Has the USA Won the Title of World's Laughingstock Yet? No? We can fix that...

[j. d. worthington]

I realize that this is on the state level, rather than national... but, as PZ Myers' noted, it is on that level one sees the actual mindset of the parties, before it all gets muted for general consumption.

Nevertheless, I came across a copy of the Texas Republican Party's 2012 platform and, despite my firm belief that the GOP in this day and age represents a resurgence of Matthew Hopkins and his congeners, the only word I can find (well, the only polite word, anyway) to describe my reaction to this thing is "gobsmacked". Not only the well-known egregious attitudes they take toward the right to bear arms (including addressing the domestic violence aspect, which they downplay to a "minor" thing), and health rights of women, but even to directly opposing the teaching of critical thinking in schools (spelled out, no less; see p. 12), as well as a host of other frankly lunatic maunderings. Problem is... I've also seen a breakdown of the Iowa Republicans' platform, and it ain't much better:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre...form-Final.pdf

http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/pr...iowa-platform/

I think I'll largely stay out of this one (to protect my blood pressure, if nothing else), but anyone who wants to have a bash at it, please do.

All I will add at this point is: If America has not yet completely become the laughing-stock of the world where politics is concerned, things like this should certainly finish the job....

[Parson]

JD

I know little about Arizona's process, but I know a bit more about Iowa's for obvious reasons. This year's state convention was totally hijacked by the Ron Paul supporters. Even though Iowa largely split the Caucuses between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorium, nearly all of Iowa's votes at the Convention will go to Ron Paul. My own attempt at putting a plank calling for the amnesty for illegal aliens did not make out of my local Caucus.

Many of those planks do not represent mainline Republican thinking in Iowa.

[Shane Enochs]

I think the United States needs to move back to libertarian values, personally.

- No war unless declared by Congress and there is a threat to the homeland of the United States. Get out of other countries. Stop nation building.

- Open trade to ALL nations except those declared enemies to the United States.

- No standing army (though I think reserves are fine)

- No special treatment for special groups (women, hispanics, blacks, etc). Everyone should be equal.

- There should be a safety net, but not the monstrosity that we have today.

- Get rid of the IRS and the income tax. Collect user fees and small import tariffs to fund the Federal Government.

- Get rid of the over-bloated bureaucracy that we have. Keep a few of the federal departments and a few of the agencies. Combine the ones that overlap. Decrease their budget by half.

- Get rid of the Federal Reserve. Allow currencies to compete.

- Allow localities to run schools, funded by individual states. Allow parents to decide what needs to be taught, and what doesn't. Get the Federal Government out of it all together. This will reduce costs drastically.

- Get the Federal Government out of healthcare. That's why it costs so much. Along with that, we need some SERIOUS tort reform, which will also reduce costs. Allow doctors to practice medicine, instead of requiring them to run it like a business.

That would be a pretty good start.

[Ursa major]

I don't know enough about what "Obamacare" will deliver - not living in the US, finding out isn't really a priority for me - but the idea that a nation's health should be left totally in the hands of insurance companies seems negligent.

It seems that these insurance companies can quite legally refuse to insure someone. So as health care cost inflation will always outstrip income inflation (because more and more conditions can be cured and/or treated), companies will be ever more tempted to shed those customers who they believe will turn out to be detrimental to their bottom line. This will mean that the number of the uninsured will grow, probably aided by employers cutting down on their employee health premiums as they fight to stay competitive in a world where they have to compete with the likes of China and India.

The belief that this isn't so is one reason why the US health system, while admirable in so many ways, simply isn't delivering health care to its whole population, in the way that other wealthy countries' health systems can.

[Fried Egg]

It never ceases to amaze me how these American politicians have a policy on the teaching of evolution/creationism. It shouldn't be a political consideration in my view.

Originally Posted by Ursa major

It seems that these insurance companies can quite legally refuse to insure someone. So as health care cost inflation will always outstrip income inflation (because more and more conditions can be cured and/or treated), companies will be ever more tempted to shed those customers who they believe will turn out to be detrimental to their bottom line.

Higher risk customers don't pose a threat to an insurer's bottom line as long as their risk is correctly quantified and their premium reflects that. Unless of course health insurance premiums are subject to price ceilings...

[Shane Enochs]

I think people forget what a health insurance company is. It's a business. It's number one priority is to turn a profit, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everything else (creating jobs, providing money for healthcare, etc) is an expenditure.

We'll look at this from the top-down.

