What is the difference between the Tea Party and the Republicans?

I think of them as Republicans v. 2.0

Nothing.

The Republican Party is a big tent. The Tea Party’s ideology (whatever it is) has always fit smack in the center of the Republican Party’s.

The Tea Party is simply a rebranding of the Republican Party. After Bush, the “Republican” label polled poorly with voters.

It’s similar to how liberals started identifying themselves as “progressives” recently, because the word “liberal” became unpopular with voters.

I want to know this too. Why do they run as Republicans? Get your own party on the ballot, the Green party managed it.

The republicans have jumped onto the Tea Party bandwagon. It is mostly the religious right part of the Republican party when the Tea party first started having rallies, I was intrigued by them, because I have always been disgusted by having a large national debt. Disgusted during Reagan, Bush, etc. So I liked the idea of giving some attention to this matter. But quickly it became a movement against Obama in my opinion, which made it a hostile environment for Democrats. Meanwhile, I can’t tell you how many people I know who are pretty stupid, who are part of the Tea Party. More than one did not realize the name was a throwback to the Boston Tea Party. Of course there are stupid people everywhere in every party, but not to realize this bit of history and immediately pair it up in your mind is baffling to me. All of my friends who identify with the tea party are Republicans and hate Obama, and buy into him being a socialist, many go as far to feel he is anti-christian, which to them is anti-american. I don’t think the original tea party people necessarily meant the party to be that, but it seems to have morphed into that. At least that is my perception of the whole thing.

I was thinking, it is kind of like the allied forces during a war. Having a common enemy unites you.

Well, it was a Republican who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building, and so far the Tea Party hasn’t performed any terrorist acts that I know of.

First of all the tea parties are not a political party. There are hundreds if not thousands of separate organizations throughout the country. There are a few organizations that would like to take the lead such as the Tea Party Express but there is no single leadership. The tea parties are not religious or supporters of wars or any of the other crap that gets doled out on a routine basis. They have 3 common points that permeate all their activities.

Smaller Government
Lower taxes
Return to the constitution

It is much like the anti war movement in the 70s where they did not have a complete platform of issues but rather a single goal. They are composed of people from all stripes of life. Some may be religious or not. Some may be in favor of the Afghan war or not. These however, are not the tea party issues.

When the tea party chooses to run against a republican establishment candidate, it is not because of their stand on gay rights or abortion or any other ancillary issue. It is because of their stand on fiscal or government size issues.

There is nothing scary about the tea parties, they are regular folks that typically, have not been active in politics in the past. I would think getting people involved in politics is a good thing. Reading the Constitution is a good thing. You may disagree with their agenda but all the name calling that goes on about the tea parties is generally done by those with little knowledge about them.

@YARNLADY I don’t understand your answer.

@Jaxk I agree when created the tea party was only concerned about the things you point out, but the Christian right who identify with the tea party seem to not know it. Similar to the discussion we had on another thread about the Christian right and old school Republicans. I wish the right would just break off, have their own party, and sink their ship. To we, who can’t stand the religious right in politics, when we see them latch on to these movements or parties, we are out. My dad, a Republican for over 40 years, finally left the party at the end of the Bush years, because he couldn’t stand it anymore, couldn’t stand the Republicans catering to the religious right.

I bet if we polled bible belt republicans and asked them where the Tea Party stands on abortion and gay marriage, they think it is against, even though the correct answer is the tea party doesn’t take a stand on those issues.

The TEA party is entirely about fiscal responsibility. The genesis of the name springs from Taxed Enough Already. Any allusion to the Boston tea party is ancillary. Generally, those who wish to restrain out of control government defecit spending believe they can achieve their fiscal goals by returning to the dictates of the Constitution.

@JLeslie

“I bet if we polled bible belt republicans and asked them where the Tea Party stands on abortion and gay marriage, they think it is against”

I’d need some backup on that to believe it. But the truth is most of the misinformation about the tea parties comes from the left. They have spent almost two years trying to paint them as extremists, angry mobs, and so forth. You can disagree with their stand, but there is nothing extreme about it.

@UScitizen, please explain how the Tea Party can be entirely about fiscal responsibility when they demand massive tax cuts.

@Jaxk, you don’t think there’s anything “extreme” about the tea party’s positions because you yourself are an extremist. I have an extreme left-wing friend who is the same way: he thinks he is in the center, and that Obama is center-right.

Rand Paul, Christine O’Donnel, Sharon Angle and Sarah Palin are extremists when compared to the vast majority of the American public. (Well, Christine O’Donnel isn’t an extremist so much as a vacuous moron who doesn’t appear to know what her positions should be).

@Jaxk ironically is in some ways what I had hoped the Republicans would be for at least the next several years. I hoped they would be focused on being fiscally prudent, and not concerned with changing laws regarding the social issues like aborition, it is the law of the land, lets just take that topic off of the table for now. Gay marriage, basically it seems it probably is legal in most states but not being done? I mean if they have to vote to make it illegal or want to make an amendment to the constitution to make it illegal, I would guess there is nothing technocally really in our constitution prohibiting it, but I am not a constitutional scholar or a lawyer.

I just watched Meet the Press with the two men running for a senate seat in Colorado, both agreed that in their state they do not see in their state any of the extremists the left describes being at the rallies who self identify as Tea Party people. But, the Republican candidate, who is the Tea Party candidate, and one against the other Republican i the primaries, when asked about gay people said he believes it is a choice to be gay, and he is against abortion in any circumstance. So, even though the tea party might not be about these social issues, it is full of people who are, a high percentage I think, especially in the south, up north and west might be very different. I understand your point, it is like saying the NRA is pro-life, when that is not what that organization is about at all. In fact I personally don’t know one Democrat who is against the 2nd amendment, but most are not part of the NRA probably, because of where the majority of the members stand on other issues. But, I honestly have nonstatistcis to back that up, I don’t know how many NRA members are dems and how many are republicans. I have a Republican pro-life in her beliefs and for herself religious Catholic girlfriend who thinks the pro-lifers are awful, and refuses to be lumped in with them. If you ask her, politically she will say she is pro-choice. In fact all of my midwest Catholic friends don’t vote with abortion being much of a part of their decision, they wish the topic was not a political issue.

