Could something like Cooperative Capitalism be a solution?

[PunkMaister]

Puerto Rico is virtually a welfare state in case you must know, it is this darn dependency and parasitism that has the island in it's current condition.

Hmmm, so what in your capacity as a Puerto Rican citizen would you think it would take in order to make this territory either finally vote to become the 51st state of the United States, or to finally go off on it's own and become a viable, independent nation in it's own right?
-Mike

Most here including myself would vote overwhelmingly so for statehood. You can only cut down on Welfare recipients and parasitism by creating jobs and by encouraging people to work rather than to receive welfare which is what has been encouraged for ages you see during the cold war someone thought that by making the Island a virtual Welfare state it would dissuade any communist/socialist takeover, Whoever thouhht that up never gave a glance at the fact that most of us are capitalists and not the other way around, oh well...

[Narsil]

Britain is not a Socialist state it does have socialist programs though...

The socialist party is currently in power. Do not correct me on the nature of my own government, I happen to have studied this quite extensively as part of my degree course.

Puerto Rico is virtually a welfare state in case you must know, it is this darn dependency and parasitism that has the island in it's current condition.

And many people in the world would starve without welfare. What about the disabled? Houses with sick children? Single-parent families wherein the parent has a job, but it isn't quite enough without the government support? Families with parents who wish to return to education and improve their qualifications but can't work at the same time?

We already have those thank you verty much without the need of implementing socialism in the scale you envision.

So, there's an extensive affirmative action plan for minorities and disabled people to be able to find work? There's all-out freedom of marriage between two consenting adults and not just two consenting adults of opposite gender? Are there any hate speech laws?

My brother has had to have over 4 mayor operations in the course of his life, in the latest one he had a tumor that was entwined in his Cava vein of all things so he went to Houston for what turned out to be an over 12 hours operation in which they had to give him over 48 blood transfussions to keep him alive while operating on him, he had to be sown back in stages because his tissues needed time to heal. I hightly doubt that they could ever perform even a third of that procedure in France. Socialized medicine is good for small ailments but for big things it always fall short,

So in badly-spelled English and using the wrong words, you just use a whole lot of conjecture without actually doing any research? The United States is below my own country's level, and that sort of operation does actually get performed here. The US has only recently started investing in stem-cell research due to superstitious, ignorant and selfish right-wing Republicans.

A lot of scams and corruption is what happened which Socialism cannot cure humanity off anyway. Better policing of dubious private enterprise ventures should be considered.

Thank you, you've just inadvertently supported my point; the idea behind socialism is to REGULATE THE FUCKING THING!

[PunkMaister]

The socialist party is currently in power. Do not correct me on the nature of my own government, I happen to have studied this quite extensively as part of my degree course.

So what? The dems which are also socialist are in power in the US but both the US and Britain remain capitalist not socialist states....

And many people in the world would starve without welfare. What about the disabled? Houses with sick children? Single-parent families wherein the parent has a job, but it isn't quite enough without the government support? Families with parents who wish to return to education and improve their qualifications but can't work at the same time?

And another CopOut mty brother again is disabled and as such he is eligible for Social Security. Welfare should be a case by case kind of deal and not a blank slate which is what it is in your country and to an extent mine as well. There is a whole lot of people that are not incapacitated and could actually work but choose not too because is easier to just make babies and live off welfare I'm talking about those people in particular not the disabled or those that are truly trying to better their lives so one day they will not need welfare anymore. You see unless you are disabled or some extreme case like that Welfare should not be a lifelong solution.

So, there's an extensive affirmative action plan for minorities and disabled people to be able to find work? There's all-out freedom of marriage between two consenting adults and not just two consenting adults of opposite gender? Are there any hate speech laws?

Affirmative action is one of the biggest crocks humans have invented in history, people should be chosen according to their qualifications not to fill a damn quota based on ethnicity, religion or whatever else.

Gays can get into nuptial like contracts if not a so called legal wedding. Truth be told I could care less if they give Gays the right to wed. But the problem is that in the few states that have approved such a union. Photographers have been arrested on the grounds that they did not want to be hired to photograph a Gay wedding. So where does it stop? The individual rights of a person end where another person's rights begin.

