The following are some comments on the socio-political of America today written by Skip's friend Bob Johnson:

This will be just a quick note in response to your request for information concerning my "socio-political-economic" philosophy. I can’t imagine why anyone would be interested in my philosophy about anything except log houses. Therefore, I don’t think that my "other-than-log-house-philosophies" should be included in your log house publication.

At best, if I tell people what my philosophies are, they will probably think that I’m just an eccentric old man.

At worst, my philosophies will probably make a lot of people angry.

However, I promised that I would send you a few comments… so here they are.

As I begin this assignment (Gee, I feel like I’m back in college.), I take solace in the fact that for an old man like myself, the amount of time I spend writing the following political comments will probably be far less harmful to me than an equal amount of time spent with alcohol, fast cars, or wild women.

Regarding POLITICS, SOCIETY, AND ECONOMICS (doesn’t that include almost everything ?), perhaps I should start out by describing a few things that I perceive to be "problems" -- and then describing what I perceive to be the "solutions" to the problems.

As per your request, I will try to write down a few of my thoughts about such things as:

1. The high cost of medical care

2. Over-regulation in America

3. Loss of freedom in America

4. Some "fool-proof" solutions to the above problems

5. Etc.

Not necessarily in the order of importance, here goes…

PROBLEM #1

"JUSTICE" IN AMERICA:

American attorneys often joke by saying, "In the American legal system a person who is accused of a crime is innocent only until proven penniless."

They also joke by saying, "How much justice can you afford ???"

In truth, these jokes aren’t funny – because they describe a reality that must be faced by almost every American who becomes involved with our current legal system.

It is no secret that rich people, politicians, and prominent members of the community are able to "buy" a different kind of justice (as per the O. J. Simpson trial) than people who are socio-economically disadvantaged.

F. Lee Bailey is one of the most knowledgeable and respected attorneys in America. Believe it or not, Mr. Bailey said,  "In America, your guilt or innocence has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of your trial."  [As loyal, patriotic Americans, I think we all have an obligation to "reflect" upon F. Lee Bailey’s quotation.] Personally, I have no respect at all for anyone who is part of the current "so-called" justice system.

SOLUTIONS TO THE ABOVE PROBLEMS;

Many of the problems could be solved by passing a law that states the following;

"Any person accused of a crime, and subsequently found innocent of the crime in a Court of Law, shall be reimbursed for all reasonable legal expenses associated with the defense."

Another solution would be to pass a law that states the following; 

"Any government official (including law enforcement officers and prosecutors) who are found guilty of bearing false witness against an accused, and/or lying under oath, shall be sentenced to ten years in prison."

Another solution would be to enforce the following law;
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Do you recognize the above law ?

Of course you don’t, because you were educated in the American Public School System. For your information, the above paragraph is ARTICLE VII of the Bill Of Rights, which was declared in force on December 15, 1791.

ANOTHER INTERESTING QUESTION;

Is it still possible to obtain a Common Law trial in America AS GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE VII ???   (We think you will be surprised by the answer to that question.)

If you think you can still get a Common Law trial, where your rights are "really" protected, then I suggest that you try it the next time you are forced to go to court. You will be surprised by what happens.

PROBLEM #2

GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE;

American citizens are subjected to too much governmental interference in their daily lives.

In many ways America is turning into a "police state" -- and therefore I think we should reflect upon the following factors;

1. Most of our ‘non-victim’ laws are designed only to generate income for the state – through the use of fines.
 
2. History proves that whenever a government starts to use ‘police power’ to generate income for the state (by punishing citizens through the use of ‘fines’) then the government is about to collapse.

3. If a government is so desperate that it must rely upon ‘fines’ to generate income, then said government will invariably become an adversary of the people – by creating more and more laws that are designed specifically to generate income.

4. America has over twice as many laws as any other country in the world. [If you think this makes us safer, then you should look at the statistics.]

5. Tacitus said, "Corruplissima republicae, plurimae leges." ["The worse the state, the more laws it has."]

6. The American government has created the illusion of a ‘war on drugs’ only as an excuse to take away our civil liberties. [As clearly shown on Dateline News, on August 22, 1997)

6. In America, there are more people in prison (per capita of population) than in any other country in the world. [Are we safer because of this ? Is this what a ‘free country’ should be like ?]

