h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's what everything comes down to and how we have to address the current situation. The more I hear from over seas the more I realize that Canada is a socialist country, but based on a more balanced approach between the second and third main trains of thought.

The problem with both systems (cap and Socialism) is they both work fine as long as basic assumptions hold true.

Ie:
Capitalism delivers the lowest cost products as long as there are no monopolies and fair competition with equal opportunity and an active public.

Socialism delivers an equitable distribution of wealth as long as the ruling elite is fair and the public active.

The problem with all these systems is the basic assumptions never hold true. Given that we are currently on the "right" side of the pendulum socialism is the only alternative. I tend to believe Spanner here when she says that we have to begin thinking outside the box more and breaking free of traditional labels.

Fact - Capitalism is not working. To many people are falling through the cracks and public unrest is increasing.

Fact - Socialism (trad Definition) is quite possibly a pipe dream. Unattainable now because the link is automatically made to Communism or Stalinism with a very negative impression there.

Socialists realize this aspect and are trying to redefine themselves.

The "new" left is much more business friendly, but much more active in providing a "social" conscience to business. Gone are the days of single desk selling and collectivisation. Ask yourself this "Why do I want business's operating that treat workers poorly, offer products that endanger the public, or destroy the environment?" It is impossible for the individual to properly address this situation. It is only through co-operative action it can be combated, and through a government structure that is empowered to make these this type of decision on the part of the public for the public good.

This is the legislative role that governments must play. One of the central arguments here is less government is better. Frankly governments properly elected by the people should have a role in our lives, as long as their decisions are made with the proper level of true public consultation and the process is transparent.

I may not agree with the decision but if it is made in the public good how can I argue against that. More than left or right it is an issue of this public good that extends beyond the individual. Regardless of left or right it is important to recognize that cause and effect carry the impact of personal decisions beyond yourself. As an individual your acts influence others, so why treat others poorly, why act like some animal who is only functioning on self interest. We have the option.

Frankly either system is fine with me as long as it is recognized that there is a public good, a collective benefit. The only way to have it recognized is to have an active public. That is the one thing both systems need to function properly and where all of this is falling apart right now.

So why not turn the debate from left or right to active or not. The only way to affect change is to participate in it. And right now people are buying in to the easy argument of individual rights over public good because it is exactly that, easy. And consumerism is taking up their whole consciousness.

So in summary the goal for both sides is a well informed public, that participates in a transparent system that recognizes the public as a stakeholder and uses a central support of tolerance to uphold its principals. No one says its going to be easy, but most decisions that are right aren't.

goodo new thread - yay!

forgive me for copying my post from the old thread, but i'm rather unimaginative at 3am

it's a good point about the media - an active citizenry can go someway to overcoming that, hopefully, but it's hard to imagine

i would argue that the situation you outlined for the media under socialism is exactly what we have under capitalism, but it's kindof irrelevant

i guess in a lot of ways i am going for socialism because i want a more people based approach that focuses on the human cost, not the money cost, and i see socialism as the only alternative at the moment - i totally and utterly reject capitalism - like many in the new wave of activism, i am really looking for a third way, and not the third way of blair and clinton, which is really just capitalism with some nice window dressing, but a genuine third option, something new - marx talking about dialectical materialism, and i guess what i am searching for is the outcome of the clash between capitalism and socialism - perhaps a truly green approach is the way to go, i'm not quite sure yet, but i am finding it more and more attractive, if virtually impossible to adopt in my own life in a capitalist society

having a highly educated population could also do a lot to get around the media issue ie if ppl are educated (NOT just trained) they will be able to think for themselves, and think critically, which is the key to being effectively active

sorry if this is incoherent, it's rather late/early here

span

I can't stand the news on TV. I missed my state primaries because I don't watch the news, I didn't know what day the primaries were. I feel really bad about that, but you'd have to see what passes for news around here. This is a standard news broadcast in Oklahoma:

1) Today's Top Murders
2) Today's Top Child Beating (surprisingly common in the 'Bible Belt')
3) Five Day Forecast (Tomorrow's weather might be close, all the other days are dead wrong)
4) OU Sports
5) Sports in general
6) More OU sports
7) Short blurb about OSU sports (there's at least ten minutes of sports in a half-hour news show)
8) Feel good story about a local person helping the Special Olympics or somthing to that effect.
Every now and then they have some sort of 'consumer alert' where they play up the dangers of violent video games and internet porn or visit some small local business and say they're corrupt (they won't ever visit their advertisers though).

