What industries, if any, should be socialized?

[theriverburns]

Is it just me or do there seem to be more of 'them' (the right) on the web than us?

Anyways, on another board I frequent one of the " smarter" right wingers there was talking about limiting awards for lawsuits and stringent regulations for civil suits. I baited him into saying that he thought it may be a good idea to make lawyers public servants like police officers or firemen thereby eliminating the incentive to sue by the hated trial lawyers. Funny how the right is all for government regulations when it hurts the left.

Pretty obvious and indicative of the right's scorched earth policies of hypocritically attacking any group that supports the Democratic party. Amazing, isn't it, that so many righties are all for big government, even socialism, if it would serve to cripple a major source of economic support for the left?

The thing is, is that I actually agree with the guy in that we have become far too litiginous a society and that lawyers need to be reined in somewhat in regards to frivoulous lawsuits. That being said, I also think that, alongwiht lawyers, there are a number of industries that would beneift us if they were to become socialized.

The right wants to socialize the legal profession? I say give it to them. IF, we can then socialize:

INSURANCE- health, auto, life. Take the profit out of the insurance industry and cover all of us and watch medical costs go down. Cover every individual. Make the corporations pay for it.

DEFENSE- Why should we allow an industry who's only source of revenue is to sell to the taxpayer to be a 'private' enterprise and given the right to financially influence campaigns?

PHARMECEUTICALS- We pay for the majority of the research. Why should we pay for the R & D,take all the financial risk, for a chosen few to reap astronomical returns on risk free investments? Additionally, why should we allow these to profit on the misery of others?

AGRIBUSINESS- Another Republican Cadillac driving welfare momma industry. They are major polluters and suck hard at the government teat. Does anyone think maybe we need to break up the big corporate farms and shift our subsidies to smaller, family owned farms?

ENERGY- The bulk of our defense costs that make up the majority of federal spending goes to protect the big oil companies. They have profited and we have paid.

Thanks. I would really like some opinions on this.

[lisafromstlouie]

1. None. No socialism in the US.

Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Don't be silly, of course it has....

Socialized health care. Military. Public education. Public works. Utilities. Infrastructure.

All socialist constructs.

[LoZoccolo]

49. If I'm not mistaken...

...we are quite the trailblazers in having public/highly regulated utilities. So it's AMERICAN too!

[theriverburns]

5. Worked for the fire department

Roads. Bridges. Public education. Currency. Park system. Protected the environment.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Should defense companies sell weapons to America's enemies?

Is that the kind of "free market" you want? All these industries are subsidized by the government now - how come we have to pay to support them, but we don't get any of the profits?

Forget "socialism" - I want what I paid for!

[zoidberg]

11. We do get some profits

Only the corporate income tax has been repealed, businesses that make profits 'share' them with the government. If they are crooks and hide them, then they should be punished. But most companies do pay large amounts of their profits back to the government.

[9215]

34. The percentage of corporate

taxes as a part of the whole has steadily declined, with many corporations paying little, often these are the biggest most powerful ones. General Electric is one such corporation.

[SeattleDem]

9. then explain why health outcomes are better in Europe

if "socialism" doesn't work, why do the people of Europe and Canada, with socialized medicine, experience better health outcomes (according to the WHO) than we do in the US?

Why do we pay more per capita on health care, yet our infant mortality rates ranks us at like #23 out of 24 industrialized nations?

sorry, it CAN work and has worked in other nations whose value systems are a little more "compassionate" than ours.

[Capn Sunshine]

35. So, a Power company , owned by the people

(IN YOUR CASE, CITY OF ST LOUIS) selling power to ALL at the same price, at no profit other than that necessary to fund itself,
THIS NEVER HAPPENED IN YOUR WORLD?

[mitchum]

41. well...that's just stupid (or uninformed)

[Nicholas_J]

45. It actually works quite well

Throughout Europe, actually far better than our system does here.

Out of the 17 industrialized nations, the U.S. has the largest gap between the rich and poor, and 300 percent more of its citizens living in poverty than the nearest European counterpart, Italy. And those living in povert in Europe still have guranteed health benefits andgovernment unemployment benefits that do not terminite until one finds employment. All of those nations have modified socialist econonomies.