7. Americans are currently trading their freedom for a false sense of security.

I tried to explain some of America’s "victimless-crime" laws to my friends in other countries – regarding such things as seat belts, air-bags, motor-cycle helmets, bicycle helmets, car-seats for children, smoking, drinking alcohol in public, passengers riding in the back of pick-up trucks, etc., etc., etc.

When I told my foreign friends about these laws in America they thought I was joking. They couldn’t believe that ‘true’ Americans would put up with these stupid laws.

When I was visiting Skip in the Philippines, one of the few laws that I encountered was as follows; "A motor-cycle with a passenger side-car shall haul no more than 16 passengers at a time."

Fortunately, no one paid any attention to that law. The home made side-cars that are common in the Philippines often carry as many as 20 passengers. To get one of these over-loaded vehicles moving from a dead stop, two or three of the passengers must run along-side to push it, and then jump on. Once in a while, someone falls off one of these TOTALLY UN-SAFE contraptions and is killed – and this death is one of the prices that the Filipino society gladly pays for being free. Unfortunately, us Americans have forgotten that ‘freedom’ has a price. The only thing worse than paying the price is NOT paying the price – because if we don’t pay it on a continuous basis, then we will eventually lose all of our freedom.

When I was in the Philippines visiting Skip, I met many Americans who live in that country on a full-time basis. The most common thing they talked about was how much more FREEDOM they have in the Philippines than they ever had in America.

In America even your "flesh-and-blood" children are not your own. Believe it or not, your children are WARDS OF THE STATE until they are 18 years of age (If you don’t think so, then ask your attorney the next time you see him – and he will verify this strange fact.).

Do you know how your children became wards of the state ??? [Of course you don’t, because you were educated in a school system that is controlled by your government.]

Do you know that the door to your house must be 6’8" in height, and 3’ wide ??? Have you ever wondered how your government managed to achieve jurisdiction over you regarding how large your door must be ???

George Washington would not have believed that a "size-of-door" law could ever be passed (or enforced) in America. Obviously, a free person, living in a free country should be able to build a house WITH NO DOOR AT ALL.
Do you think that the "building codes" were designed to protect you ???

Prior to the existence of building codes, the average life expectancy of a frame house was 75 years.

Now that there are building codes, the average life expectancy of a frame house is only 30 years.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the average mortgage lasts for 30 years (thereby matching the life expectancy of the house) ???

[Your librarian can verify all of the above facts for you.]

PROBLEM #3

GOVERNMENT REVENUE VIA FINES ???

In Washington State, a land owner was fined $250,000 for cutting 31 Maple and Alder trees on her property above lake Sammamish. This fine was levied against Northstream Development, owned by Linda Nordstrom. There are thousands of examples of sick situations like this. If the government needs another $250,000 then it should get the money through honest means.

Government statistics show that most accidents in America occur in the home.

Hopefully, this means that there will soon be a law requiring us to wear motor-cycle helmets in our homes. Will we be fined $250,000 if we fail to wear the helmets ???  Maybe this is what it will take to wake us up.

Government statistics show that the majority of injuries to women in America are caused by their husbands or boy-friends.

Hopefully, this means that there will soon be a law against women dating and getting married. Would they be fined if they violated this law ???  I certainly hope so… because then maybe Americans would wake up.

Speaking of the above problem, our former U.S. surgeon general Dr. Antonia Novello said, the following;  "The home is actually a more dangerous place for American women than the city streets."   "More than a third of women slain in this country die at the hands of husbands or boyfriends, and domestic violence is the single largest cause of injury to women in the United States – more common than automobile accidents, muggings and rapes combined, Novello noted."

According to the above statistics, it is obviously time for our government to pass a law that makes it illegal to "date" or "marry" -- so they can fine us for doing so.

Government statistics show that most auto accidents occur within five miles of our homes.

Does this mean that there will soon be a law against driving in those areas ??? Will there be a fine ???
I sure do hope so… because then maybe Americans will wake up.

Government statistics show that "…900 Americans are killed in bicycle crashes each year."

Does this mean that there will soon be a law against riding bikes ??? Will there be a fine ??? I certainly hope so…

In America, cigarettes are the leading cause of fatal house fires.  Does this mean that there will soon be a law against smoking in our homes ??? I certainly hope so…

The National Center for Disease Control reported that 71,099 Americans died of chronic lung diseases in 1986 – and that 82% of the lung-disease deaths were attributable to smoking.
 
Obviously, it is time for our government to "prohibit" the use of tobacco. Will they will fine us if we smoke ???

In America, 300,000 deaths per year are associated with obesity.

