To interject, the extended version of the film leans to the idea that Deckard is a Replicant, while the normal version leaves a level of ambiguity, so it really depends on the version you watched.

Yeah, what better way to ruin a great film.

Its fundamentally flawed. Insurance is a risk pool, sharing the risk of something potentially happening over a large group to reduce costs to all. Adding sick people to this pool doesn't help anyone.

If they really wanted to fix the problem, they should've just given uninsurable people healthcare, not health insurance.

Corporations may legally be people, but realistically are not. Corporations do not have ideas or ethics or motivations. The people in them do.

Why do we continue to blame the idea of a corporation for the misgivings of real people? Get rid of corporations and you still have these bad, unethical people motivated purely by greed. They will just work whatever new system is put in place.

You clearly don't know what ROI is or how its calculated. And again with this:

What part of 3 trillion dollars do you not understand? Its not a tax collection problem. Its a spending problem. Yes people could contribute more, but that's not the point. In its current state, the government would waist that revenue to.

I am a hardcore java developer. I work on a lot of heavy back end web services that have a lot of threading and data manipulation over millions and millions of rows. The idea of doing that in javascript makes me sick.

Node.js seems to be more about giving front end developers the idea that they can program server side, which is even worse. The concepts and practices of a front end developer should never be allowed on server side code. Node.js is cute for small websites with minimal server side code, but for an enterprise solution, it still falls very short.

A little off topic but ok. Lets focus on the key to your argument:

We don't have a tax problem, but an appropriations problem. We collected over 3 trillion in taxes last year and only 1% went to science and technology. That's abysmal, but reflects our overall stance to disregard facts and science (selective ignorance), and indulge our gross sense of self entitlement.

Economically speaking, there are only two areas of government spending that have a positive ROI, research and development (10:1), and infrastructure (3:1). If you are concerned for future generation, the last thing you want to cut are these two areas of spending. If you really want to fix the problem, cut medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security and military spending.

I completely agree with going back to the moon for the scientific and engineering advances it would provide, but this reason is far down the list. This is like looking for a specific needle in a trillion other needles.

Um... no. You do not have the right to put those around you at risk. If you don't vaccinate your children, they shouldn't be allowed to go to public school, period.

There are other good examples of laws that are designed to prevent you from being a risk to everyone else. Minimum speed limits on highways comes to mind. Someone going under 40 on a road everyone else is going 60 is just dangerous. Same thing with talking on the phone or drunk driving.

Vaccinations shouldn't be mandatory, however, they only work if the group as a whole is vaccinated. How do you propose we solve this paradox?

Slight misnomer there. England is leading the charge, the US just likes where they are going and stays in close step.

/sarcasm

Yep, right away it is clear, this is capitalism's fault.

Really? If someone comes to the US and gets a graduate degree in a STEM field, they should be given citizenship, not a temporary work visa. We need more intelligent people in this country. Next, if we could only somehow deport the stupid American citizens...

You don't pay attention to the news much:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...