They NEVER cover any politics except for spreading rumors in all the 'scandals' everybody makes up. Our PBS news coverage is better, but I'm not home when it's on.

The national news isn't much better. They only cover politics if there's a scandal, a bill that has a lot of attention, or a presidential race. Most people have no idea of how politics work and no drive to learn more because it is presented as being 'boring', yet they get so animated when talking politics. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I've always been pretty cynical, but newscasters send me over the edge, listen carefully to what they say. They don't lie, but they INFER a lot of meaning, escpecially when they 'speculate'. I saw a news blurb the other day that inferred punishing Microsoft for monopolistic practices would ruin the economy.

[Let me step down off my soapbox now...]

Heck no.
Get back on there.
The big thing that I hated about being in the media was that it seemed hypocritical. It's the worst thing out there. You are expected to walk the non-biased non-preferential line. You are expected to present the information as accurately as possible. To accurately present information requires a great deal of research and learning to deal with all the complex issues (and they are all complex). The problem is its human nature to have opinions, especially when you have a whack of knowledge behind you. So while you sit there and try to walk the line it is impossible to not bleed in personal views or slants into a story whether or not that is from the choice of words or the clips chosen. Some reporters come pretty close most do not and go on to do what I am.

The other problem comes from those who recognize they have opinions but do nothing to qualify their statements. So the public views these non-biased individuals and places the information presented as important while it is incredibly slanted. Its an incredibly powerful situation and the biggest crimes come from those who write off the media as inconsequential. What is written about and placed on the screen influences public opinion and beliefs. BLAH

Back to Socialism.

I hesitate to say that we have to throw out the old system and come up with a new one. I think that evolution as long it is recognized and acted upon will change the system according to the will of the participants. That is the trick, and what I am most worried about now. Here in MB and in other regions it has been a co-ordinated attack from the left to get in. But now that power is on the left in some areas it seems as though certain sectors of the party want more power or are feeling their voices aren't being heard, so they strike out on their own and fracture the support base.

Here in Canada we have seen what this does to political balance. the right fractured in 1990 and has not proved effective since. I worry that the Green Party here may do the same to the Left. This doesn't mean I am turning against the causes they support, because they are fundamentally sound and the same, I simply wonder whether or not they would be better served to work with in an existing structure and power base to influence change. In addition if your message is to increase tolerance and co-operation because you are working for the public good, how does putting that argument forward from a fractured left look? Long day. TTFN

In my state it's the opposite, the left is fractured and the right is struggling to stay together. The Democrats are in shambles since the religeous right took over the Republicans - nobody wants to run against them. The weird thing is most everybody realizes the religeous right is a sham but nobody wants to say so for fear of looking anti-religeon. We have some of the least intelligent buffoons in our legislature right now, but because they say they support the religeous right they get financing and professional help organizing their campaign. The Democratic party (who the religeous right won't support) can't even afford to keep their website open. They have one full-time employee while the Republicans have a full office. We've had several 'Democrats' switch parties, following the money.

Yeehaw! It's mayday! Let's go and trash something expensive in London.
Apparently anarchists have raided McDonalds and dug a pond in Parliment Square already
I thoroughly approve of raiding/trashing McDonalds, mainly because of a conflict of ecological viewpoints... (they destroy rainforests! Nyyyyah!)

Socialists go about preaching fairness and equity, and then go about proving their convictions by pissing on old war memorials and trashing the cities. And they call capitalists hypocrites...