[Redleg]

47. Not socialized but held accountable by the many stakeholders...

... including the employees, the local community, the consumer, the natural environment, and finally, the shareholders.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. Every industry you listed is already socialized

The costs of those industries are socialized, but the profits from those industries are privitized - the profiteers get to keep all the money in good times, but when times turn bad we are expected to bail them out.

How much of our money did Bush give to the airlines? How much stock did we receive for bailing out the airlines? NONE. We're getting ripped off. This is nothing more than Corporate Welfare.

[zoidberg]

8. Airline stocks suggest otherwise

Looking at airline stocks over the past few years, it's hard to say that the owners of the airlines get bailed out all the time. I think that it's dangerous for government to start bailing out businesses, but it's not true to argue that the costs have been socialized.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Costs have been socialized, and the CEOs were bailed out

Our infrastructure and our government allowed corporations to operate - in fact, the only reason the corporations exist is because state governments create them.

Alan Greenspan himself talks about the "moral hazard" all the time - the fact that corporations know the government - us taxpayers - will bail them out rather then let them go under, what choice do we have?

We've done it over and over again, where is our payback?

[9215]

33. Exactly!

Agreed. Any industry that continues to recieve government bailouts should be socialized because, in fact, it is socialized when the taxpayer bails the industry out.

[zoidberg]

4. ??? about pharmeceuticals

You say government pays for a majority of R&D. On what do you base that? I know Big Pharma spends boatloads of money on R&D. I'd be surprised of the government actually spent more.

[theriverburns]

10. ??? about pharmeceuticals

Well, patent protection, which they get for free, is a nice plum. But that isn't what I was talking about. Hang on. Let me find the link. It may be awhile but I have read more than one reputable source state that Big Pharma is extremely subsidized by public monies. Why do you think it is such a Republican pet industry? They rig the game. We pay for the risk and patent protection. They pocket the cake.

[SeattleDem]

16. the subsidies are called the NIH, NCI, etc

We do pay for an enormous amount of research. The entire National Institutes of Health is a taxpayer-funded endeavor! NIH not only runs hospital systems, it provides grants and is heavily involved in drug discovery.

In fact, recently it was revealed how much money we the people lost when the NCI/NIH developed taxol in the 1980's and gave the rights to BristolMyers Squibb, who in turn has made millions in profits off the drug, then illegally blocked a generic from entering the market. It is obscene. We the people discovered taxol, paid for its clinical development, then gave away the rights to a private company who bilked Medicare and Medicaid for millions by denying generic competition. The paid the gov't literally pennies on the dollar for the product.

I can tell you from experience, working in cancer medicine, that BMS pays a hell of a lot more promoting taxol than it ever did on R&D for the product!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. Big Pharma spends more money on Advertizing than R&D

Want a link? Go ahead and provide one that shows Big Pharma pays "big bucks" for R&D, compared to advertizing.

Big Pharma would have nothing if it wasn't for US universities doing basic research, subsidized by the taxpayers.

[zoidberg]

43. You are conveniently avoiding my question

I don't care how much companies spend on advertisement. There was a statement of fact that the government spends more money than corporations on R&D. I asked for evidence to back that up. That evidence has yet to be provided. If the government does spend more than corporations on R&D (which I doubt), then the argument for the 'socialization' of medicine would have some merit.

[theriverburns]

48. Here you go, zoidberg

"The industry trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PHRMA) states, "the vast majority of the medicines we use today were developed by pharmaceutical companies." In 2000, the industry claimed it would spend about $26.4 billion on biomedical R & D while the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary source of public research funds, would spend about $17.6 billion. "

So, according to big Pharma themselves, the federal government pays for about 40% of all funding. That doesn't include state, other federal grants and subsidies and is,of course, going to obviously biased in favor of big Pharma. Also, it is common for the pharmaceutical companuies to spend thier research dollars on sure things, to better already existing drugs and for government spending to develop high risk high return drugs.

