There are 2.4 Doctors per 100,000 people in the US.
The number of doctors per 100,000 people in the US is a bit higher than this. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation, there were 834,769 professionally active physicians in the US in November, 2012. The US population at the time was 314.8 million (per the US Census Bureau's Population Clock), making the number of doctors per 100,000 people a more reasonable 265. Here's a graph showing the number of physicians per 10,000 (note - not 100,000) people in the US.
You're not a programmer are you? There's no such thing as bug-free code. Just like no writer can proof read his own novel, no programmer can truely find every bug in his own code.
It is a sad commentary on programmers as a group that statements like this are posted, and worse that they garner so much support from the chattering masses. Excellent programmers always strive to write code with few bugs; and sometimes they succeed. I personally wrote a package of high-precision arithmetic calculations that was used for many years by a prominent Wall Street firm, and am quite sure (for a variety of sound reasons, not just "belief") that this software (about 4,000 lines of C) is bug-free. For examples that are more publicly known, consider the 420,000 lines of code in the space shuttle, which had a total of 17 detected bugs in 11 major releases (see Good Question – How does NASA write perfect code for the space shuttle computers? by Marshall Brain, May 27, 2009); the whole system is not perfect, but major subsystems are.
The evenness of the cutoff's in standard BMI interpretation (nice, round numbers like 25 and 30) is a really good clue that these are not scientifically-validated numbers. There are a lot of studies on BMI vs. mortality; here's a peer-reviewed article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and a crucial slide. Note that the model-derived curve supports the usual interpretation that BMI in the 18.5-25 range is optimal; the bars showing actual data, though, show that BMI between 27 and 28 is optimal.
A summary recommendations for your patients: for men, BMI of 23-30 looks healthy. For women, BMI of 18.5-30 looks healthy.
For all patients (as I am sure you already know): exercise! The data showing health benefits from even moderate exercise are compelling, and exercising more is better for you, within a very broad range.
[Sorry - I just accidantally posted the text above as Anonymous Coward - not my intention.]
Re 2: we often hear "Government does not create [drive?] innovation" repeated, as if enough repetition will constitute proof that this is correct. It isn't. For a humorous video showing numerous benefits and innovations we receive from our government, I recommend Socialism is BAD! on YouTube.
Re 3: the U.S. Constitution reserves education for the States, so you have a perhaps-unintentional point here. That notwithstanding, there are lots of examples of things the Federal government has done for education, including Pell grants, Brown v. Board of Education, and (to some eyes, at least) "No Child Left Behind".
Re 4: dropping the minimum wage will not increase demand for manufactured items, so is highly unlikely to spur manufacturing in the US - there is widespread agreement among those who have studied it that the US economy is suffering from a shortage of demand, and fixing this problem is part of what must be done to increase in-US manufacturing.
With a corporation, it isn't a matter of wanting to kill humans. It is simply a matter of accounting.
If the cost of killing humans is much less than the expected profit, then it is the corporation's duty to kill humans, since it is the corporation's duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. That's the whole purpose of a corporation, to maximize profits for the shareholders.
You are being ironic, I hope. The idea that "corporations exist solely to maximize shareholder value" isn't a Given Truth - it's just another idea about how society can organize a (big) part of its activities. As such, it should be evaluated like any other idea: see what it leads to. One direct consequence is the argument that if something is legal and maximizes return to shareholders, a corporation has a fiduciary duty to do it. This argument was made in defense of British ships participating in the slave trade until 1807, even though chattel slavery was declared unlawful in England in 1772 and Scotland in 1776, and slavery itself in 1799. Another consequence is the idea that corporations have no social obligations - that maximizing shareholder return is required, regardless of other consequences such as, say, global economic meltdown and huge government transfers of money to banks and Wall St. firms during the last year or so.
These aren't the only ways for corporations to behave, nor do they appear socially desirable. Here's a reference for those interested in examining this further: http://www.allaboutbranding.com/index.lasso?article=373
Books such as Marjorie Kelly's The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy already point out the inhumane way corporations have departed from serving the public, even though the roots of corporate duty were in the public good. Maximizing returns to shareholders was the obsession at Enron and Andersen