Anyway, in the old forum, I made several references to the shining example of socialism, the Swedes. I said that their success is based on free market principles, and that as socialism has taken a stronger hold, they've started to screw it up. I found my reference material, so I am prepared to go into specifics.

"... for sixty-two of the one hundred years of splendid growth, the Swedish socialist welfare state contained no socialism and hardly any welfare. The left didn't take power until 1932, and when the Social Democrats did get into office, they made socialism work by the novel expedient of not introducing any. Very few industries were nationalized. The Social Democrats may have believed in such things in principle, but they were Swedish and logical. They decided to let the capitalists go ahead and make money, tax the wages and profits, and use those taxes to buy social benefits.... In 1960 the notorious Swedish tax burden was about the same as the burden is now in the United States: Swedish government spending was 31% of GDP, and the deficit hardly existed."

So for the first 28 years of their smashingly successful socialist state, they followed an economic policy similar to that of the United States, with similar results. Then...

"The Swedish government started granting entitlements that weren't dependent on holding a job and were often dependent on *not* holding one. At the same time, the concept of full employment was extended to sectors of the populations that didn't even necessarily want to be fully employed, such as the handicapped and mothers of young children. Likewise, an attempt was made to maintain full employment in failing industries where employment previously would have been discouraged. Steel mills, shipyards, and textile factories were nationalized to "preserve" jobs. Public-sector employment grew from 20 percent to 30 percent of the workforce between 1970 and 1983. Taxes rose to stinking heights but not high enough to cover costs. Social services continued to expand without regard for budgets."

And on and on. The current result:

"In recent years the Swedish government's budget deficit has been as high as 12% of the gross domestic product. By comparison, at the end of the Reagan-Bush era, when America's budget balancers had let all the spinning plates fall on their heads, the US deficit was less than 5% of the GDP. We in America consider our body politic to be perilously in hock, but the Swedish national debt is, proportionately, 40% greater than ours. Sweden's national debt is nearly equal to its GDP-to all the things made and all the work done in Sweden annually. ZTo get even, the Swedes would have to move next door and mooch off Finland for a year. Just paying the interest on the national debt takes 7% of everything produced in Sweden. And this despite the Swedes taxing the hell ut of themselves. The tax burden is the highest in the developed world. More than half of the GDP goes for taxes.... Of an adult population of 7 million, 2.7 million are not working.. Most of these people are living off some form of social benefits. Another 1.6 million are employed by the government or in government service agencies. And only 2.7 million are actually paying the bills by working in real businesses.

Public spending is equal to nearly 70% of the GDP... For 25 years, Sweden's economic growth has been lagging behind that of other undustrialized nations, and between 1990 and 1991 the Swedish economy shrank by 5%"

All quotes courtesy of "Eat the Rich" by P.J. O'Rourke, copyright 1998. Someone claimed that the situation in Sweden is improving, but how much has it done so in 2 lousy years?

So Blaster here is the question for you.
Given the problems inherent in both systems where do we go from here?
Its one thing to sit back and pull up references of failed or failing systems, we can quote history until the cows come home and neither side will accomplish anything.
What do we construct in terms of good government that regulates where it has to and stays out of private individuals affairs. I refer back to my original statement of greater transparency and the need for a more active public.
I'll have to pick up Mr. O'Rourke's book, I haven't had a chance to read that one yet.
The Swedish information is interesting, however in response to your generalisation of socialists pissing on war memorials.... I do take exception.

"Yeehaw! It's mayday! Let's go and trash something expensive in London. Apparently anarchists have raided McDonalds and dug a pond in Parliment Square already...I thoroughly approve of raiding/trashing McDonalds, mainly because of a conflict of ecological viewpoints... (they destroy rainforests! Nyyyyah!)" - Uhh... right... I condone CIVIL disobedience, but destructive acts of rebellion only make enemies. Btw, McDonalds has in the past bought beef from South America, where they clear off large sections of rainforest to raise cattle in a hurry and then abandon the area. They took a lot of flak for it and cut back (not quit, just cut back) on the amount of South American beef they buy (I don't think they sell the beef in the US, just in other countries, beef's too cheap here for them to import it). They also started a program of reforestation to try to correct the problem. So I think they do have an ounce (but not much more) of social awareness.