Ah yes you mean the law that now allows muslims in your country to rape,do honor killings, maim and whatever else they want without fear of criticism, you mean that one! Please you may want to cower like an Ostrich each time a muslim shakes his fist in the street but not me...

So in badly-spelled English and using the wrong words, you just use a whole lot of conjecture without actually doing any research? The United States is below my own country's level, and that sort of operation does actually get performed here. The US has only recently started investing in stem-cell research due to superstitious, ignorant and selfish right-wing Republicans.

U-hu hey this should be an interesting read for you:

A tale of 2 sickbeds: Health care in U.K. vs. U.S.

Thank you, you've just inadvertently supported my point; the idea behind socialism is to REGULATE THE FUCKING THING!

No it doesn't there's a huge difference between policing as in observing and making sure that somebody doesn't run a harmful scam that hurts both lots of people's pockets and the economy in the long run and regulating the market with stifling laws that stomp any kind of growth and just promote poverty. Yes poverty because in the end if you look at all Socialist countries such as Cuba for example they are all poor and before you argue about the UK and France again I remind you that their current governments might be Socialist. The countries remain as Capitalist nations. Anyhow last I check didn't the conservatives won in France's last elections and didn't a conservative Prime minister won in yours?

[Narsil]

So what? The dems which are also socialist are in power in the US but both the US and Britain remain capitalist not socialist states....

The Democrats in the United States are what we call the conservatives over here, and aren't even remotely socialist. Which shows exactly how much you know about the way any of these governments work; absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Affirmative action is one of the biggest crocks humans have invented in history, people should be chosen according to their qualifications not to fill a damn quota based on ethnicity, religion or whatever else.

And without it, I wouldn't be able to get a job due to my Asperger's syndrome putting a big red exclamation mark in the eyes of many employers regardless of my qualifications. I'm actually in need of the quota as I would be cursed to welfare without it. Fucking idiot.

Gays can get into nuptial like contracts if not a so called legal wedding. Truth be told I could care less if they give Gays the right to wed. But the problem is that in the few states that have approved such a union. Photographers have been arrested on the grounds that they did not want to be hired to photograph a Gay wedding. So where does it stop? The individual rights of a person end where another person's rights begin.

Why were the photographers arrested? Where they specifically harassing the gay couples in question, and you're just trying to push forward your own idiotic agenda?

Ah yes you mean the law that now allows muslims in your country to rape,do honor killings, maim and whatever else they want without fear of criticism, you mean that one! Please you may want to cower like an Ostrich each time a muslim shakes his fist in the street but not me...

In this, you display that you are a racist son of a bitch because the vast majority of the Muslim population isn't like this. I am friends with many of them, and none of the ones I know fit that description. I live in one of the most heavily-Asian places in the United Kingdom, and I encounter the 'Muslim community' (the majority of which is slowly eroding and integrating, despite how much the BNP might claim otherwise) every single day. Yes, some of them wear veils, burkhas, or different outfits. Not my place to say otherwise.

As for the whole 'Sharia law' thing; 'tis a myth. We're not adopting it. There is very little chance of us adopting it.

U-hu hey this should be an interesting read for you:

A tale of 2 sickbeds: Health care in U.K. vs. U.S.

You know what I see after reading this? I see the image of more people getting treated. In the US, all of those sick people in the waiting line would still exist, they would just be too afraid to go to the hospital due to the cost of it. That's why the UK's health system is superior. The hospitals are crowded because they're doing more fucking work than the US system.

Anyhow last I check didn't the conservatives won in France's last elections and didn't a conservative Prime minister won in yours?

France? Yes, the conservative did win. On the other side of the Channel, however, the United Kingdom's Labour party has been in power for the past eleven years. And it's still Capitalist. I'll admit. But... things are pretty fucking bad because of it. Or have you not noticed the credit crisis caused by the rampant and unrestrained capitalism of the past twenty years?

Now shut up and concede the point because you're obviously an idiot.

[PunkMaister]

The Democrats in the United States are what we call the conservatives over here

Well now that's scary! To call a freaking dem a Conservative LOL!

And without it, I wouldn't be able to get a job due to my Asperger's syndrome putting a big red exclamation mark in the eyes of many employers regardless of my qualifications. I'm actually in need of the quota as I would be cursed to welfare without it. Fucking idiot.