Doctors provide healthcare services. Doctors choose to be doctors usually because it's lucrative, and they want to make a lot of money. That's fine.

Now then, let's say a doctor works for a hospital. Under current laws, hospitals cannot refuse patients, whether they have the means to pay or not. So let's say a normal hospital visit would be $500.

So a doctor sees fifteen patients in a day. That would be about $7,500 worth of medical expenses. For our purposes, let's say after all the hospital costs (labs, nurses, etc), the doctor would make about $50 off of each patient. That would be $750 a day. That's pretty awesome.

Now, that example is based on each of those patients being able to pay their cost up front. What happens when people who CAN'T pay come in?

So now we have 15 people come in, but only 10 of those people can pay. That means instead of the $7,500, only $5,000 comes in. That may not be too bad of a problem, as long as it doesn't happen every day. But it does. Except tomorrow, only 7 of those people can pay.

To cover for the expenses lost, it's necessary to raise the cost from $500 to $800. Then $1,000. Then $1700. So on, and so forth.

People think if the government wasn't involved, people would be dying in the streets. But that wouldn't happen. Churches would take care of them, along with charities.

Now, if people WANT a universal health care system, and wish for their tax dollars to go toward that, I have no problem with that at all, but cuts must be made elsewhere. For instance, if the United States population wants to do this, we're going to have to cut our military drastically to be able to fund it correctly without having to fine people.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

To cover for the expenses lost, it's necessary to raise the cost from $500 to $800. Then $1,000. Then $1700. So on, and so forth.

Which is why insurance, however it's implemented**, is the right basis for a solution, in that instead of relying on the financial viability (or honesty) of those who happen to be attending hospital, the payments are spread across the whole population (and so are mostly being paid by those who aren't sick and are thus better able to pay, because their productivity isn't being undermined by their illness).



** - In the UK, while one can take out private medical insurance (or have it taken out on one's behalf by one's employer***), the basic means of payment is general taxation (which further separates out the medical costs of an individual from that individual's ability to pay) In effect, the government (UK, or the develoved ones in Wales and Scotland) acts as the insurance company. Other European countries use a more formal insurance model. Either way, the whole population is covered, without having to worry about any vagaries in the distribution of those willing to fill the gaps in the national scheme (such as the religious**** organisations you mention).

*** - This was the case for me, for a decade or so. Not needing medical care during this time - apart from dental care and eye tests, which weren't covered - all this meant was that I had to pay more tax, as the medical insurance (unwanted and never asked-for) was seen as a taxable benefit.

**** - As an aside, the reliance, in places like Pakistan, on religious institutions for the provision of education doesn't have an unblemished record on outcomes. I'm sure we'd all have been better off, in terms of security, if the Pakistan government had provided all the basic education rather than relying on those (sometimes infamous) madrassas.

[Shane Enochs]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Which is why insurance, however it's implemented**, is the right basis for a solution, in that instead of relying on the financial viability (or honesty) of those who happen to be attending hospital, the payments are spread across the whole population (and so are mostly being paid by those who aren't sick and are thus better able to pay, because their productivity isn't being undermined by their illness).



** - In the UK, while one can take out private medical insurance (or have it taken out on one's behalf by one's employer***), the basic means of payment is general taxation (which further separates out the medical costs of an individual from that individual's ability to pay) In effect, the government (UK, or the develoved ones in Wales and Scotland) acts as the insurance company. Other European countries use a more formal insurance model. Either way, the whole population is covered, without having to worry about any vagaries in the distribution of those willing to fill the gaps in the national scheme (such as the religious**** organisations you mention).

*** - This was the case for me, for a decade or so. Not needing medical care during this time - apart from dental care and eye tests, which weren't covered - all this meant was that I had to pay more tax, as the medical insurance (unwanted and never asked-for) was seen as a taxable benefit.

**** - As an aside, the reliance, in places like Pakistan, on religious institutions for the provision of education doesn't have an unblemished record on outcomes. I'm sure we'd all have been better off, in terms of security, if the Pakistan government had provided all the basic education rather than relying on those (sometimes infamous) madrassas.

I'm all for insurance. That's fine. It's national insurance that I don't like, because I personally don't believe it's my neighbor's responsibility to take care of me unless it is voluntary. As taxes are involuntary, I don't feel that it's fair to my neighbor.

[Ursa major]

I'm not sure that, in the modern world, it's possible to live a life unencumbered with any obligations (other than the ones for which you volunteer). All modern states believe that their citizens (or subjects) are, in some sense or other, obliged to chip in when required. And, in a way, they are right: for what use is a state where any allegiance to it, by birth and/or by inclination, is entirely voluntary? Who is to defend it? Volunteers?



