Tea Party

pqrdef

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I find it quite bizarre that people can embrace libertarian economic theology whilst being deeply illiberal and intolerant on a social level.

They're both consistent with the view that most people are your inferiors and are there for you to rule and exploit.

Generally, people want their neighbours regulated, so long as the regulations don't interfere with themselves. But in economics, regulation tends to enforce fairness, so is to be avoided.

pqrdef

Generali wrote: »

The UK has a similar problem with the welfare budget, especially the NHS. The UK can't afford the NHS: it's expensive and mediocre. That's politically unsayable but is, unfortunately, true.

It may not be as expensive as a system where hospitals are in business to fleece insurance companies.

But we know it's expensive and mediocre. It's the alternatives that are political dynamite. No country can afford the view that life is infinitely precious and there is no limit to what can be spent prolonging it. Compromises have to be made. But they have to be socially acceptable compromises. Brits have fought long and hard for the view that people shouldn't be told they're worthless people and are being thrown on the scrapheap. Other countries are more primitive, but we can't unwrite our social history. We still think we should live in a land fit for heroes.

Generali

pqrdef wrote: »

It may not be as expensive as a system where hospitals are in business to fleece insurance companies.

But we know it's expensive and mediocre. It's the alternatives that are political dynamite. No country can afford the view that life is infinitely precious and there is no limit to what can be spent prolonging it. Compromises have to be made. But they have to be socially acceptable compromises. Brits have fought long and hard for the view that people shouldn't be told they're worthless people and are being thrown on the scrapheap. Other countries are more primitive, but we can't unwrite our social history. We still think we should live in a land fit for heroes.

That's fine but the US system isn't the only alternative to the UK system.

The way things work in Aus are very good. You're not going to be left to die but anything remotely elective you'll pay for.

You can chose to insure or to pay for yourself and any medical bills over $1500/yr can be offset against tax. I have probably the best insurance policy available and it costs <$250/month for a family of 4. I also get a small tax saving for having private insurance.

My policy pays for my contact lenses, dental bills plus the more obvious medical bills. I can even have a few hundred bucks worth of massages a year and they'll pay a portion of a gym membership.

The quality of health care I think, anecdotally at least, is well above what I have experienced from the NHS. Nobody is considered useless and only fit for the scrapheap. You might have to save up for an elective operation though. For example a mate of mine hurt his knee and spent months on crutches as while the op he needed was paid for by the state, to be able to continue playing soccer he needed some physiotherapy that isn't covered by the state system.

pqrdef

Generali wrote: »

I have probably the best insurance policy available and it costs <$250/month for a family of 4.

Sadly in Britain we've never achieved the high-wage economy that we've long coveted. That sort of figure would be out of the question for a large slice of our "hard-working families" (who of course would not be the main beneficiaries of the cost saving if the NHS were abolished).

vivatifosi

pqrdef wrote: »

Sadly in Britain we've never achieved the high-wage economy that we've long coveted. That sort of figure would be out of the question for a large slice of our "hard-working families" (who of course would not be the main beneficiaries of the cost saving if the NHS were abolished).

The case isn't that straightforward. Wages in Australia have often been lower than here and there are plenty of hard working, low income families there too. My family in Australia, many of whom are on low incomes have a far better standard of healthcare than we do here. Yes they have to pay for their doctor's visits, but the bit we worry about here - hospital stays - are free and excellent quality. I've been treated on the Aussie equivalent of the NHS myself for inpatient care and the standard was way higher than here.

vivatifosi

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

I wouldn't vote for Bachmann - her beliefs on sexuality are odd - but the character assassination of her is ridiculous.

You've offered nothing more than the usual ad-hominem attacks and dubious "evidence" about the Tea Party Hamish. You don't get the essense of the Tea Party either, its a movement and an ethos rather than a people.

Mr Mumble, apologies for quoting parts of your post, but its the Tea Party views on homosexuality that I wanted to focus on. I have many gay friends in the US and they are worried about the Tea Party and I wanted to outline what they've told me which is a bit more complex than what is being portrayed here (not specifically by you, but the debate in general).

First and foremost, you can be gay and republican or gay and libertarian. They aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, a lot of gays vote democrat, but it isn't fair to suggest that all gays do. Within the Republican party there is more than one group supporting gay rights, the most prominent of which is probably "Log Cabin Republicans" named after the log cabin in which Pres Lincoln was born. LCRs were prominent in their support of Schwarzenegger in his winning the governorship of CA for example. There are also gay libertarian groups such as Outright Libertarians.

http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.5468093/k.BE4C/Home.htm
http://www.outrightusa.org/

Now, what my friends are saying to me is that they don't have issues with economic policy, its social policy they are scared of (in line with Gen's comments earlier). It is here that worries about the views of Bachmann, Palin etc come to the fore.

For example, one of my friends cannot marry his long term partner because he lives in a state where gay marriage/civil partnership are off the table. Gay equality is not enshrined in law. So when he was seriously long term ill in hospital and unable to speak for himself, the hospital refused to recognise his long term partner as his next of kin and expected his family to travel from 2,000 miles away to handle his case, even though he'd elected his partner. There are parts of the US where being gay already is not easy and this is what worries him.

It isn't the supposedly libertarian nature of many Tea Party members, its the way that for many members that goes hand-in-hand with Christian views of homosexuality that are the issue. This is naturally going to cause a schism because the two views are fundamentally opposed.

My personal position is that there is an apparent inconsistency within parts of the Tea Party, possibly substantial parts, between economic libertarianism and social conservatism and anyone concerned at a potential reduction in their civil rights is going to seek clarification over this.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The polarised nature of US politics is bafflng to any sane external observer.

But not to anyone whos ever spent any time in internet forums.

Generali

pqrdef wrote: »

Sadly in Britain we've never achieved the high-wage economy that we've long coveted. That sort of figure would be out of the question for a large slice of our "hard-working families" (who of course would not be the main beneficiaries of the cost saving if the NHS were abolished).

Well of course because Australians don't pay for a bloated, inefficient health scheme out of their taxes they have more money available to spend on health care.

Australia's equivalent of VAT (GST) is 10% rather than 20% and if you earn under $37,000 (£24,500) a year you pay 15% income tax with a $6,000 personal allowance.

The key point really is that every time the NHS is mentioned, this sort of argument is put forward which pretty much proves what I am saying is right! The NHS is the great unreformable beast that politicians have to promise to keep intact. Even Thatcher didn't have the cojones to touch it.

The_White_Horse

i would naturally class myself as republican, but there is no way i would vote for these insane loons. the husband of that bachmann thinks he can "pray the gay" out of people??? !!!!!!!!!!

that could be the husband of the most powerful person on earth???? jesus christ that is frightening.

as much as i hate big state and high tax, i would vote obama above these idiots all day.

however, i think the tea party is a well above the usual republicans in terms of nuttiness.

i am to libertarian for them. i like free markets, low tax low govt interference. however, i also believe people should be entitled to do what they like, provided it hurts no one else ie legalise all drugs, legalise prostitution etc.

97trophy

Fact! its either going to Gov Romney or Perry on the GOP ticket.

Intrade is never wrong