Artful Dodger:

> We need fresh blood in congress. the old guard are out of touch.

This is very true. The latest election saw clear signs of this. I think it is why people voted for Obama, rather than Hilary Clinton or John McCain. People want to see change. I think it also explains for Sarah Palin's popularity. She is a new face, even if much of her rethoric and ideology represents traditional values.

A good question is whether the Republicans can provide a candidate able to unseat Barack Obama. I imagine that if Sarah Palin intend to be president then she will have to battle hard in the televised debates. She will also have to overcome certain disadvantages such as lack of experience in foreign policy.

There is the possibility of other up-and-comers gaining ground. If people really want change, they might opt for different political parties such as the Green Party and the Reform Party. It will be very interesting to see how that election unfolds.

Vikings:

Is it every Mexican who belongs to "La Raza" or is it a minority of them? I think Glen Beck's view of "Mexicans conquering American culture" is also a minority view. I doubt the vast majority of Americans feel that way. Among Latin Americans things such as "La Raza" are the stuff of ignorant uneducated morons. I doubt there are many Hispanics who would think that they are out to conquer the United States.

Well, Glen Beck seems to switch between very intelligent and very stupid. I think in all of his ranting there are some very valid points, and also signs of very stong opinions that can insult a lot of people. If he engages in name calling, then we should not be surprised if we can call Glen Beck names.

I think Jimmy Carter's comment on the healthcare debate was uncalled for. Saying that opposition to healthcare is coming from a racist bias against the president is inaccurate and misleading. If an individual opposes healthcare on racial bias alone, then that individual would fail to attract the vast majority of the American public. Republicans know this. They are not stupid.

I found Geln Beck's "racist" comment as bad as the time when people came out and called George W. Bush a "nazi". At the time outrage over the war was used as a shield by those who insulted the president in that way. People get away with that because they know that the president is in no position to come out and start slinging mud back at them. There was atime when I would not have questioned people insulting George W. Bush, but looking at the other side of the coin makes me realize that name calling wihtout thinking is wrong.

I suppose it is OK for a news commentator to hide his own xenophobia behind the badge of the press. After all, saying that "Mexicans are trying to conquer American culture" is not xenophobic, it is just a man expressing some heartfelt by many Americans.

I posted some of Glen Becks comments. At times he sounds intelligent. I agree with him when he says that companies that hire illegal immigrants should be penalized. I agree that the problem is being ignored and that hte solution would be to make it easier for illegals to be legalized. Glenn Beck is very intelligent on those points.

Then he calls the president a racist knowing fully well that Barack Obama is not in a position to get into a mud fight. If Glenn Beck is not a racist, then he is a man who swings between intelligence and stupidity. He exposes himselv to being called a racist because going to a Hispanic and saying to their face "comprende?" is ignorant and insulting.

I Canada about 15% of the population was born in the US. I would ask, if a Canadian expressed himself about Americans in the way that Glen Beck expressed himself about Mexicans, how would Americans feel? In Canada that person would have been called an anti-American and he would most likely face legal repercussions.

Artful Dodger:

> the race card

I will say this about Glenn Beck. If he is not a racist, why then make comments like this:

"Illegal immigrants are either terrorists, outlaws, or people who can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604280003

Consider this other video and how he expresses himself about Mexicans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZoHlWIoCIo

He might not think he is racist, but his behavior borders on it. When he called Obama a racist, all I can say is "it takes one to know one".

Artful Dodger:

I can see some signs of intelligence in Glenn Beck's comments. However, when he becomes stubborn about something it seems that he has no control over what he says. The time in which he called Obama a "racist" seems to me a veiled way to put forth his own racism and dislike of an African American president. It seems to me that Glenn Beck dislikes Obama, not for well thought-out political reasons, but because Obama is a black Democrat.

Beck sunk too low when he carried a smear campaign against Van Jones, the former White House Council for Environmental Quality. Glenn Beck accused Jones of being a communist. However, I find it interesting that Beck carried a vendetta against an African American who had called on advertisers to remove ads from Beck's show after he called Obama a racist.

I am trying to find some examples of his uncovering corruption. I found references to ACORN corruption. I am not that familiar with all the issues surrounding ACORN but it seems to me that Fox news published a doctored video made in Baltimore. There is a pending defamation lawsuit against Fox and the "conservative activists" who made the video. I am just curious: Was Glenn Beck this enthusiastic during the Bush administration or are his efforts entirely partisan? I imagine that he understands that the press is supposed to be impartial.

For those who don't know who Glenn Beck is, Wikipedia has some more information:

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

Having seen videos of the man in YouTube I think Gogul's comments were warranted. I see no reason why Gogul was banned, other than calling the man a donkey orifice.

For those who don't know, Gogul posted this word: "Otterngezüchte", which in English translates as "Brood of vipers". It is a biblical reference to Luke 3.7.

In English:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lucas%203&version=NIV

and in German:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lukas+3.1-9&version=LUTH1545;

I imagine it was not the German word that got him banned, but the expletives he used to describe Mr. Beck. Well, censorship in BK was argued about a long time ago.

What happened to Gogul's two posts? Did they vanish into thin air!

(V):

I think boxing gloves would be an expense that politicians could justify in the budget. Gloves, a spit bucket and a jockstrap with a cup, just in case of low blows.

(V):

> It's as fake as wrestling!!

At least politicians in the US are not quite like those in Taiwan. Talk about fighting for the issues!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY68au9Rztk

I could see the Democrats going at it with the Republicans, like they do in Bolivia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMeQoIq36c

Mexicans are just as good. There is something very entertaining about some guy who looks like Pancho Villa throwing punches to another politician.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUZsVLoA_kQ

More nice examples.

Japan, that was a nice Judo throw!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djdy_fhvZuM

South Korea, I figured they might use Tae Kwon Do, but I was rather disappointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4wn70xPxzc

I think India has them all beaten. These guys actually drew blood!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DF8xYDzLk8

This woman in Nigeria used $5 million in government funds to renovate her home and buy 12 cars. No wonder their parliament broke into a fight. I think it would have been nice to see London politicans throw a few real punches over the spending scandal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcroSnd8XW8

Compared to all these the fight in the Alabama Senate was so mild. I think American politicians are too civilized. Either that, or they are too afraid of public opinion. Well, more brawls would make politics more entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXKBribICs

I think I could go on all night. There are a lot of these videos. My favorite is the Japanese one. That guy would get my vote, just because of the awesome Judo throw!

Mike Tyson would make a great politician, not only because he can box, but because he can bite and fight dirty too!