A Senate Joint Economic Committee report, The Benefits of Medical Research and the Role of NIH (May 2000), cites one study showing that public funding of research was instrumental in the development of 15 of the 21 drugs (71%) introduced between 1965 and 1992 considered by experts to have had the highest therapeutic impact on society. These drugs include Prozac, Tamoxifen, and AZT, which are used, respectively, to treat depression, breast cancer, and AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies worked with NIH-funded scientists in developing several of these drugs, the report notes. The JEC also cited another study that found that about 60% of 32 important drugs introduced before 1990 would not have been discovered or their discoveries would have been markedly delayed without the contributions of government or noncommercial laboratories.

For example, Taxol, a drug used in Cancer treatment. There is no patent on Taxol. The U.S. government discovered it. But Bristol-Myers, because it performed minor work calculating dosage levels, holds the intellectual property rights on dose-related data, even though the data was originally collected by government. Even without a patent, data protection laws give Bristol-Myers lock-up control on Taxol for ten years. Bush 2 is seeking to extend that control.

Bristol-Myers takes no chances with its cancer monopoly. Taxol comes from the yew tree. While Western drug companies have long argued that rainforest plants are theirs for the taking without paying royalties, Bristol-Myers obtained from Congress the exclusive right to harvest yew trees on U.S. government lands, about the only place it grows on the planet. For these public assets, B-M paid nothing.

Or how about AZT. Professor Jerome Horowitz synthesized the drug in 1964, under a grant from the U.S. government's National Institutes of Health (NIH). In 1984, an NIH lab discovered the HIV virus. The government lab urgently asked drug makers to send samples of every anti-retrovirus drug on their shelves. NIH spent millions inventing a method to test these compounds. When the tests showed AZT killed the virus, the government asked Glaxo, as the compound's owner, to conduct lab tests.

Glaxo refused. You can't blame them. HIV could contaminate labs, even kill researchers. So the NIH's Dr. Hiroaki Mitsuya, combining brilliance, bravery and loads of public cash, Ameican tax dollars, performed the difficult proofs on live virus. In February 1985, NIH told Glaxo the good news and asked the company to conduct human trials.

Glaxo refused again. Here's where Glaxo got inventive: Within days of the notice, the company filed a patent for its "discovery." Glaxo failed to mention the U.S. government work.

Now, these drugs, and others, all research paid for by US tax dollars, will be bought (at enormous markups) by US tax dollars and used in Africa. This is corporate welfare directly paid to Republican cronies, prime example of Republican's "welfare tax maggots" voting themselves our tax money. Like everything the Republicans bellyache about, they are the culprits. And, to make matters worse, Bush will use this as example of "compassionate conservatism.

And, lets not forget how much it costs to protect against patent infringements from the Chinese, Koreans etc. We obviously are trading something, in another industry to protect Pharma's proftits.

[TheDonkey]

7. Very well put

I personally think that Insurance and Energy should be socialized.

As with the family owned farm over large corporate farms I'd have to disagree. Large farms create the crops we eat and are uber efficient. Family farms lack technology to produce so much cheap and long lasting food. Plus with America's love of science made food, it would be unthinkable to think family farms could invest in that.

[DBoon]

Public Accounting Firms

Should be "socialized", and made into a regulatory enforcement arm of the SEC, similar to how banking regulators are handled. I worked for one and can tell your first hand how the profit motive distorts the assurance function ("you can't say that in an audit report - that's our BIGGEST client you are talking about!")

I'm not in favor of government ownership of any "real" industry though. We should consider alternatives like:

- Encouraging worker ownership
- Encouraging cooperative ownership
- Democratizing pension fund management, and using their leverage over corporate boards


You can do a lot outside of the government to make business more accountable, while preserving pluralism, preventing corruption that comes from outright government ownership, and keeping the economic productivity of free enterprise.

[DBoon]

13. Public Accounting Firms

Should be "socialized", and made into a regulatory enforcement arm of the SEC, similar to how banking regulators are handled. I worked for one and can tell your first hand how the profit motive distorts the assurance function ("you can't say that in an audit report - that's our BIGGEST client you are talking about!")

I'm not in favor of government ownership of any "real" industry though. We should consider alternatives like:

- Encouraging worker ownership
- Encouraging cooperative ownership
- Democratizing pension fund management, and using their leverage over corporate boards


You can do a lot outside of the government to make business more accountable, while preserving pluralism, preventing corruption that comes from outright government ownership, and keeping the economic productivity of free enterprise.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

14. Energy

Energy distribution systems like Public Utilities should remove
quasi-public entities with a guaranteed rate of return, with some
exceptions.

