Leveller

It's impossible to dispute that the graphs show that there's been a dip, much the same as there was between 1940 and 1950.

But if you look at the two longer term graphs at the bottom of your post ZD I think it's evident that over a longer period of time, using much more than "recent" data there is a steady upward trend over the last 140 years? In fact, looking at the last graph, it would appear the land temperature has dipped, while the oceans continue to get warmer even during the last 10 years?

Edit:

Although pulling up some long term estimated charts which I can only assume are based on geological evidence, the earth doesn't appear to be any hotter today than it was 1100BC.

As Shaft says in the post below, and I know it came up in the previous discussion around this. Global warming is not really the right term, climate change is more accurate and to expect it to be a continual year on year 1 degree rise in temperature consistently, everywhere, is simply unrealistic. We're talking about global weather patterns, not specifically localized events.

Another thing that grinds my gears is when I can't find the droids I'm looking for.

Actually didn't we have this debate about global warming/climate change in here about 9 months ago on the back of other low record temperatures?

I was thinking about this further last night and a couple of thinks came to mind.

Before I start, a quick caveat, I don't think any nation should have to sit back and allow a hostile country or force randomly fire rockets over it's border and, in such Israel are well within their rights to protect themselves.

I just can't believe that military action is the only solution to the current situation, from my understanding what was most recently responsible for the rocket attacks by Hamas was Israel's non adherence to the previous cease-fire terms relating to easing border crossings into Gaza (again, i'm not trying to justify rocket strikes against a civilian population, just trying to understand the motive/logic behind the action).

As Shaftiel mentioned earlier, it is extremely unlikely that Israel does defeat Hamas. Hamas is founded on ideology based in the same religious belief as the majority of Palestinians and the Arab world and defeating a body or person is much easier than erasing an ideal. Hamas is not unpopular in the Arab world, while we may disagree with their actions, they do provide education, healthcare and wellfare to their people.

So, there are two hypothetical outcomes if this cannot be resolved "harmoniously":

Hamas are not defeated and consequently this becomes a victory for them, it not only insipires more people to join the cause and adds to the militant or extremist body of people already out there, not just in Hamas but other extremist and militant groups.

Hamas are defeated (extremely unlikely in my opinion) and as a result of the damage and impact Israel's actions have had on the people of Gaza we see a rise in more extremist factions such as Al Queda based out of somewhere even closer to home.

Israel are perfectly aware of the potential two outcomes and I'm sure completely understands that a victory is sure to not be realistic. Israel is not averse to trying to push political action from other nations, and while it's my speculation, I believe it is Israel's attempt to get themselves at the top of the incoming Obama administration's foreign policy "to-do" list.

If you're into reading non-American press, the BBC has an article worth reading on the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815929.stm

 

I read the article. Glad BBC put this line in there. "Casualty claims in Gaza cannot be independently verified. " That basically says that we can only go by what the Palestinian authority tell us and the Palestinian authority is pretty much controlled by Hamas.

I'm not taking sides on this, and in my heart I support Israel in their actions, but the reason it can't be independently verified is that Israel have barred the entry of any foreign media into Gaza.

I also see that you've picked an Israeli news source around the "theft" of international aid.

In no way am I saying it's not true, it quite probably is, but when Israel are barring the entry of foreign media to Gaza and are controlling the message their own media puts out through daily press conferences it's dificult not to ask why.

I know that pictures in the worlds media of the dead in Gaza would not portray Israel in a good light, but the "secrecy" and control of their own media just leads to negative speculation.

I've not done as much background reading on this as it would appear other folks here have, but wanted to share my thoughts.

What is taking place in Gaza is a tragedy.

Are either Israel or Hamas in the right, I don't believe either of them are per se.

Is Hamas at war with Israel, yes.

Do they believe they are within their rights to engage in bombings, mortar attacks etc. against Israel, yes.

Is the loss of civilian life within Israel acceptable if it is in line with them achieving their goals, yes.

Do they have the ability to launch helicopter strikes, a full blown ground assault etc. into Israel, no, hence their approach to the war.

Is Israel at war with Hamas, yes.

Do they believe they are within their rights to engage in bombings, mortar attacks, helicopter strikes etc. against Hamas, yes.

