Tea Party marchers -- what is their solution to the nation's health care problem?

[Tequila]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

The primary threat to the Democrats is if by some miracle, a fiscally conservative/socially liberal party is formed and gains strength. It is entirely possible to make a rational argument for fiscal conservatism and spending restraint without resorting to teabagging.

A party like this is something that I would love to see as well and I know a lot of friends that feel the same way.

 

[HGC]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: spidey07
Serious tort reform and allowing insurance to compete across state lines are the most often agreed upon reform ideas.

This is laughable too. So, we're supposed to lower health care costs by making these concessions to the same corporations that have been raping us fiscally for decades, so they can make MORE of a profit? Man, oh man, party of BAD ideas indeed.

Profit margins in the health insurance industry are below the average of the S&P 500. Also, of the evil rapist insurance company owners, the stock holders, the largest fraction is not wealthy individuals, but retirees and retirement fund investors. A janitor with a city pension plan, not the monopoly man.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: HGC
Though I haven't marched, I consider myself a Tea Party person.

The supply of quality healthcare is limited. The demand is unlimited. This means it must be rationed in one way or another. Obamacare prescribes rationing by the State. Tea party-goers mostly favor rationing by markets.

Let me say first that there are indeed serious flaws in the current system, and that most Republicans have been missing in action on reform for decades. I give Democrats credit for trying to do something, though I disagree with nearly all of their ideas about what to do.

Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

A free market health reform proposal:

1. No tax break for employer provided health insurance.

2. Freedom to buy health insurance across state lines.

3. Tax credits to everyone to buy private catastrophic coverage, and outright subsidies to the poor and almost poor, as with the earned income tax credit.

4. Tax-free medical savings accounts to pay for routine non-catastrophic health care, including preventive and alternative medicine. Partial, not full, subsidies for the same for non-taxpayers.

5. Have malpractice suits arbitrated by a board of physicians, medical administrators and patients. Require doctors and hospitals to pay into a fund for malpractice awards. This will take contingency fee driven lawyers out of the equation.

6. Require medical service providers to hand out a rate card and post prices on the internet, prior to treatment.

In short, end the ridiculous illusion that somebody else (corporations, the government, insurance companies) pays for health care. We do. Make that explicit and competition will return to the market and drive down costs and drive up quality. Use the savings to subsidize care for the needy.

The government, for the most part, does not supply our food, clothing, or shelter. Are those less important than health care? To the extent the government did try to give us housing, with Fannie and Freddie, it helped create a crisis. Imagine what would happen to Safeway and Whole Foods if there was a grocery chain "public option" with taxpayer subsidized prices below what these stores could offer. Then imagine the choices and service at government supermarkets after the private stores go under. Imagine what would happen to innovation in the PC market if we had to buy our rigs from the government.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading! 🙂

Thanks. That eloquently answered the OP's question and something I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: HGC
Though I haven't marched, I consider myself a Tea Party person.

The supply of quality healthcare is limited. The demand is unlimited. This means it must be rationed in one way or another. Obamacare prescribes rationing by the State. Tea party-goers mostly favor rationing by markets.

Let me say first that there are indeed serious flaws in the current system, and that most Republicans have been missing in action on reform for decades. I give Democrats credit for trying to do something, though I disagree with nearly all of their ideas about what to do.

Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

A free market health reform proposal:

1. No tax break for employer provided health insurance.

2. Freedom to buy health insurance across state lines.

3. Tax credits to everyone to buy private catastrophic coverage, and outright subsidies to the poor and almost poor, as with the earned income tax credit.

4. Tax-free medical savings accounts to pay for routine non-catastrophic health care, including preventive and alternative medicine. Partial, not full, subsidies for the same for non-taxpayers.

5. Have malpractice suits arbitrated by a board of physicians, medical administrators and patients. Require doctors and hospitals to pay into a fund for malpractice awards. This will take contingency fee driven lawyers out of the equation.