Monopolies only enrich the connected, at the expense of the rest
of society.

Water, Nat'l Gas, Electricity, and Petroleum should be
HEAVILY comtrolled and regulated to PROTECT the environment
and the world's population from explotation.

The FIRST Corporation to sieze would be HALIBURTON, then
RELIANT, DUKE ENERGY, WILLIAMS, EL PASO, .........

No more ENRONS buying laws and buying US Senators, and buying
Vice-Presidents and Presidents.

Energy markets are NOT free enterprise, but only government
sponsored financial raping of consumers....just like
the Bush Energy cabal stole BILLION$ from American consumers
so they could line their pockets.

[theriverburns]

20. Public Energy in Cleveland

Not only does our public power company, CPP, (Thank you Mr Kucinich) charge cosiderably less for electricity than her 'free market' counterpart, CEI- CPP treats her employees better and has a higher percentage of employees per dollar of revenue- meaning that less goes to managment and onwership and more goes to the people who actually do the work. A win-win situation for 99% of the people involved.

Not to mention the fact that the mere presence of a community competitior keeps the for profit utility from price gouging.

So much for the theory that profit motive will always benefit society because it creates a climate of competition that keeps quality high and prices low. It is probably a good idea, at least IMO, to consider community competitors in industries like utilities where economy of scale seems to limit the number of participants.

[Nederland]

15. None

Many of them need reform and regulation to restore and insure the existence of a competitive market. However, I wouldn't want to see any of these fields "socialized"--assuming by this that you want to see the industry transformed into a government controlled and regulated monopoly. All monopolies are inherently inefficient and rarely innovate--whether they are government controlled monopolies or private ones.

[theriverburns]

21. No need to create monopolies

"All monopolies are inherently inefficient and rarely innovate--whether they are government controlled monopolies or private ones."

Hell I am all for competition. Allow anyone to compete. After all, aren't free market businesses 'better' and more 'efficient'? Again, I am all for competition. But, if my tax dollars are being used I want the profits and a say in managment. I want the environment to be considered. I want the employees to get paid fairly. I want wages and product to be more important than stock price, dividends and CEO compensation packages.

Labor needs to begin to use the government to take back control of the wealth producing capacity of the US the same way the right has been using Washington to fund their pet industries.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Abraham Lincoln.

[Nederland]

30. Taking the teeth out of competition

Unfortunately, your proposal takes the teeth out of competition. The whole reason that companies in a competitive environment have an incentive to innovate is to make money. Innovation gives you an advantage over your competitors, that advantage translates into larger sales, larger sales means more money. From your post, I suspect that you want to regulate how these types of excess profits are distributed. However, its control over those excess profits that motivate owners to invest in R&D. If you remove that control, you remove the incentive they have to take a risk.

[theriverburns]

31. No need to end competition.

Unfortunately, your proposal takes the teeth out of competition. The whole reason that companies in a competitive environment have an incentive to innovate is to make money. Innovation gives you an advantage over your competitors, that advantage translates into larger sales, larger sales means more money. From your post, I suspect that you want to regulate how these types of excess profits are distributed. However, its control over those excess profits that motivate owners to invest in R&D. If you remove that control, you remove the incentive they have to take a risk.

I couldn't disagree more completely. Just because you have a commonly owned outlet- whether it is employee owned or community owned doesn't mean that a private company couldn't enter the market and compete. After all, isn't the mantra that the market and competition is the path to economic nirvana? Let them REALLY compete- only give state/federal/public funding to employee/community owned businesses.

Don't the free marketers, the privatizers, preach that the free market drives prices down as more competition enters the market resulting in more efficiency in that industry? And, that because of the laziness and inefficiency of government/socialist businesses that the free market can not only do it cheaper and better but it can do it cheaper and better and still make profits? Isn't that the song they sing? Then why should we give privately owned businesses any public money?

