It seems that once a political idea is implanted in the mind, anecdotal evidence becomes of equal value as actual verifiable facts.

How is it that birth certificates from other births at the same hospital as BO was born at and at the same time not directly show what type of birth certificates BO's hospital was producing at the time?

Maybe this will shutup the birthers.

Not likely, since the birther kerfuffle is a cover for not being to have a rational argument about substantive issues. At best, it will have the same people move on to some other bullshit.

If the birth location thing were true, and as important as it is, someone would have leaked the truth and people in high places would be on to it.

Ever person that is half white and half ( some other color) is always a person of ( some other color), Why?

Apparently because in this country white is right. Then there are the others.

Yeah, hospitals always record the darker color. Even if they're only 1/64th black. Not sure why.

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

Best me. After all if we remove the skin, are we not all the same? If so what does it matter? Prejudiced is some thing this world can do with out. It was the reason for the killing of 6 million Jews in WW2, the Spanish Inquisition, the war to remove the native Americans from their land, and this list can get real long so I will stop with that. I am sure the point is clear.

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

Bankruptsy?
 

There is talk of changing Federal law to allow states to go into bankruptcy and restructure their finances. In view of the dire situation here in California, this may be the way to go. After years of handing out plush salaries and generous retirements and borrowing money to cover operating costs, the state is frozen in a political stalemate. No one is willing to give up anything, the legislature is a farce. Jerry Brown sincerely wants to do something but his power is very limited by the initiative process that has locked expenses into the Constitution.
Bankruptcy would allow the state to break down all the special interests and start from scratch. Sounds good to me.

Welcome to the site and to this thread. It's nice to have some input from someone who's actually in the healthcare business and to get their thoughts on what Obummercare will do. Is that what people in healthcare are calling it? lol Hopefully it will be repealed somehow, someway before it becomes yet another monstrous cancer on our nation that we can't get rid of like Social Security which will run out of money in 2037. How much further into debt will we go to fix that?

Once again, no one is entitled to her or his own facts.

Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, currently has enough to pay 100% of claims until 2037, and then only 80% of claims for decades after that. You should pay attention to the whole story, not just the part that is told TO YOU so you will think a certain way.

A simple change in the rate people pay into Social Security -- i.e., make those who make a $1 million a year pay more than those who make $175,000 a year, and only a bit more -- will keep the system solvent at 100% for a much, much longer time. But that fix doesn't fit into the narrative of those who want to turn Social Security over to Wall Street speculators.

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.

When the government is threatened, they(the government) will do anything to protect themselves from the public or any other threat(9/11, Homeland security).

I am a Canadian, as indicated by my location in every post that I make. You never talked to me so right off your statement is false because I am more than satisfied with the quality of healthcare that I receive here. I can choose my own doctor, there is no cost to me for any visits to my doctor, I don't have to worry about getting rejected by an insurance company, I don't have to fill out forms for any treatment, everything that is available in the US is available here, and most importantly if I should ever be hospitalized I will not have to sell my house and all my possessions just to pay medical bills.

There are some people that do go to the US because they complain about wait times for some procedures, but I've never had to wait long for any medical procedure. One must also realize that Canada is the second largest country in the world and yet the population of the whole country is less than California. It's not easy to provide all services to people all over such a large country, but it does happen.

So I suggest you don't make such generalizations unless you know your facts and then be more specific.

Thank you for contributing to helping keep facts, and not regurgitated, impressionistic "talking points," a part of the discussions on this site.

Homeland security is a threat....plus 9-11 is now just an excuse to do ANYTHING that takes away people's rights in the name of security. And We are the government's boss, we are not there servants...as shocking as that sounds.

And when a government does that, it already shows the problem is with the government. I'm all for what the Egyptian people are doing.

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.
Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

Of course you are. My point is that to extrapolate from that to make a political point is ridiculous. I have a primary care physician and three specialists I see regularly. Each and every one of them thinks something quite different from you have posted. The physicians I know in the healthcare program at my university think otherwise, too.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

I never wrote anything that remotely corresponds to your quote above, so don't put words in my mouth ... even if by inference.

Of course it's the discourse that you belittle, denigrate, etc. By calling names and making facile generalizations, you diminish the quality of the discourse. Instead of discussing healthcare reform and the legislation on its merits, or exclusively on its merits, you resort to "Obummercare" and now, calling someone an idiot. Do you mean Obama? How do you suppose you would fare in a test against Obama using some of the standardized tests to measure if one is an "idiot" -- e.g., the standard IQ test that rates one who scores below 20 as an "idiot"?