"Socialists go about preaching fairness and equity, and then go about proving their convictions by pissing on old war memorials and trashing the cities. And they call capitalists hypocrites..." - Is pissing on monuments and trashing McDonalds much different from manipulating the media to trash a political opponent? I hold every bit as much disdain for abuses of media and lying. Oh yeah, the local newspaper baron I spoke of before recently sold his interests in one of the local TV stations. Maybe we'll get a little fairer reporting now (probably not).

"In recent years the Swedish government's budget deficit has been as high as 12% of the gross domestic product...Sweden's national debt is nearly equal to its GDP" - By national debt I take it you mean all debt held by Swedes, Swedish companies, and the Swedish government to foreign nations rather than the aforementioned government budget deficit. I wonder where the US stands. This brings up the topic of debt extension... but I'm too tired to rant about it (it's late and I just got home from work).

G.B., you keep quoting P.J. O'Rourke, do you ever balance that out by reading anything from the left like Ralph Nader or Molly Ivins? Or anything from further to the right like Forbes? Just curious.

"Given the problems inherent in both systems where do we go from here?" - I thought Canada was the answer. Actually, I was thinking about this the other day. This is kinda tongue in cheek, but a lot of socialists left the US for Canada to avoid the draft, maybe that's why Canada has so many social programs?

My little diatribe on May Day is because I agree... civil disobedience is fine, but when you trash the city and go on a violent rampage, you do your cause no good and a measure of harm. If you trash a McDonald's, the franchise is hardly going to notice the financial impact, but then they have to close for a few days for repair, and somebody might need those hours. You hurt the ones you intend to help.

Definition of terms...

Budget Deficit: the shortfall of funds for a national government for specific year, since budgets are generally drawn up for an entire year.

National Debt: the cumulative effect of budget deficits, it is basically the current balance for a government. But note that both these terms refer to government budgets only, and don't factor in people's Visa bills, corporate debt, trade imbalance, etc.

GDP: Gross Domestic Product, this DOES involve the people. It's basically the sum value of all products produced, all wages earned, all profits pocketed, etc. for the entire nation.

So, what do we do? Well, in the US, the answer is "Not much." The economic system as it stands works, more or less. People with enough determination can advance in life. Workers' rights are protected. Government regulation of business is adequate to insure protection of the consumers. Monopolies are broken up.

But still, people in the US are often dirt poor and hungry. It's going to happen in a Darwinian economic system. No single problem causes it, either. A large proportion of homeless are there because of alcohol/drug abuse problems. Last I noticed, nobody had found a cure for that. One segment of homeless are mentally insane people who haven't received the treatment they deserve. The answer to this is simple... treat them. They already have counselors at homeless shelters, so why not psychiatrists? A shrink finds a problem, he can recommend state-funded outpatient treatment, or even inpatient treatment at a state facility. And another segment of the homeless population is so because they prefer not to work. What do you do about them? Nothing.

I know, I know... that bit about crazy bag-ladies sounds a bit close to a socialist program. I am against socialism as a general national policy, but I do support national programs to help people who can't help themselves. And for everyone else... GET UP AND GET A JOB!

Thanks for the definitions, it was 2am and I was having trouble comprehending.

"One segment of homeless are mentally insane people who haven't received the treatment they deserve. The answer to this is simple... treat them." - I agree, it's safer, makes people more productive, and lets the police concentrate on real criminals.

"I know, I know... that bit about crazy bag-ladies sounds a bit close to a socialist program. I am against socialism as a general national policy, but I do support national programs to help people who can't help themselves. And for everyone else... GET UP AND GET A JOB!" - I agree again. I don't think we should hand everybody a government chosen job, but those who are having trouble and need a hand should perform a public service for the government's aid.