(V):

It is interesting with the UK because the dirty laundry is now being washed in public. I think at this point the UK finds itself in politically interesting times. On the one hand a lot of people have a bitter aftertaste of the many years of the Conservatives. There are bitter memories of the Thatcher years. Many people also have a bad impression of the Labour politicians and their handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also all this mess with MP expenses.

I think smaller parties have better chances this time around. I don't know if any of the Liberal Democrats have been dragged into the recent scandals but if the local elections of 2008 are a sign, they could unseat a lot of Labour and Tory MPs. Over the last 10 years the Liberal Democrats have made steady gains in vote percentages and I think the next time around they will win big if they can convince the public that a change is needed in the House of Commons.

Here in Canada we have a some dirty politics going on now. The Liberals (similar to Labour in the UK) are trying to unseat the Tories and the National Democratic Party (more or less similar to the Liberal Democrats of the UK) are promising to hold off a no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister if the ruling Conservatives agree to some concessions in Parliament. People here are really fed up with the mess and I think that if the Liberals insist in forcing an election then the public will react by voting for the Green Party instead of them. We could see the Green Party rise from a small party to one of the big contenders.

(V):

I think the Us has not needed coalition governments since the mid 19th century. The Republicans were founded in 1854. The Democrats trace their roots back to 1792. Both parties have dominated American politics since the mid 19th century and for this reason the US did not need coalitions or had any other two political parties in power since then

Bwild:

For those who don't know much about him, here is a couple of links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
http://www.nader.org/

Reading a little about him, I found out that he is a lawyer. Since the late 1950s he has been involved in issues such as public safety, environmental protection, government corruption and legislation to support those and other issues.

He has aligned himself with the Green Party. This party stands somewhere between the "liberal" parties (like the Democrats) and the European social democratic movement.

I will not say that he is a socialist. That would be inaccurate. He is a populist reformer. He believes that legislation and good government can get rid of many of the problems people face today. Of course. all politicians will say the same thing.

Considering the candidates he has run against from 2000 until now, I would say that for my liking he was probably the best one out there. Well, he comes closer to my left-leaning politics. He is certainly a very intelligent, very experienced politician. I would say his only weakness is his lack of experience in foreign policy. Other than that he seems to be one of the most capable politicians the US has had in the last 20 years.

Most Republicans in the US dislike him, and Democrats blame him for tilting the balance in favor of George W. Bush in 2000. He attracted much of the left-leaning vote, and the Democrats think they lost because of him. Of course, the same can be said of the Reform Party, which attracts the right-leaning vote.

I think that he is at least an alternative to two political parties that have become entrenched in their ideologies. I have seen no change coming from conservatives (Republicans) or liberals (Democrats) for the last 40 years.

Bernice:

> did you know that the aboriginal people of australia weren't given the vote until 1975

I knew this. In the two Congos the pigmy people are kept as slaves in the homes of wealthier landowners and they are not allowed to vote.

Democracy is a work in progress. In ancient Greece only the wealthy male aristocracy was allowed to vote. They excluded 90% of the population from voting. Then England created parliament and allowed MPs to be elected. Again, 90% of the population was excluded from voting until the French revolution forced the aristocracy to give up some of its power. In the Americas the United States and other independent countries gave people the right to vote and slowly over the next 200 years there a process of evolution. First, working men were allowed to vote, then men over 18. Then women and people of races other than Caucasian. 100 years ago most countries did not allow women to vote, thus excluding 50% of the population. It is a work in progress for sure.

Perhaps my view of democracy is rather dark, but the alternative is worse. Absolutist governments and dictatorships are definitely not the way to go.

I think the next step for democracies is participatory democracy where people can participate in everyday decisions. Technology should make this easier some day. The technology is already there, but it is still too expensive. Fingerprint and iris scanners are still too expensive. However, if fingerprint scanners become cheap, say $20-50 each, then every home could have one and a registered voter could vote from home. That could open the door to a new form of democracy where people can vote every day through their computers. A fingerprint scanner could make it impossible for somebody to vote twice.

Well, I doubt governments would like that. The ruling elite having to consult with the populace every day would make it very difficult for them to shove unpopular policies down everybody's throat. Imagine the budget being voted upon by the public. I doubt the wealthy contractors that make billions in the current system would like that.

Bernice:

> if that is the case then, why vote?

It stops the masses from going into revolution. If people realized that they have no political power, then they would question why the elite is ruling them, and social discontent would set in. From its early beginnings in the 19th century modern democracy was conceived as a cure against revolution.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English philosopher who formulated some of the early theories of modern government. He said that "the French Revolution was necessary for Europeans so that they would know that they should never have another one again". In England the common people (wealthy men, but not women or the poor) were given the vote in response to the ever increasing threat of a revolution like the one France had. Later on that same idea, together with Thomas Jeffersons views on government, influenced the new United States of America to give the franchise (power of vote) to "elegible" men. Initially only wealthy landowners could vote, but as the populace grew more and more discontent, it became necessary to give them the ability to vote.

Of course, voting gives an individual a very tiny amount of political power. The theory is that collectively the masses can change the political system by casting their individual votes. If somehow the way people vote can be manipulated, then the elite secures itself in power. That is why elections come with massive spending on propaganda, character assassination, mud slinging, etc. Wealthy individuals will sway elections in their favor with the power of their money.

In real life once a government is elected, accountability evaporates and those elected do whatever they want. Modern democracy is a system in which individuals vote to chose their dictators. The political parties will fight and pretend to represent the interests of voters, but in reality they are representing the interests of the wealthy elite. As long as the populace believes that they are free and they have control over their government, then they will never go into revolution and the status quo will remain.

Bwild:

I have read about George Soros before. From very early on in his career he was manipulating currency markets and using money and political connections to undermine governments.

Among the accusations levelled at him are the manipulation of the Ruble and wheat futures in the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev was convinced by the likes of Soros to let the Ruble float agains the dollar. George Soros moved in caused a massive devaluation of the Ruble coupled with a collapse in the price of wheat. As natural gas and oil prices sunk in the late 1980s the Soviet Economy sank deeper and deeper into trouble, and Geroge Soros made more and more money because he was manipulating currencies. The end result was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He proceded to cause the collapse of several "communist" currencies in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. All those communist governments collpased shortly thereafter.

He tried to do the same thing in China. However, the Communist Party of China had already heard of what he was doing in Russia, so they moved in and locked the Ren Min Bi against the US dollar. Soros had bet that the Ren Min Bi would collapse like the Ruble did, and instead it stayed pegged to the dollar. Reputedly George Soros lost over $1 billion in China. Ever since China has refused to let its currency fully float against other currencies. They are smart enough to know what George Soros and the likes of him are capable of doing.

