Sorry I have to do this.... The Australian Experience (aka, Why is the US so extreme?)

[Eureka]

Hi All

Look, I try to respect that DU is American, and Aussies and Americans are different, but we sort of aren't, as well.

So many threads get posted and I think "Why can't they just be reasonable over there?"

Here are a few things where I think "It's just not reasonable!"

Guns, obviously.....

After the Port Arthur shootings in (I think) 2006 guns were heavily regulated in Aus. NOT BANNED.

So many threads here talk about guns being banned in Aus but it's not the case. The simple thing is, to get a gun I need to show a reason why I need it. Not an unreasonable request, IMHO. Disclosure, I have a gun license and have owned many guns. The unbelievable thing is that if I need a reason simply belonging to "SSAA" (Sporting Shooters Association Australia) is enough, < $100/year and I get a magazine (printed paper variety, for the pedants in the crowd ) every month which I diligently put in the recycling before reading and after removing the plastic wrap.

SSAA is like the NRA except they don't have that crazy "moar gunz" attitude. I can have any number of shotguns, rifles etc just by putting my reason as "target shooting". I do need to register each one with a serial number, and keep it in an approved safe and the Police are able to visit me (with 24 hrs notice) to make sure that is the case. I can have a Glock pistol if I like, but to do so I need to compete in a target competition twice a year (sanctioned by SSAA) and transport it in a locked safe (quite cheap) between my home and gun range when I do. Again, not unreasonable.

I don't have the right to shoot anyone even in self defense, but the odds of anyone I have to defend myself against having a gun are so minuscule as to be non-existent, and I leave in/near a rough area of our biggest city. We don't put you in jail for much over here, but if whatever you do involves a gun, then look out.

Health Care......

Contrary to belief, we don't really have "Single Payer" in Aus. We have Medicare, which means that I can get health care services for free but then I'm in the queue. If I have to have surgery or go to emergency then that's free, but if it's not life threatening then I have to wait (sometimes 20 mins, sometimes a month or so, depending). On the other hand, I also have private insurance which covers me for everything from homeopathy (If I was into that!), to surgery in a private hospital with my own room.

A couple of examples.... I had an acupuncture session the other day and it cost me $16 (their price was $85, my private insurance covered the rest). I had to get a repeat prescription for some medication and waited 20 mins to see the public Dr (on a Sunday), that cost me $0 (and Fox wasn't on the TV in the waiting room, good value!) In 2004 I had a shoulder reconstruction with my choice of surgeon in a private room (ensuite) and good steak for dinner, three day stay total cost < $5k. I know someone who had the same surgeon in a public hospital (2 to a room), cost $0.

When I need prescription drugs these are pretty much always covered by the PBS "Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme" where the govt negotiates the price for drugs on behalf of all of us so we get a better deal. Socialism in action! I don't take many pills ever but for a recent injury I've had to take valium, a 1 month supply cost me $6.

Now, what does all this cost? I pay a Medicare Levy of 2.5% of my after deductions income (and we have crazy amounts of deductions here, another thread entirely) which for me as a well paid IT Sales person (top couple of percent in the country at the outside) about 2k a year. My private health insurance costs me $85/month. In total, complete health care from emergency to tree hugging hippy crap for less than 5k. AND it has nothing to do with my employer at all, ever.

Retirement Savings...

We have this thing here called "Superannuation", and it seems a little like 401(k) but I don't know much about that. The simple version is, everyone who has a part-time or full-time (not casual in all instances) job has superannuation contributions made by their employer to the account of their choosing. Our right wing government just increased this to 9.5% of pay (economists think it needs to be 15% to keep our standard of living in retirement, but there is a plan to get there eventually). I can't access my superannuation until I retire, and I can invest it with a licensed (and heavily regulated) provider or even set up my own super fund where I make all the decisions, I don't suffer from loss of choice at all. The point is, if my employer goes broke I don't care, my retirement is separate. And of course we have a government pension if required as well. When this first came out (in the 1980's) it was a little controversial, but over time it has become completely absorbed into the cost of employment and nobody sees it as a burden any more, it's just part of what you pay people. The upside is, I have friend's who's parents are retiring from regular jobs (teachers etc) with enough to enjoy a very pleasant middle class lifestyle with the occasional holiday if they want it.