You mentioned Sweden pays the highest taxes in the world. Of the top twenty industrialized nations the US is lowest in taxes paid. I think this means we can even out the tax base (make rich people pay just as much as the rest of us) and put in a few moderate social programs. If we could get some good programs, I'd be willing to get rid of some of the more asinine ones. With medicare expenditures being what they are, if we socialize medicine we'll cut the deficit. The question is, how do we do this? GeeDubya would fight it tooth and nail, and Ally McGore's taking all kinds of money from purely capitalist interests. In my state's six congressional districts, only three of the six incumbent republicans have democratic or independant challengers. That's no way to upset the status quo.

I think socialising medicine is the wrong way to go. One, when you start nationalising businesses, where do you stop? Sweden started with medicine, and didn't stop until they messed up their economy. Second, medical care in the United States is of an extremely high quality, because of the high wages. We attract highly qualified specialists from other countries, which is why you can never pronounce their names. Same with dentists... although I'm sure having a dentist who can curse at me in Lithuanian is a blessing.

Once again, people who can help themselves should help themselves, and the people who can't should receive help. Anyone who is a full-time employee of any profession should be offered a medical insurance plan, and the employer should kick in at least part of the payments. After all, a healthy workforce is in the best interest of the employer.

For people who cannot afford coverage, there should be state run hospitals. Or, the state could allow them to be treated at the nearest facility, and pick up the tab, or at least help out with it. I like that idea better, because that way, you wouldn't end up with poor people getting forced to go to run-down dumps with equipment that's too old and doctors that are too young. Of course, just like any other social benefit, you would have to demonstrate need... if you can't afford it because you're too lazy to work, see my last post for instructions.

The greatest thing about the American health system is the 4 million or so people who can't afford health care. The vast majority out side of that run the risk of being indentured for life given it is a user pay system, but really it's only a few thousand for chemotherapy(and then you ad hospital fees, and additional medication, and follow ups, etc, etc), but its your life isn't it so of course you'll pay, and so will the rest of your family. Now insurance and HMO's are great, as long as your case fits with in their narrowly defined regulations and sub clauses. If you've got a dispute hey, even better, sink more of your kids inheritance away on lawyers for the courts. It's great for those who can afford it, but if your in the middle class and you get sick, kiss your savings good by. And if you can't afford the treatment to bad, ultimately you'll just end up on the street waiting to die, but if you don't want to work that's your fault.

The argument against Medicare is brought forward by a number of systems the wealthy (we can afford it) , the young (we're not going to be sick) , the doctors (unlimited rates, mean more for me), and the insurance agencies (let us control the risk, and pay out as little as possible).

We have Medicare here, we have problems, but its a hell of a lot better than the alternatives. I don't normally get into a rant like this until American companies start paying for anti Canadian Medicare ads that run here.

Here's a little thing about NAFTA and how the people who benefit are the American's. Bill 11 brings in two tiered health care in Alberta, the rest of the Provinces can be taken to court by American companies who want in and under NAFTA and the FTA they can drain us millions because they want a level playing field which means two tiered across the board, even if we don't want it.

It's interesting you like the GDP. "this DOES involve the people. It's basically the sum value of all products produced, all wages earned, all profits pocketed, etc. for the entire nation. "
Under that scenario, and check the domestic values per state. The biggest influence on a GDP is a disaster. Their great, lots of construction, lots of jobs rebuilding, nothing at all wrong. In fact the Exxon Valdez helped increase the GDP so do Hurricanes, and droughts, because human beings aren't considered, What is considered are those little green pieces of paper that are generally happy even when those passing them aren't.

At least you cut to the chase with the Darwinian statement. That's the basic crux of the whole thing, and one of the fundamental differences. Capitalism is Darwinian/Evolutionary. I am not religious, but haven't we progressed beyond the concept of the fittest survive? Darwin meant it as a statement for evolution, not the guiding principle of business, and a rule book for how to live our lives.