George Soros is the ultimate opportunist. When George W. Bush ran for election the first time, he gave him millions. Then 4 years later he gave millions to John Kerry, claiming that George W. Bush was bad for the economy. He also gave $14 million to the Obama campaign.

He is not the only one to do this. Warren Buffet gave millions to George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzennegger, then he turned around and gave million to Obama.

Politicly, these guys play on the winning team. It is why they make billions. They know ahead of time who is going to win, and they buy loyalty, influence and government contracts with all those billions they make.

GTCharlie:

Thanks for posting that. The "missile defense shield" is probably one of the biggest scams in history. The idea is to convince governments around the world of participating in a huge system of missile detection and interception aimed at defending Europe, North America and Japan from missile attackes from potentially threatening enemies.

On paper the idea sounds fine. You put a lot of radar systems, computers, missiles and satellites to intercept missiles. In reality the thing is a big scam because the system does not work and all that it will do is make taxpayers spend a lot of money to fatten the pockets of defense contractors.

People have forgotten an incident that happened early during the war in Iraq in 2003. A British Harrier fighter jet was shot down by patriot missiles automatically launched from Kuwait. The American air force was testing automated missile interception systems since they feared that Saddam Hussain could launch Scud missiles at their positions. Instead of intercepting anything, this was written down as a case of "friendly fire".

Field tests of the system have failed repeatedly over the years. The people designing the system insist tha as the technology gets better they will get it to work. Defense contractors working on this wanted the Bush administration to earmark $1.5 trillion for "research" and for setting up a big array of radars on the North American west coast. However, the funding did not materialize because of teh mounting cost of the war in Iraq, and the refusal of the Canadian government to spend money in an unproven system. However, the sentiment in the Canadian government has changed now tht we have a Conservative prime minister.

All of this is part of the old "Star Wars" program that started during the Reagan administration. When George H.W. Bush lost the reelection of 1992, all plans were halted by the incoming Clinton administration. The end of the Soviet Union and improving economic relations with China made the Clinton administration change its stance and they scrapped the program. However, the new Bush administration in 2001 decided to look into the system again and it was the war in Iraq that halted progress into what probably would be the biggest waste of taxpayer money in history.

The biggest problem with this is that a new weapons race could start if the US decides to insist on building this system. Russia, China and other countries have already warned that if the US puts this missile interception system in place, then they will create their own and they will resume rocket development and surface nuclear testing, two things that had slowed down after decades of negotiation. $1.5 trillion is no small amount of money and it might not be enough if the system proves unreliable in the face of ever improving rocket and stealth technology.

The Democrats just unveiled their healthcare plan:

Yahoo news report

It calls for a price tag of $856 billion. I don't see how they will suceed getting this passed through Congress or the Senate.

(V):
Parties are allowed donations, and lobbyists get paid by private interests to do the work on their behalf. It is a very indirect way to subvert democracy. Parties can disclose how much they receive, and in the news we hear of wealthy men giving millions to campaigns. However, relying on the impartiality and honesty of politicians is rather naive on accounts of the amounts of money involved. It is like putting a dog in charge of guarding the sausages!

(V):

> No-one wants the USA to fail (not any sane person anyway)

I think the USA and western democracy in general are not going to fail, but a catastrophic change in the economic conditions could lead to big social changes.

My true concern is the "Americanization" of many countries and cultures around the world. As people around the world are influenced by American culture and American values, those values are affecting the political and economic development of many countries around the world.

If American internal policy is adopted in other contries, then those countries could find themselves facing similar challenges in providing essential services to the poor. Millions of people could have similar challenges and in other countries where governments are corrupt we could see millions suffer. Other countries can copy government policy, but not all countries have the means to make that policy work in their own unique settings.

(V):

> Various other Presidents have tried, but American businesses have protected
> their interests

This is true in every country around the world. Most democracies and dicttorships have "lobbyists" and "special interest groups" which use money to influence policy makers. I consider this the greatest threat to democracy because an individual or a small group of individuals can subvert the democratic process with money.

I think lobbying should be illegal, as should corporate donations to political parties. Candidates should also have limits on how much money they can collect from individuals. The rich and the poor should be in a level playing field. Otherwise democracy is a joke.

GTCharlie:

What is good and proper is up to American voters to decide. I am merely stating my opinion. I asked for a Republican website simply because the official line from the White House sounds to me too much like propaganda. I imagine that at some point Republicans will disclose whether they have any alternative plans that might resolve the political impasse.

If the US wants or does not want to reform their healthcare, it is up to voters to decide. Personally, I think that ther should be referendums for this kind of things. However, democracies want anything but the public making decisions on actual policy. If people actually voted on key issues rather than on mere political party platforms, then governments would not be able to act.

The US is not perfect, neither is Canada, or Denmark, or any other place. You might tell me why I am telling the US what is good and proper, but hasn't the US done that around the world for decades? Didn't the US impose its brand capitalism in Latin America during the Cold War? If the American government has the right to point to other countries and criticize, don't other people have the right to criticize too?

I have been looking for any Republican website dedicated to healthcare reform. After all, we need a balanced view that paints the picture from the other side of the fence. the websites below are official government sites, so the opposition's view is not given. If anyone knows of one, please post it. The Republican party website is still under construction:

http://www.gop.com/splashpage/index.aspx

I think it is important for us (well, at least me) to see both sides of the issues.

For those who were looking for details on healthcare reform, they might find more at the government website on the subject:

http://www.healthreform.gov/

I would be curious to read some constructive criticism on what the website says.

I see all of us flogging a dead horse, and that is healthcare reform. Republicans are determined to make it fail, not because healthcare reform is bad, but because they are afraid that if the Democrats succeed people might see the Democrats as a better political party.

One thing is certain. Republicans will complain and moan about rising taxes and wasteful spending leading to higher taxes. However, they will rarely accept that it was their policies that led to this situation. Consider for example some of the new legislation passed by Obama recently. In particular the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reform-for-Our-Troops/

I have seen no praise for this from any Republicans. The reason is that the Bush administration mismanaged the defense budget and ran into cost overruns amount to $295 billion.

Republicans ask "Where is the money going to come from? Higher taxes?" The answer would not from higher taxes, but from eliminating corruption fromt he defense budget.

This has many Republicans furious and lashing out at Obama. Of course, they are incapalel of publicly acknowledging that the real motivation behind killing healthcare reform is revenge for exposing the true cause of all the deficit problems that the Obama administration inherited from the Bush administration. At least John McCain has had the decency to adress the issue and seems to be the only Republican willing to do anything about it.