Wrong because if the law to apply for jobs in your county is the same as here then is against the law to discriminate based on a condition that obviously does not hamper your ability to work. And quit the name calling...

Why were the photographers arrested? Where they specifically harassing the gay couples in question, and you're just trying to push forward your own idiotic agenda?

Because they refused to be hired to photograph a Gay wedding...

In this, you display that you are a racist son of a bitch because the vast majority of the Muslim population isn't like this. I am friends with many of them, and none of the ones I know fit that description. I live in one of the most heavily-Asian places in the United Kingdom, and I encounter the 'Muslim community' (the majority of which is slowly eroding and integrating, despite how much the BNP might claim otherwise) every single day. Yes, some of them wear veils, burkhas, or different outfits. Not my place to say otherwise.

Why is it that you liberals insist on seeing Islam as a race? Is Christianity a race? Heck no well guess what neither is Islam so your racist argument falls short not to mention the fact of my own ethnicity and the place where I live etc, whre I have friends of every skin color of the spectrum. Really try something else for a change...

As for the whole 'Sharia law' thing; 'tis a myth. We're not adopting it. There is very little chance of us adopting it.

Bull!
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

You know what I see after reading this? I see the image of more people getting treated. In the US, all of those sick people in the waiting line would still exist, they would just be too afraid to go to the hospital due to the cost of it. That's why the UK's health system is superior. The hospitals are crowded because they're doing more fucking work than the US system.

So overcrowding (which can also lead to massive spreading of disease and infection throughout the population and bad medical attention is better? You have got to be kidding!

Yes, the conservative did win. On the other side of the Channel, however, the United Kingdom's Labour party has been in power for the past eleven years. And it's still Capitalist. I'll admit. But... things are pretty fucking bad because of it. Or have you not noticed the credit crisis caused by the rampant and unrestrained capitalism of the past twenty years?

The situation is far more complicated than that and you know it... Blaming unrestrained Capitalism is at best a simplistic answer that doesn't solve anything.

Now shut up and concede the point because you're obviously an idiot.

Oh is that a threat? You haven't proven anything and now you are trying to strong arm me into conceding how typical!

[Jedi Master Spock]

This is neither a polite nor a productive argument right now. Could we please change that?

[PunkMaister]

This is neither a polite nor a productive argument right now. Could we please change that?

I'd love too but I'm not the one doing the insults and the name calling to try to strong arm a concession.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Be careful with liberalism. The UK one is not exactly the same as in the US, and very different than what you find in Europe, and even more in countries such as France.

Far too many of the world's problems are caused by unregulated economically liberal ideas.

Sucked in by liberalism, or ultra-liberalism applied to finance. But it's true imho that the way businesses are ran these days has nothing to do with the more respectful and fair system present many decades ago, or even less far, as in the 60s.

[Narsil]

Well now that's scary! To call a freaking dem a Conservative LOL!

I'm European. We're so left that we are scary. Hell, Eastern Europe was communist for a great majority of the twentieth century.

Wrong because if the law to apply for jobs in your county is the same as here then is against the law to discriminate based on a condition that obviously does not hamper your ability to work. And quit the name calling...

Actually, they can make the 'valid' argument that I can't perform well as part of a team due to my social anxiety. There's a bit of leeway that they would usually have with so-called 'mental disabilities', because they quite often do impede someone's ability to work, and even with a very mild and minor Autistic Spectrum Disorder, they'd make the leap from 'mild issues getting used to other people' to 'is practically Rain Man'.

Because they refused to be hired to photograph a Gay wedding...

Do you have a link on that? It sounds so ridiculous that I have difficulty taking it at face value.

Why is it that you liberals insist on seeing Islam as a race?

Most, if not all of the Muslims in the United Kingdom are of the same general Indian sub-continent ethnicity. This makes the Islamic community an easy-to-recognise type of 'brown people' for your average racists.

Is Christianity a race? Heck no well guess what neither is Islam so your racist argument falls short not to mention the fact of my own ethnicity and the place where I live etc, whre I have friends of every skin color of the spectrum. Really try something else for a change...

'I can't be racist, I have a black friend!'

Bull!
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

It is an unofficial adoption of those rules outside of the actual primary legislature of the United Kingdom. It isn't Parliament-sanctioned, and is more or less just playing on a legal loophole.