I commend you for seeing the need for counsellors and psychiatrists at homeless shelters, I'm sure you would be just as agreeable to increase your taxes in order to achieve the necessary funding levels to take care of the need. But I'd be careful, I mean once you step down that road to helping someone you don't know, you may end up in prison for Communist beliefs.

And since I'm in the mood. Funny how one of the countries that espouses Christianity, not only has the death penalty, but some Darwinian belief of economics.
"Do they know of some other son of God that I don't know about, one that's into being mean and killing people and such."

The first sign of a civilisation in decline is stagnation.
The second is a Coliseum, or Jerry Springer.

Don't mind me the Medicare issue really got my blood boiling.

"I think socialising medicine is the wrong way to go. One, when you start nationalising businesses, where do you stop?...For people who cannot afford coverage, there should be state run hospitals." - Sorry, I wasn't specific in what I meant. I agree with this entirely, I don't want to socialize the whole works.

"...medical care in the United States is of an extremely high quality..." - The availible treatments are very advanced, but for the most part our healthcare system is not working. There are a lot of people being denied treatment because their HMO's chairmen want new SUVs. Same old story, materialism over human life.

"Now insurance and HMO's are great, as long as your case fits with in their narrowly defined regulations and sub clauses." - When I used to work at the auto dealership we dealt with extended warranty companies, and this statement reminded me of that. They had many loopholes so they wouldn't have to pay out. I saw a news report about doctors having to 'game the system' to get desperately needed medical care paid for. We did the same thing on car warranties. Some won't pay for broken studs (which was a common problem on exhaust manifolds) so we always wrote it up as a blown exhaust gasket. The vehicles wouldn't pass inspection without it, but the company won't pay to fix it.

"And since I'm in the mood. Funny how one of the countries that espouses Christianity, not only has the death penalty, but some Darwinian belief of economics. "Do they know of some other son of God that I don't know about, one that's into being mean and killing people and such." " - There are people in this country who claim to be Christian but then separate themselves from their beliefs when they conduct business, I don't agree with them. I sum my point of view up in one statement I saw on a church sign a few years back, "We can justify our actions, but God looks at our motives."

That's why I don't pay for warranties for anything... if the warrantee is free, I'll accept it, but any warrantee that comes with a fee is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

HMO's are a relatively new business, and historically, any time new businesses have hit the market, abuses occur, either by the entreprenuers (railroad), the consumers (software piracy), or both (internet swindlers and music piracy). The government has to step in to make sure there are some rules to the business, and make sure everyone lives by those rules. Unfortunately, it usually requires extreme circumstances for intervention to occur, so HMO's will probably not be regulated until after someone is dead, and the survivors take the HMO to court for criminal negligence. Or, we can keep agitating. If HMO's were forced to do their absolute best (or "permitted to do their absolute best" might be a better phrase, since it isn't the doctors who make the rules, but fat-assed corporate managers that can't change a light bulb) for patients, then the system as is would be outstanding.

I know... off the subject... but God believes in the death penalty. After all, the Old Testament is an absolute bloodbath.

"I know... off the subject... but God believes in the death penalty. After all, the Old Testament is an absolute bloodbath." - No, the Old Testament was a bloodbath because people didn't understand God's message. That's why Jesus was sent, to straighten the message out. Up until that point a lot of people had been inspired by God, but no real instruction had been given. You had the ten commandments and some rules on circumcision, etc., but no instruction on how to interpret what was going on. Jesus came along and gave instructions, "faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love."