The republicans have become Conservatism Lite.

Something had to be done.

Thank god for the tea party.

The Tea Party is openly embracing the nut jobs that traditional Republicans have always been a little ashamed of. It’s like finding an internet forum dedicated to your favorite obscure band that’s a little too experimental for your friends’ tastes.

@Mamradpivo

I assume from your example that you would be in favor of banning that band from the Musicians Guild. Seems a bit extreme.

@JLeslie

I pretty much agree with what you’ve said. I like your friends, will not be using abortion or gay rights to determine my vote. It’s all about the economy. Whatever a candidates position is on those issues is irrelevant to me and to the tea parties. In fact I long for the days when gay marriage will be the most important issue we have to decide. I fear those days are a longs ways out.

@MeinTeil

I agree with your point entirely. It sums up what I’ve been taking paragraphs to say in only a few words.

@Jaxk So, you are not happy being in the most Conservative non-dictatorship on Earth? Maybe if there were more people like you that were fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal enough to not feel like dictating people’s lifestyles, a lot of the ridicule that the Tea Party endures now wouldn’t happen.
I am with @JLeslie here in that the Tea Party is seen as something quite different than what you say it is simply because of the other people that are also in that movement. That places you in the unfair position of being seen as insane by association.

@Jaxk I think maybe call yourself a moderate Libertarian. That seems like a better fit. Although, there are many many many Democrats like you. Hell, I think Clinton was very similar. He is the only guy in a long time to have balanced the budget. Go to his museum/library in Little Rock and be prepared to be stunned on the section about the annual budget. He reduced the size of the book to less than half, and I doubt he simply reduced the type size, he really focused on government spending, streamlined it. Obama might not be the solution, I am not sure. He started his presidency having to worry about an economic collapse, Clinton had a good run for a while because of the .coms and telecom, so he had more room to work his plan.

I think Obama wants a balanced budget, I think Bush did not care, I think Reagan and Bush Sr. went with the idea that it is fine to have some debt, some float, as wealthy people often do, especially back then, remember the common idea was don’t keep your money in the bank, put it out in the market place, I think they took this to heart on a micro and macro level. I also believe many Republicans want a balanced budget, but if Clinton was the one guy to make it happen, why would we not copy some of what he did to acheive it? Tried and effective seemingly. It just makes no sense to me that people buy into what the Republicans are saying. I feel like they are hiding their heads in the sand. Um, well, I think most of the politicians know it is bullshit, but they know it will get votes, many of the people of the right wing are hiding in the sand.

Lets allow taxes to increase on the high income earners. If it were up to me I would do it on $500k and up not $250, but that’s me. They can vote to do it for just 2 years and then go back to Bush’s deal again if they want, and have to go through another vote. Let’s pay down the debt, get away from being indebted to other nations. Think of it this way. If someone, an individual, spends and spends, and charges up their credit cards, eventually the prudent thing is to stop spending and start paying down the debt. Maybe they will have to go without new clothes, and no more eating out 5 times a week. The need to suffer a little and live on less to get out of the whole. That is what the American people need to do, be willing to give up some money so our country gets into a better financial position, and trim spending. And, for the superrich they won’t even feel it. Believe me, my husband and I moved 5 years ago, and I have barely worked where we live now. We barely feel my loss, or severe reduction, in salary, because my salary all went to savings. It does not effect how we live at all, it affects what we save, and we still save. This idea that the very rich will spend less if they pay 3% more in taxes is ridiculous.

I see it as we are married to our government. If my husband bought an expensive wardrobe on our credit card, I don’t get to say I am not going to pay it, because he spent it on something I didn’t want to buy. I have to deal with we the fact that we are financially intertwined. Same with our government, it doesn’t matter if Bush spent money in ways I think were awful, I feel some responsibility to pay it, for the greater good, to not pass the debt on for generations, to make us safer as a nation in the here and now.

I have really enjoyed discussing this and other topics on other threads with you.

@Jaxk No reason to ban the band in my example from anything. Just accept that they’re not most people’s cup of tea. It’s the same with the Tea Party. It’s an outlet for people to air opinions that aren’t welcome to be expressed openly within the traditional Republican Party.

@JLeslie

You make some good points but things are never as clear as they appear. When you isolate a single issue it may appear differently than when you add in the other complexities. I’ll throw in a few examples.

The idea that the top earner won’t spend the money even if they retain the tax cut. Seems simple, a 4.5% increase is not that great for a billionaire. But it is a great deal of money to pull out of the economy. Money that even if not spent would be invested some where. Add to that the impact of a Cap N Trade that would pull hundreds of billions more out of the economy and out of struggling businesses. Neither of these has passed but we already see that there is close to $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines not being invested. We have no idea how much health care will cost us. We have no idea how much the financial reform will cost us. We have a good idea that raising the rates for the top earners is not even close to enough to close the deficit. So how much more is coming. This uncertainty is killing us. And Obama has made it clear that business is the bad guy and should be penalized.

As for Clinton, I liked him. Didn’t vote for him but still liked him. Mostly I give him credit for not screwing up a good thing. But he did not cut or even slow the growth of spending in any appreciable way. But he did at least keep the growth of spending constant while the GDP was accelerating. That’s pretty much what I’m trying to achieve here. Get the spending back to where we have a chance. BTW Clinton was not the only guy to make it happen he was only the latest. Actually if you want to look at a similar recession that was handled correctly, take a look at the 1920 recession. Here’s a good description of the time. Also here’s what the spending cuts looked like. in 1920 we cut spending in half and cut taxes in half and the economy took off. The result was the roaring 20s.