So overcrowding (which can also lead to massive spreading of disease and infection throughout the population and bad medical attention is better? You have got to be kidding!

Instead of a lot of people not getting any treatment at all and staying at home ill and interacting outside of the hospital environment and spreading even more infection because there's no chance of quarantine? Oh, but you didn't think about that one, did you?

The situation is far more complicated than that and you know it... Blaming unrestrained Capitalism is at best a simplistic answer that doesn't solve anything.

No, what solves things is regulating capitalism so that a sustainable and reasonable growth is achieved. I have already stated that the solution to 'unrestrained capitalism' is to remove the first syllable, after all, and you have yet to offer anything as an alternative except for 'policing'; I just don't think that's going to be quite enough.

To be honest, we both have the same sort of solution in mind, and what we're arguing about is the extent of it.

Oh is that a threat? You haven't proven anything and now you are trying to strong arm me into conceding how typical!

It is physically impossible for me to strong-arm or threaten you from all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. If you take it as a threat, it is a sign of your own poor comprehension of the English language, as all I was doing was expressing a sign of irritation at your rampant ignorance.

[PunkMaister]

I'm European. We're so left that we are scary. Hell, Eastern Europe was communist for a great majority of the twentieth century.

Not by choice though, Stalin your hero made sure of that and given your remarks don't try to deny it now, is no use...

Actually, they can make the 'valid' argument that I can't perform well as part of a team due to my social anxiety. There's a bit of leeway that they would usually have with so-called 'mental disabilities', because they quite often do impede someone's ability to work, and even with a very mild and minor Autistic Spectrum Disorder, they'd make the leap from 'mild issues getting used to other people' to 'is practically Rain Man'.

That's very shaky ground you are talking about it would mean costly court hearing that the company in question is most likely to lose well at least that's how it would work out over here...

Do you have a link on that? It sounds so ridiculous that I have difficulty taking it at face value.

In September 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography about using their services for her upcoming same-sex commitment ceremony. She received an email back stating that the business only photographed traditional weddings. When she wrote back for clarification on what that meant, Ms. Willock says she got a reply from Elane Photography stating "we do not photograph same sex weddings."

Ms. Willock filed a charge of discrimination with the New Mexico Department of Labor (Human Rights Division), alleging that Elane Photography had violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act. This state law forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation.

In April 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled in Ms. Willock's favor holding that Elane Photography had indeed violated this state anti-discrimination law, and directing the business to pay over $6,600 in attorney's fees and court costs.

Unfortunately, the Commission's ruling doesn't shed any light into the reasoning behind the decision. However, we can safely assume at least two things: first, that the Commission felt that a refusal to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony was enough to constitute discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and second, that operating a photography business constitutes some form of "public accommodation."

New Mexico law defines a public accommodation as "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private." The clearest examples of a public accommodation are hotels and restaurants, and not surprisingly many of the earliest civil rights decisions banning segregation were ones striking down the racially discriminatory practices of hotels and eating establishments.
Even if we assume that a private individual operating a wedding photography business is somehow providing a "public accommodation," an even greater constitutional problem exists with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission's decision. Other constitutional rights are involved here - rights belonging to Elaine Huguenin.

For example, New Mexico's Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects an individual's rights to engage in conduct - or, for that matter, refuse to engage in conduct - that is substantially motivated by religious belief. The Act, which is similar to federal law as well as statutes in place in roughly half of the states, provides that "a government agency shall not restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless…the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

Elaine Huguenin's religion teaches her that homosexuality is wrong, and that marriage is between one man and one woman. If Elaine Huguenin believes that photographing a same sex commitment ceremony would be contrary to her religious convictions, is she not entitled to be free from governmental interference with those beliefs?

If one contends that the state of New Mexico is allowed to restrict Elaine Huguenin's free exercise of her religious beliefs, then it can only be because it is somehow essential to furthering a "compelling governmental interest," and because the action taken against Ms. Huguenin is the "least restrictive means" of doing so. But this is a pretty tough case to make.

Even if we assume that allowing people equal access to wedding photography services advances a compelling government interest, it hardly stands to reason that punishing Elaine Huguenin is the least restrictive way of serving that interest. Presumably, there are lots of other wedding photographers in the Albuquerque area, many of whom likely have no faith-based qualms about covering a same sex commitment ceremony.