Is the loss of civilian life within Gaza acceptable if it is in line with them achieving their goals, yes.

Do they have the ability to launch helicopter strikes and a full blown ground offensive into Gaza, yes, hence their approach to the war.

In no way am I condoning military action, strikes, bombings, the death of civilians from either side etc. but the only real difference I am able to see between Israel and Hamas and what is currently taking place is that they have different means at their disposal and very different backers (backers whose main difference is religious belief), one of which is familiar to the Western world as a way of conducting war and acceptable, the other "guerilla" or "terrorist" approach is totally unacceptable to the Western world.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate either, but do the words "he who is against Israel is against god himself" do any of the following:

release Israel from any kind of international law and give them the freedom to do whatever they like without it being so much as questioned? (Again I'm not trying to judge Israel's actions as right or wrong, I personally believe they are within their rights to retaliate and do everything needed to protect their people, in fact they've shown incredible restraint over recent years).

mean that anyone questioning their actions (which are conveniently timed before Bush, one of their greatest supporters, is out of the White House) is anti-semitic, or is that person exercising their right to free thought and not just following blindly in a oddly islamic-extremist type way.

mean that they are God's chosen people and consequently anyone who isn't Jewish is not one of god's people?

I haven't been playing for a while now (life interfering with play time as well, and some great couch games on the 360), but Berge thanks hugely for some very memorable and great Saturday night customs sessions.

I plan on coming back to the game at some point, so hope to catch up with you online then..

Lev.

Rainbow was on for years (I think it ran for about 20 years) I remember watching it as a kid, this excerpt was a one off piece they did for a sketch show and wasn't shown as part of the Kid's afternoon show.

It is without doubt one of the funniest pieces of television I've ever seen and remembering the "normal" kids version it's even funnier.

Well you do from my last Christmas present, but I'm not sure everyone else does.

The unions are part of the issue, they are by far the complete reasoning behind the problem.

The biggest issue that I can see/understand, is simply US auto manufacturers are not making cars people want to buy, they became complacent that the market for oversized pickups and poorly designed/manufactured cars would last forever based on people's desire to buy American.

From May 2007 until May 2008 US manufacturers lost nearly 8% of the market to Asia gaining just over 6% and other manufacturers making up the difference (BMWs Mini and the Mercedes Smart spring to mind). Full size car sales fell over 30% during that same period, compact cars rising to over 20% of total car sales.

It's not necessarily the cost of manufacture here in the US that causes the problems, Toyota have a huge plant in Kentucky, Hyundai in Alabama, BMW build all their Z4s and X5s in S.Carolina all of whom saw an increase in market share.

GMs overseas divisions, Vauxhall and Opel (I hadn't read the article I put below before writing this) are actually performing reasonably well in harsh economic times despite more aggressive competition in Europe from what I undestand. That is solely because they produce cars which are more in tune with what people want and represent good value on the market.

While other car manufacturers, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes and BMW produce cars which sell in every market around the globe, Ford and GM continue to develop models for specific markets, a nice idea but hugely expensive.

The fallout of letting these companies fail would be collossal, not just initial loss of jobs but to think they can restructure and just start up again is not realistic, how many of their small suppliers can survive without revenue or payment for the time it takes for the big 3 to be resurrected.

While I don't believe they should be allowed to fail, I don't think that without a drastic rethink of their model lineups, a huge change to be in line with what the US market wants to buy and the unions accepting they're going to have to suffer in order to get through this they'll survive any longer than it takes to burn through the bailout money (and unfortunately time is not available to change model lineups).

It's quite an accurate mirror of what happened to the motor industry in the UK, it failed, it collapsed, was nationalised, and failed again with poor products and excessive union power.

I was just looking for some comparative figures between the UK industry collapse and the US and I found this article, it's worth reading:

NY Time UK to US motor industry comparison

I'm personally kind of torn on whether a helping hand should be extended to these companies as the economic impact of their failure will be huge, but based on history, I don't see it working in the long run.

Honestly I looked at a ton of TVs before I bought the 32" one in my bedroom and went with the cheapest TV they sold at Best Buy lol. Dynex is the brand and it works awesome. Turns out the LCD panel is made by LG and the same one is under 10 different brands. I guess it's like the Olivia bran that is really just an off brand Sharp.