In fact there is only one example I know of where we raised taxes and increased spending to solve a recession. That was in the thirties. Our darkest days.

I wonder, if we cut the government, laying off government employees, I bet the Republicans would be happy to count them as unemployed, but they don’t want to count public sector jobs as employed.

@Jaxk I agree, it is complex, and many times in theory does not work out actually how it is expected to. I am not in favor of increasing spending either, unless, and this s my big exception, unless we can get single payer health care, then government spending goes up and taxation goes up, and I am fine with that, but of course I want it to be done in a fiscally sound way.

I also prefer government money to go to paying people for fixing our infastructure, rather than paying them unemployment benefits. But, I am unclear on whether the people who do that typw of work actually get unemployment benefits? Are most construction workers on a payroll?

@jerv

The ridicule would go on. There is a difference in the messaging between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that conservatives are evil. That they only care about themselves and are corrupt. Conservatives believe that the liberals believe what they’re saying, they’re just wrong. The ridicule and name calling will go on as long as there are conservatives.

No offense but you have said the same thing several times. The big guys aren’t just wrong they’re evil.

@JLeslie

Yes, generally they are on a payroll. As for the unemployment, it is what it is. If we hire all the unemployed into government jobs we don’t fix anything. You need private sector jobs to pay for the public sector.

@Jaxk Again, I am not in an all or none mode. I was not talking about employing people in the public sector instead of the private sector, I was talking about while the economy is suffering, people are laid off, and private business is slow, employing people in the public sector rather than paying them unemployment or welfare, or another way that I am sure some of this would go is the government subsidising and paying private companies to build the roads, and fix the bridges, which of course means more people will be employed indirectly in the private sector.

Also, I remember when Clinton had a surplus, and everyone wanted him to give money back to the people, and he said no. Thank God. We would be even worse off now. I like the idea of kittying some money for a rainy day, government, private business, and individuals need to do more of this. You know, I am a licensed real estate agent in the state of FL, and when our reserve fund reaches $1 million (I think it is a million? Well, some set amount) our dues drop to just cover admistrative fees. A few years ago I had to pay $5 to renew my license. This year it was $85, because they are back to needing to rebuild the fund (when it reaches a minimum they start charging to build it back up again). I have total confidence the money is used responsibly, I think that is a good system.

@JLeslie

I don’t totally disagree. God I wish any one of my licenses cost $5. I just renewed my business license for $850 and I have 10 different licenses hanging on my wall. The business license is the cheapest. Plus I have to pay for inspections for each of them. OK, OK I won’t rattle on. I guess my point is that I don’t trust government to use money wisely.

In California we provide debit cards for welfare recipients. There is currently a big scandal where it has been discovered that millions are being spent on these cards in Las Vegas casinos, in Hawaii, hell even on cruise ships out of Florida. The government in their own defense, said that they don’t investigate until the usage out of state goes on for more than three months. Government simply has no incentive to control costs.

@Jaxk I am 100% sure there is government waste, scandal, and missappropriation of funds. There are also times when government does well. The Republicans right now want us to believe, again, all or none. All government is bad; all private business is good. There is good and bad in both places.

I live outside of Memphis and the people here mostly don’t trust government and think it is all bad. Well, if the federal government had the history Memphis government has, I would agree. No wonder they don’t trust government, if this is all they really have as an example.

Government has an incentive to control costs if they work with a budget. Now, I will admit that people will spend all of their budget, even if it is not necessary, to make sure they get the same money next year, but they do it on the private sector also, profit and non-profit. Rewarding being under budget would be helpful.

Let’s go back to health care, something I think about a lot. Health insurance companies main ngoal is to make money. The governments main goal would be to provide health care for the citizenry. I think the intent matters. Sure, there will be government waste. I would rather see some of the money go out on the street, then in the pocket of someone who does not give a damn about my health and thinks of every penny spent to treat me is less in their own pocket.

@Jaxk, “the economy” is not this rarified thing completely separate from government expenditures. When billionaires are taxed, those taxes aren’t pulled out of “the economy,” considering many government expenditures funded by taxes go right back into the economy.

This is a common fallacy among libertarians—the idea that the free market exists in opposition to government regulation and infrastructure spending. The free market is built on top of those things—the market would not exist without a government to enforce laws, public roads to transport goods, public airwaves and internet to disseminate content and ads, public scientific research, public schools that educate potential workers, etc.

Moreover, when a billionaire is taxed more and that money goes into unemployment benefits, studies have explicitly shown that the money has much more economic impact… because unmemployed people (unlike billionaires) tend to spend their money on goods and services.

A lot of Republicans are actually smart.

@mattbrowne They are a paradox. They’re intelligent but they continue to circulate the wild rumor and innuendo. That business about Michelle being paid $315,000 a year to work for 20 hours a week (which wasn’t true. It was just a bunch of mixed up facts.) That got handed to me by some one who worked as an engineer at Boeing for 30 years so he’s not dumb. They just pass the stuff along without even verifying any of it. As a consequence it makes otherwise reasonably intelligent people appear ignorant.

@Dutchess_III I think we call it stupid like a fox which is what I meant by the politicians knowing better, but playing into the more ignorant people in the parties. Not just the politicians, but people who want to reinforce the hate and fear. It is not just not verifying it is tha they want to believe it.

@JLeslie

The all or none argument is something you’ve made up. Nobody is suggesting anarchy. I think John Kasich said it best, “Government should be the last resort not the first”. As long as you have this notion that business (and conservatives) are just plain evil there is little common ground with which to work. It’s a way of neutralizing any argument you don’t like.

