have free healthcare, free accident compensation, and certain types of insurance provided by the state. We also can't buy firearms without a reason (and self defense isn't a reason, a reason is hunting or pest control) and have to have a background check before we can get a gun license.

People are healthy, no one gets shot, the government is held accountable and is relatively corruption free, and taxes are lower than in the US as is state debt.

All in all things are pretty good with a different model of operating.

> free accident compensation

New Zealand?

In charge of your health care or in charge of health care in general?

Both, probably.

I've heard the argument that because health care (or insurance) is a necessity of life so it should be provided by the government. Why doesn't the same principle apply to food?

> Why doesn't the same principle apply to food?

It does, as well as access to water and shelter. Did you think universal health care was the "final boss"?

Actually... the Government heavily subsidises food and water. They don't go further because that'd be socialism and scare people.

But it does. What do you think welfare is?

We as a country have more than enough resources that people shouldn't have to starve on the streets if they happen to go bankrupt.

It's still your responsibility, even in Nordic countries :)

All the state does is run the numbers and make sure the kid has what it needs, even if the parents have problems of some kind or another.

Which might be sensible. As OP has suggested, the state may be better than the market at this.

Except when its not. Not talking about Finland here, but the amount of poor decisions in many areas related to welfare would suggest that mor often than not its a pretty bad idea to trust the state.

It requires the ability to govern one's selves effectively, which we in the US have proven beyond all doubt we're not capable of doing.

I'll take the government's advice over the advice of a profit-driven business nine times out of ten.

Which works in nations where citizens take responsibility for their politics.

In the U.S., we simply don't do that. ("Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.") To paint with a hugely broad brush, political problem-solving here is frequently about hurting others or the political version of Make.Money.Fast. schemes; in Nordic countries, politics is generally a lot more boring, but focused on actually fixing things.