Republicans might complain about higher taxes and the budget, but blame should go to those who deserve it. They will succeed in killing healthcare reform, because their allies in the insurance industry fear that the government will take away the profits they make. The ones who will lose are those millions of Americans who are poor and have no coverage and have to make due with whatever scraps the upper middle class leaves for them.

In the meantime, Republicans can sleep soundly knowing that they pissed $295 billion down the drain and that defense contractors took taxpayers to the cleaners.

Vikings:

> The man had done nothing but ram policies down the American's throat without
> anybody knowing what they are, he has listened to NOBODY, He had placed
> lawbreakers, hypocrites,socialists and bigots throughout the government, he had
> exploded the deficit and debt to a breaking point and wants to go further, that is
> what the republicans are done with,

In this respect one could easily write:

"George W. Bush had done nothing but ram policies down the American's throat without anybody knowing what they were, he listened to NOBODY, He placed lawbreakers, hypocrites, fascists and bigots throughout the government, he had exploded the deficit and debt to a breaking point and wanted to go further, that is what the Democrats were done with."

How quicly everyone forgets that George W. Bush inherited a surplus from Bill Clinton, and turned it into the biggest deficit in history. Now it is up to Obama to fix the fiscal disaster left behind by 8 years of mismanagement hidden behind the veneer of the War on Terror.

If people are going to talk about fiscal irresposibility, they should give credit where credit is due!

Czuch:

> they have never once given any consideration to republican ideas or amendments

If that were true, the American government would have been completely paralized during the Bush administration!

> the reality that most average people dont understand, is that there are many hidden
> things in the democrats plans, plans that on the serface seem like plans we can
> all embrace, but that when republicans try to add things to make sure certain bad
> elements dont happen, they get squished like tiny bugs by the democrats in charge.

And the Republicans NEVER did that when they were in charge?

> I personally dont know tiny details.... but you could tell by the reaction, when Bam
> said that "no ilegal aliens would benefit from our health care system" thats when i
> think the guy said "lies"

I imagine they could do what we have here in Alberta, Canada. Everyone get a healthcare card. Without the card you get no service. Illegal immigrants cannot get cards and tourists have to present travel insurance, or pay up front. That takes care of much of the problem.

Simply deny service to illegals. People will say "what do you do with the thousands of people who illegally enter to work and get sick?" I would answer: Legalize them all and let them pay taxes like everyone else. Then they qualify for healthcare services. Canada did that starting in the 80s. The government liberalized much of the immigration policy and a lot of illegal immigrants became legalized. I know of at least three cases and those people are now tax payers like myself.

> the democrats are not willing to compromise at all with many of the republicans
> concerns

At this point the only way healthcare reform will fly is if Democrats compromise with Republicans. I am sure that keeping George W. Bush's tax cuts in place will be on the cards. Republicans will use this issue to ensure that there is no rolling back of those cuts, as well as issues such as gun control, defense spending and foreign policy against the rising left in Latin America.

Universal Eyes:

The idea of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) seems good, but certain things are not clear to me.

I am curious about what restrictions people have to withdraw money from the accounts. Reading more about it, I found certain details:

"HSA participants do not have to obtain advance approval from their HSA trustee or their medical insurer to withdraw funds."
"Funds can be withdrawn for any reason, but withdrawals that are not for documented qualified medical expenses are subject to income taxes and a 10% penalty."

What happens to somebody who is having money problems? Imagine that somebody lost their job and is defaulting on their mortgage payments. They can go, take their HSA money (paying the 10% tax) and save their home, but they would be left without the HSA. Somebody who for some reason needs money in a hurry could find themselves with no coverage of any kind all of a sudden, and knowing human nature, when people have money problems they will go for whatever they can grab.

The HSA is suppossed to accrue value over time, like an IRA.

"income tax is paid on the withdrawal, and in effect the account has grown tax deferred (similar to an IRA)"

I imagine that there is somebody managing that money, most likely some financial services firm. If for some reason they lost money (like IRAs do when the financial markets take a tumble) then people could find themselves with less money for medical expenses than they may have expected.

I Imagine that like IRAs, there is some degree of protection from bankruptcy filings. In some states bankruptcy proceedings or creditor lawsuits cannot seize assets in an IRA account. I Imagine that something similar must exist for HSAs. Otherwise somebody who goes bankrupt could lose healthcare coverage to creditors seizing the account.

I am curious to know too how the plan works for people who cannot afford to fund the HSA account. Would those people have to opt for different insurance plans, or rely on government-provided care? A larger family might be unable to fund an account for many children. I imagine that some government-sponsored child coverage would help those families.

Is the system fair for all age groups? As we grow older, our health can deteriorate. A senior's medical expenses are not the same as those of a person in their 30s. The assumption is that the HSA account grew over time, but if for some reason the account did not grow (like many retirement plans in the last 9 years), the senior would end up losing in relation to a younger, healthier person.

Well, these are technical details in an otherwise interesting idea, like educational savings plans (529 Plans) that allow parents to save money towards a child's future education.

Czuch:

> It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe
> our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health
> care system, just because of a few bad apples.

Your are right in this. Guns in themselves do no harm until somebody pulls the trigger. Opposition to availability of guns is just like prohibition. "If there is no alcohol available, then people will stop drinking. If no guns are available, then people will stop killing each other."

Some countries like Japan have full bans of buying and selling firearms. Their statistics show a low incidence of murder, but not a low incidence of stabbing. Less people die of stabbing, but it does not mean that stabbing happens less often than shooting.

Some gun owners are responsible. I know a man who collects guns and he loves hunting. He keeps at least 50 hunting rifles safely locked away in the basement of his home. He would never harm anyone. He just loves fishing, hunting, etc.

Then we hear stories of children taking their parents gun to school and shooting other children. Irresponsible parents leave the gun lying around without thinking of the consequences.

Healthcare in the US is somewhat like that. Some insurers are responsible and care about their clients. Others are greedy and charge more for providing less services. Some insurers operate in some states where they provide better or worse services than in other states.

Should the government intervene? Legislate companies at a federal level to ensure everyone in every state gets adequate coverage from private companies? Should there be price checks to make it affordable to everyone? Or should the state pick up the slack and provide equal healthcare to the needy?

People in the US don't seem to agree. Here in Canada the government did away with the problem by providing universal healthcare. It works here, in spite of the mistakes and problems with waiting lists, etc. However, the American reality is different. Somewhere along the way the problems with the system have to be fixed in a balanced manner. I think that if all the special interests could be removed, the government might find a better way to deal with the problem.

Pedro Martínez:

> "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty
> of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare.
> Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the
> fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they
> exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the
> freedom of religion.

In other words, we are down to legal semantics.