6. Require medical service providers to hand out a rate card and post prices on the internet, prior to treatment.

In short, end the ridiculous illusion that somebody else (corporations, the government, insurance companies) pays for health care. We do. Make that explicit and competition will return to the market and drive down costs and drive up quality. Use the savings to subsidize care for the needy.

The government, for the most part, does not supply our food, clothing, or shelter. Are those less important than health care? To the extent the government did try to give us housing, with Fannie and Freddie, it helped create a crisis. Imagine what would happen to Safeway and Whole Foods if there was a grocery chain "public option" with taxpayer subsidized prices below what these stores could offer. Then imagine the choices and service at government supermarkets after the private stores go under. Imagine what would happen to innovation in the PC market if we had to buy our rigs from the government.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading! 🙂

Sounds like you read the same Atlantic Monthly article I did ;p

I think some of your points are quite valid; however, here are a few quibbles and points 🙂

1. Using "insurance" to pay for health care is silly, unless its catastrophic insurance for things like cancer etc. If I'm an insurance company, I'm motivated by not wanting to pay out any benefits, which sorta undermines the whole idea no?

2. There must be some way for folks with chronic not-their-fault conditions to afford their care in such a system. For example no pre-existing condition clauses and no higher rates for the above insurance.

3. Its difficult to use food and housing as analogies because those things are well understood even by the average idiot(well mostly). Health care is far more confusing and complicated and is burdoned by private enterprise's constant barage of advertising. Car repair might be more analogous and approriate. We must be very careful with an "off the shelf" system because people will get ripped off due to lack of information.

I think those who think our current system is a "free market" system truly have no idea how it works nor do they understand just how "socialized" it is.

The current proposals will do very little to lower costs, not because a government run insurance plan is doomed to failure, but because of the fundamental way the system works, regardless of who runs it.

Get rid of per fee services, get rid of artificial limits on specialists, allow anyone to open up a clinic to compete with hospitals ( think of how dentists compete, or Lazik surgery), make preventative care free, don't reward doctors for unsuccessful outcomes (ie more tests after getting infected at hospital, more procedures etc).

Start thinking of health care as a fundamental piece of a country's infrastucture, and perhaps your view on the issue changes a bit.

Imagine a highway system run by private companies.

Finally, the tea baggers are a funny bunch. Where were you the last 8 years?

PS: The Yahoo advertising sign at AT&T park is next to the 404 foot marker sign. WTF.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: bozack
only since Obama has taken office has healthcare become a "problem" in the eyes of the public...it is and has been a big democrat ticket agenda which is why it is on the table yet again.

I think it is safe to say the people at that protest don't feel anything is wrong with the system as it is, and compared to what is being proposed I can't say I don't agree with them.

Health care has been a problem for at least the last two decades. You just don't hear about it when a Republican is in power because they have wars to fight.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
don't reward doctors for unsuccessful outcomes (ie more tests after getting infected at hospital, more procedures etc).

I agree with this. Health care is the only industry where they can fuck you up and you pay to fix it. Get an hospital acquired MRSA infection? You pay to cure it. Doctor fucks up your surgery and it needs to be redone? You pay for it. Your insurance drops you because the doctor fucked up? Your problem.

Even without malicious intent, the medical industry shouldn't be charging for their mistakes. If you take your car into the shop and the guy drains your oil and forgets to refill it, he's liable, not you. If you're having work done on your house and one of the workers puts something in wrong, the company will be paying to fix it, not you. If a Best Buy worker drops your laptop while checking it in for repair, its Best Buy's problem, not yours.

I think this is related to our tort issues. People sue when the doctor fucks up because its the only way they can get the problem corrected without going bankrupt.

Start thinking of health care as a fundamental piece of a country's infrastucture, and perhaps your view on the issue changes a bit.