Did exactly the same thing, I think it was about $400 (could have been cheaper) including the extended warranty.

I walked into BestBuy looking to spend about $1,000 on a TV for the bedroom, saw the deal on the Dynex, spoke to the guy there, and his point that "it's not quite as clear as the Samsung, but you're unlikely to have a Samsung sat right next to it for comparison in your bedroom" was 100% accurate. Couldn't actually be happier with the Dynex, they had a stack of them inside the door when we walked in and I think a promotion on them, but it was a great deal and I kind of wish I'd bought 2 of them so I could have one in my computer room rather than the 32inch CRT I have in there.

Are you staying downtown? We are a consulting company so have a load of travellers come in and out of town, I'll PM you some stuff from our intranet.

Restaurant list:

Bella Café

Lunch-only spot inside a spacious antique mall crammed with household ephemera.

3404 Belt Line Road Farmers Branch, TX 75234

Caribbean Grill

Serves a variety of appetizers, such as Jamaican beef patties, seafood entrees, such as coconut shrimp; and the famed jerk chicken.

3068 Forest Ln Dallas, TX 75234

Country Burger

All the burgers at this South Dallas institution are a gut-busting 5 inches wide and a quarter-inch thick, and arrive wrapped in folksy blue-and-white checked paper.

401 S Hampton Rd Dallas, TX 75208

Cuba Libre

Offers patrons an eclectic Latin style dining experience at affordable prices.

2822 N Henderson Ave

Dallas, TX 75206

Fuse

This trendy downtown spot offers drink specials, caters to large groups, plays live music, and has a rooftop patio.

1512 Commerce St.

Dallas, TX 75201

Hatties

This quintessential new Southern bistro nestled in the Bishop Arts District strikes just the right balance with food, hospitality and comfort.

418 N. Bishop Ave. Dallas, TX 75208

Javiers

If you are in the mood for upscale Mexican, but are not looking for the traditional Tex-Mex experience, Javiers is the place to go.

4912 Cole Avenue

Dallas, TX 75205

La Calle Doce

California-style mahi-mahi tacos, blackened salmon tacos, salmon techuacan with chipotle cream sauce and quesadillas suprema filled with grilled shrimp and black beans are just a few tasty offerings from our menu.

415 W. 12th St. Dallas, TX 75208

La Duni

This Latin menu is sophisticated and in a one-word descriptor, is "exhilarating" to the senses in both atmosphere and food.

4264 Oak Lawn Ave.

Dallas, TX 75219

Monica's

The food is fun and unique but it is the atmosphere that sets this Deep Ellum Tex Mex staple apart.

2914 Main Street

Dallas, TX 75226

Patrizio's

If you are looking for a trendy location with "black tie" level service and an excellent Italian menu, you have found your destination.

25 Mockingbird Lane

Dallas, TX 75205

Sushi on McKinney

It's a no frills, inexpensive place to eat good sushi.

4500 McKinney Avenue

Dallas, TX 75205

Thai-ffific Cuisine

The food is freshly made, moderately priced and generously portioned.

3068 Forest Lane Dallas, TX 75234

Trinity Hall

An Irish pub situated at Mockingbird Station that shows soccer matches and plays live music.

5321 E. Mockingbird Lane

Dallas, TX 75206

Zizikis

The food is some of the best Greek and Mediterranean cuisine you will find this side of the Atlantic.

4514 Travis St Ste 122

Dallas, TX 75205

I'll openly admit it, I went to school with Chris Martin and their manager Phil Harvey so that probably has something to do with it.

Downloaded this and really quite liked it.

I've only just found the radio station but have played for hours and I honestly don't feel like I've explored more than 20% of locations.

I'm officially in love with this game, my 10mm pistol and my hunting rifle.

Looking forward to finding this elusive lab (maybe I've been blind, but I've been around the radio station about 15 times in an effor to find it, just hoping I do find it at some point and am guessing it's not there) so I can get the power armor training.

i cant for the life of me find the radio station.. like ive walked all around it been down in the subway etc. and i cant find a way to it.

Been having exactly the same problem so I've been off a wandering waaaay out West.