I could rephrase things a little:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A healthy population, being necessary to the well-being of a free nation, the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed."

The first statement is acceptable as a "freedom" because anyone can keep and bear a weapon, regardless of what the state does, and the state has no right to take away that freedom.

The second statement is unacceptable because the state would be responsible in ensuring that everyone receives healthcare.

Then similar arguments can be made about education. Legally speaking, the state is not required to provide education in the US. This is a quote of the Republican campaign platform of 1996:

"The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning."

Ronald Reagan promised to dimsantle the Department of Education in the 1980s (the Democrats blocked that), and to George W. Bush's credit, he refused to implement the Republican platform of dismantling that department.

However, by Pedro's argument, since education is an "entitlement", the state should not be required to provide it and the Reagan administration was justified in wanting to dismantle the federal system of education and let individual families decide when and where education would happen. If the poor happened to have no money for it, it would be their problem, just as with healthcare.

Since a person can choose any healthcare they want according to its affordability, why should there be restrictions on which gun a person can buy. If a person can afford a fully automatic assault weapon, why restrict purchasing those. Sarah Palin is right in wanting to remove the ban on automatic assault rifles. If I can afford it, why should I not be able to buy it?

Then the letter of the law should be applied. If a person is not enrolled in a well-regulated militia, should they be free to own a gun? Then all those not in a militia should give up their guns!

Interpreting legal semantics is a tricky thing, obviously.

It is curious, nobody said anything much about my post (some 26 posts ago). If Article 2 of the Bill of Rights says that people have the right to bearm arms, why is owning a gun a right, while giving healthcare to everyone is not?

I am curious to see some opinions, from both defenders and opponents of healthcare as a right.

GTCharlie:

I was away for a couple of days. I can finally reply to some comments.

> But how many actually die because of PROVEN poor health care? rather
> than poor lifestyles,smoking, drinking, obesity? also to think about,,
> everyone has the right to education at least k-12, but not college, meaning
> paid by the taxpayers

You realize that there are countries in which education is considered a right to any level. For example, in countries like Germany and Austria education is free. In fact Germany did not allow tuition fees for universities until very recently. People in some German states still have a fully free univeristy education. Austria is the same. In the US and Canada university education is expensive because it is not considered a right, but the state does provide the "minimum" which is considered highschool. Education as right is just like healthcare as a right. Different countries see it different depending on what is politically and economically convenient.

Czuch:

Like you, I was a little busy and could not reply to your post.

> it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US
> company that develops a majority of drugs

Please don't put words in my mouth! I never said what you wrote and in that same post I gave examples of half a dozen drug companies which are not American. Drug development is done by pharmaceutical companies all over the world.

> You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if
> a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way,
> why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope
> their own drugs?????

Do you really think Canada has no research into drugs and pharmaceuticals? You should visit universities and companies here. Canadias spend billions in research too, both through private and public funds. Pharmaceuticals are a huge business and Canada exploits them too, like many other countries.

> Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed.....
> we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search
> or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

I had on purpose stayed out of HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. The reason is that it is not as simple as it looks. Individual beliefs play a big role here, just as with many other issues of "rights".

I can give a good example too of how "rights" are interpreted differently by different people. Consider the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I brought this up to make a point. Many Americans consider the second Amendment to be an unalieanable right. They see restriction on gun possession as a direct infringement of their rights. Here is a good question. If it is a right for people to possess a deadly weapon, is that right a good or a bad thing? The answer to this has raised heated debates in the United States and here in Canada too. Gun control in Canada was a source of bitterness for many gun owners, as much as it is in the US.

Likewise, the "right" to healthcare is a source of a lot of vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum. One thing is interesting. Republicans generally tend to oppose gun control and healthcare reform. The defend one right (bear arms) and oppose the other (healthcare). Democrats generally oppose the right to bear arms (they support stronger gun control) and defend the right to healthcare.

> What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt
> invented yet?

The issue of access is central to the debate of healthcare as a right. The question is not a black and white question. Consider a case of two men. One needs a hip joint replacement to be able to walk and the other needs a heart transplant to survive.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone the right to life. Denying health care to the first man does not violate his human rights, but denying the second man does. The second man would die if not given treatment. The question is, does this man have a right to healthcare on account of his potential death if not given a transplant? The question is difficult. Assuming that doctors and a heart donor is available, would denying the transplant on accounts of economic reasons be a violation of human rights?

Now, two men need a heart transplant. One is wealthy and has all the insurance coverage he needs. The other is poor and is without adequate insurance to cover his operation. Is denying the poor man insurance coverage a violation of his human rights?

Most cases are not as drastic as this, like somebody who just needs prescription glasses, or simple pain relief for arthritis. It is a complex question. I think that ultimately a health care system has to attempt to balance all sides of the issue. Insurance companies have a right to make a profit, as do doctors and hospitals. However, if profit takes precendence over the protection of the inalienable right to life, then somehow the state has to find balance through legislation and a public system of some kind.

Some countries like Canada and Sweden have solved the problem by going for a publicly run system. These systems are not perfect, and often the state is unable to provide all the services needed.

Other countries don't care at all and all medical services are done privately with minimal state intervention. I have been to developing countries where healthcare is chaotic because the state has little or no involvement at all. In these places millions of people die every year because of poor healthcare.

Other countries like the United States and Australia have both private and public health care and they seem to function well except for the segments of society with the lowest incomes.

The balance has to lie somewehere. I am of the opinion that the Obama administration should do its best to find a balanced approach in which both public and private interest should try to cooperate to find a solution to the problems, rather than playing to public passions to defeat one or the other side of the issue. Of course, in real life special interest and individuals put themselves ahead of an entire country's well-being.

Is healthcare a right? I think it is when people die as a result of poor healthcare. To me Article 3 of the Declaration of Human rights takes precedence over anything else.

Ferris Bueller:

One thing bothers me about this. Have any doctors been prosecuted? It takes two to tango. If doctors are taking perks and kickbacks, the doctors should be liable too. I think a message should be sent to the medical profession too. Being participants in illegal marketing of drugs should have consequences. I think the penalties on Pfizer were warranted and other drug companies should be throughly investigated and fined accordingly. Doctors should be heavily fined too. Their job is to heal people and save human lives. Their job is not to go to resorts and get royal treatment for promoting drugs to patients illegally.