This.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

China has a government that 'meddles' with their economy (everything from currency manipulation to their 'dumping' policies which subsidizes some of their industries, while hurting ours) and their government is corrupt as hell, yet their economy is booming. Your post does not compute.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

China has a government that 'meddles' with their economy (everything from currency manipulation to their 'dumping' policies which subsidizes some of their industries, while hurting ours) and their government is corrupt as hell, yet their economy is booming. Your post does not compute.

Yeah! Communism is great! Yeah!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

China has a government that 'meddles' with their economy (everything from currency manipulation to their 'dumping' policies which subsidizes some of their industries, while hurting ours) and their government is corrupt as hell, yet their economy is booming. Your post does not compute.

Yeah! Communism is great! Yeah!

If you believe China practices "communism" these days, then you probably believe the moon landing is fake.

However, that is not to say their government doesn't meddle in their economy to a great deal while still experiencing tremendous growth.

You're the same idiots who call Obama a 'socialist' without even understanding what the word means.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: HGC

Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

This is one of the problems with the whole Tea Party movement (or whatever it is). As has been mentioned in other threads the founding fathers did not have some sort of ideal of limited government, some of them did, most notably Thomas Jefferson. Plenty of other founding fathers wanted a hugely powerful central government with a president in charge who was just shy of a king. To say that the founding fathers shared some ideal for limited government is simply incorrect.

Not only that, but the argument in the Boston Tea Party wasn't against taxation in general, it was about taxation without representation. Every person in the US has representation, and while you may not like it... it's because the other guy won a democratic election that you could take part in.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: HGC
The supply of quality healthcare is limited. The demand is unlimited. This means it must be rationed in one way or another. Obamacare prescribes rationing by the State. Tea party-goers mostly favor rationing by markets.

A good system would need to have some sort of a deterrent to prevent people from rushing to the hospital anytime their cat scratches them or they have a hangnail. I don't see why implementing some sort of a small co-payment or other type of deterrent for hypochondriacs should be a problem.

Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living.

As a fan of Atlas Shrugged and former student of Objectivism, I tend to agree, except for your claim that unrestricted international trade is always good and beneficial for the local economy.

This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

You're probably correct about that part. Unfortunately, they take the above notions as an almost absolute dogma without stopping to ask where, in reality, the free market works and where it doesn't.

A free market health reform proposal:

1. No tax break for employer provided health insurance.

2. Freedom to buy health insurance across state lines.

3. Tax credits to everyone to buy private catastrophic coverage, and outright subsidies to the poor and almost poor, as with the earned income tax credit.

Wait a second! If you are providing subsidies for the poor, then isn't that really an instance of evil socialism? Doesn't that mean that wealth will be stolen from some people at gunpoint by the threat of the initiation of physical force in order to altruistically provide for other people's needs?

4. Tax-free medical savings accounts to pay for routine non-catastrophic health care, including preventive and alternative medicine. Partial, not full, subsidies for the same for non-taxpayers.

5. Have malpractice suits arbitrated by a board of physicians, medical administrators and patients. Require doctors and hospitals to pay into a fund for malpractice awards. This will take contingency fee driven lawyers out of the equation.

I don't see why lawyers still couldn't take the cases on contingency. A key element of our tort system is that by it actually reduces the amount of medical mistakes, reducing the overall incidence and costs of those mistakes. Do we want to remove the disincentives against negligence from the system? One worthwhile reform might be to have juries composed of physicians to hear the cases, which isn't all that different from arbitration other than that the current civil procedure wouldn't change much.

6. Require medical service providers to hand out a rate card and post prices on the internet, prior to treatment.

That might be a step in the right direction, however, there isn't any way to really escape the fact that health care as a good and service does not fit the model of perfect competition very well. When you are at the hospital and a doctor says you need to have such and such a procedure done now, you're not going to start price shopping. Also, with most goods and services, people can either opt not to purchase them at all or put off the purchase or find alternatives or choose goods of lesser quality; this is not the case with health care.