Obviously, there should be a law prohibiting us from becoming obese. How much money will they fine us if we gain five pounds ??? Will we be sentenced to jail if we eat too many hamburgers ???

In the February issue of American Survival Guide (Vol. 14, #2), there is an article called "Diet and Longevity." The article contains the following information; "…under-nutrition without malnutrition can slow down the effects of aging and prolong life far beyond the average." Does this mean we will be fined (or jailed) if we are not under-nourished ???

DO YOU KNOW:

A license turns a RIGHT into a PRIVELIGE.
Patric Henry to wrote the famous words which later became the rallying cry of the Revolutionary War. The complete quote (as part of his famous speech at St. John's Episcopal Church in Williamsburg, Virginia) is as follows:

"What is it that Gentlemen wish ? What would they have ? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ? Forbid it, Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH !"

PROBLEM #4

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A JUROR

Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, a defendant must be judged by a JURY OF PEERS – consisting of people who actually know the defendant. Without this first-hand personal knowledge, our forefathers felt it would be impossible for JURORS to judge motive and intent.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR JURORS************

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU SEND FOR THE PAMPHLET, WHICH IS ENTITLED "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND," PUBLISHED BY THE VOICE OF FREEDOM, BOX 1005, YORK, PA. 17405, TELEPHONE (717) 757-2244. THE PUBLICATION IS PRINTED BY WHITTEN PRINTERS, 1001 S. 5TH ST., PHOENIX, ARIZONA, TELEPHONE (602) 258-6406.

THE "TRUE" JURY SYSTEM...

Our forefathers said that in order to have JUSTICE, a defendant must be judged by a JURY OF HIS PEERS – consisting of people who actually know the defendant. Without this first-hand personal knowledge of the defendant, they felt it would be impossible for jurors to judge the defendant’s MOTIVE and INTENT.

For example, Patrick Henry said the following;

"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers ? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life." (Elliot, THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 3:579)

He further stated the following;
"Why do we love a trial by jury ? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort – that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me." (Elliot, THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 3:579)

In the same Convention, Mr. Holmes, from Massachusetts, argued strenuously that for Justice to prevail, the case must be heard by a JURY OF PEERS in the vicinity where the act was committed.

"…a jury of the PEERS would, from their local situation, have an opportunity to form a judgment of the CHARACTER of the person charged with the crime, and also to judge of the CREDIBILITY of the witnesses." (Elliot, 2:110)

Mr. Wilson, signer of "The unanimous Declaration," who later became a Supreme Court Justice, stressed how important it is for the JURORS to know personally both the defendant and the witnesses. He stated the following;

"Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses – where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view – I know of no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear everything that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice." "There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematic." (Elliot, 2:516)"

VERY FEW AMERICANS ARE AWARE THAT JURORS CAN IGNORE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY A JUDGE.
FOR EXAMPLE:

In the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted its first trial, and instructed the jury as follows;

"…it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision."

John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1789;  "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796, signer of The Unanimous Declaration;  "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

The State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall. 1);  "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902;  "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972);  "The JURY has an un-reviewable and un-reversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by trial judge…" Dougherty, cited above, note 32, at 1130;

"Hence, JURY disregard of the limited and generally conviction-oriented evidence presented for its consideration, and JURY disregard for what the trial judge wants them to believe is the controlling law in any particular case (sometimes referred to as ‘Jury lawlessness’ – meaning ‘to nullify bad law’) is not something to be scrupulously avoided, but rather encouraged. Witness the following quotation from the eminent legal authority above-mentioned: ‘Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers."

Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1941;  "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

Dougherty, cited above, at 1135;  "The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the ‘judge.’ There is the informal communication from the total culture – including literature, current comment, conversation, and, of course, history and tradition."

U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972);  "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge…"

Almost every jury in the United States of America is FALSELY INSTRUCTED BY THE JUDGE when it is told that it must accept as the law that which is given to them by the court, and that the Jury can decide only the facts of the case. This lie is told only to destroy the purpose of a Common Law Jury, and to facilitate the imposition of tyranny upon the American people.  Without the power to decide what fact, law and evidence are applicable, JURIES cannot protect the accused.

If judges acting in the name of government are permitted by JURORS to dictate any law whatever, then they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible – and therefore prevent the WHOLE TRUTH from being considered.

Thus, if government can manipulate and control both the law and the evidence, the issue of fact becomes virtually irrelevant. This means that true justice would be denied. This would leave us with a trial by "government" and not a trial by "jury."