My main problem with the death penalty is it unfairly hurts the poor. Since the mid-sixties over eighty people have had their convictions overturned. The prosecution tends to be overzealous and often knowingly condemns honest men. If prosecutors don't have a large number of convictions they look weak on crime and tend to lose their jobs, so instead of searching for the real criminal they focus on whoever they think they can get a conviction on, mainly poor people who can't afford anything other than the court appointed attorney, many (not all) of whom can't make a living in private practice. Remember Betty Lou Whatshername from Texas who was executed last month? A few years after her trial her lawyer was indicted of losing cases on purpose. Here in Oklahoma they are looking at testing DNA evidence from about half of the current death row cases. The prosecutors are resisting saying it would cost too much to do the tests and the liability could be high if someone's found innocent. Yeah, sounds like they really want to find out the truth, don't they? As far as death row inmates who are guilty, they're reaping what they sowed (to quote more Bible).

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate. Not that I have anything against them, quite the contrary, it is just that this is an excellent political discussion, so let's keep it that way. If you want to wrangle about religion, check out my homepage, and you'll find a few places to do that.

This stuff about the death penalty raises new issues about the quality of the justice system. Remember, juries are made up of 12 individuals who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Nobody wants to sit on a jury, except maybe little old ladies who need to get away from their 200 cats once in a while. Most of us are unwilling to step aside from our jobs to do it, and there's always the fear of being sequestered for months on end. If they improved the lot of the jurors, I imagine that the quality of jurors would improve, as unwilling participants like myself would no longer say things like "I don't think the police would have arrested someone if they weren't guilty" to get excused. Mandate that anyone on a jury be paid by their employer as if they were working, and the financial burden part of it would disappear. Give a tax break incentive to people who served on juries the previous year. Hook them up with a nice buffet lunchroom while they debate, rather than ordering them greasy Chinese food. If they have to be sequestered, register them in something better than the Motel 6. Being an instrument of justice would be quite a bit less onerous when you have a jacuzzi to relax in and ponder the particulars.

"Liability would be high if someone were found innocent" - Sounds like typical lawyers... more concerned with their reputations than the lives of the people they allegedly serve. These people need a complete priority re-evaluation.

I'd also rather not make this a religeous debate, I was just a little concerned over the statement that the old testament was an absolute bloodbath.

"Mandate that anyone on a jury be paid by their employer as if they were working, and the financial burden part of it would disappear. Give a tax break incentive to people who served on juries the previous year. Hook them up with a nice buffet lunchroom while they debate, rather than ordering them greasy Chinese food. If they have to be sequestered, register them in something better than the Motel 6. Being an instrument of justice would be quite a bit less onerous when you have a jacuzzi to relax in and ponder the particulars." - I had a flashback of Pauly Shore's 'Jury Duty'. A horrible movie, but Pauly is the one juror who gets a nice room and tries to keep the trial going so he can live it up. I think if we make jury duty cushy the scenario is a real concern.

""Liability would be high if someone were found innocent" - Sounds like typical lawyers... more concerned with their reputations than the lives of the people they allegedly serve." - This wasn't a direct quote, but it was how I understood what they were saying. Most lawyers I've known (not many) weren't like this, but I know there are some like this out there, just like there are corrupt politicians, thieving salespeople, power hungry religeous leaders, etc., even (gasp!) crooked mechanics. They're not the norm, but they give everybody else in their profession a bad name.

"I think socialising medicine is the wrong way to go. One, when you start nationalising businesses, where do you stop?...For people who cannot afford coverage, there should be state run hospitals."
That means a dual system, while I have heard this argument before, there are a number of questions that I haven't seen answered regarding hte situation.

In a dual system the problem you run into is who pays for what, and who uses the system. The wealthy can afford private health care, and pay, but argue against higher taxes. These taxes pay the public system that is used to the limit by people in the lowest income bracket, and contributing the least. Inconsistant funding, but consistant use lead to a substandard system for the general user and lower class who make up the majority of the hospital users. Because of this the dual system inherently fails.

Should Health Care be considered a business in the first place? Health is a public issue, most diseases are transmissable, cancer is caused by a variety of sources, genes can transfer diseases to offspring.

How can we allow profit to dictate what discoveries are made, why is it we can cure male impotency, but still can't address Crohn's, or Cancer. Is it more profitable to cure cancer or AIDS or to find new treatments?