(V):

I wouldn't say that modern stealth tech is based on Nazi tech. The Horten brothers developed for the Nazis the first flying wing design andf that design hasn't changed much since then. Since it could fly lower and create less drag, it was about 80% less visible by radar than conventional bombers of WW II. Of course, it was all made of wood and not the carbon fiber composite materials used in modern stealth bombers. Those two brothers were brilliant. I find it interesting that nobody scooped them up after the war like they did with many other Nazi scientists. My understanding is that they were hobbyists and not trained aeronautical engineers. Their designs were unconventional, so they probably were seen as more odd than revolutionary in their designs. It is possible that they might have been unwilling to work for a third party. That design certainly is amazing.

For those that did not knwo what V is talking about, the plane he is referring to is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Germany also had another similar prototype bomber designed to reach the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_H.XVIII

Very interesting stuff. You learn something new every day!

About the Nazi nuclear energy project and where Nazi scientists ended after the war:

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

(V):

We forget certain things about modern science. First, some scientists have cared and that is why things like global warming and damage to the ozone layer were discovered. A number of scientists and engineers were cynical and worked to develop weapons of different types (nuclear, biological, chemical, war planes, rockets, etc.) The vast majority of scientists were too selfish to care and so they did nothing and just let things happens without taking a stance. To me failure to take a stand is as bad as participating in the wrongdoing. Passing the balme to others and failing to do anything just showed many scientists to be cynical and uncaring.

Much of the impetus behind modern warfare came from anticommunism and nazism as solutions to the growing "threat of communism". Nuclear reasearch, rocket design, chemical and biolgical weapons were researched by Nazi scientists after WW II. Most of those scientists were pardoned for war crimes and ended up moving to the US after the war. The justification was that the Communists were a threat to freedom and democracy and Nazi and Fascists were better allies than Communists were. Western governments have failed to own up to this truth mostly out of embarrassment.

Communists themselves willingly participated in the "weapons race" and the "space race". Their excuse being that an aggressive capitalist front was threating the "people's revolution."

In the end we have the usual combination of greedy politicians and businessmen using ideological excuses to pursue a destructive course. Most scientists (along with everyone else) should have taken a stand, but they were either too cynical, too selfish or too ignorant to care. It just goes to show that knowing a lot of science might make you very smart, but it does not make you a better human being.

gogul:

> To me it is relevant that chemists are not living in the real world.

This is very true, not just of chemists, but many scientists in other disciplines. Modern science is now 200-300 years old. For most of that time scientists were unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. Scientists locked themselves away in laboratories and research facilities. They developed good and bad things, like medicines and weapons. Science was able to both save and destroy humanity.

Scientists never took a stand on important issues until it was too late. Scientists saw weapons of mass destruction become a reality and they did not say anything about it until bombs were detonated over thousands of people. The environment was destroyed and scientists stood by marvelling at how clever they thought they were. They saw science turn into big business and they turned a blind eye out of ignorance and greed. Now scientists are trapped in world were money is more important than knowledge or the common benefit of all humanity.

I blame universities for this. When I was a university student we had no courses on ethics or economics. We learned chemistry, mathematics, physics and biology. We became clever scientists with no sense of what was right or wrong, and no sense of how people in the real world have to deal with real problems. Things such as pollution were never taught. There was nobody telling us that weapons were wrong, or that certain forms of research should never be done. Issues such as poverty and human exploitation were considered alien to science.

The result was a lot of very clever, self-centered scientists who cared only about research and money. We became clever in science, and useless at everything else. We knew quantum mechanics, but we couldn't fix a leaky tap or plant a potato if our lives depended on it. We had no idea of what getting a real job was, and how hard people have to work to make a living. If other people around the world suffered, we did not care. People like me were considered odd, because we cared about something other than our own skin. Sadly, some of the most intelligent people I have known are also some of the most arrogant and dumb.

(V):

> So... who's to decide who lives and dies in your world of "not a right"??

In Capitalism the answer is simple: MONEY DECIDES!

Czuch:

> But who bears the cost of making those pills.... the cost of the research and
> the regulatory hurdles and trials and manufacturing??? Thats right, the US does

I am sorry to disagree with this and to call such a statement ignorant national chauvinism.

I am a chemist and I have worked doing research for those pharmaceuticals that you are claiming are the product of American research superiority.

I can give some examples that will put this to rest for good. I worked doing research in drugs for treating osteoporosis. The drugs in question were Fosamax and similar drugs. Fosamax was developed by Merck, an American company based on New Jersey. Fosamax was invented by a group of chemists working in Ontario, Canada. They were all Canadian employees working for Merck, an American company. At the same time, the main chemical reaction used to make Fosamax was discovered and extensively researched by a Soviet Russian chemist called Alexader Arbuzov. The chemical reaction is called the Arbuzov Rearrangement in his honour.

The question is, who deserves credit? The American company? The Canadian chemists who developed the drug? The Russian scientists who first discovered these chemical reactions? Merck has made hundreds of millions selling this drug. The Canadian chemists got their 50K per year salary for doing this. The Soviet chemist got what? Well, he got screwed because as far as I know Merck never paid royalties to him or his family.

If you study chemistry, you will discover that scientists come from all over the world. There are great chemists in Germany, England, France, Russia, Italy, Japan, China, etc. If you open the pages of any chemistry journal, you will find that publications come from all over the world. Not only that, but pharmaceutical companies are everywhere. The US has Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Teva, etc. Germany has Basf. Switzerland has Pfizer. England has Bristol-Myers. The list goes on and on.

Yes, pharmaceutical companies invest a lot of money in reasearch and development. They also make billions at the expense of consumers. What is more important? Pharmaceutical companies making billions or millions of poor people dying around the world because medicines are too expensive? People forget how hard pharmaceutical companies have fought to protect their "patent" rights, while at the same time millions of people died in developing countries because profits took precedence over compassion.

(V):
No matter what the system (public or private), there will always be selfish, uncaring and incompetent people. Most midwives, nurses and doctors do their job to the best of their ability, but there are always those who do the job just for the money, or who don't care if patients suffer or not. Then there are those who are just neglectful and stupid. I think we could look at any system in any country, and always find cases like this.

To generalize and say that everyone is the same would be unfair, because there are people who work hard and who love their work. I am sure in most countries at least 10% (maybe even 20%) of the people had bad experiences with the healthcare system. Even in countries boasting great systems you will find problems. Most cases are the product of simple neglect or laziness, then a small percentage is the product of gross incompetence.

There should be a better way to assess the work of doctors and nurses without making them feel like they are on the line of fire. Here in North America lawsuits are very common. I am not sure if the lawsuit system helps the medical and nursing professions. It just makes doctors and nurses feel that when they do a good job everyone loves them, and when they make a mistake everyone is out to get them.

We have also reduced the healthcare system to a matter of money. Spend billions to run it, complain about those billions when it gets too expensive. Pay billions to private insurance firms. Sue doctors for millions when they make a mistake. We have reached a point where money and profit have taken precedence over well-being and compassion. Not that capitalism wasn't always like this!