History shows (as does the law) that Juries were intended to judge the Spirit, Motive and Intent of both the law and the Accused – whereas prosecutors and judges only represent the letter of the law.

If you are called upon to be a juror, would you value your freedom so little that you would follow the instructions of a judge ? If so, then perhaps you deserve to lose your freedom.

What reason would any judge have for failing to inform a jury of its power ???

If you were a judge, would you conceal the facts outlined above ???

Obviously, a jury has a right to be told of its rights and its power.

"WE THE PEOPLE" must re-learn a desperately needed lesson in civics, as follows;

One juror can stop court-room tyranny by voting in accordance with his or her own conscience. Any juror can nullify a bad law by "HANGING THE JURY."

A judge only has power over a JURY that is ignorant.

The unchecked power of judges is the foundation of tyranny. It is the JUROR’S duty to stem the tide of oppression and tyranny – by peacefully removing power from those who are abusing it.

Conclusion: If used as intended, the JURY is the primary vehicle for protecting the liberty of "we the people."

PROBLEM #5

JURY TAMPERING;

Based upon the above information, it appears that "jury tampering" occurs when the following things happen;

1. When the Judge instructs tells the Jury that it cannot make any decision involving the law.

2. When the Judge over-rides (ignores) the Jury’s verdict, and rules contrary to the jury’s verdict.

3. When the Judge makes the Jury leave the room while matters concerning the case are being discussed.

4. When the Judge tells the Jury that they must ignore something they have heard.

5. When the Jurors are allowed to argue with each other in an effort to coerce each other into changing their minds.

6. When the Jurors are not told ALL of the true facts (as indicated by ALL of the above described information) regarding their rights and obligations.

PROBLEM #6

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW;

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. HOWEVER, only the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement with the Constitution. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)."

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 P 491."

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton Vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442."

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. "

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2nd, Sec 256."

Like it or not, a real crime has been committed ONLY when an actual injury (or loss) to someone’s person or property has taken place. No law is broken when no injury can be shown. Thus, there can be no loss or termination of rights unless actual damage is proven. [This law came into effect primarily because of the trial of William Penn in 1670 – for violation of the "Conventicle Act."] Fortunately for William Penn (and for us) the JURORS at his trial recognized that he had broken the government’s law by practicing his religion – but he had injured no one.

For example -- how does the above paragraph effect the "driver’s license" issue, or the "License to Carry Concealed Weapons" issue, or speed limit violations, etc., etc., etc. ???

William Pitt once proclaimed the following;  "Necessity" is the excuse given for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Do you know what famous American said, "Where the people fear the government, you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty."

The ultimate goal of any government in the world is to achieve as much control as possible over its citizens. Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, they convince us that we should give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community.

In other words, people acting in the name of government say we need more laws (and more police to enforce these laws), even if we must give up some of our RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control – and thus a better society. This theory sounds good on paper – and many of our leaders think this way – as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country.
 
In the field of political theory, it is well recognized that the easiest way to control a population is to create a population of law-breakers. If people are afraid of being put in jail (because they are breaking one of the millions of laws that are so complicated that they can’t understand them) then they will not complain about ANYTHING that the government does, because they will not want to call attention to themselves.

The real name of "control" is "bondage."

Americans have been systematically deluded into thinking that they should trade their "rights" for "privileges."

The government tells you that driving a car is a "privilege" not a "right." It tells you that you need a license to get married, or to carry a gun, or to own a business, or to build a house for your family, etc., etc., etc.

The government always tells you that it is for your own good when you give up one of your rights.

If giving up SOME of our rights will produce a BETTER society, then by giving up ALL of our rights we could produce a PERFECT society.

We could completely eliminate crime by putting everyone in jail. However, this would also completely eliminate freedom.

Contrary to what governments would have you believe, the opposite of complete governmental control is not chaos.

It might sound ironic, but having too many laws will eventually result in more chaos than not having enough laws.

Also, it is a proven fact that more laws do NOT reduce the number of criminals. In fact, statistics prove that more laws only produce MORE criminals. This is especially true in America because we allowed the entire basis of our legal system to be destroyed – BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED UNLESS THERE IS AN INJURED PARTY."

Are there a few inconveniences when one has less government and fewer laws ??? Of course there are – because freedom always has a price tag. However, when all things are taken into consideration, there are fewer inconveniences with less government – because freedom is preserved.

With the gradual proliferation of too many laws, you will eventually lose your freedom – and it will be too late to get it back.