Around here yes every one calls it Obumercare. If a person had the time to hit on the more than 2000 pages of the bill they would soon find out why. The bill was so bad that any one that had the opportunity to vote to remove them self from having to take part in did so.
As you said about S.S. going bankrupt, this bill was pasted with the idea that if they tax pharmaceutical company's, Insurances company's, and hospitals, high enough they can pay for it. Not stopping to think this will drive up the cost, so it would cost even more to pay for it. On top of driving up the cost of insurance, they want to fin us for not having it. My bad they call it a tax. Now the large corporations did the math. They are going to drop all insurance from the benefits package, and pay the fin. They can see a savings of over 2mil a year. So we now have folks with insurance now, that will end up on the obumer plain. So once more the cost goes up. If I may use the words of one doctor, " This not the Obumer plain, it is the ho shit did not see that coming obumer plain. "
Now what most don't stop to look at is the cuts in coverage for teh elderly and the poor. Long term care will become a thing of the past, and so on as I posted before. This will end up with total government control of health care. They can even run a used car lot. I mean come on, the bad move they made with cash for clunkers, that still has not been paid for.
As for the remark I seen about how I would feel if my IQ test was placed beside Obmer's. Well not that bad I don't think. I may be dyslexic, and that enpeads my ability to get my thoughts from my head to my fingers, or find the right word in a spell check, but it in no way lowers my IQ. In fact it has forced me rely on comincents over book cents. Find a way to masher that and I know Obumer would be the one looking silly.

Yet it is Obama I am calling an idiot. Any one willing to push on the people any thing they know is not going to work is an Idiot. Besides all that, as I posted above, find a way to mesher comincents and I know I would out shine Obumer. Or as folks to point out, His name is an acronym for One Big Ass mistake America.

Your responses don't even warrant rebuttal, since you write idiotic things suggesting that Obama is pushing something on the people that he knows is not going to work.

Truly, ignorance is bliss.

I would bet anything that you couldn't articulate an alternative to the healthcare legislation that would make any sense.

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

I will post a response to this in the thread "There Goes the Internet".

Same thing as what happens anywhere that that happens... The situation escalates as suddenly millions more people who were not angry enough to go out on the streets suddenly get the final shove over the edge.

A media blackout is pretty much the worst thing a government cos do, it's a sign of desperation and defeat, and it's the biggest incitement to people to take to the streets.

What would get your attention more? seeing riots on the TV news or the tv suddenly shutting down? When the internet suddenly turns off, it is basicly the government saying, 'every rumour you just heard about our collapse is true'. It's a pure gift to all protesters.

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I don?t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

Greed rules
 

All I can say is that I've never met any doctor in the US who was not in it for the money. I'm sure there are some,,, possibly even many, but I produced health care and related teleplays for the health care industry, and this quote from a recognizied top shelf surgeon, I think says it best " my patients are the stupidiest people I've ever met'. There will never be true reform until those who are sick can decide for themselves, how best to treat (spend on) their illnesses. No 3rd party system will ever approach self determination, about anything.

The level of generalization is just so ridiculous as to be almost dismissable, were it not for the danger inherent in these generalizations. ANY OBJECTIVE PERSON? Give me a fuckin' break.

First off, the ruling is only about the "individual mandate" clause. Second, it's open to judicial interpretation ... the basis of how the system works. You are so hell-bent on seeing your views vindicated that you don't even stop to think about the full story.

The courts have given wide latitude to Congress to regulate markets, and that's what the individual mandate is about. The logic -- whether you agree with the law or not - is that a person without coverage who is hospitalized might run up huge medical bills that then would be absorbed by others with insurance or by taxpayers.

That one judge in a particular jurisidiction noted for a particular politican bent makes a ruling is no cause for such hyperbole. But it's what we've come to expect from you, Tracy, just like equating Congress with a dictatorship. In Egypt, 30 years of dictatorship has had the kind of consequences for people that you make a mockery of with your false equivalency.