My point is, everything in the US seems so polarized and I don't get why. It does seem that it's driven mainly from the right, although our right is close to and sometimes to the left of your left.

What is stopping a reasonable middle ground from being found?

[BootinUp]

1. We have lots of billionaires that want to keep it and

reap more billions and to hell with everyone else.

[Eureka]

2. We have those too

Not as many, admittedly, but with the exception of a few (Gina Rinehart, I'm looking at you) they see that they can have their billions and the rest of us don't have to die (from each other's gunfire) in the streets.

Could it be that the exceptionalism that made America great (topic for discussion) has gone so far as to be the start of it's downfall?

[BootinUp]

6. I hope not.

But the whole trickle down reaganomics thing was bought by so many and it has taken time for average middle class joe to see he has been taken on a ride. Maybe its not too late. The Great Recession has changed some minds I would say.

[Eureka]

7. I hope not too

Because that exceptionalism changed the world in many great ways, did and still does. But there seems to be an extremism that is going to harm it.

Thanks for your replies

[merrily]

3. The Daily Show did a segment on the Australian

politician who got bounced out of office after advocating gun regulation.

He was exceptionally brave and willing to lose his post over what he believed in. Not many politicians of any nation are that brave.

[Eureka]

4. Do you recall who the politician was?

i don't catch the Daily Show often, but I don't recall anyone ever suffering that (unless they were a total loon)

[RFKHumphreyObama]

8. Me neither

The only one I can think of is Barrie Unsworth, the Premier of New South Wales, who lost the 1988 state election after advocating tighter gun control. And even then it wasn't solely due to gun control. Labor had been in power for twelve years, Unsworth was an uninspiring factional hack, there was still the probable fallout from corruption issues and so on.

Can't think of any more recently. I guess you could argue that Pauline Hanson's rise in the late 1990s was partly due to disillusioned rural and regional voters rising up against disillusionment with the National Party's support for the Howard government's gun control legislation but even that is overly simplistic

[Eureka]

13. Yep, the national interested after Port Arthur changed things

But there are so many similar incidents (schools, cinemas etc) in the US that could have the same catalystic effect I'm surprised it hasn't happened.

The thing that amazes me is that we had Pauline Hanson, due to the things you mentioned, and once people realised just how crazy it was they rejected it. The TeaBaggers should have suffered the same fate but somehow didn't.

For those not in the know, Queensland is like the archetypal Sourthern State, except in the North because we're all upside down here

(disclaimer: normally Qld based)

[tech3149]

25. From my POV, we could all use a few more Marilyn Warings'

I watched a CBC documentary about her and was truly impressed.

To go into government so young and innocent but take on the powers that be and do the research to prove them wrong. Truly an admirable person.

[Eureka]

27. I have so much respect for the Kiwi's

They are way more progressive than the Aussies in so many ways....

Old ways like a treaty with the Mauri's instead of just killing them like the Brits/Aussies did right through to the way that they are more progressive in terms of technology, sociology and politics.

On the other hand, it's F'en cold there, so they don't count

[merrily]

37. Please see the clips downthread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Rob Borbidge - the 3 part Daily Show series is on YouTube

It probably makes far more of the gun control aspect in his loss than was true. Borbidge is in part 2 (but part 1 is well worth seeing, for the unbelievable US gun enthusiast - he takes John Oliver by surprise on just how anti-any-form-of-check he his, and how blase he is about people getting killed). The general comparison is with conservative Australian politicians saying "we had to make the tough choice for control, and we're glad we did it, because it's saved lives", and any American politician saying "this might lose us votes - there's no way we'll even think about it".

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

[Violet_Crumble]

10. It was Rob Borbridge, the Premier of Queensland...

I don't think it was really him joining in with every state and territory to introduce gun control laws, but the rise of One Nation in QLD that played a part in him losing the election.