And if the state of New Mexico genuinely believes that it has a compelling interest in vindicating the rights of gay and lesbian couples to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation, then why do the state's own marriage laws discriminate against same sex couples (to date, only Massachusetts and now California recognize gay marriage, as opposed to domestic partnerships or other unions)?

Besides freedom of religion, there is another constitutional argument to be made. Photography, even wedding photography, is an art form, as deserving of First Amendment protection as painting, sculpture, or writing. Long before this controversy, Elaine Huguenin was making choices about what she would or would not choose to photograph - refusing, for example, to take photographs that glorified violence against women, pornography, abortion, or same sex marriage. Those choices are protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot compel people to express views that they do not share, whether it's saluting the flag (West Virginia Bd. Of Education v. Barnette) or featuring the state slogan "Live Free or Die" on one's license plate (Wooley v. Maynard).

Despite this constitutional right to exercise her artistic judgment, the state of New Mexico is, in effect, informing Ms. Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. This is like telling a Christian bookstore that it can't choose to restrict itself solely to Christian themes in what it sells, or telling a freelance writer that he can't decline an assignment to write something he considers to be offensive or contrary to his beliefs (like writing a Scientologist tract).

I have the freedom to choose what I will write about and which topics I will decline. Just as a freelance writer cannot be compelled to write advertising copy for an abortion clinic or a brochure for a cruise ship company catering to gay couples, Elaine Huguenin should neither be compelled to provide photography services for a same sex commitment ceremony, not subjected to civil liability for making a choice that is hers as an artist to make.

In the past couple of years, a number of films have been released that are sharply critical of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Could our government decree that filmmakers shall restrict themselves to only positive portrayals of this conflict? Of course not.

Then why does the state of New Mexico, in the case of Elaine Huguenin, seemingly act as though the First Amendment does not extend to its borders? Perhaps because, in its rush toward political correctness and its currying of favor with special interest groups, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission forgot that the U.S. Constitution affords rights to all - even these individuals with whom it does not agree.

Related article here

Why is it that you liberals insist on seeing Islam as a race?

Most, if not all of the Muslims in the United Kingdom are of the same general Indian sub-continent ethnicity. This makes the Islamic community an easy-to-recognise type of 'brown people' for your average racists.

'I can't be racist, I have a black friend!'

I'm not even white you moron, we Puerto Ricans are the product of racial interbreeding between at least 3 or more races. And again we come in all colors and we do not care about the skin color of the other people around us. What I'm criticizing here is the religion of Islam not a race.

It is an unofficial adoption of those rules outside of the actual primary legislature of the United Kingdom. It isn't Parliament-sanctioned, and is more or less just playing on a legal loophole.

Your leftist parliament would approve anything the muslims want without blinking. And legal loophole or not you do have the beginnings of Sharia Law in your country already.

Instead of a lot of people not getting any treatment at all and staying at home ill and interacting outside of the hospital environment and spreading even more infection because there's no chance of quarantine? Oh, but you didn't think about that one, did you?

Name such an incident! Because guess what even the so dreaded Swine Flu was stopped cold in it's tracks in New York. After they found a school that had the infection no more cases have been reported nor will they. Had such a similar thing happened in the UK with it's overcrowded hospitals you would have had a whole lot more people infected.

No, what solves things is regulating capitalism so that a sustainable and reasonable growth is achieved. I have already stated that the solution to 'unrestrained capitalism' is to remove the first syllable, after all, and you have yet to offer anything as an alternative except for 'policing'; I just don't think that's going to be quite enough.

And who determines such a thing? The government? To the left sustainable growth = Poverty for everyone.

I'd rather have people monitoring what some stock brokers etc. of Ill repute might be doing and put a stop to it if necessary than to have the government regulate every detail. Again the fact that all socialist countries are poor showcases that Socialism simply doesn't work at least in it's purest form but then again neither does Capitalism when it becomes a monopolistic oligarchy. That is why I would like to see something that merges the best of both. But our fiery debate here illustrates just how difficult if not impossible it would be to try to make it work.

To be honest, we both have the same sort of solution in mind, and what we're arguing about is the extent of it.

First time you and I agree on anything, to an extent...

