It needs to be put down like a rabid dog and THEN we can evaluate what our options are after that.

Is there some reason we can't see what our options are before we kill it so we have a superior plan ready to vote on in congress? I keep hearing repeal and replace but until I hear a real plan for "replace" I am really only hearing "repeal".

Working in the health insurance arena I can say that almost all medical insurance carriers use SSN to identify their members. Occationally an employer will want to use something else and either the carrier refuses to support it or it is like we are asking them to murder their children to make it happen.

I like when companies throw out the line about offering a range of products to suit specific needs of consumers. It actually means that they are confusing the consumer and most definately will push the most expensive product to the consumer by telling them it is be better in some miniscule way that the consumer would not have noticed to begin with.

I do think that it is tough to give definitive bad reviews on diagnoses and outcomes of treatments due to the complexity of our bodies. However, I think it is completely fair to give reviews based on the experiences with the staff and office itself. If you wait an hour after your appointment was scheduled, if the nurse or doctor was rude, or if the office was not in a clean condition, I want to be able to read those reviews.

All horrible privacy issues aside, I'm not a big fan continuing to add expenses to vehicles. Airbags and safety systems are great, but is this really going add that much safety to a driver and passengers? We will have to pay for these black boxes when we buy the car, and what happens when the "black box" malfunctions? Does the car shutdown? When you get pulled over does the cop somehow check that the device is working and ticket you if it doesn't? I'm guessing the way it needs to be mounted and the eletronics won't make it a cheap device, but I could be wrong.

He makes comments about government control and implies that it is bad, which is usually something you hear from which side?

You make it sound like the elderly loves entitlement programs because it is a free lunch. Most elderly people "love" Social Security and Medicare because they need it to live. They paid into the programs as well, it isn't like someone decided later to give them a free bus pass because they're old.

I'm not arguing it either way, just answering the question: "My question though is why is there this extra tax on supplying health insurance for domestic partners?"

There isn't an extra tax. Domestic partners health premiums cannot be paid pretax like a spouse or child's can. The part of the premium for the partner is considered income (imputed income).

I'm guessing here, but I think the UK vs US issue here is attitudes towards time off.