Czuch:

> I do not think that AD is correlating access with coverage

I was trying to get to the fact that here in Canada it does not matter if you are rich or not. The coverage AND the waiting list are theoretically the same. In practice there is some disparity between the rich and the poor because no system is perfect; however, the poor do get good coverage and comparable service.

I am curious to know how coverage and waiting lists compare for people who receive Medicaid compared to those that have private insurance. For example, are all procedures covered in a standard private insurance policy covered by Medicaid too? If all procedures are covered the same, is the waiting time the same for Medicaid patients? In many cases the answer has been "no, they are not the same". This puts poor people at a disadvantage, and I think that is where the debate on Medicaid s coming from.

Artful Dodger:

> In Canada the biggest problem Canadian medical care faces is access.

Now, that is completely wrong. I live in Canada, Alberta to be precise. Here anyone has access to healthcare, from a homeless guy in the street to a billionaire banker. It does not matter how poor or rich you are, everyone is covered.

> They simply do not have the money to offer the proper care. Simply put,
> they can't pay for it on an as needs basis. So care gets rationed out
> according to strict rules.

The system here assigns to each patient a degree of importance based on how urgent a procedure or test is. A child in need of a heart operation takes precedence over a middle aged person with bunions. It is a matter of common sense.

Most of the complaints about waiting times are coming from two sectors of the population. One is seniors in need of certain orthopedic procedures like hip and knee replacements. Waiting lists on those types of procedures go into several months.

Another big source of complaints come from rich people who feel that private clinics and hospitals would let them get their procedures done sooner. Rich people get the same treatment as everyone else, so they feel frustrated because they cannot use their money as leverage to get operations sooner. This is where myths such as "Canadians going to the US" comes from. They want to get to the top of the list, and the system couldn't care any less if they are rich or not.

> Another problem is the cost. It's very expensive to pay for everyone's
> health care needs. And about 70 percent of Canadian's carry their own
> health insurance to cover costs of drugs (which aren't covered under
> the Canadian system).

The Canadian system does not allow private insurers, but there are a few companies that offer "insurance" to reduce the cost of drugs and certain things like chiropractor visits, dentist visits, etc.

The most common form of supplemental coverage is the Blue Cross, which operates in a semi-private form. Many employers offer that supplemental coverage as part of an employee benefits plan.

Low income families get supplemental coverage through the welfare system. A welfare card will allow low income families to get free access to drugs, dental care, etc.

So to say that 70% of Canadians carry their own insurance is a misunderstanding. They carry supplemental coverage, in most cases as part of am employee benefits plan.

> Instead of costs coming down, the Canadian government continues to face rising
> costs with no end in sight.

This is true to the extent that it is expensive to run the system. However, that complain comes from people who want to see lower taxes. Are the costs out of control? It depends on the state of the economy. During recessions we hear a lot of complaints. During the oil boom, you hardly heard any complaints because the government was running a surplus.

> This is the fact of government sponsored health care. It sounds nice.
> But practice and theory are very far apart.

I disagree with that. I think it is a success when a homeless man and a billionaire banker can go to a clinic and receive more or less the same treatment. If human beings are equal, they have the same right to life, and the same right to being treated equally by the health care system. Otherwise we have economic discrimination and inequality.

I won't say Canada is perfect. There is no perfect system. Every country is got its problems. Sweden has a very interesting model and it is highly successful. I used to think healthcare here was good until I went to Austria. I was extremely impressed with the quality of service there.

Bernice:

> does that mean that Americans are more unhealthy than Canadians or
> does it mean the wages are higher in the USA

In my post I indicated that the statistical data is sketchy. some cancers are better in the US, others in Canada. It is not a reflection of one system being truly better than the other.

The problem with this is that sometimes health factors are not related to the healthcare system, or even to income. The US has a higher incidence of diabetes and heart disease than Canada. That is due to some differences in diet and lifestyle more than the healthcare system. Certain diseases are genetic too, and income is not related to incidence or survival rate of the disease.

In some parts of the US incomes are high, and in others low. Medicaid was meant to equalize some of that income disparity, but so far it has not been enough.

The US spends more on health care than any other country in the world, but the accounting on expenditure includes private insurance costs. Once one looks at the public (government) spending per capita, other countries certainly spend more. Some have slightly better health care systems, others do not. I see no real correlation, other than slightly higher infant and child-before-five mortality rates in the US compared to developed countries with publicly funded health care.

Artful Dodger:

> In the US, there is a 100 percent survival rate for those with prostate cancer within
> the first 5 years. In Canada it's about 95 percent. In the UK, it's 77 percent survival rate.

I was looking at some statistical data on health care systems. I found a good article in Wikipedia which compares the healthcare systems in Canada and the US.

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

There is also an article that compares some healthcare statistics between Cuba and the US.

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

There is an article on the National Healthcare System in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

I included Cuba there because Cuba is atypical. It is a poor country with few resources, but they make healthcare their top national priority and it is covered 100% by the state. Canadaand the UK stand one step below. In Canada 70% of the healthcare system being paid from public (government) sources. In the US 49% of healthcare is paid by the government, the rest comes from private sources (mostly private insurance frims).

I find that the statistics show some things being better in Canada, others are better in the US, others are better in Cuba, etc. I see no real statistical differences in some measures like Cancer survival and incidence rates. Some Cancers are better in the US, others are better in Canada. Child and infant moratility rates are slightly better in Cuba than in the US, but just marginally.

I find the one big difference is that US is the only wealthy industrialized nation to have no universal healthcare system. Low income families receive Medicaid, and that is where the complaints seem to be coming from. Medicaid will not cover many services that are covered by private insurance firms, and waiting lists on Medicaid services are very long. Although 47 million people have only Medicaid coverage, the overall health of the population is not statistically different from most countries with good healthcare systems.

I think people can nitpick at details of different healthcare systems. I find that the bottom line is if the lower income people in a country have available healthcare, then the health of the population improves tremendously. I think that healthcare reform in the US might be perceived as socialist, but if Obama succeeds in improving healthcare services for low income families, then long term statistics in the US could be as good as those as Sweden, Norway or Austria. Healthcare in those countries seems to statistically much better than Canada or the US.

Czuch:

> here in the US we already DO insure all of our citizens necessary health,
> education and social services

That is precisely the point. The US is already a form of a welfare state. However, not all citizens get the same services. If that were the case, there would be no debate on health care reform. Programs like No Child Left Behind would be unnecessary. Universities and colleges would be more accessible.

