Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

Isn't it a case of being afraid of something you don't really know and don't really understand and have always be taught to mistrust when it comes to Americans and socialised healthcare?

dreaming
The greatest thing about the NHS is that it separates health care from your employment status. It's amazing!

Not only in the UK, in all countries who have a socialised health care system. Also it is not for free, as usually referred to, of course it is financed by tax and deductions in the UK and in other Western European countries.

I have yet to meet an American who lived in Europe and didn't love this.

Nightlurker UTAH was the last state in the US to have slaves up until 1862 held by mormon pioneer who lived there and the rules of blacks entering membership also know as the priesthood not to go through the temple in the mormon church were changd by the announcemnet of a phrophecy in 1978. These are matters of historical fact that you can easily check.

Also since Brigham Youngs proclamation that one drop disqualifies you will rarely if ever see a mix raced mormon family as one drop of non white blood disqualified anyone from the temple. Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110

Adding to Kateemoo's explanation as well, if at a slightly tangent. In the US, it is perfectly lawful to treat part timers less favourably than full time employees. So as well as contending with lack of health insurance, a part timer may well have to cope with lower pro rata pay, no paid holiday, etc. A particularly hard choice for mothers/fathers who would prefer to work fewer hours, and a big reason why so many mothers in the US who work do so full time. The suspicion of government means I have never seen a mainstream US politician seriously challenge this.

Three things I have seen regarding healthcare in the US shocked me to the core:

• someone who had been in a traffic accident refusing to get in the ambulance sent as that hospital was outside plan (about 2008, so I don't know if anything has changed);
• hearing a woman in her 20s with arthritis explaining that she couldn't get her own insurance as she had a pre-existing condition. So when she came off her parent's plan, she had no cover, and no hope of getting any, even if she were somehow able to work the full time hours needed to get it;
• a Christian family praying that, when the mother's water's broke early,God would steer the doctors not to do too many tests (they had no insurance and couldn't afford them).

When used in USA implies out of touch with family values and belief in limited government, personal responsibility, constitution being constructed strictly

Heartland Americans have the idea of a lib as some well off privileged person in NY, Boston or California eating exotic food and drinking fancy stuff around a big dinner table and watching a lot of specialist / subtitled films and letting their teenagers have their boy/girlfriends stay in their room, and not caring about American tradition. Effectively a cultural defector to Europe. Which is spectacularly inaccurate for many left leaning people but hey, stereotypes are like that.

Liberal has become a term of abuse from many right-wingers, I think starting in the 1980s thanks to some evil genius political marketers.

It doesn't have the same connotation as in Europe. In the US it means someone very left-wing, basically a wussy commie hippie PC bleeding heart un-American fool.

not you, you say you're British.

I mean when used in the US.

I wonder if they'd mean it as abusive to call someone (say) a Liberal Iranian or a Liberal Russian.

Liberal - not so much a term of abuse as a position I do not usually support being more conservative than liberal though I have views which would go under both headings. I am not what the US pundits call a movement conservative who takes the rightwing side on all issues. I used to be.

Piglet it used to be a big deal, I'm not sure it matters anymore.

Look at 2004, John Kerry was a decorated war veteran, Bush dodged the war, he still won.

Just to add to kateemo's great explanation -- many hourly paid jobs in retail and the service industry, especially for small businesses, do not come with health insurance. So even working full-time does not mean you have health care. I was a waitress for years and was never offered insurance.

This is one of the reasons why a lot of people don't have insurance, and one of the things that the Obama plan aims to change, by making it easier for small businesses and individuals to access insurance plans.

I also think that now insurance companeis can no longer refuse you insurance because of preexisting conditions. They can charge you a fortune for it though.

The greatest thing about the NHS is that it separates health care from your employment status. It's amazing!

In the US, it it considered a disadvantage to be known as a draft-dodger in time of war, like for example President Clinton, President George W Bush, not-yet-Vice President Romney, and even (gasp) John Wayne?

Why is "Liberal" a term of abuse?

I am Actually British with family connections to USA, mainly Republican, although I have never spent more than two weeks there.