And again keep your insults to yourself... So far I've shown more restrain than you...


[/quote]

[Mike DiCenso]

Puerto Rico is virtually a welfare state in case you must know, it is this darn dependency and parasitism that has the island in it's current condition.

Hmmm, so what in your capacity as a Puerto Rican citizen would you think it would take in order to make this territory either finally vote to become the 51st state of the United States, or to finally go off on it's own and become a viable, independent nation in it's own right?
-Mike

Most here including myself would vote overwhelmingly so for statehood. You can only cut down on Welfare recipients and parasitism by creating jobs and by encouraging people to work rather than to receive welfare which is what has been encouraged for ages you see during the cold war someone thought that by making the Island a virtual Welfare state it would dissuade any communist/socialist takeover, Whoever thouhht that up never gave a glance at the fact that most of us are capitalists and not the other way around, oh well...

Are there any studies or polls available which would support your statement that the majority of Puerto Ricans would vote for statehood in the Union versus staying as a territory, or seeking independence as it's own sovereign nation?
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

Are there any studies or polls available which would support your statement that the majority of Puerto Ricans would vote for statehood in the Union versus staying as a territory, or seeking independence as it's own sovereign nation?
-Mike

The Puerto Rico Herald has been running polls - here - that seem to show that result, recently.

[PunkMaister]

Are there any studies or polls available which would support your statement that the majority of Puerto Ricans would vote for statehood in the Union versus staying as a territory, or seeking independence as it's own sovereign nation?
-Mike

The Puerto Rico Herald has been running polls - here - that seem to show that result, recently.

Thx Jedi Master! Here is the info from the article:

The possibility of Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly supporting Statehood has never been more of a reality than in today’s political environment. A November 2006 telephone poll of residents of the island showed when faced with the decision, 74% would choose Statehood over the 12% in favor of Independence. With 65% of respondents favorable to Luis Fortuño winning PNP’s gubernatorial race in 2008, “now” may very well be Puerto Rico’s best chance at moving towards true representation in Washington.

According to the poll, 43% of respondents believed a plebiscite vote for Statehood would provide more job opportunities, better living conditions and an overall better quality of life. The benefits of Statehood were also on the minds of 28% who said the economy was the biggest problem facing Puerto Rico today. In addition, 20% gave the public schools a failing grade citing the need for federal help necessary to improve public education.

Even though respondents clearly were looking for change in the future, their traditional family values remained intact. Respondents were united on issues of religion, marriage, as well as an unquestionable concern for their children’s future with 76% of respondents citing prayer should be allowed in schools and 72% disagreeing with abortion.

I emboldened that last statement just for you Narsil! So you get a clear picture of where we Puerto Ricans for the most part stand...

[Praeothmin]

Narsil, Punkmaister, concerning the "Free Universal Health Care", we have a similar system to the UK in Canada, and while nobody wants to see this disappear, because no one wants to become bankrupped due to medical bills, we do realize that the best medical system would be an amalgam of the two.
Free health care for everyone, but those with the money or good insurance could go through private institutions and get speedier service, for a lot more money, which would also get a lot of people out of the hospitals, and free up some space and personnel.

As for welfare, we have that here too... in spades, but while I'm more then happy to pay with my taxes for financial support to those who have disabilities, I too want nothing more then have the lazy leeches who can work back on the work market and to start to contribute to society.

[PunkMaister]

Narsil, Punkmaister, concerning the "Free Universal Health Care", we have a similar system to the UK in Canada, and while nobody wants to see this disappear, because no one wants to become bankrupped due to medical bills, we do realize that the best medical system would be an amalgam of the two.
Free health care for everyone, but those with the money or good insurance could go through private institutions and get speedier service, for a lot more money, which would also get a lot of people out of the hospitals, and free up some space and personnel.

As for welfare, we have that here too... in spades, but while I'm more then happy to pay with my taxes for financial support to those who have disabilities, I too want nothing more then have the lazy leeches who can work back on the work market and to start to contribute to society.

Well you and I then are in agreement, Narsil however being a hardcore Socialist only sees the full implementation of Socialism as the way to solve the world's problems even though it has been more than proven historically and thru recent examples that that is not the case.

Narsil I very much doubt given what I've read that my brother would have survived under the "gentle" care of your socialized medicine.