Believe it or not business prospers when they provide a good product. They wither and die when the try to screw the consumer. That’s what competition is all about. The health insurance industry is so heavily regulated that you can’t buy insurance across state lines. That is actually what the Interstate Commerce Clause was all about. To insure free trade between the states. But instead we limit competition and then blame it on the insurance industry. We have the most litigious country in the world but can’t see how that might contribute to health care costs. We spend more money on health care than any other country and we’re told the way to fix that is to spend another $trillion on it.

But as long as business is only interested in screwing the public to make a buck, I guess we have no choice. They’re motives are bad therefore they’re trying to screw us. Of course that bleeds into the rest of industry as well. That’s why we had to take over the Auto industry, and the big banks. Government is the only entity you can trust. The only entity that really cares about us. I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

@Jaxk Do you mean I am making up that conservatives are all or none? I know that is an extreme no one is really arguing for. My point is to me, what I keep hearing is the Repubicans around me, here in the south, saying, “government NEVER does anything right.” That simply is not true. I think you and I are agreeing it is not all or none. Mostly I think the people around me are talking about in regars to business, they generally are ok with the military, and things like fire departments and roads, but some are pretty iffy on education, and will also argue the roads and police protection could be done privately, but they are more extreme than most.

As far as health care, I think I mentioned on this thread, not sure, that I am at the extremes, pure single payer, or true competition across state lines, and sold directly to the consumer. I know I will never get single payer, but t hink about this. Once the capital is spent to build the hospital, using the operating rooms and beds is minimal, the building already exists, it’s just supplies, fixed and variable expenses. If the doctors are salaried, then it does not cost any more or them to do surgery than to see a patient for a consultation. I am all for doctors making a very good salary, don’t get me wrong. I wonder how much our military spends on health care per patient, or per people eligeable person compared to private? Maybe we would have to exclude war injuries to make it fair. The military is pure socialized medicine. I will never understand why military healthcare is not used as an example by either the democrats or the republicans, whoever’s argument it favors.

Competition is fantastic as long as there is competition. If a company is the only game in town they can suck the life out of you.

@JLeslie

This is the sentenced I keyed on.

“The Republicans right now want us to believe, again, all or none.”

Maybe I over reacted. As for health care, we spent a lot of time and energy complaining about the cost. Then enacted a health care bill that increases those costs. But we now are forced to buy what the government says we need (whatever that may be). The worst of all possible scenarios. It’s based on primary care (a shrinking field) and Medicaid (doctors don’t want to accept it). I suspect the plan is to institute single payer once this system completely fails. I would much rather have seen them address the cost but as was my original point reducing cost is not their strong suit.

The military is a tough comparison. The is the war issue but there is also not a typical population. Most military are younger and healthier (they get lots of exercise). It’s like trying to compare Medicare to the average. Medicare patients are older and less healthy than the average. Just too many hole to dispute.

I agree with your competition point but if there is no competition, most likely the government has done something to restrict it.

@Jaxk The military is somewhat of a unique population, but I know my dad was in until his late 50’s. During that time he had bi-pass surgery, and in retirement he of course still has access to military health. In fact, when he travels Space A (standby flight for military personnel and retirees and their dependents, there are tons of retirees around, getting military care. I grew up receiving military health care.

As to what you don’t like about the health care plan Obama has put in place, I am not happy with a lot of it also. Like I said I am more at the extremes, this middle ground is unnerving to me on this issue. I think if the plan fails there is no way single payer is coming, so that is interesting you think the opposite.

I don’t completely agree with the government stopping competition. Well, let me say that I am sure there are instances where this might be true, but I think many times it is not the case. Do you think it is the government who is allowing Delta airlines, was Northwest, to gouge the hell out us over here in Memphis? They are basically the only deal in town for non-stop flights to most cities, and they charge a ridiculous amount of money. Honestly, robbery. No real competition. We are the 11th most expensive airport in the country. I am tortured by Comcast, because I have no other cable option. There are more examples, but I am sure you have examples for your point too.

@JLeslie

Actually the whole point of regulating an industry is to eliminate competition. When the Airline industry was regulated the government set the prices, controlled who went where, and at what times. When the industry was deregulated in 1980, prices began to drop and by the 90s they were about a third of what they had been. Even today they are comparable to what they were 30 years earlier. As for Memphis specifically, I’d have to do some research. But of course we all know that the government approves or denies any mergers of companies of that size. So they played a role. Most of what is going on now with the airlines is based on rising costs, primarily fuel. But the security mess we created plays a role as well.

As for Comcast, there are several satellite companies that can provide competitive rates. Regulation can be helpful in things where there is incredibly high cost of entry. Such as sewer or water. Even when they deregulated telephone service, the local exchanges weren’t. But long distance charges sure went down.

@JLeslie Trust me, with the possible exception of trauma surgery, you do not want the military-style healthcare.

@Jaxk Incorrect; there are quite a lot of older folks (30+) and not all get regular exercise. Also, psychiatric/psychological health is still largely considered a myth, and treating people for being exposed to strange chemicals means acknowledging the sort of danger they like to sweep under the rug. I am lucky to have left with nothing more than mild PTSD, anxiety issues, and the occasional neurological tic.

@jerv I grew up in military health and my parents still get it.

@jaxk Gas prices is bullshit, forgive me bluntness. A couple of years after Katrina I did a little work for a woman who was organizing psych services for people along the coast in MS. This is when gas prices were very high, and everyone loved to talk about rising gas increasing the prices of everything, including air travel. I used to buy her tickets and Memphis to Gulf Port, MS was never less than $700 no matter how far in advance, could be weeks or last minute or whatever. If she drove to Little Rock and connected through Memphis, catching the exact same Memphis flight, it was usually in the low $200’s, because there was competition for connecting flights out of Little Rock for Gulf Port. The flight from Memphis to Gulf Port is probably a little over an hour. She also could go through Atlanta on Air Tran or Delta at the time for $200 something, but Northwest airlines had the non-stop exclusively and charged for it.