Possibly fine in principle - though I doubt it - but what state could survive where:

• only volunteers ever have to fight;
• they do it freely (sorry, for free), because no-one wants to pay taxes if they don't want to and they don't have to;
• they return home (if they're lucky), possibly physically unscathed (if they're lucky) and mentally unscarred (if they're lucky), to live next to someone who resolutely stayed at home, kept his money to himself and is suspected (possibly for no reason at all) of hankering after the delights of the spouses of those who did go to fight.

The first duty of a state is to protect its citizens (or subjects), which rather presupposes its access to at least some resources. That requires the ability to levy taxes. This is why we in the UK first had a parliament: it was the direct descendant of those temporary bodies called up by the monarch to allow him (or sometimes her) to extract money from his subjects in order to pay for the latest war.

Of course, what the state does has rather expanded over the years, and I doubt you're alone in wondering why it has done in some areas. But those don't include, at least for most people in what we used to call the developed world, health, education, national infrastructure, law, law enforcement and defence.


To expect a state to survive without it demanding certain obligations from its citizens seems to be wishful thinking. To expect to live the life available to the citizens of a developed state without those obligations seems equally so. But suppose one could make a good living, entirely by one's own efforts, away from any aspect of civilisation provided by anyone else. Who will be there to stop someone waltzing in and taking it all? The non-existent, because unfunded, officer of the law? And what law? (Actually, the "law" of those who have banded together to take what was yours, that's who.)

But should they bother to put anything on such an independent person's gravestone, it could read: "He never expected anything from anyone, God help him."


The whole system works like this, not just the relationship between the state and the individual. We live interconnected lives. Large-scale refusal to act in accordance with this would mean the end of the life we've become used to living. (Personally, I don't want to be a frontiersman, and I doubt many really do.)

[Shane Enochs]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I'm not sure that, in the modern world, it's possible to live a life unencumbered with any obligations (other than the ones for which you volunteer). All modern states believe that their citizens (or subjects) are, in some sense or other, obliged to chip in when required. And, in a way, they are right: for what use is a state where any allegiance to it, by birth and/or by inclination, is entirely voluntary? Who is to defend it? Volunteers?

The United States military is completely voluntary, unless there is a draft.

Possibly fine in principle - though I doubt it - but what state could survive where:

• only volunteers ever have to fight;
• they do it freely (sorry, for free), because no-one wants to pay taxes if they don't want to and they don't have to;

If a country didn't have a standing army (very few require them, except in the Middle East), countries would be able to pay the military through other means.

Just to be clear, I'm not against taxation. I am, however, against taxation without being able to overturn it (i.e. vote someone else into office)

• they return home (if they're lucky), possibly physically unscathed (if they're lucky) and mentally unscarred (if they're lucky), to live next to someone who resolutely stayed at home, kept his money to himself and is suspected (possibly for no reason at all) of hankering after the delights of the spouses of those who did go to fight.

Not sure what the point here is. If you're saying that I'm suggesting that someone fight for the military and have no medical help, I'm not. Besides patriotism, people usually only go into the military for money and benefits, which is fine. The government should provide benefits for the military, as it is a fantastic incentive. But going back to my earlier point, hardly any governments need standing armies.

The first duty of a state is to protect its citizens (or subjects), which rather presupposes its access to at least some resources. That requires the ability to levy taxes. This is why we in the UK first had a parliament: it was the direct descendant of those temporary bodies called up by the monarch to allow him (or sometimes her) to extract money from his subjects in order to pay for the latest war.

I think there are basically two duties of a government: to protect its citizenry, and to protect their rights. During wartime, taxation is needed more than during peacetime. I think we can both agree on that. I'm not familiar with the military engagements your country has been in lately, but as for the United States, most of its military expenditures (both life and treasure) have been frivolous at best. Our country's economy has become based on the military industrial complex, so a constant state of war is required to keep the economy in any kind of decent shape.

I personally think the United States should stop its empire building, and instead reinforce our power here at home.

Of course, what the state does has rather expanded over the years, and I doubt you're alone in wondering why it has done in some areas. But those don't include, at least for most people in what we used to call the developed world, health, education, national infrastructure, law, law enforcement and defence.