Here's the three part series that the Daily Show did. He's in the second part and for a conservative, he seems a pretty switched on and decent bloke. Compare his answers to what makes a good politician to what the American Democrat one answered. It was a real eye opener

&src_vid=9pOiOhxujsE&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_702209

[Eureka]

14. To Violet, and Muriel

John Oliver's interview's pretty much sums up what I think.

If you can make a steaming RW turd like John Howard look like a responsible reasonable person, that really says something!

Again my point, why the extremism?

[merrily]

45. You don't accept "Follow the lusts for money and power" as an answer?

[merrily]

38. Thanks, Violet.

I wasn't going to google for the clip. I knew I remembered it. However, I am glad you did.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. No worries. I had it handy coz I posted it not long ago...

[merrily]

43. I'm glad and grateful anyway.

Take it. Not always plentiful on message boards!

[merrily]

36. I could search for a clip to satisfy your curiosity, but, then, so could you.

Luckily, others who are more willing to google seem to have shared my recollection and come up with the clips that confirm my recollection.

Either the way, the point is valid. Not that many politicians on any side of any pond are that willing to risk their careers, especially not in the US, home of the very well- funded NRA.

[Eureka]

5. PS, Cooking dinner, please forgive slow response :) nt

[Violet_Crumble]

11. I read a thing about how American history has created the polarisation...

They have massive divides on so many issues where the majority of us are somewhere in the middle ground on them. I think the way the US was founded with the Puritans and stuff, and then having a war to get independence, where we didn't need a war, and then a really convoluted and circus-style two party political system that makes no sense has helped to create a culture where there's little middle ground. They're also in general more patriotic than us, and of course lots of Americans have different ideas of what a 'real American' is and I guess those who don't fall into their view of what one is becomes the enemy.

on edit: Just on the Medicare Levy. If yr earning over $88k a year as a single, you'll get hit with the Medicare Levy surcharge, which is between 1-2.5% if you haven't got private health cover. I take out basic private health cover just so I get at least something back at tax time. I haven't done the sums but I think it might be more cost effective for me to have private health cover anyway...

[Eureka]

15. Yeah having 10% of the population probably makes a difference

And the lack of Puritans, but sheesh it's been 400 hundred years or so, surely that's been diluted.

I highballed the Medicare Levy because it just went up today (happy new tax year) but even so, at 2.5% it's not even my annual coffee bill (expensive coffee in Aus, but it's not drip filtered, don't hate me for my freedoms!)

My wife and I make back our cost of private healthcare just on gym gear (that's right, shoes etc are covered), glasses (cos I'm entering geezerdom) and accupuncture/naturopathy (because my wife is into it)

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Their political system reminds me more of footy fans supporting a team...

And picking a leader becomes about personality over policies. At least that's how I see it. I've noticed that the US is very polarised only when it comes to social issues and foreign policy, but when it comes to the rest of it I get the feeling there's very little polarisation at all.

I know what you mean about expensive coffee. I've been having two cups a day at work, and at $4 a go, it ends up costing more than the Medicare Levy. I've had problems with my eyes over the past year(two operations that cost me nothing as I went through the public system) and got my first pair of glasses last week, and got $200 back from my health fund, so that made it worth it.

Happy new tax year to you too! I'm about to build up some courage and try to navigate my way through that MyGov stuff instead of e-tax and see if it's as easy as they're claiming it is

[Eureka]

23. {Topical post that American's probably won't get}

And the R's seem to behave like Todd Carney, always pissing in their own mouths. (I hate League, grandad played in the 2's for Carlton)

The coffee thing is so apt, I can't believe that for some reason we get health care for less than coffee, that's one of the premises of the thread, how can something so simple be so hard? I don't mean it in a condescending or racist/bigoted way, I just don't get it.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. LOL. Todd Carney!

Do you remember when the Raiders sacked him over his antics with a dog? He's got some serious issues...

