It sounds like a case of "begging the question".

Sometimes I wonder if the lack of "graphic material" has caused a dissonance from death. As a young kid my father killed pigs so they could eat (or at least watched it). He saw them get sick and die. Several family members died unexpectedly in his youth. He had real life experience with death.

Granted, I never did any of that as I didn't grow up on a farm, nor did I experience unexpected family deaths, and I came out pretty normal. Maybe it takes two generations. Even those in richer families 100 years ago were much more exposed to death than the average kid is now.

One of you psych grads now working in IT, does that make any sense?

You just described the /. user base.

Either this is complete bullshit or you guys have bigger issues than healthcare... because, you know, running water is pretty damn basic to a society. From your dehydration link:

If you don't have sinks that work, you need plumbers, not doctors. Also it seems this is a sensationalist headline (no way!) as these are from kidney failure, of which dehydration is a symptom.

Do you have one like it for democrats?

Excellent read. Thanks for link.

Wikipedia needs to embrace that companies want to get their products on a website with that much traffic - AND they want to control the content. I have been asked by my employer to get products/services/brands on wikipedia and I have experienced the annoying editors taking down items because it was on a copyrighted web page or source, or stating it was advertising, or other things. I even tried to be partial (maybe that's just impossible). I get it; they don't want blatant marketing drivel on a fact based site.

Embrace it or lock down who gets to modify your site. Locking down modification would be the worst thing wikipedia could do. So give employers a section or specially flagged pages that they can put whatever they want on it. Hell, charge for it and get rid of those banners begging for money.

Maybe at some point they can move on to extend, and then...

So if it was government run, and it was a tax, the argument that it is unconstitutional goes away, correct?

What a troll question as he was obviously using the weight and distance as an example of energy density. But you just have to make this about something other than the safety of gasoline and/or electric vehicles, don't you?

Now I have a question: How much gasoline does it take to push a 3,000 lb agenda?

I am sure there are some excellent rebuttals that will be coming your way... many on a technical/procedural level that I will not attempt. I will however, give you an example that shows the absurdity of this line of thinking.

When/if Democrats/Libertarians get in power of the House, you have basically stated that they are allowed to "defund" any part of the government they wish. Don't like drone strikes, just defund it. Don't like the whole damn military, just defund it. Don't like national parks, just defund it. Don't like border patrol, just defund it. Don't like the FBI/CIA/NASA/etc., just defund it. Don't like a single program within any of those agencies, just defund it.

You have basically created an end-around to the entire democratic process and made the House the most powerful group of people in the country. Screw the Senate, the Executive branch, the Judicial branch and the People... it's all up to the House to decide what is law; after all if they don't like, just defund it.

Where is the check of power on the House?

"An employee can be made to pay a chunk of the premium — up to 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income — and still comply with Obamacare."

Source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/special-reports/mohealth/what-does-obamacare-mean-to-business-and-employees/article_f86c9636-ac28-591d-9dff-3c197652cf6e.html

Plus you can find that in many other places. So a company can make an employee making $50,000 pay up to $395 per month for the coverage (employee coverage only). What insurance costs that much? It could be damn near free for employers! Now it may be that it's 9.5% of take home or something (I think it is but you can research it), so let's even say it works out to (35,000*.095/12) $275. Still not too much burden for the company to cover the remaining amount, if any.

Good employers already provide coverage much better than this. We give FREE insurance to those that select employee only (granted we screw those that select family coverage).

Insurance in general is incredibly expensive. It's also a total scam. Go to the ER, get the bill without insurance coverage of $10,000, then route through your insurance and watch the bill be miraculously reduced to $50 below your $2,000 or $3.000 deductible! It's a scam. The real solution is socialized medicine. I don't care what you think of the free market, insurance is not a good reflection of the free market. Again, it's a scam.

Good idea. It would be awesome if we implemented a system where you had to actually call up specified companies and request that they hook your house up to the internet. Maybe we could even set it up to have a monthly charge!

Don't you understand, that is exactly what some people want. Some people want a system where you have to be rich to get the best education. That ensures that they will stay on top for generations to come. Not through hard work, diligence, and such... but through their wallet. The sad part is that many (the majority in fact) of those that support these policies have absolutely no chance of entering this upper echelon. But they think they will, or think their kid will (ironic, huh).

Who said anything about "pass legislation"? That was quite a leap from "what can we do to encourage social interaction" to "gubment bad"!

Hey, before you spout off more bullshit, let me post this for third time in this thread...

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

The government, or society as I like to call it, can codify any legal right the society deems appropriate. You may not agree, but that's the way a democracy works.