Furthermore, health care is complicated. Can we really expect lay people to be able to place a value on coverage for thousands of individual procedures or to make sense of an insurance contracts? Even today, you almost need to get a lawyer who specializes in health insurance to read through the different contracts. Remember, under true free market medicine, insurance providers would try to find all sorts of ways to drop people for illnesses and to otherwise screw them in a way that would hold up in a court of equity, so people really would (and do) need lawyers to read through the contracts to make sure they don't get screwed in those regards.

In short, end the ridiculous illusion that somebody else (corporations, the government, insurance companies) pays for health care. We do. Make that explicit and competition will return to the market and drive down costs and drive up quality. Use the savings to subsidize care for the needy.

As I've explained, the biggest problem is that health care does not fit perfect competition well. True free market medicine (not the semi-socialized mess we have today) would still have a great many problems.

The government, for the most part, does not supply our food, clothing, or shelter. Are those less important than health care?

But those items are more straightforward and not nearly as difficult to obtain. When you purchase food, your food purchase doesn't later get rescinded because you were diagnosed with cancer. When you purchase a house, you don't need to read through a 200 page contract detailing 5000 different medical conditions that you might develop and need treatment for. (You do want to have a lawyer for major real estate purchases, but it's pretty straightforward.)

To the extent the government did try to give us housing, with Fannie and Freddie, it helped create a crisis.

For decades, the system worked properly, as I understand it. The problem was when the alternative mortgages came onto the market and the lenders and those that ultimately purchased the loans became irresponsible. They shouldn't have been bailed out for any of this.

Imagine what would happen to Safeway and Whole Foods if there was a grocery chain "public option" with taxpayer subsidized prices below what these stores could offer. Then imagine the choices and service at government supermarkets after the private stores go under. Imagine what would happen to innovation in the PC market if we had to buy our rigs from the government.

Thank goodness that food and computers fit the model of perfect competition well, unlike health care.

How do you explain how other nations manage to spend a smaller percentage of their GDP for socialized medicine that covers 100% of the population? According to the free marketers theory, these looters' and moochers' people's states should have collapsed into widespread poverty and chaos decades ago. Why hasn't Atlas shrugged Britain, France, German, Japan, Switzerland, and Taiwan into third world nationhood? We don't need to argue about whether or not bona-fide socialized medicine can work in theory, we already have a number of concrete examples to point to. Some of the programs are even semi-market based where heavily-regulated insurance companies (that barely resemble American companies) provide the health coverage.

Could you please point to a concrete example of true free market health care that is working better than the socialized medicine systems of those other nations I mentioned? It's easy to say that in theory forces of perfect competition would lead to market efficiencies and cost savings and that it would solve all of the problems we have today, but it's harder to actually refute the arguments that it would not work and to then point to a concrete example of its success. The advocates of national health care and socialized medicine can point to concrete examples of working socialized systems that consume a much smaller percentage of GDP than what the U.S. is currently spending (while leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in terror), but can you point to some working examples of true free market health care?

What's your opinion of the following presentation? This is a must-watch video for anyone who's seriously interested in this issue, btw. (Just click on "Watch the Full Program Online" to watch the video.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...ne/sickaroundtheworld/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...undtheworld/countries/

 

[0marTheZealot]

Free market solutions simply do not work because the consumer has almost zero information about what they are actually buying. If they did, they would be doctors (or nurses etc etc). There's a reason why doctors go to medical school for 4 years, then spend another 3-4 years as a resident/intern learning the tools of the trade. If it was as easy as looking it up online and deciding which is for you, we'd have a glut of doctors.

When a doctor says you need a echocardiogram, an MRI and a PET scan, you take his word for it. You can't debate the finer points of whether or not you need a PET scan. You don't even understand what the doctor is looking for, despite all the consent forms. The consumer has zero knowledge and is realistically not in a position to learn about the products. It's one thing looking at which LCD TV is for you, it's a whole nother thing when it comes to highly specialized medical procedures.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The 9/12 tea party protests had nothing to do with health care. They were mostly about Obama being a Kenyan neo-Nazi anti-Christ.