I've been over at Discussionist a bit lately, and what I don't get is watching people who think even Obamacare is them being FORCED to pay for something for other people. I don't get it at all....

[Eureka]

32. There are enough right wingers here to save me from the discussionist!

Yep, even with the "not even close" Obamacare I just don't get it.

On the funny side, did you see Mr Carney's latest reason why he should have been sacked? "I've done that heaps of times, all the guys have seen it" OMG, and I don't even have a G.

To those with an interest who don't know what we are talking about, think of some famous sports dude, maybe not Tebow but close, the google "Todd Carney Image" and see how you go (NSFDM, not safe for decent morality)

[newthinking]

12. I think at least a good part of it is the two party system. Parlimentary systems appear better able

to respond and adapt.

[Eureka]

16. That's worth pondering

We took our system from the UK but our names from the US (House of Reps and Senate)

We predominately have a 2 party system but there is a lot of scope for the minors to get in. For many years we had the Democrats controlling the senate (motto: "Keeping the bastards honest&quot then more recently the Greens, now a mix of the Greens and crazy fringes from all over the spectrum. We might be about to find out that too much diversity also works against us.

[merrily]

39. Actually, the Ancient Romans, who gave us our Republican form of government, had a

Senate. The Ancient Roman word comes from the Latin for "old man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate

They also had elected tribunes, including "tribunes of the plebs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune

I don't know the origin of the term "House of Representatives," though. Maybe it was strictly a US term. No idea.

The Constitution then, of course, gave any voting rights at all only to white male landowners who could afford a poll tax. Sources say that was about 3% of the population of the 13 colonies when the Constitution was adopted. That was before wealth was as concentrated as it is today, so they didn't even represent all of the 1789 equivalent of today's 1%. Great subliminal brainwashing term, though.

Even at that, as had been the case in Rome, the Founders, who feared the "mob," deliberately gave the Senate more powers than the House--and only state legislators could elect Senators, not the rabble.

Yes, representative government is great. At least I think it would be, if we had ever had one.

We could easily switch from a republic to a democracy, now that the internet exists. But, I doubt we will, at least not for a few more centuries, if then--and if humans last that long.

[KG]

17. this country wants badly to believe in its myths and fairey tales, in spite of the truths laid out

plain site...

[Eureka]

20. Lucky for us

one of our main myth's that even the right wingers have to adhere to is "fair go"

Thanks for your input KG, I haven't posted much, but been here a decade, always respected your posts

[dawg]

19. Our history of racism opened a door that could be exploited by those ...

wanting to divide the interests of the common people so as to allow an agenda amenable to the elite.

Poor white Southerners vote for a party that exploits and impoverishes them, and race is a primary motivating factor.

Your country doesn't have a shining history when it comes to race, either. But in my country, it has been the paramount issue (sometimes under the surface) for 200 years.

[Eureka]

22. Don't you dare question my racism!

You're right, a lot less than shining, unfortunately. Especially considering that if you look at number of citizens not born in the country, Aus is one of the highest.

I think we both have the "voting against your interest rednecks"

[Warren Stupidity]

21. We have half the population gone batshit crazy fueled by a brilliant and well financed

mass media propaganda machine. One of our political parties is riding that wave, the other is accommodating it by moving ever rightward.

[Eureka]

24. Rupert owns most of our media too

and our rightwing/moron/rednecks (someone please post the Blazing Saddles vid for me) seem to take the bait, but then vote more sensibly.

It just seems to me that our VERY moderate changes would solve so many problems but they're off the table.

Admittedly, there are (roughly) 22 million of us versus nearly 300 million Americans, so I guess there would be more solid blocks of people willing to change not at all.