I am not a "reactionary" of any description. With regard to my saying how most of the British people are pro Obama and especially on this website...
"Metropolitan elite " neither reflect our society as a whole, this is classism against the majority
"Liberal "- liberalism is a philosophical part of the Western tradition since enlightenment and so could be seen as a core value but in the narrow political sense I intended here and thought would be understood as such is just one of numerous positions.
"Professional"- Is not a term of abuse but refers to what I have seen lurking on here that more people talk about being professional or management than lower down the employment classification, MN has been described as "(mainly ) middle class " by journalists across the spectrum. This correlates to less conservative view on average
I do not think that pro life or letting parents decide whether their children are taught sex education in school are way out of the mainstream : 1 in 4 opposed to abortion consistent across gender and age groups so a minority but hardly extreme. For parental rights the majority is with me! I do not support easy gun laws over here but there should be a personal protection license available to groups such as rape and domestic violence victims and innocent family members of undercover police for example. Healthcare, I said I support Obama's affordable care act almost fully.

Do not make the anti-American assumption they are culturally inferior to Europe or the patronizing assumption British citizens all share a narrow view and thus hate Republicans.

/extremist-baiting calmly replied to

Just some clarification of how healthcare works in the U.S. (I am a U.S. citizen living in UK but lived and worked in U.S. for 15 years). Healthcare is mostly offered by employers. I say mostly because you are usually required to work full-time, or 40 hours per week, in order to receive healthcare, which you still pay for as a deduction in your earnings. As a single woman, I was paying nearly $400 per month for employer-based health insurance. A family of 4 can pay as much as $2000 for health insurance.

And even with health insurance, you have to pay a co-payment to visit the doctor, for prescriptions, or any treatment you may require.

If your employment is under 40 hours per week, you will not even qualify for the company plan. So you will have to find insurance on your own if you want to have it. A lot of companies routinely offer 36-hour or 38-hour per week jobs so that they don't have to offer the healthcare benefit as it's expensive for businesses as well.

Once you are 65 years or older, you are eligible for Medicare, which is the government's healthcare program which is funded by federal taxpayer revenue. The idea is that you pay into it for your working life and then you can use it in your retirement. Some people with disabillities < 65 years old will qualify for this program, but not everyone. But even Medicare seems to be under threat.

If you are a college student and you graduate without a job (like so many), you would have had to get insurance on your own because you are over 21 years old. Obama's plan at least changed that so that these folks could stay on their parents' plans until they are 26.

Some states offer public health clinics which are funded by state tax revenue. My sister works in one of these in Florida as a paediatrician. Her appointment book is full until November.

Healthcare companies will often not insure people who have 'pre-existing conditions'--which can be anything. So people who have medical problems risk losing their coverage if they lose their employment or circumstances change.

If you are 'between jobs' or out of work, health insurance is an enormous expense. I always found it prohibitive and went without until I was in my next job. While very scary, I had to choose the ability to buy food and pay for shelter. Thank God nothing ever happened.

So many things need changing. But this is one of the biggest. Obama's just begun to transform the healthcare system. And the Supreme Court's verdict to uphold Obama's health insurance bill can easily be rescinded by the next President.

Talkin I hear ya!

When Bush was reelected in 2004, I was one of the many who said, that's it, I'm leaving. I actually did leave the next year and haven't moved back. Every time I get homesick and think maaaaybe I could go back, an election cycle starts and I remember why it's so awful to be home (I lived in DC so it was particularly bad).

It just breaks my heart because there is so much that is GOOD about the US and Americans, that gets overlooked so much. But I just can't deal with the insanity anymore. I guess that makes me weak but ah well.

18 months til my French passport

dreamingbohemian
hear hear
there are times when I am proud of the country where I was born
and others where I cannot WAIT to get my UK passport

not that the voting options in the UK are much less toxic !!

Mardyfish what a strange thing to say. Who is assuming they have the same culture? I'm not sure anyone thinks that, do they? And who is assuming Americans are bothered what we think about them either?

Just because people here take an interest in/comment on something that very much affects the rest of the world doesn't mean they are assuming Americans will take note of those viewpoints! I certainly wouldn't assume that, and the fact that many Americans show little or no interest in the rest of the world is something to comment on in itself, IMO.

I would not assume a Republican was racist. I would, however, assume a racist would vote Republican.

(I'm American and have not yet been proven wrong on this.)

It is a big reason for my visceral dislike of the Republican Party.

I always smirk at UK reporting/comment on American politics (particularly the Republicans).

Here's the news guys: they absolutely do not give a fuck that you think they are a bunch of primitive reactionaries. In fact they don't even know, and don't understand your thinking.

Just because they speak the same language doesn't mean they share your culture.

In short, judge someone as an individual based on their personal track record rather than just the general views of their religion. To do otherwise is very often equally discriminatory.

I think a lot of people in this country would very upset if they were called homophobic because their church didn't support gay marriage and would say that didn't represent them, even though they were members of the church.

I also think you need to credit organisation which do make changes, rather than continually beat them with a stick about it.