We just have a different philosophy of the duty of government. In my view, government is the reason things are far more expensive than they should be. If it was left up to the free market, people would find the least expensive, easiest way to get things done, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Now, as far as law enforcement, I believe at least cities should take care of this. Law enforcement is definitely a government thing, as is defense. Defense, of course, should come from the federal government.

To expect a state to survive without it demanding certain obligations from its citizens seems to be wishful thinking. To expect to live the life available to the citizens of a developed state without those obligations seems equally so. But suppose one could make a good living, entirely by one's own efforts, away from any aspect of civilisation provided by anyone else. Who will be there to stop someone waltzing in and taking it all? The non-existent, because unfunded, officer of the law? And what law? (Actually, the "law" of those who have banded together to take what was yours, that's who.)

I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I'm NOT for anarchy. I believe that there should be local and federal government, but I think the local government should, in most cases (except for defense), trump the federal government. Once again, I'm all for law enforcement on the local level. I'm also fine with cities imposing user fees and taxes to fund programs that help people, because it's much easier to get rid of those than anything the federal government does.

But should they bother to put anything on such an independent person's gravestone, it could read: "He never expected anything from anyone, God help him."

Just a difference in philosophy, again. I don't believe I should be able to expect that my neighbor does anything for me that is not mutually beneficial.

The whole system works like this, not just the relationship between the state and the individual. We live interconnected lives. Large-scale refusal to act in accordance with this would mean the end of the life we've become used to living. (Personally, I don't want to be a frontiersman, and I doubt many really do.)

I don't know how to respond to this because I'm not sure if you're saying that somehow, without huge government programs, we'd go back to the stone age or what.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

The United States military is completely voluntary, unless there is a draft.

So is the UK's, but no-one should doubt that the draft would return if required.

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

If a country didn't have a standing army (very few require them, except in the Middle East), countries would be able to pay the military through other means.

Even if true (about the need for a standing army), the military need some sort of permanent establishment, if only to be able to train recruits in time of war, and to have access to military hardware.

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Just to be clear, I'm not against taxation. I am, however, against taxation without being able to overturn it (i.e. vote someone else into office)

I'm fine with that. (As an aside, I'm less keen on separate referendums (propositions) about tax and spending. One can easily imagine people voting for programmes and voting against taxes. It's the duty of those elected to office to find the best balance between these.)

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Not sure what the point here is. If you're saying that I'm suggesting that someone fight for the military and have no medical help, I'm not. Besides patriotism, people usually only go into the military for money and benefits, which is fine. The government should provide benefits for the military, as it is a fantastic incentive. But going back to my earlier point, hardly any governments need standing armies.

There are two points: that the state sometimes obliges its citizens to do things for which they would not volunteer; that to forswear its ability to do this would weaken the state, if only because it might allow a wedge to be driven between those that volunteer and those that don't. (Where the wars are overseas and their results have, seemingly, little bearing on the state's existence, this may be fine. At a time of invasion, by contrast, this could be fatal for the state.

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

I think there are basically two duties of a government: to protect its citizenry, and to protect their rights. During wartime, taxation is needed more than during peacetime. I think we can both agree on that. I'm not familiar with the military engagements your country has been in lately, but as for the United States, most of its military expenditures (both life and treasure) have been frivolous at best. Our country's economy has become based on the military industrial complex, so a constant state of war is required to keep the economy in any kind of decent shape.

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

I personally think the United States should stop its empire building, and instead reinforce our power here at home.

They've obviously never heard of imperial overstretch: this sort of thing never ends well in the long term. (But how many in politics or business ever worry about the long term?)

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

We just have a different philosophy of the duty of government. In my view, government is the reason things are far more expensive than they should be. If it was left up to the free market, people would find the least expensive, easiest way to get things done, including healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

You may well be right about the costs, although in an area where government and business are drawn close together - such as your aforementioned military industrial complex - I'm not sure this applies. Where I differ is that I see it as a duty of the state to allow all its citizens access to a "reasonable" level of health care. Where there is one group, the low-paid employed, who can't get government help, and another - those with known long-term (and expensive) illnesses - who seem locked out of the pre-"Obamacare" system, I think it's the government's duty to do something about it. (To be fair, from what little I've heard about "Obamacare", it sounds like an expensive, hit-and-miss scheme. I'm not encouraging anyone to go down that path.)

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Now, as far as law enforcement, I believe at least cities should take care of this. Law enforcement is definitely a government thing, as is defense. Defense, of course, should come from the federal government.