It does, though, point once again to the underlying vitriol in your views that seems to make it impossible for you to sustain a rational discussion for more than a post or two.

american should be able to seek other forms of medical treatment, other drugs and surgery for things. I seen parents threatened if they did not make their cancer stricken kids take chemo and radiation.....one teenager was forced by a judge to take it, despite the fact he did not want to....luckily public outcry forced this stupid (and pay off, I bet) judge to change his decision. Many of these people, ie politicians or FDA people, after leaving their current line of work, go on to be either lobbyists or the heads of various big pharma. And before some of you people (I've been hounded for saying this on both hung angels and hung devils), who most likely invest in pharma stocks, that some drugs and surgery can be useful and helpful...but there are many, many that don't work and are harmful.....like viox and avandia....the latter of which, I think, killed my dad....are poisons just made to make a quick buck (they make millions, if not billions off this stuff before they pull it off the market) and many scientists were bribed or threatened not to tell of the dangers. And that fat fuck, John Engler, the former MI governor, made it illegal to sue drug companies here....even if they are at fault.

People should be given choices on how to treat themselves, not not be limited to one or two. Anyone else agree with me on this, or am I just a misfit, more so? :drool:

The pharmaceutical firms are, from a business standpoint, reprehensible profiteers who put profits ahead of everything.

To be forced to undergo certain treatments happens, but it is hardly the norm anywhere in the U.S. medical system. You really need to stop generalizing everything, Trogdor. When you see something you oppose, you can write about it without making it bigger than it really is. That only diminishes the value of your points and makes it easier for others to dismiss them.

However, separate from the pharma issue, who should pay when people show up at the emergency room with no insurance and needing care to reverse their "self-treatment" or their choices that may have been contrary to medical advice?

I thought you'd get a kick out of that. I know I can count on you not to dismiss it though. ;)

btw about the dictator comment, if I see a government that has a supermajority and uses that as a go-ahead to ram something as big as nationalized health care through when the public is telling them to stop then I call it as I see it. Yes they had a vote, but that was merely a formality.

Two months ago the Democrat Attourney General of Maine said we did not have a case in the lawsuit against Obamacare.
Since our new Republican Governor joined the suit, and yesterdays decission, the news is NOT on the front page of the local paper ( blantantly Democrat) but tucked away inside on the health page. Now ain't that odd?

Because of the stranglehold of the healthcare industry, a national healthcare plan could not support itself unless everybody was paying into it. The young people who had minimal healthcare needs would support us olderfolks who need more care.
The only way we can have a "free" national healthcare plan is for the government to run it as a single payer and get the greedy profit obsessed healthcare providers out of it. Yes, it would be expensive. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be take care of it, however.

Well to start with I did not make any assumption at all. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I said IF YOU HAD NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH ONE> there for any assumption on that statement looks to be on your part not mine.

I will have to look for the web sight to be sure, though I do know that england is in fact looking for a way to one of 2 things, Cut cost, to make it more affordable, or find some way to raise the needed funds to pay for the health care as is. As it stands now, (should I find the web sight) you wil also see that many people in many of the places that do have socialized health care, can not get drugs they need, or in some cases the care they needed. The Government simply can not afford the cost.
This is why in Obumercare there is a close that gives the goverment the right to deny care. If you look up the text of the bill you will find this on page 380 lines 10and 11.

Got to love it. LOL

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:

There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.

That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

If we are to bring down health cost in this nation, I feel it be best to start by stopping all the silly lawsuits that cost doctors and or hospitals well over 2 million a year to ether fight or just pay the person off. To bring this to an end, I would say if a person does sue another, and they loss. What ever they sued for they should have to pay out. Also we need more people with commonsense to sit on the jury. There simply is no way I would have said that McDonald's should have had to pay out any thing over some one spilling coffee on them self. Or that any one other than one doing the smoking is respectable for their getting COPD from the cigarettes. This nation needs to face the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. Not look for the fast buck by saying McDonald's made me fat. If they push away the fries, and don't eat food that is know to be fating, or just stooped eating at fast food, would they loss wight?
Now get me wrong, ( seems most every one want on here wants to make any one that does see things there way as the bad guy) I do not think a doctor should be allowed to make a blatant mistake and not pay for it. How ever to sue them for simply thinking you had a cold and it turned out to be allegories, now that going to fare. And yes that did happen right in my little town. The doctor rather than fight it, simply paid them off, and went on about his rat killing. I think he should have fought it my self. Then if you look at the pay out it was less than the cost to fight. So in a way it does add up. That would just be a first step. Next I would want to know why it is that in Mexico, you can get the same drug made by Johnson and Johnson, for less that 1/2 the price.
I could go on and on about the things I see wrong. And even if there is a legit reason for any of it, there has to be a way to fix it. Like killing some of the regulations faced by business in this nation. Lower taxes and fight hard to bring jobs back into this nation that have been shipped over sea's. Trust me I can on for days and even years about what is wrong in this nation. Every bit of would lead back to the government. Ether in taxes, NAFTA, the EPA, and so on.