So your saying that they are racists?

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The 9/12 tea party protests had nothing to do with health care. They were mostly about Obama being a Kenyan neo-Nazi anti-Christ.

So your saying that they are racists?

Well, a lot of these people are protesting stuff that was going on when Bush was president with hardly a peep.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

China has a government that 'meddles' with their economy (everything from currency manipulation to their 'dumping' policies which subsidizes some of their industries, while hurting ours) and their government is corrupt as hell, yet their economy is booming. Your post does not compute.

Yeah! Communism is great! Yeah!

Wow, you prove yourself over and over.

You know absolutely nothing about China.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Good Communism > Bad Democracy.

 

[sportage]

You'll have to do your homework on this one...
Just look behind who supports and organizes the tea party events.
The power people behind the whole process.
Usually in their ad's, this info is at the very end of the spot ie "funded by" or "this ad is sponsored by".

The organizations that support tea parties, fund them, fund their ad's, these same groups also advocate over through of the US government, and repealing Medicare, just for starters.

You really have to use your smarts on this one. And realize how so many poor saps can be mislead. (but if you watch Fox news you already know that)

And I love their doctored false photo they are posting and spreading around claiming a huge turnout in washington. hehehe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...to-false_n_286082.html

Actually this IS NOT the tea party march. It was the march (remember) to have Paris Hilton burnt at the stake in public. :laugh:
Or was it the march supporting the first gay president? :Q
Or was it the march giving everyone free Viagara? :thumbsup:

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

China has a government that 'meddles' with their economy (everything from currency manipulation to their 'dumping' policies which subsidizes some of their industries, while hurting ours) and their government is corrupt as hell, yet their economy is booming. Your post does not compute.

Yeah! Communism is great! Yeah!

I don't understand this post in any context, ignoring the fact that China obviously isn't a Communist country.

Phokus was saying that China is still experiencing high growth rates. Your retort was "Yeah! Communism is great!" The sarcasm implies that you do believe that China is a Communist country but your response is also a tacit admission that China (the Communist country) is experiencing high growth rates.

So I guess your post could be taken in one of two ways. You don't really believe that China is a Communist country, in which case the post was just a troll, or you do believe that China is a Communist country and concede that they are achieving high growth rates (certainly much higher than our own).

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The 9/12 tea party protests had nothing to do with health care. They were mostly about Obama being a Kenyan neo-Nazi anti-Christ.

So your saying that they are racists?

Well, a lot of these people are protesting stuff that was going on when Bush was president with hardly a peep.

Yeah, and Democrats said nothing about Healthcare over the past 8 years but suddenly its a big issue.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Good Communism > Bad Democracy.

Doesn't make sense. Communism pretty much requires a Democratic process of some sort to truly represent Communist ideals.

USSR represents a totalitarian state. It was pretty much antithetical to Communism. The most recent example I can think of that most closely resembles Communism is the Spanish Revolution. This Libertarian Socialist ideal collectivized a great number of businesses and farms and replaced money with vouchers handed out based on need. The movement in Spain was, of course, defeated by Franco forces and, ironically enough, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union who didn't agree with the Revolution's goals.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living. This is why Tea people favor a limited government approach, and why they connect emotionally with the vision of the Founding Fathers and with the perpetrators of the original Boston Tea Party.

China has a government that 'meddles' with their economy (everything from currency manipulation to their 'dumping' policies which subsidizes some of their industries, while hurting ours) and their government is corrupt as hell, yet their economy is booming. Your post does not compute.

Yeah! Communism is great! Yeah!

I don't understand this post in any context, ignoring the fact that China obviously isn't a Communist country.