Like I say, I don't know what the position is with the Mormons, but I am deeply uncomfortable with using remarks about a religion as a whole to attack an individual.

creighton thats not what I'm saying. I personally think that Romney IS racist and that a lot of Republicans ARE racist.

My point was to say that, you shouldn't say that Mormons are racist based on stuff from 1978 as people in this thread have suggested. I think thats just as ignorant and I think his religion is being used against Romney, which again is wrong and doesn't help. Even if Romney IS a racist.

It would be wrong to do that if a candidate was a British Muslim, so why is it ok to do it if its a white Mormon? There is a double standard going on here.

Hmmm, how dare you say 'if racism did exist', the whole of american society was built on racism that they still have not gotten over yet. if you don't know your past you can never improve and do better in the future.

there are lots of americans who want obama out because he is black, they want 'their' country back.

the past is brought up to show what is going on with a candidate, romney's speeches over the last few months are not his whole persona. he will say anything to get elected. his career was built on putting americans out of work. people should know that and judge him on that. that is his whole economic experience, impoverishing others to make himself rich. will that make him a good president?

With regard to Mormons and racism. Lets not dwell too much on the past. If racism did exist, and things have moved on since then, is it fair to keep dragging it up for the sake of an argument?

I don't know what the current position is with the Mormons but thats the relevant point, not what it was. Thats what you should be looking up and finding out.

If you look back to 1978 within British politics and culture are we squeaky clean? The answer is very definite no. Maybe better than the US overall, but it was certainly very much institutionalised. So ask yourself why is this being dragged up? Its part of trying to make a candidate look bad...

"Blacks were never denied membership in the Mormon church. The early mormons suffered a great deal of persecution, in part, because of their anti-slavery views."

I don't know if that is true, but I know mormon faith teaches black are black because God punished them for their sins. I do know however that Utah's main iniversity didn't allow black players in their basketball teams at least until the 1980s.

I have to say that at some point in my life I have been tempted to join that faith but have not been able to go pass by their very racist slant.

With respect Extrospetiv, when you said "This is everything I expect from Mumsnet", well yes exactly because its a British based website and frankly some of the stuff you yourself have come out with a lot of Brits would consider pretty unacceptable and dated in 2012. It just shows the difference in culture and the face that we understand each other a lot less than we think we do. This thread is aimed at a British audience and to explain US politics in terms we understand and can compare to things we know.

I am well aware that Romney isn't one of the extreme members of the Republican party; but his party does have a lot of members who do come out with remarks that would get you arrested in the UK. And they have been elected into office. Whether or not that is reflective of the party or not, they are tolerated by mainstream Republicans and that in itself would not be acceptable to Brits and within British politics.

This comment has really made me laugh really hard
This is everything I'd expect from Mumsnet though, A.K.A. metropolitan elite liberal feminist professional pro-abortion pro-gay marriage pro-mandatory sex ed pro-redistributive taxation pro-state funded healthcare anti-gun anti-austerity set.

Well yes because they are all mainstream British values! They are very central to our national identity and love of democracy and tolerance.

We are different as nations and we, and most of the rest of Europe, simply don't have the same kind of politics and we struggle to understand a lot of American values as they totally conflict with the ones we are brought up to cherish and consider most important.

It doesn't mean I don't like Americans. It doesn't mean I don't have Republican voting friends. What it does mean is I struggle to understand is views that we actually find offensive and are still tolerated in mainstream politics in the US. Which is why actually the BNP analogy isn't that far wrong - because the BNP sit on the very edge of what we consider acceptable in British politics and the Republican Party do come out with things that fall slightly beyond that limit.

There is no way, that if we had a black Prime Minister you would have vocal, well respected politicians and businessman (Hello Mr Trump) making remarks about where he was born and how he needed to show his birth certificate. It just would not be accepted. Not even if a remark was made in jest. (Hello Mr Romney).

We have different standards and different limits of what is acceptable and what isn't. We are two different worlds.

This thread is brilliant. I studied American politics as part of my degree, so although I know how the mechanics work, its fascinating to see how/what American's think about the parties/candidates/policies.

For me, I just don't think I will ever understand the mindset of Republicans. I don't know if its just the UK Media but Romney/Ryan seem pretty fecking scary! I have a friend in America and he will be voting for Romney as he thinks Obama is too inexperienced and just hates him. His only problem with Romney seems to be that he's a bit cheesy .

What I really don't understand though, particularly with republicans, is how can they be anti-govt intervention in healthcare, except in the cases of women and their bodies? Apart from being utterly wrong (IMHO) its also extremely hypocrticial!