I am NOT generalizing.
Medical schools are run and operated by big pharma, and people, especially kids have been forced to undergo things like Chemo or vaccinations, with threats of social services after the parents and take away the kids. Also, when a cure, a legit cure, made of something that can not be patented, such as an herb or a mineral or something pretty much get silenced. Hell, the so-called war on cancer stared by Nixon in 1971 is a loosing battle, and with all these decades of making billions in cancer research shows to me there's going to be no cure, until someone finally puts pharma in its place.....


.....our paid bitches looking for real cures.....and if loosing profits because people can live longer, be healthy and not miserable....then pharma people simply need to, as John McCain said to disgruntled auto workers in 2000, to "find another job". Things like B17, apricots and apple seeds, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda to any joe sixpack....which is good, an anti acid, which is great to kill cancer) and so on can easily kill a cancer and save someone. Making one's body alkali switches off cancer production, pretty much telling the cancer cells to go fuck themselves.:respect:

FDA even had the AUDACITY to send a letter to the CEO of Diamond Walnuts and said they are in trouble because they had health benefits of walnuts on the package, including the fighting cancer, and because the packages said they can help fight cancer, the walnuts automatically became a 'drug' (Because the FDA said "Only a DRUG can treat an illness" and anything said, even a food, becomes a drug if aid to fight illness) and Diamond was found guilty of selling drugs without a license. Land of the free my white ass. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.
Shit, mammograms cause cancer......heat imaging is safe....no radiation damage and more accurate. Cat scans are horrible. The guy who made the prostate PSA test i saying it's not safe or effective. Hell, those trucks that haul fluoride, the same in dental care and drinking water have skull and cross bones...makes no sense to me to use a confirmed poison poison into drinking water and whatnot. It's like someone wants to make sure everyone stays sick.

FDA = Big Pharma's police force. I call them the health care mafia.

And if you want proof, I say go do a little independent research (mainstream medias are often sponsored by drug companies, so make it independent)

I will let other moderators address your last point. I've put in bold what I will address here.

You write that you don't generalize, and then you proceed to make a ridiculous generalization. There is no doubt that the evil hand of the pharmaceutical companies runs rampant in many medical schools. But by generalizing, you impugn every doctor and medical student at these schools. At medical schools such as those where I live, there is a continuing ethical battle the hand of pharma and the work of the school. It plays out in public with commissions and rules and rewriting of rules and lawsuits and so on. It plays out behind the scenes in students' lives -- I know some of them -- who get lucrative summer positions (summer positions with hospitals and pharma firms are a key perk of medical school) and others risking their financial stability to refuse to work for pharma.

To write a generalization like "medical schools are run and operated by big pharma" is not a generalization makes it difficult to take seriously everything else you write. Which is too bad.

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can?t compete with the low wages of some countries. It?s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or ?inventing? new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.
Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) It would take me some time to put anything together that would have a chance of working. Though give some time I bet I can. The place to start would be looking back to see just what got them moving over sea's in the first place. Though I know it had to with the drop of both import and export tax, I also know there was a lot more to it than that. This is not something we can just put a bandage on.

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.
Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. They now have lets say 1000 people working for them. They are paying out 100,000 a year to help the employees with health coverage. Now under Obama care, they can keep paying out the 100,000 or drop alll coverage and pay out only 10,000 a year to cover the fines. What would you do? So given that almost all will drop any coverage they now keep, you have another 1000 people that will be forced to except Obama care. Add to that the some, (lets make the math easy here, ) 1000 others like X Inc that will do the same, and the cost keeps going up. I am not talking the cost of care, I am talking the cost to the tax payer. The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don?t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can?t be that simple and stupid.
I don?t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

Employment?
 

We had full employment a few years back. True, alot of it was in the building industry. What pisses me off, is we gave billions to the banks so they could loan money to companies so they would hire more workers. The problem is that the companies aren't going to hire more workers unless there is more demand for their goods. So the money sits there while the bankers take huge bonuses with our money.
It's a backasswards situation. With all that money the government could have organized massive reconstruction projects (like WPA in 1930s) to hire the unemployed to build and repair infrastructure. Once people had jobs and income, they could buy more stuff causing the companies to hire more employees to meet the increased demand.
Seems simple doesn't it?
So why hasn't Obama implemented such a program?
Guess who really runs the country.