PROBLEM #7

"LOST FREEDOM" IN AMERICA;

The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good."

The Communist approach to government has always resulted in a police state.

Read carefully...

THE TEN PLANKS OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO;

1. Abolition of private property.

2. A heavy progressive income tax.

3. Abolition of rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. The establishment of a Central Bank.

6. Government control of Communication and Transportation.

7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.

8. Government control of labor.

9. Corporate farms, regional planning.

10. Government control of education.

A FEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THE ABOVE TEN PLANKS;

1. You don’t really "own" your home if the government can force you to pay taxes on it – and this is even more true if the government can "seize" it if you fail to pay the taxes.

2. America has a very heavy progressive income tax. Our tax laws have intentionally been made so complicated that it is impossible to understand them. This enables the I.R.S. to confiscate your property (real and personal) without due process of law.

3. Americans are all but "taxed out" of their inheritance.

4. In America, people are being arrested for leaving the country with large amounts of cash. The cash is often confiscated without due process of law. These people with cash are presumed to be drug dealers, and they are considered to be "guilty" until they prove themselves innocent. Rebels are tried in courts where the juries are told that they must obey the judges.

This means that the rebels are denied the "trial by jury" that is guaranteed by our laws.

5. America has a Central Banking system. Even worse, our Central Banking System is dominated and controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. Is the Federal Reserve Board a U.S. Government agency ???

6. The American Government is in total control of our communication and transportation systems. This is accomplished through licenses and fines.

7. The American Government controls our factories and agriculture – via such agencies as W.I.S.H.A., O.S.H.A., E.P.A., W.H.O.O.P.S., farm subsidies, by establishing minimum wages, etc., etc.

8. The American Government has achieved almost total control of our nation's labor pool – by regulating unions, by regulating industrial management, and by the factors listed in #7, above.

9. Small farms in America are almost a thing of the past. Most of our food is being produced, and brought to market, by large corporations that are controlled by the government – through subsidies, regulations, etc. Every region in America has a "Regional Planning" department.

10. Obviously, our Government has almost "total" control of the educational system in our country. Legally, your children are "wards of the state" until they are 18 years of age.

The bottom line is this…  Our government uses "force" to take money from you – so they can give your money to people who didn’t work for it."

Isn’t this Communism ???

Of course it is Comunism – but many Americans are willing to accept the Communism because it provides them with a false sense of "security."

Are you willing to trade your "freedom" for "security" ???

Samuel Adams said, "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animated contest of freedom, then go home from us in peace We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen".

Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) said;  "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

PROBLEM #8
 
MEDICAL CARE IN AMERICA:

The following three facts are generally undisputed;

1. The leading cause of death in America is the high cost of medical care.

2. Americans currently spend 1.2 TRILLION dollars per year on medical care.

3. According to the excellent audio-tape called DEAD DOCTORS DON"T LIE, Ralph Nader said that 300,000 Americans are killed in American hospitals every year (by accident, faulty diagnosis, mistakes, neglect, etc.?).

SOME SOLUTIONS TO THE ABOVE MEDICAL PROBLEMS:

The cost of medical care in America could be reduced to almost nothing, and the quality of care could be improved 1,000%, simply by establishing an abundance of new medical schools that would accept all qualified students.

These new schools could be paid for within two years by using only a fraction of the 1.2 trillion dollars per year that Americans are currently spending for medical care. If these schools could produce an additional 10,000 (15,000 ? 20,000 ?) additional medical doctors per year, the marketplace would soon be flooded with them. Medical doctors would be as plentiful as store-clerks. They would be going from door to door asking if people needed treatment, medical advice, or advice on how to stay healthy. This would reduce the cost of medical care to almost "nothing." Medical doctors might be willing to trade medical advice (and treatment) for a Quarter Pounder at McDonald’s. They might even be willing to operate on you (if necessary) for $50. Also (and this is perhaps the most important point), medical doctors would have to be MUCH more honest in their diagnosis and treatment of you – because you could afford to get five or six ‘second’ opinions.

Affordable second opinions (and even third, and fourth opinions) would eliminate almost all of the unnecessary surgeries and treatments we are currently being subjected to.

The above approach would produce medical doctors that would be motivated primarily by a sincere and honest desire to serve mankind."

Medical doctors who are primarily motivated by profit would soon get out of the business.

Well, that's about all the topics I can think of covering at this time.

[Thanks Bob, for some thought provoking ideas and information]