Is it possible that our electoral system makes a difference? We have the AEC (Australian Electoral Comission) that runs the entire process, and in fact private companies can get them to run things like shareholder votes. That in itself seems markedly different to the "county by county" way of doing things in the US. I think we have a lot less voter disenfranchisement. Our elections are only ever held on a Saturday, and whether I'm in the city or country, in my region or out, have never waited more than 10 minutes to vote and they have sausage sizzles to raise money for local charities. Democracy and sausages, does it get any better? (PS, another myth, it's not compulsory to vote here, just to show up and have your name ticked off, you don't need to actually put a valid ballot in the box, and you can get a cheap sausage, win-win)

[Eureka]

26. And that was my 500th post

Thanks Warren, took me from 2003 to get here, but I got here

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Took long enough! I reckon DU should throw a sausage sizzle to celebrate...

Congrats on hitting 500. It's quality, not quantity that counts anyway

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. We've got a 'heritage' of self-centeredness.

Not to be insulting, but you guys started out largely as a penal colony, no? I'd think that maybe gives you a bit of self-deprecation that's missing in the American make-up. We've been spoon-fed 'American exceptionalism' for a couple of centuries. All that 'We're number one' crapola, to the point that our RW politicians can't even bring themselves NOT to claim to be 'number one' in things like healthcare, where every reasonable measure of how well we do in healthcare actually puts us down somewhere in the 34-37 range at best. They still cling ruggedly to their line of 'we have the best healthcare in the world' line, no matter how bad our overall healthcare abilities are.

You can't improve in anything if you can't even bring yourself to admit you're not already perfect.

[Eureka]

30. Ha ha, you said Penal

But seriously.....

You're right you still hear the "We're number one" in almost everything and I think that all countries do that to a degree. Look at the World Cup (Spoiler Alert) there are countries that win a game and think they've taken over the world.

My take is, how far gone does the general populace (or policitians/parties running them) need to be before they can say that without just a little introspection on whether it's true (still).

I hate the "Leader of the Free World" stuff but really, you were and could still be with just the tinesiest bit of introspection

*by "you" i mean the populace/policiticians/btb in general of course, not you per se

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. I think that's the problem, though.

The 'free world' doesn't need a 'leader', unless it's simply a 'leader by example'. We don't need any single or small number of countries bullying the rest of the world. We need to take our place as one nation among many, working to advance all of mankind, without the need to control everyone. We need to be the best we can be, not simply 'Team America, World Police'.

[Eureka]

34. Yeah sure, but I mean "Leader" in the elder brother role model sense

not the do as I say or I'll drone your ass back to oblivion sense, leaders are leaders because people want to follow them, not because they say so (that's bullies)

A little moderation and leading by example, I think, would do the trick but that seems to have vanished since the early 80's (admittedly my earliest political memories)

I mean really, even China have dropped the communist thing and caught on (while ironically, the US have picked up the totalitarian militarised police thing, to a degree)

[wildeyed]

35. And college in AU is basically free, provided you have the scores.

At least that is what my AU/USA dual citizen sister says. She LOVES the Aussie healthcare system.

I guess we have always been more polarized here right from the beginning. There was a huge fear of centralized government after the Revolution that persists today. Remember that we also had a Civil War, and that in some ways, those issues have never been completely resolved. And we have a huge population relative to Australia, which would be comparable to our California, if what my sister says is right. That means we have more people to please and interests to balance.

There are differences in the way our governments are structured. First, you have mandatory voting so you have high turnout. Here they go out of their way to make it difficult to vote. Election Day is not a holiday, you need to register and then re-register every time you move. They are new ID requirements instituted solely to make it difficult for poor and urban people to vote. Sigh.... And then there are the racial politics. The US has a long history of disenfranchising voters based on ethnicity and the elites pitting one poor racial group against the other to maintain their position. One of the results is low voter turnout and polarization between groups who should be on the same side economically. Here we have only two parties (technically there are more, but the system is completely rigged against them), so the motivation is for the politicians to create polarized districts where only your party can win and to create antagonism in your party followers against the other party. It ends up being like sports contests where one team's fans really, really hates the other team than any kind of coherent policy discussion. This also encourages low turnout, since if you already know who will win, why bother to vote? You are a parliamentary, multi-party system, which relies on coalitions. You have ranked voting (right?), which also makes it easier to for a larger number of parties to compete in major elections and results in more accurate, moderate election results.