And, if the market is SO superior, then what are they so worried about community owned industries for? I'll tell you why. Because certain industries, like BigPharma, Defense, Big Energy etc are already government funded. Except they get to restrict the profits to the privileged few. That isn't democracy or capitalism. It is corporatism. Fascism. Secondly, as is evidenced by my city's public utility, not only can the community do some things better and more efficiently, they can do so cheaper and benefit a far larger percentage of Americans. The problem is that the Ken Lay's and George Bush's Dick Cheney's don't get to gouge the public and take 100%^ of the profits to the American ruling class. That,IMO, is why we have been so brainwashed against socially owned industries.

[Lefty48197]

40. I think the proposal is...

...that these industries would become collectively owned by the people. We, then would become the owners who 'profit' (through reduced costs perhaps) from the increased efficiencies because of those innovations you refer to. Either way, it's a better priced product for the consumer.

[acerbic]

38. I'd say that some industries are inherently monopolies

Anything that is a necessary service that requires a large fixed infrastructure, e.g. power and water utilities and railroads: there isn't much room for real dynamic competition and worldwide experience with privatization and deregulation of them shows that in the long run a government controlled monopoly is usually a lesser evil than a private one, provided of course that the citizens bother to control their government.

[leftyandproud]

17. Talk Radio

Screw em...I say take our airwaves back. It will really piss them off.

[leftyandproud]

18. The BIG question is...

Who will stand up and demand that we socialize these industries?? Which candidate will s tand on principle? Which candidate has done it before...refusing to sell out to corporate interests?

Hint: (look to the left)
;)

[Mountainman]

19. break up the big corporate farms

I work for a company that makes bio pesticides. Bugs killing bugs. We sell our products to the big agribusiness corporations. I work in the central valley of California surrounded by the corporate farms. So you may think that this is tainted but I am saying this because I know something about it.

Many of the agribusinesses are not owned by Americans. My company is owned by Mitzui. You would have to nationalize them to take them over.

The only economical way to produce all the food we need on this planet is to have agribusiness. Family farms could not afford the equipment, chemicals and labor it takes to grow our food. Even if they could they could not produce it in quantities enough to feed us. You could not afford to pay the prices for the food since there would be such a small supply. Family farms made sence many years ago but not now.

Agribusiness is the largest employer around here. When things are slow we have around 12% unemployment. If you got rid of agribusiness we would probably have around 80% unemployment. So you would rob Peter to pay Paul.

[lastliberalintexas]

22. ????

Disclaimer- I am an atty.

I know this was not really the point of your post, but I have to ask why you buy the RW talking points about lawyers and litigation in this society? (BTW- it's litigious) RWers are after attys b/c we as a group provide a great deal of money to the Dems and the left. But why have you bought this crap?

I must repeat, yet again, that if the corporations were not violating the law, they would not get sued!!!!!!!

Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits. And there are already mechanisms in place for judges to deal with those cases. Truly frivolous lawsuit make up a miniscule portion of the lawsuits filed in this country, and studies show that less than half of people who have a legally cognizable claim ever actually file suit. Imagine that- there could be thousands MORE lawsuits in this country.

I do work for both plaintiffs and defendants. For the most part, when I file a suit for a plainitff, I do so on a contingency fee basis. This means that I front the expenses- ALL expenses- for the suit, and I do not get paid unless I make a recovery. Does that give me any sort of incentive whatsoever to file a so-called frivolous lawsuit? If you really believe that it does, I might have a bridge to sell you...

I am used to having to defend myself against them- all I ask is that I not have to defend myself to my allies! :-)

[theriverburns]

24. ?????? I am not bashing lawyers

Of course I understand that punitive damages and the threat of lawsuit is what keeps corporations "honest" so to speak. I am not a laywer basher. But all industries that are greed driven (name one that isn't) are guilty of abuses.

Take an industry and multiply the degree it is driven by greed rather than altruism - times the degree which it is dependent on government support, financial or otherwise - times the propensity for monopoly and that is the degree I think that business ought to be looked at as being socialized.

Let me ask you this: if we could get some sort of community owned options in some or all of the insurance, media, energy, defense and pharma industries would you think it was worthwhile to offer up the legal profession, too?

It's not like I am asking for your job. Just a different boss and different kind of oversight. Maybe resulting in different compensation levels.

[On the Road]

25. Only a Very Few Should be Nationalized

Namely basic health insurance and retirement insurance (Social Security), because their costs are much lower than the private sector, they are so critical to people's lives, and competition tends to deny coverage or take advantage of those who need the services most.