Another example. Last year I took my in-laws to Michigan, I bought their tickets the same day as I bought mine, both sets were non-stop to Detroit, same airline. Their tickets were $180 each round trip Ft. lauderdale to Detroit. My tickets were Memphis to Detroit $370 each. If you know your geography, I figure it is as outrageous to you as it is to me, and gas does not explain it. It is possible there are high taxes at Memphis airport, that I am not sure of, but that does not account for the big discrepencies either. I figure the big airlines work hard to keep the competitors out. Maybe deals are made?? I am not sure how that all works.

You can fly up and down the east coast cheap, because there is tons of competition.

I agree over regulation can inhibit competition, but at the same time the government sometimes prevents monopolies, although probably not well or often enough.

@Jaxk, businesses do often prosper when they make a good product.

They also often prosper when they make a lousy product. They can do this if they are able to control the market through monopolistic practices. They can also do this thanks to an uninformed public and shady marketing practices.

Your faith in the ability of the market to promote quality is based on a nonexistant public with near-perfect access to information. In the real world, consumers have extremely poor access to information about the products we purchase; having good information would require time for research of money to pay someone else to research (like consumer reports).

There are also many areas of economic activity—such as road construction, airwaves, electric utilities, and—yes—health care—that simply do not lend themselves to profit motives. In the case of health insurance there is an inverse relation to profit, since higher quality care for sick people means less profits for the companies.

This is why liberals believe the government should be active in regulating the marketplace. I see the government’s job, in economics at least, is to ensure that the market functions in a way that drives the evolution towards higher quality products. We also believe that the government should largely control industries that are inherently structured so that profit motive interferes with quality. This has worked pretty good in the case of electric utilities, police and fire protect, highways, and the Internet, and it’s worked out well in other countries for health care.

@JLeslie

I know it seems ridiculous when you look at flight distances and costs. The issue seems to be the hub and spoke arrangement that most all airlines adopted after deregulation. Kind of like the FedEx model. They found that if they flew most flights through a hub, they could move more people and keep the flights full at less cost than a network of non-stop flights that were only partially filled. Each airline has a different hub which makes it hard to compare non-stops between airlines. It gets a little complex but basically the fares are based on the how full the flights are rather than the distance. I know this is a distinctly unsatisfying answer but still the way it works.

As a side note, I’ve been finding that last minute reservations seem to be cheaper than advance bookings. Just the opposite of what they tell you. It seems that when they discover some flights have not filled, they offer discounts that weren’t available for advanced bookings. It all about capacity.

The fuel prices will affect the price of the flight but the cost per passenger will be greatly impacted by whether the flight is full or half full.

@Jaxk I live at the hub, that is the point. If I want a non-stop, Delta is the airline that occupies the majority of the airport, Memphis is a hub, and Delta basically has a monopoly on non-stops. For a short time American Airlines had a flight non-stop to Laguardia, I go to NY 2 or 3 times a year, and this brought down Delta’s fare cosiderably to NY but American pulled the flight. I have a choice of non-stop to Dallas and Chicago on American Airlines, because those are American Airlines hubs. By the way flying hub to hub is ridiculous, which was my example above, Memphis to Detroit is hub to hub, and a relatively short flight.

From Ft. Laud to Laguardia there are many many airlines that do that run non-stop, not using their typical hub connections, and there are many discount airlines to compete against also. Lots of competition, cheap flights.

Plus, flying on days, or flying places that many business travelers fly are more expensive too I think, because business will pay for expensive flights, and they just pass along the expense to us in the end.

@Jaxk The last minute flights on the larger airlines are rarely cheaper, except on some very specific routes. I wish the airlines would go more to the model of last minute being cheaper, but traditionally they figure people looking for a light last minute are desperate or businessmen, and so they can be taken advantage of. Some of the discount airlines do last minute fares regularly.

@Qingu

I know you’ll be surprised to hear that I disagree with your assessment. First of all the amount of information available on products is greater than it has ever been and people are using it. Finding answers to things like cost and quality only takes a few minutes in the Internet where it used to take days or weeks of intense research.

As for health care, I see the problems quite differently. Our system doesn’t lend itself to competition, but that could be fixed. First our system doesn’t allow interstate competition. The states do most of the regulation and it is quite different between the various states. This sounds like I’m suggesting federalization but not really. The interstate commerce clause was designed to fix this specific problem. You should be able to buy across state lines without restrictions. That would go a long ways to increasing the competition between the hundreds of different insurance carriers.

The second issue is in the basic design of our insurance. If you have a medical problem you go to the doctor and whatever it costs makes little or no difference to you. You pay your deductible and the rest is covered. You have little skin in the game. Things like generic drugs are don’t get used simply because there is little difference whether you use them or the name brand. I know my sister-in-law has severe arthritis. She was taking a brand drug when she was insured that was costing several hundred dollars per month. When she lost that insurance she had to pay for it herself. She found that the generic worked as well at a fraction of the cost. She also found that by shopping around she could get the same generic at a local pharmacy for less than half what it cost at the pharmacy she used to go to. So basically instead of several hundred a month, she now paying about $25 for the same thing. Our insurance system just doesn’t reward or incentivize anyone to use the most cost effective system or procedures.

And of course there is ‘Tort Reform’. Lawsuits cost us a lot more than the amount of the awards. Defensive medicine alone costs us over $100 billion/yr. Defensive medicine is practiced by virtually all doctors all of the time. Here is one doctors take on it. About 25% of all doctors get sued annually, over 50% of all doctors will be sued at least once in the life time. The cost of this litigation (win or lose) is an incredible burden on the system and driving factor for defensive medicine. It’s hard to be treated for anything anymore without seeing a specialist. This provides the family care physician with a hedge against being sued not because they are unable to diagnose the problem. And it adds tremendous cost to the system.