Phokus was saying that China is still experiencing high growth rates. Your retort was "Yeah! Communism is great!" The sarcasm implies that you do believe that China is a Communist country but your response is also a tacit admission that China (the Communist country) is experiencing high growth rates.

So I guess your post could be taken in one of two ways. You don't really believe that China is a Communist country, in which case the post was just a troll, or you do believe that China is a Communist country and concede that they are achieving high growth rates (certainly much higher than our own).

I was pointing out phokus' China cheering.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: HGC
Around the world and throughout history, more prosperity correlates with more economic freedom, ie, with lower taxes, regulations, tariffs, and government spending. The more central government meddling in an economy, the more corruption and the lower the standard of living.

As a fan of Atlas Shrugged and former student of Objectivism, I tend to agree, except for your claim that unrestricted international trade is always good and beneficial for the local economy.

These aren't universal truths. I can find many countries around the world with almost no central government that suffer great poverty. It also neglects the rise of the Westphalian state which was able to centralize power and impose regulation and standards. This model crushed all other competitors at the time, including loosely bonded trade leagues and Italian city states.

Also, I have trouble defining economic freedom. Link here. Ireland is a neo-Corporatist state with a great deal of state intervention. Singapore represents this ideal as well and has a great deal stake in many of the corporations that operate there. Many of them also have a larger government as percentage of GDP than the US.

You can also go here and get a list of per capita GDP (PPP). You'll see that the economic freedom index above does often not correlate well with per capita GDP. There's simply so much more that goes into a country's wealth.

Another interesting picture is here. At least as corruption is perceived, there are several countries with less economic freedom that are perceived as being less corrupt. It seems to correlate more closely with culture and system of government than anything else, with Western European, modern Asian, and the Anglo (not meant in a derogatory manner, just differentiating the US and Canada from the Latin countries to the south) cultures of North America doing better than the rest of the world.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The 9/12 tea party protests had nothing to do with health care. They were mostly about Obama being a Kenyan neo-Nazi anti-Christ.

So your saying that they are racists?

Well, a lot of these people are protesting stuff that was going on when Bush was president with hardly a peep.

I'm a person (like most people in America) whose high political issues is the reduction of government size, power, and spending. I should be absolutely thrilled that there seems to be this tea-bagging grass-roots movement out there to protest the recent government excesses. Except - recent should mean past decades, not the past few months.

The Republican controlled executive and congress increased the government in size and spending beyond anything we've seen from 2000-2006. They borrowed more money than the country has in its entire history. And yet there were no tea parties then. There were some protests - primarily over the war and policeing power - but none on the issue of spending and government size. And when the government stepped in and bought assets out of an asset bubble that was created by greed and deception, there were no teabag parties. When they stepped in to nationalize a huge corporation and save them from their own poor decisions, no teabag parties. How about the lack of protest over Medicare D, the $1.2 trillion dollar domestic health care program passed by the Republicans. It was basically a gigantic corporate welfare plan because it prohibited medicare from negotiating better prices so big pharma could charge whatever they wanted. Where the fuck were the teabaggers back then? Where were the Posters of Bush painted as the Joker with the words SOCIALISM, they did not materialize.

Oh, but we dare tackle the inefficient and costly medical system, this cannot stand! Now is the time for protest! A war that cost more? A giveaway to irresponsible big businesses? No protests. Something that might actually help ordinary people? Protests galore. Its hard not to play the populist role or try to engage in class warfare, but this prospect is bizarre. It makes me think monied interests are running the show and controlling the ignorant and hateful through sources like the Becks, Limbaughs and Fox News.

If the tea parties actually were against expanding government power and spending, I would love them. I love the idea that this country still has some fight in them against their government gone out of control. But it isn't. This is simply partisan bullshit. This is "the other party is in charge, NOW we're opposed to any new spending or new powers for the government." - if the Republicans retook control of congress and the executive in 2012, and increased the deficit even further, there would be no tea parties in sight.