Others can be dealth with by regulation. Regulation can be very effective and is hard to get right since it balances unknown quantities in the future (like industry concentration, profitability, price competition, and product innovation). I work for a local telephone company and there are plenty of examples of good and bad regulation. The public can usually benefit most if the market is controlled to keep providers competitive and just a little profitable, but not too much.

Monopolies should be challenged. Microsoft should have been broken up, for example.

But there are different kinds of monopolies -- for example, a patent grants a temporary monopoly for a single product. These patents are used to make obscene profits, far beyond what should be allowed. I beleive pharmaceutical companies should have price controls set on patent medications, based on the cost of development and production. The terms can be fairly generous (for example, a portion of failed research costs should be included to encourage spending on research). But they should have to justify the prices.

Government is occasionally a good provider. But not usually. The first choice is to look for ways to manage the market.

[AP]

26. Any industry in which competition is impossible or impractical

Electricity, gas, water -- what are you going to do? Run a second power/gas/water line into your house?

Trains -- you can't run a second set of tracks next to existing tracks.

Incidentally, insurance -- it's just a big pool of money shared among a bunch of people sharing risks. Some Canadian provinces have public insurance programs, and they're doing great.

[Clete]

27. Add Health Care.

If any industry should not be traded on the stock exchange it is this one. There should be no profit in health care. If there is, then there is no health care. I have a health plan. I do not have health care.

Years ago hospitals were run by communities and religious orders on a non-profit basis. All were cared for regardless of ability to pay. Physicians collected fees and even could become moderately wealthy. They also provided care to a few indigent for free or reduced fees. Health insurance and later HMO's ruined all that by throwing this most basic of human needs in the same market area as cars and computers.

[aneerkoinos]

28. Banks. Let's socialize banks, all of them...

and everything else will follow...

[jpgray]

29. Zero

Some smarter public funding and watchdogs are necessary, but I don't believe they need to be wholly socialized. Removing some of the corruption would be more effective.

[jagguy]

32. none of them

you can try to regulate them if you wish but none should become state owned and operated.

[9215]

36. Corporations avoiding taxes

"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare
See 'Corporate Welfare' website for details at: www.corporations.org/welfare/

[9215]

37. Corporate Tax Payments at record low (links)

Below:http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

Citizens for Tax Justice , 202-626-3780

Surge in Corporate Tax Welfare Drives Corporate Tax Payments Down to Near Record Low

A startling surge in corporate tax welfare is expected to drive corporate income taxes over the next two years down to only 1.3 percent of the gross domestic product. That will be the lowest level since the early 1980s—and the second lowest level in at least six decades.......

[Lefty48197]

39. Nationalize malpractice insurance

Our public health, and the insurance of our public health workers is a public issue. Let's deal with our obligation like adults, and nationalize that industry.

[ParanoidPat]

42. Water....

....why is my local municipal water district being sold to a German company? :shrug:

Seems like the water in our own back yard should be controlled by the people rather than marked up and sold back to us by private corporations.
Especially foreign corporations! :(

[inthecorneroverhere]

44. insurance but bring back antitrust laws!!!!!!

Pretty much health insurance only. I'm OK on the concept of National Health Ins., but if I were in Vegas, I'd put money on the wager that it won't happen before 2050. Hate saying that, but I've watched this debate for 23 years already! Wish Clinton could have done it when he had that wonderful surplus!

However, the rest of industries in private hands wouldn't get off scot free, because I would bring back some Teddy and FD Roosevelt era concepts:

Anti-trust laws and anti-dumping laws (fair trade) need to be reintroduced and enforced.

We need to stop the dumping of cheap goods from China, Malaysia, India, Thailand...............!

We need to bust the trusts that have developed!

[the_sam]

46. Depends on what you mean by "socialized"

If by "socialized" you mean just administered by bureaucrats, then not many.

If by "socialized" you mean brought under direct, democratic control by the people who work in those industries... then all of them.

[PretzelWarrior]

50. Viagra. Need to socialize sex for impotent men.

how about socializing plastic surgery. Can do something about the "Ugly AMerican" people abroad are constantly talking about.

I crack myself up.

I like capitalism with some regulation. No socialism. That's just bull.