The health care bill doesn’t even address, let alone fix any of these problems.

@Jaxk, many people in America still do not have Internet access. Searching the internet and interacting with the information you find is a specialized process that requires education (which, again, many people do not have). Also, basic and useful information about product quality, such as their durability over long periods of testing, is not available over the internet for free; this is why Consumer Reports and Cook’s Illustrated have subscribers. Amazon reviews are helpful, but they do not magically create an informed populace.

Also, many people are simply stupid, which should really be one of the basic axioms of any economic theory.

I also think you misdiagnose the problem with health insurance. I agree with you that erasing competition across state lines sounds good in theory… in practice, every insurance company would simply relocate to whatever state was most favorable to their bottom line, as credit card companies did to Delaware. This did not materially increase competition in that area.

I do think you’ve identified one example of a perverse incentive structure in health care… but there are others, as well—specifically, insurance companies are incentivized to deny people with chronic diseases care, because that means less profits. There is really no way of getting around this, which is why the health care law outlaws denying people for pre-existing conditions. However, this creates another problem (freeloaders), which is why HCR mandates health coverage.

Tort reform is a tiny fraction of health care spending and waste and was not ever a serious solution to the problem. I agree that tort reform should happen but I don’t think it’s related to the fundamental problems in the industry that the HCR law tried to fix. It’s also a problem that is unique to the American legal system, because our system is structured in such a way that high civil court payments (which often seem egregious) are really the only disincentive for corporations and other white-collar malfeasance; there is no other incentive structure control in our legal system.

The only way to allow for interstate competition is to nationalize healthcare. Each state regulates each insurance company and requires a seperate policy for their particular state for a price of course. That is why there are 50 different insurance policies for 50 different states.

Your second issue may only apply to a cadilac plan because I know of no insurance that covers medications like you are suggesting.

Your third issue has been tried in Missouri and how has that done for their premiums.

The health care bill Will address some problems that thankfully you have not had to worry about. no more Pre-exsisting conditions, no more Lifetime limits, Children covered until 26,
these are blessing to those who NEED our medical insurance the most. The ones we are forcing to buy health insurance are usually the irresponsible younger generation who under the new regulations can stay on their parents plan.

President Obame met with both the House and the Senate for one on one questioning with the republicans to try to reach bi-partisan agreement. It’s quite possible that under the political environment he could have pushed through single payer. Instead he settled in the middle, so as to have the free market still involved in something that should fall under general welfare and be granted as a right to all of it’s citizens, not just the healthy and wealthy among us.

@thekoukoureport, I seriously doubt single payer was ever politically possible. I seriously doubt that the public option was ever politically possible, even. Nate Silver has given good reasons for this, and I think criticizing Obama for this really amounts to armchair political strategizing.

I am not criticizing, I am pointing out how our president has tried to comprimise and bring about bi-partisanship like he pledged in his campaign.

@Jaxk Another problem with health care is being sick and dying is scary shit, and the doctors have us. What are we going to do if we need their help, they can practically name their price. It is not like we can effectively boycott. I know the insurance companies and government many times tell a doctor what they are willing to pay, but the doctor can still charge more, and they do in many cases. And if you don’t have insurance they charge more, more than what tthey get from the health insurance companies, so if you are out of work, no insurance you pay more. There is so much wrong with how the system is set up no, it is a not a just system, not even close.

My neighbor told me a story recenetly that several years ago she had a small but of skin cancer on her nose, and she wanted a plastic surgeon to sew it up, since it was on her nose. It was not melonoma, the tissue removed was not a very deep piece. She did not discuss price, she did have insurance. He did the work, and at the end the person in the office who collects the money asked my friend if she wanted to pay now and file with the insurance company, or have the office file and then bill her for the balance. My girlfriend asnwered that she would pay now. The employee said, “that will be $10,000.” No lie. For less than a centemeter of work that was done in less than an hour in the doctors office. Fuck him. She was stunned to say the least. She lived in Tupelo at the time, a small city. Her insurance covered some of it, and she had to pay the balance. I never would have guessed more than $2,000 for that, and that would be very high in my mind. When she told a friend of her husband’s the amount, the friend is a GP, he said the price was criminal. probably not too many plastic surgeons in Tupelo, MS, he can charge wat he wants I guess.

@thekoukoureport, apologies. I have a knee-jerk reaction to that kind of thing, apparently.

@Qingu
The Internet argument I find sadly lacking. Most Americans have a computer and at least have dial up. If they are too stupid as you suggest, to evaluate products, it’s not the governments job to do it for them. As for the credit card competition, it did improve competition throughout the country. Credit cards have been cheap and available for everyone. Annual fees have been reduced or eliminated, interest rates have dropped, and overall usage has increased dramatically. At least until Obama made his changes. Now things seem to be reversing. Credit card interest rates are rising and fees are returning. Thanks Obama, that was a helluva help.

Chronic health problems account for something like 75% of our health care costs. It is a problem no matter what you do. The current plan is to spread the costs across everybody. Maybe that’s right but as you note, it allows you to ignore insurance (and pay the fine) until you have a problem then sign up. I’m not sure that’s a solution.

As for ‘Tort Reform’, if you say it was not a serious solution then I assume you mean costs were not a serious issue. Tort reform could easily save over $100 billion/yr. That is as much as the entire heath care bill was supposed to cost (it will actually cost more but who’s counting). There are estimates that it would save 5–9% of our entire health care expense ($2.2 trillion). And just for drill, if Obama was serious about listening to anyone he would have included some of the costs saving proposals the Republicans provided. He didn’t.

@JLeslie

I would think that my point about the consumer involvement would apply. If you friend had been concerned enough to ask about the price she may have used another provider. At least she would not have been surprised by the outcome. The cost of any surgical procedure is astronomical. A lot of that has to do with Tort.

