The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Tea Party movement and its implications for the Republican Party, exploring themes of grassroots politics, political identity, and the impact of rhetoric on public perception. Participants express varied opinions on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Tea Party, as well as its relationship with mainstream Republicanism and broader political dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Tea Party represents a detrimental force within the GOP, suggesting it panders to irrational fears and anger, potentially leading to the party's decline.
  • Others express admiration for certain Tea Party figures, indicating a divide in perception regarding their influence and appeal.
  • Concerns are raised about the Tea Party's ability to elect candidates, with some suggesting that their presence may inadvertently benefit Democrats in elections.
  • Participants discuss the rhetoric used by Tea Party leaders, with some finding it offensive or problematic, while others defend it as a legitimate expression of political views.
  • There is a contention regarding the labeling of Tea Party members as "tea baggers," with some defending the term as a self-identification and others criticizing it as derogatory.
  • Some participants highlight a perceived similarity in the corruption and failings of both major political parties, suggesting that the Tea Party is a distraction from larger systemic issues.
  • Discussions also touch on the historical context of political protests, with some arguing that the framing of protests varies depending on the political alignment of the protesters.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of competing views regarding the Tea Party's role and impact on the Republican Party and American politics more broadly. There is no clear consensus, as opinions vary significantly on the movement's legitimacy and effectiveness.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the motivations and beliefs of political groups, and there are unresolved questions regarding the implications of the Tea Party's actions on future elections and party dynamics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring grassroots political movements, the dynamics of party politics in the U.S., and the role of rhetoric in shaping public opinion.

  • #1,051


Al68 said:
Just out of curiosity, do you work at a hospital, or a nuclear facility? If the latter, we might know each other. (I'm a radiological engineer who has worked at several nuclear facilities.)

Neither, I work in a research university.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,052


BobG said:
You know, they do say something about having insurance companies pay for routine health care that inherently makes sense on the surface, but was a conscious choice by the insurance companies because encouraging routine check-ups prevents paying out larger sums for treating diseases that could have been prevented. Health insurance is the exception where this practice actually pays off for all involved.[...]
As I recall from the health care law debate it turns out that theory is mistaken. Proponents supposed as you do, that the requirements for routine checkups would save money but when the statistics were actually run opponents found that when counting up the costs for sending all the healthy-anyways people in for routine work outweighed the savings in preventing the more expensive disease treatments. This doesn't mean that routine work shouldn't be done, just that it probably doesn't save money.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,053


mheslep said:
As I recall from the health care law debate it turns out that theory is mistaken. Proponents supposed as you do, that the requirements for routine checkups would save money but when the statistics were actually run opponents found that when counting up the costs for sending healthy-anyways people in for routine work outweighed the savings in preventing more expensive to treat disease. This doesn't mean that routine work shouldn't be done, just that it probably doesn't save money.

Doctors need test results - to write prescriptions - and recommend specialists.
 
  • #1,054


TheStatutoryApe said:
There are a lot of crazy politicians out there. Ron Paul was pretty crazy, though not quite that bad, and garnered himself a decent little following.

RP is certainly not an ideal candidate for freedom lovers, but he's way better that Palin, Obama, McCain and all the other freedom haters.
 
  • #1,055


mheslep said:
As I recall from the health care law debate it turns out that theory is mistaken. Proponents supposed as you do, that the requirements for routine checkups would save money but when the statistics were actually run opponents found that when counting up the costs for sending all the healthy-anyways people in for routine work outweighed the savings in preventing more expensive to treat disease. This doesn't mean that routine work shouldn't be done, just that it probably doesn't save money.

WhoWee said:
Doctors need test results - to write prescriptions - and recommend specialists.

The latter is debatable. Doctors are as liable to corruption as lawyers. For some reason, lawyers are perceived as sneaky and lacking in ethics while doctors are seen as noble, pursuing their profession only for the good of mankind.

Doctors that make profits off of the tests recommend more tests than doctors that have no financial stake. The latter theoretically only schedules the tests they need. It doesn't the cost the patient extra regardless of how many tests are done, so the patients of the first type of doctor think they're getting great health care from a very thorough doctor. The doctors that have no financial stake in tests follow suit so they, too, can be perceived as very thorough doctors.

Hence, a sound idea (routine preventative health care) gets distorted because a third party is doing the paying and because there's no regulations to prevent doctors from testing for profit. Eliminating third party payers wouldn't eliminate this problem, though. Even if the patient was paying, he'd be put in the position of trying to decide whether he or his doctor knew what tests were necessary or not. The patient would pay for whatever tests he could afford whether they were necessary or not, because doubting the word of his doctor seems foolhardy.

This isn't a new problem. There was a time when doctors wrote prescriptions for profit. In other words, the doctor would prescribe some unnecessary medicine, which the patient would buy from the doctor. Now, there's regulations to prevent a doctor from both prescribing a medication and selling it. Because doctors are no more moral than lawyers (who aren't generally as unethical as the jokes about them would indicate), regulations had to be put in place to keep them from virtually becoming snake oil salesmen.

The same type of regulations need to be put in place for medical diagnostic tests. Eliminate the profit motive and the sound idea of preventative health care actually works in practice instead of only in theory.

And how many diagnostic tests does it take to recommend a patient go see a specialist that will pay the doctor for the number of new customers the doctor sends the specialist's way. This is another practice that needs to be banned.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,056


BobG said:
For some reason, lawyers are perceived as sneaky and lacking in ethics while doctors are seen as noble, pursuing their profession only for the good of mankind.

Unless you've been on death row - not many lawyers are ever likely to save your life.o:) (sorry)
 
  • #1,057


Maine is in good hands now! (Not) The Tea-party darling was elected governor, and Republicans claiming to be fiscal conservatives took control of the house. Guess who the incoming Speaker is? Bob Nutting, who as owner of True's Pharmacy over-billed MaineCare (Maine's Medicaid program) by over a million and a half bucks for adult incontinence products. After getting nailed in an audit, he paid back a little over $400,000, then declared bankruptcy, leaving Maine's taxpayers on the hook for $1.2M.

These are the same "fiscal conservatives" that want to undo programs like MaineCare. Gov-elect LePage says "MaineCare is on its last legs and I'm going to put it out of its misery." He should ask the incoming speaker how to make a fortune off it through fraud before shutting it down. Nutting claimed that his over-billing was due to an "accounting" error, but the auditor found that 100% of the bills to MaineCare for years were inflated. The guy should be in jail, not in the statehouse.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
36K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K