Certain things in certain countries are better, but at a higher taxation cost. It is a tough balancing act. Pay more taxes and get more services. Pay less taxes and have some of the lower income people have lower quality of services. It is an old debate going back to the Great Depression era.

I don't think the US needs to move more towards socialism. What countries like the US (and Canada and other industrialized nations) need is to move away from massive war spending. Less money into weapons, more money into health and education, and more money into the pension system for retirees. Next year (2010) people born in 1945 turn 65. The baby boomer generation will start retiring in big numbers. If something is not done now, a lot of retirees will end up with inadequate pensions and services. I think this is when the shift in thinking will happen. Governments will have no choice but to streamline their efficiency and stop waste in war.

In response to this: "where does it say that this government must also supply health care and education and other social functions that you endorse?"

I think it is easy for us to forget where or why certain ideas come from, and how it was that modern society came to be. There is always some catalyst for change, and more often than not the motivating factor is some catastrophic social change that threatens all of society.

A good example is the French Revolution. James Mill, a famous Scottish philosopher of the early 19th century, noted that Europe needed the French Revolution, not because the revolution was good, but because people should realize that there should never be another one.

The French Revolution was a catalyst for change because it made the aristrocracy realize what would happen if the working class continued to be held without political power. The aristocracy was forced to give up some power and allow the merchant class (the early capitalists) to gain political power. It also allowed the birth of what would later become our modern representative democracies.

Then in 1917 the Russian Revolution occurred, and the capitalists who had monopolised a lot of the wealth and power of the world realized that capitalism had many serious problems. The Great Depression catalized the belief among the working classes that capitalism was failing to improve the lives of many working class people. Communism was becoming the ideology of choice among the working classes and the unions that represented their interests. In 1945 Stalin's Red Army occupied half of Europe and in 1949 China had its revolution. By then half of the world's land area and half of its people were under Communist rule.

Western economists looked at the problem and realized that high unemployment, runaway inflation and lack of services for the working class were fuelling Communist ideology and plunging capitalism into one economic crisis after the other. It was John Maynard Keynes, the great capitalist economist, who proposed "interventionist" policies in which the state would diminish the effects of bad economic cycles by controlling interest rates, the money supply and investment in public works.

Other economists, alarmed by the effects of poverty and the radicalization of the working class, championed "welfare capitalism" as a way to improve people's lives without destroying economic growth or plunging into revolution. Just as with the French Revolution, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions served as catalysts for change that led to better health care, education, social services, etc.

The question is, having seen the changes in world politics in the 20th century, can modern society exists without some form of "welfare state" that ensures that all citizens get the necessary health, education and social services? Is there still a risk that if those services are removed radical politics (like Communism and Anarchism) could regain impetus among the working classes?

Having grown up and lived in a country with virtually no "welfare state" I can say that it is impossible for any modern government to function effectively without some form of welfare system. Having lived in Canada, and having visited Europe many times I can say that the welfare state does lead to very high standards of living. Paying high taxes might be the drawback, but the quality of life seems to justify the taxation problem.

I have been reading some posts about "small government". Of course, a look at any industrialized (or for that matter most developing) countries today will show that small government is a myth in the sense that all modern governments have enourmous bureacratic structures designed to manage just about every aspect of essential economic and social services. In most industrialized countries the government is the biggest employer and in North America millions of people earn a living working for the government. Many people who don't work for the government work in companies that have contracts providing products or services for the government.

I noticed that people who take a stand against "big government" sometimes do it because they want to see the government shrink and provide citizens with "tax breaks". Sarah Palin is a good example. In some of her speeches she lauds small government and tax breaks. I will not generalize about Republicans (or Conservatives in Canada and the UK) but sometimes I hear similar rethoric from "right wing" parties.

I have been looking for statistics that clearly show whether smaller government indeed is more efficient. I think the problem is that "small government" is a relative term. Most western governments today have more cumbersome bureacracies than governments 50 or 100 years ago, and comparing rates of economic growth might not be possible. A more fair comparison might be "economic stability", meaning how well our modern, larger governments cope with an economic crisis.

As for Socialism, it is a relative term. Today we have a centralized banking system with laws and regulations enforced by a central government agency that imposes interest rates and controls the money supply. If you had told people 100 years ago that we would have an agency like the Federal Reserve, they would have said that you were a Communist of some kind. It would have been an unacceptable "Socialist" idea, as would have been economic planning over an entire presidency term. Soviets had "5-year plans", and western governments now have similar long-term economic plans. Ideas that were "socialist" become acceptable, out of economic necessity.

I can think of examples where "small" government has succeeded and failed. Perhaps a better government is one that is "efficient" and "balanced". You can cut taxes and reduce bureacracy. It might seem good, as long as you are not leaving thousands unemployed and slowing down the economy. Then you can increase government size and try to improve services. It might seem good as long as you don't go into deficit and increase public debt. In a perfect world, the government would balance spending and improve the efficiency of services provided. Of course, the world is not perfect!

(V):

It is good that we recycle plastics. The real problem is not so much the polymers. Polyethylene, polystyrene and other thermoplastics can be melted and recycled. Thermosetting plastics like polyester can be reused for upholstery stuffing, carpets, etc.

The real problem with plastics is UV light degradation and all the plasticizers and additives.

As UV light degrades plastics, small amounts of hydrocarons are released, and some of those have biological activity. As the plastics degrade the plasticizers leach out and those chemicals have biological activity too.

There is a big push now to get rid of plasticizers like BPA because they have estrogenic activity and they can affect fetal and child development as well as increase chances of breast cancer and prostate cancer. In animals they can cause problems too, such as thin and brittle egg shells in birds and they can inhibit reproductive activity in amphibians and reptiles.

Ideally, recycling improvements, changes in legislation, and technological changes can make things better.

(V):

> But the country is still a work in progress!!

I think all of humanity is a work in progress. Here in Edmonton we have a good recycling program too. We put all recyclables in a bag or bin, and there is a big plant where they get sorted and sent to appropriate places for reuse.

I saw a system similar to yours in Austria. One bin was for recyclables like glass, and another for organic matter that would go into a municipal composter.

I think the real problem is plastic. Bacteria cannot digest them, and as they age they leach out plasticizers and other additives. Science makes progress, but the progress is slow if people see no profit in it. Science created all of these materials that we need in every day life. It is up to science to find better materials that pollute less. In reality nature gives us just about everything we need and natural materials are often the best. For example, hemp fibres are good for clothing and packaging. However, prejudice because several varieties of hemp are used as a drug (marihuana) has slowed down commercial development and research.

Maybe we should appoint Cheech and Chong as ministers of the environment!