@Jaxk I actually do agree with your point to an extent, but it goes along with the my pointing out the enormous lack of integrity in medicine because it has become a business, rather than health care. I have had a lot of fertility problems, much of which is not insured, and they charge us a fortune, and I bet are making a fortune. There will never be enough competition to make that price come down in my opinion, it is more like they all got together and decided on the price.

@Jaxk, I guess we have a fundamental disagreement here. If companies take advantage of people’s lack of education or stupidity to sell shoddy products with deceitful marketing, I do think it’s the government’s job to step in. I understand government’s most fundamental job, in the abstract, as “protect the weak from being preyed on by the strong.” Lack of education—and lack of intelligence—are forms of weakness in our current society. I don’t subscribe to the view that such people “deserve” to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous intelligent people.

I always thought it was ironic that so many conservatives deny the theory of evolution, but seem to have morals based on darwinism.

I’m confused as to what you mean by “fees are returning” to the credit card industry. This seems to be an absurd statement as the credit card industry of yore had many incredibly steep and often unfair fees. Perhaps you mean new kinds of fees?

As to tort reform, did you even read your own link? I’m going to quote from it:

Even so, health-care experts say the direct costs of medical malpractice—the insurance premiums, claims paid and legal fees—amount to a very small portion of overall health-care spending.

Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense costs and claims payments, was $30.41 billion in 2007, according to an estimate from consulting firm Towers Perrin. That is a significant figure, but it still amounts to a little more than 1% of total U.S. health-care spending, which the federal government estimates at $2.241 trillion for 2007.

In a 2003 report that called for medical liability reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that limits on malpractice awards could save between $70 billion and $126 billion a year. But that estimate was based on a study published in 1996 that analyzed data on elderly heart-disease patients from 1984 to 1990. That study, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that malpractice liability reforms lowered health costs by between 5% and 9%.

You cherry-picked and distorted a quote from your source. Poor form. In any case, the CBO has done the relevant analysis. Tort reform would only save $54 billion over ten years.

@JLeslie

There will be no movement on the cost of medical procedures without tort reform. Even seemingly simple procedures use the same clinical services as more complicated ones. Blood test, examinations, specialists, and medical equipment all carry the same costs whether your life depends on it or not. And your odds of being sued are no less for fertility diagnosis than they are for a triple bypass. Although the award may be better.

Also, the way you’ve framed your argument about internet access and consumer choice is interesting. Am I to assume that, before the advent of the internet, you would have been in favor of heavy government regulation because people wouldn’t have had access to good information?

(I disagree that internet access provides this to nearly the same extent that you do, as it’s actually quite difficult to find reliable information on the internet; but let’s put that aside for now.)

@Qingu

I’m confused on what you think I’ve distorted.

“Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense costs and claims payments, was $30.41 billion in 2007”

OK so there’s $30 billion in direct costs. Then it says

“In a 2003 report that called for medical liability reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that limits on malpractice awards could save between $70 billion and $126 billion a year.”

I used the low figure to get to $100 billion. Seems perfectly logical to me. As for the CBO, we don’t know what information they were given to analyze. Most likely the were only looking at the direct cost of awards as the result of lawsuits. The actual awards total about $5 billion a year. but that does not cover the legal defense for all the lawsuits nor even touch on the cost of tort reform. You need to look a little farther.

That is some interesting math.

First of all, tort reform would not eliminate all costs. I mean… I shouldn’t have to explain this.

Secondly, the article made it clear that the study you cited was considered non-representative.

And this is moot because the CBO has already done the analysis. It’s what I cited. The nonpartisan CBO is the official scorekeeper of costs when it comes to these kind of debates. Why don’t you believe them?

@Qingu

As our products have become more complex, so have the resources we use to analyze those products. If you need a label on your ladder that says “this end up” I doubt you should be using a ladder.

Do you think companies should be able to sell ladders that cannot support the weight of a 200-lb person?

Just to be clear: it seems like you’re saying that, today, I could go on the internet and easily find whether or not my ladder may well result in my death, because there would be negative reviews.

So therefore, the government doesn’t need to regulate the seller of such ladders.

Is this what you’re saying?

@Qingu

I wish you’d give some thought to your answers before blasting out. If the CBO estimated $54 billion over ten years and we know that the payout from lawsuits was $5 billion per year, then it means that they estimated the payouts and that’s all. As for the reducing the cost of defensive medicine. It is an estimate of what we could save not what the total cost is. As you say, I should not have to explain this.

What if I weigh 250 pounds.

I’ll let the discussion on tort reform stand for itself. I think it’s clear you’ve distorted the point your own source is making. I also trust the CBO’s analysis quite a bit more than your extrapolations.

You didn’t answer my question about the ladder. Should ladder manufacturers be allowed to sell ladders that don’t support the weight of an average person?

@Qingu

If you want to quote the CBO report you need to know what they were analyzing. I’ll leave it to you to figure that out.

As for your ladder problem, they all say how much they support. I have no problem enforcing the truth in advertising laws. If you want to make the ladder companies comply with your arbitrary national standard, you have to make the ladders sustain the weight of any user, which makes them way over priced for the average person. That is the problem we get into when we try to over regulate.

What if the ladder does not say how much weight it supports on the box?

If I, a normal-sized human, buy a ladder, take it out of the box, climb up it, and then it breaks and I die, is the ladder manufacturer criminally liable?

Or are you saying the government should regulate the selling of ladders such that ladder manufacturers must test the ladders and say how much weight they can support clearly, and prohibit the selling of any who do not?

I’m with you on false advertising (which is regulated by the government). I’m just not sure exactly where you draw the line at this point. What about computers that come installed with hidden spyware? What about food manufacturers that sell bacteria-infested food? Toy makers that sell toys with lead paint or poisonous plastics?

The point here is to determine where you think the burden of testing product safety should lie. Without government regulation, the burden obviously rests on the consumer.