Another irony is that they look at how much the deficit has increased recently, and blame this on Obama. But most of the new spending we see are from Republican lead or Republican supported initiatives which they deferred paying for until now. I wish the American people did possess the sort of principles that they claim here.

Instead they are just another log fueling the fire of partisan bickering. I don't really think hypocrisy is the critter here, or even racism. Its too emotional, too chaotic to have principles to be hypocritical about. They are confused, things are sliding out of their control. Or, at least, thats how they see it, under the delusion that they ever had any control to begin with.

The not caring about deficits for Republicans came about in the 80s, when they finally got the executive power. They ran up huge deficits and only complained again when they lost executive power. Clinton brought those deficits under control after huge fights with Congress, shutting down the government. Bush took power and made the Reagan deficits look like nothing at all, dwarfed only by the obligations taken on during the last year of the Bush administration. And now we have teabaggers? Bitch, please.

 

[cganesh75]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I just don't get it. Don't any of these folks find the comparison between Obama and Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam/Mussolini/Pol Pot/et al to be an incredible insult to the people who *actually suffered* under these despots?

"So your grandparents lost their families in Nazi concentration camps? Well, Barack Obama tried to get the government to pay for my health insurance! It's exactly the same!"

I mean really, wtf?

Doesn't the fact that people can go to Obama's events to heckle - and packing heat, no less - invalidate the claim that he has created a police state? Doesn't the continued popularity of Glenn Beck (god help us all) demonstrate that dissidents are not, in fact, being sent to the fields for re-education? These people look like everyday ordinary middle class Americans. But, there they are holding up these utterly wacko and ridiculous signs.

What's happening today is no different from McCarthyism or any other time politicians have used fear as a tool to create frenzy and fear in the most ignorant of society. While I had my issues with Bush jr., I never doubted his citizenship nor his humanity. These people want to dehumanize Obama, and to me, sorry, that smacks of racism, or at least "otherism".

The only reason I can think why anyone who considers themselves fiscally conservative and would still vote for todays Republicans (including Ron Paul) is because they are irrational and not so good with math or history or what economic freedom means for most of the world.

The worst mistake they make is that they think tax cuts are tax cuts. They're not - they're tax deferments, which you will have to pay someday, with interest. It's like saying that the sweater you bought on credit card for $100 is cheaper than the sweater you paid $125 for...except you don't pay the sweater off for 4 years, and it ends up costing you $200 with the interest payments. What are the tea baggers really complaining about? It can't be taxes. We're the least taxed western industrialized nation. Our taxation to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world.

Do they think they get a bad deal for their tax dollars? They should step back and think about it. The average American will pay roughly 300K to 600K in taxes over the course of their entire lifetime. That's just enough to pay one year in salaries for maybe 10 government employees. Over the course of a lifetime, Americans will utilize the work of millions of government employees. They'll travel hundreds of thousands of miles on government roads and bridges. They'll use 911 services provided by government. They'll send their kids to schools and universities built and staffed by the government. Their state will probably have been helped significantly in emergency situations by the government. They'll use libraries built and staffed by the government. Just those things mentioned above cost billions.They paid a fraction of that over the course of their entire lives.

Tell me, what self-respecting "socialist", much less a communist, would have sent hundreds of billions of dollars to billionaire capitalists to bail them out? He has "nationalized" all of 0.21% of the economy since taking office.

:thumbsup:

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
You conservatives against UHC need to catch up, your party leaders are sounding conciliatory lately...

I'll bet some more tea parties will change their minds. Get Sara Palin to parade around her dysfunctional family with the best health insurance money can buy to tell you about Death Panels some more.

No one in their right mind thinks UHC=free care or that taxes won't have to be raised to cover it.

How you folk can sleep at night with people dying from lack of health care in your communities is something I just can't wrap my head around. I guess it's easier to demonize your neighbor that lost their health care than to actually give a shit and make a difference.

most of them are hypocritical "christian" asswipes who think jesus preached about killing gays.