In the UK, which is very centralised (to an extent that would horrify you in the US), these distinctions have little resonance (excepting where nationality is involved, i.e. across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I'm NOT for anarchy. I believe that there should be local and federal government, but I think the local government should, in most cases (except for defense), trump the federal government. Once again, I'm all for law enforcement on the local level. I'm also fine with cities imposing user fees and taxes to fund programs that help people, because it's much easier to get rid of those than anything the federal government does.

Sorry. Your mention of not having obligations to your neighbour - which at a one-to-one level, may be fine - in the context of what I assume is a federal programme made me wonder about your opinion of your obligations on a country-wide scale, and my whole post was, really, directed at this.

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

Just a difference in philosophy, again. I don't believe I should be able to expect that my neighbor does anything for me that is not mutually beneficial.

Although I was writing from a difference direction, I tend to agree with this: social solidarity (or whatever it's called) relies on those putting in believing that, if the circumstances were reversed, they'd be receiving the same help for which they're currently paying.

Originally Posted by Shane Enochs

I don't know how to respond to this because I'm not sure if you're saying that somehow, without huge government programs, we'd go back to the stone age or what.

Not to the stone age, merely to an age where the powerful took, and the weak "gave". But as I mentioned above, the comment derived from my take on what you'd said about the voluntary nature of obligations.

[Gordian Knot]

Shane said. "- No special treatment for special groups (women, hispanics, blacks, etc). Everyone should be equal."

In theory I agree with this. In practice methinks you are being a bit disingenuous. Laws for special groups are not there to give some people special treatment. They are meant to force equal treatment on a public that is not willing to do so of their own free will.

If you know of some way to get all Americans to simply accept people different from themselves, I'd love to hear it. But as long as there is prejudice, ignorance and pure hate for those that are different, there is no way for everyone to be equal.

[Gordian Knot]

Shane said "I think people forget what a health insurance company is. It's a business. It's number one priority is to turn a profit, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everything else (creating jobs, providing money for healthcare, etc) is an expenditure. "

That is all true. The wrench in the cogs is profit is a companies number one priority, but it should NOT be its ONLY priority. Which is where we find ourselves with corporations in the U.S. today.

Profit to share holders and upper management is maximized unfairly to the detriment of the companies responsibility to its customers. There has to be a balance that is fair to both sides of the equation, and that balance has been destroyed against the customer for the benefit of those at the top.

[Gordian Knot]

Shane said "People think if the government wasn't involved (with health insurance), people would be dying in the streets. But that wouldn't happen. Churches would take care of them, along with charities."

Last one Shane, I promise. I simply cannot believe you made this statement. You know very well how many families have been financially destroyed by large medical bills in this country. There are no churches or charities coming to their rescue. There aren't enough churches and charities in the world to cover the cost.

People who have lost everything are out in the streets right now. Today. Whole families living out of an automobile. Or worse. The richest country in the world and we have abandoned those who are the most defenseless. There is no excuse for this. Except greed.

[Shane Enochs]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

Shane said. "- No special treatment for special groups (women, hispanics, blacks, etc). Everyone should be equal."

In theory I agree with this. In practice methinks you are being a bit disingenuous. Laws for special groups are not there to give some people special treatment. They are meant to force equal treatment on a public that is not willing to do so of their own free will.

If you know of some way to get all Americans to simply accept people different from themselves, I'd love to hear it. But as long as there is prejudice, ignorance and pure hate for those that are different, there is no way for everyone to be equal.

Do laws make people accept people different from themselves? Can you legislate morality? Of course not.

You also shouldn't punish for intent. If you kill a man because he slept with your wife, shouldn't you get the same amount of time as if you killed a man because he's gay?

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

Shane said "I think people forget what a health insurance company is. It's a business. It's number one priority is to turn a profit, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everything else (creating jobs, providing money for healthcare, etc) is an expenditure. "

That is all true. The wrench in the cogs is profit is a companies number one priority, but it should NOT be its ONLY priority. Which is where we find ourselves with corporations in the U.S. today.

Why shouldn't it be its only priority? If I had an infinite amount of money, I'd never start any kind of business; I'd give to charity. A business is there to make a profit. I know some people believe this is a terrible thing, but it's not.

If people don't like how a business is run, they can always vote it into nonexistence by not buying their products and services.

Profit to share holders and upper management is maximized unfairly to the detriment of the companies responsibility to its customers. There has to be a balance that is fair to both sides of the equation, and that balance has been destroyed against the customer for the benefit of those at the top.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that executives are paid too much? If you are, who gets to determine how much someone should be able to make from the company the own/run?