In your ideal world, should I go on the internet and check before I buy meat, toys, computers, and hardware to make sure every purchase won’t kill me?

We may be approaching the real point here which is not whether there should be laws but rather how much government involvement we need.

“If I, a normal-sized human, buy a ladder, take it out of the box, climb up it, and then it breaks and I die, is the ladder manufacturer criminally liable?”

I would say no. They may however be civilly liable but that would depend on the specific circumstances. The bottom line is they do put the supportable weight on them and I have no problem making sure that happens. I would however have a problem with making them all support 400 pounds.

To get to a better example, remember the 5 mph bumpers. The government legislated that. It has shifted a bit but all cars had to have a bumper that would withstand a 5 mph crash with a certain minimum damage (can’t remember the number). That added significant cost to every car sold, in fact the total cost was more than the total damage it was meant to eliminate. And to make matters worse, it didn’t address the real issue. The auto makers lobbied for ta different change, Ralph Nader and his gang lobbied for this one. The change the auto makers wanted was to standardize bumper height so that the cars would actually impact on the bumper instead of riding under or over when hit. That change would have cost nothing while the 5 mph change cost about $400 a car in ‘74 and has only gone up. Interesting article here

The point here is that government is simply not good at making these decisions and the cost of their decisions is astronomical. If the government always made good decisions, or even occasionally made good decisions, I might change my mind.

“We may be approaching the real point here which is not whether there should be laws but rather how much government involvement we need.”

My sentiments exactly! Many Conservatives are of the opinion that the answer to that is “less than zero”, which I feel is utter bullshit. Personally, I feel that they should have some involvement, but as it stands, they are rather overbearing in some ways while not involved enough in others; in other words, they are clueless.

What I find funny (in a disconcerting way) is attempts to legislate anything even remotely technological. You mention cars, but their involvement with the Internet is spotty and ridiculous. They seem to want to apply 16th-century logic to a 21st-century stuff as opposed to acknowledging that the world has changed and old paradigms don’t always hold true.

The reason I mention that is for an etymology lesson. See, outside of politics, “conservative” has many other meanings. One of them “is resistance to change” while another is “reluctance to accept new ideas”. In some ways that is good; if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But in others, it’s bad; if it is broke, don’t fix it. Of course, the Liberals attitude is, “If it ain’t broke, fix it until it is”, so I can’t help but be cynical and think that no matter which side of the aisle we choose to ule over us, we are boned.

@jerv
“Many Conservatives are of the opinion that the answer to that is “less than zero”,”

See you did it again. No conservative says that, not one. If in fact anybody says that they are not a conservative but rather an anarchist. Truth is there aren’t many of those around.

As for change, it can be good or it can be bad. What you have to realize is that any change will create disruption. There will be a period of things getting worse before they get better. That is assuming it is a good change, if not things just keep getting worse. If it is a major change there will be bugs, alterations needed. Change needs to happen with good planning and deliberation. And you need to make sure you have the time to work through the disruption. More than one company has gone belly up by making a good change that drove them to bankruptcy before the benefits were felt. Or that they made too many changes at the same time and couldn’t sort out what was working and what wasn’t.

Any good scientific research will vary one element while holding everything else constant. Other wise you don’t know the effect of the change you want to make.

@Jaxk “No conservative says that, not one. If in fact anybody says that they are not a conservative but rather an anarchist.”
That sounds like a “No True Scotsman” fallacy to me. Maybe I’ve been unfortunate, but as I said before, I can only answer based on what I see and hear with my own eyes. BTW, by “many”, I do not mean a majority, but even 1% of one million is a big enough number to qualify as “many” in my book, and I am pretty sure that there are more than one million people that call themselves Conservatives, and I know for a fact that more than 1% of the Conservatives that I’ve seen are like that.

“Any good scientific research will vary one element while holding everything else constant. Other wise you don’t know the effect of the change you want to make.”
Any political action, good or bad, will have enough pork n it to tweak several things, so we really have no idea what actually works.

@jerv

You may be suffering from the result of your own argument. If you argue all I can’t argue half as the compromise position is almost all. I have to argue none, to meet in the middle at half.

The problem is, zero government by definition, is anarchy. And by the way, more than half the country counts themselves as at least somewhat conservative. That’s more than a million.

@Jaxk Or, you could look at it as if fertility was just another medical procedure, they could not put a premium on it. Why should that doctor make so much more than any other specialist? Uhhh, because the people he is treating are very emotional about this? Just pull out their credit card and say, “ok, what choice do I have.”

@Jaxk, I’m glad we can agree that some level of government regulation is necessary (I would add that it’s necessary from the perspective of market economics, not just morally, because having a marketplace full of potentially unsafe products makes consumers paranoid and forces them to spend time and energy researching when they could be purchasing).

I also agree that it’s not hard to find examples of silly government regulations that don’t accomplish their intended effects.

But I think you’re minimizing the good here. You brought up Ralph Nader. Do you have any idea how unsafe automobiles were before Nader and co. lobbied to mandate seatbelts, collapsable steering columns and other safety features? How many lives have been saved? You cited “astronomical” costs to such regulation: are the costs of including mandatory seatbelts and collapsible columns actually that high?

I actually consider myself a “conservative” in the classic sense of being weary of sudden, disruptive changes. So I also agree with you on that point. But I feel that, just as liberals often ignore consequences to change, conservatives (such as yourself) tend to ignore externalities of economic actions. I hope you can understand that thoughtful liberal policies are not motivated by a desire to “control everything” and ruin big business, but rather to ensure a safe and fair marketplace. A safe and fair marketplace is an efficient marketplace.

@Qingu

Sorry I was gone yesterday and will be gone for a few more days. My point is that we have gone over the deep end on regulation and it is costing us our economic growth. I’ll leave you with this report that provides the scope of what it costs.