I think one simple thing we could do in the US to improve the situation is to eliminate primaries and go to a single ranked system election. It would save money too, by eliminating both primaries and runoffs where as little as 2% of the population votes. But follow the money to figure out why remedies like these are not seriously discussed. There are too many wealthy and powerful people who benefit by keeping the system broken.

I don't even know what to say about the gun thing anymore. We do have something called the Second Amendment in our Constitution that gives gun ownership a protected status, but clearly we have completely lost our collective minds when there is a school shooting every other day and still we won't discuss any type of regulation. I don't think the framers of the Constitution meant for the Second Amendment to give gun owners the right to endanger children and terrorize everyone at will, but that is my interpretation and I am far from expert.

[NutmegYankee]

40. Police being allowed to visit a house is pretty extreme.

In the United States that is absolutely prohibited by the 4th Amendment, which came about because the Crown had issued general warrants allowing their agents to search anywhere. Police must have "probable cause" that a crime was committed and then state the facts on a warrant signed by a judge to gain entry into a home.

[Eureka]

41. Yeah it sounds it, but it's not really

They call you up and make an appointment to come and have a look at your safe, and I've had firearms for nearly 20 years and it's never actually happened, it's just that they can.

24 hrs gives you a reasonable amount of time to clean the roaches out of the ashtray (not that they care about that either really)

And in any case, as a society we've decided that that's not such a big deal to ensure that we don't have a gun problem. As a gun owner it certainly doesn't bother me.

(but from what I see of US police, it would over there, different police culture I think)

[NutmegYankee]

46. It violates the sanctity of the private home.

It should be up the homeowners sole discretion to allow an officer into their home. I don't use illegal drugs, so it's not that which concerns me. I am just a very strong defender of my civil liberties (been a card carrying member of the ACLU for my entire adult life). If you can legislate that officers can enter a home to inspect a safe, then you can legislate that they can enter for any reason and you have no privacy of the home.

It's very radical, and thankfully totally prohibited here.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. The cops here usually need a warrant to search a home...

If you don't invite them in, they need to go and get a warrant. There's a few exceptions to that rule, and guns are one of them. I found this on a legal aid site

(d) From 16 December 2009 - the police have new search powers under the Control of Weapons Act that allow them to search any person or car in a planned or unplanned designated search area without grounds to suspect that person may be carrying weapons. The Police must give 7 days notice of a planned designated search area by publishing the notice in the Government Gazette and a Newspaper. The Chief Commissioner may declare an area to be an unplanned designated search area at any time in writing. Search areas can be designated for 12 hours at a time. Within designated search areas, anyone can be searched without reasonable grounds. It has been acknowledged by the Government that these powers are incompatible with human rights as they arbitrarily infringe the right to privacy.


When police act under their designated search powers they must provide a written notice of the source of the power and that it is an offence to hinder them from searching under these powers.

If a person requests - the police must provide a written notice stating their name, rank and place of duty.

The search conducted is for the purpose of identifying, seizing and detaining weapons.

http://www.communitylaw.org.au/flemingtonkensington/cb_pages/policepowersandmyrights.php

[NutmegYankee]

47. So you are just a law away from having no right to privacy.

If you can allow it for one thing, you can allow it for all. The 4th Amendment in the US prevents that. What you described is essentially the same as the general warrants that so outraged the American colonists in the 1700s.

[JVS]

48. Superannuation would be a disaster here. It would only serve to send money from the poor and sick..

to the rich and healthy who enjoy considerably greater longevity.

[goldent]

49. The American culture is different from other countries

I'd guess it is just our history. Compared to the other English colonies, America's breakup with the crown was violent and bitter. The American expansion across the continent also had a profound effect, as did the Civil War. So "why can't you be more like us" is a difficult - maybe the answer is "because we are different"

edit for typo

[alarimer]

50. I think it's American "rugged individualism."

We are not a community so much as a collection of individuals.

"Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" as the saying goes. A lot of folks resent even the taxes they may that might benefit other people in some way. They see those people (the poor, especially) as moochers.