I know BMW and Porsche offer this service, and a few folks locally in the BMW owners club have done so. It's not a huge saving as you say, but if it makes for a great reason to make a trip to Europe and drive some of the best roads in the world (Southern Germany has some outstandingly beautiful areas and great driving roads).

It's a completely US spec. vehicle, just delivered in Germany, if you buy a Z4 or X5 from BMW you would have to collect them from the plant in Spartanburg, NC (even if you were from Europe buying one and wanted the "plant pickup"), but if it's any of the other models it would be European delivery to collect form the plant, it's purely where they finish the manufacturing process.

So you'll be voting McCain and Palin because she doesn't follow the lines of the aides and says what's on her mind? Or was this a condemnation of the political/election system?

Edited for repetition.

I've not read all the details and I haven’t watched the video so I probably shouldn't be posting, but based on NOFXs post above, how does Obama propose closing the gap on the 2/3 of businesses who don't pay income tax? The only real way that I understand as to how they avoid taxation is through it being dividend payments or the company being held offshore for example, at which point it's treated as capital gains from a US standpoint.

I read somewhere that one of his proposals was to raise capital gains tax about 10%, perhaps that is how he'll close the loophole? If it's purely to change corporate status that will impact every small company in the country who pays it's owners/investors through dividends? This is going to impact far more people than the "spread the wealth around" statement is meant to suggest.

From what I can understand, every person who has personal investments, is likely to inherit anything from family, who plays the stock market, owns a small business where they pay themselves a dividend rather than an inflated salary is going to be negatively impacted by Obama's financial plan? If I'm way off with the above, please let me know, as I've said in previous posts, I've not been able to read enough about the actual policies anyone is talking about to have a 100% clear understanding of how either McCain or Obama intend to achieve their buzz phrases or sweeping statements.

I agree it's a loophole and that the intention is the right one, but from what I can tell any closing of it or tightening of it is going to have a much further reaching financial impact than just those "greedy fat cats".

Just as a side note, this corporatization, where company shareholders like to see high profit numbers, real revenue, in fact the exact things that allows you NOFX to play the market based on a company’s success, how are they going to retain their numbers and keep shareholders happy, allow private investors to make money etc. without it impacting everyone if they can't raise prices in the short term to offset a much greater tax obligation?

The system isn't perfect but to think the tax comes is magically going to be paid by these corporations and do people good without the tax revenue coming from somewhere is somewhat simplistic.

Edit: By the way, it's by no means perfect today and I'm not saying there's no merit to the intent but I don't see a simple solution to this, much the same as the healthcare issue. Unfortunately it leads back to there not being sufficient information available to determine how the approach will be implemented and how successful or not it may be.

Hi Kill3r, although the way I put it together it may have appeared like it, I hope it was obvious the second part of my post wasn't aimed squarely at you, it was just that I was posting in this topic when my fingers and thoughts got the better of me and they just came spewing out I did think about starting a different topic, but, couldn't stop typing.....

I'm not entirely sure that what you've said above is accurate, my understanding was that the Annenberg foundation ran a gifting award program which Ayer's co-authored the winning proposal for. This related to school reform in Chicago and that while Walter was responsible for deciding the winners of the grants, neither he or Leonore were on/oversaw the board? It was this board that Ayers and Obama were on.

You're trying to directly compare working with someone directly (Obama/Ayers) to being endorsed by someone who's charitable gift's usage may have been overseen by a group on whose board of directors were Ayers and Obama.

If indeed she did as you say, lead or oversee that board, then her endorsement of McCain should be particularly damning for Obama if she'd worked that closely with him on the administration of a charitable donation in the past and doesn't think he'd be the right choice to oversee the running of the country. In either scenario it's not as compelling an argument as the right have.

I could be wrong, as mentioned above, that's my understanding of what happened.

Personally, I think the Obama/Ayers connection is a loose one at best and is probably best ignored, regardless of the depth of their relationship the obvious aim is to get more and more people talking about a recognized terrorist and Obama in the same breath.

There's been more than enough mudslinging in this forum recently around topics which are obviously very close to people's hearts, unfortunately it pretty much mirrors the status of the electoral process here in the US.

Who can smear/damn the other side enough will win, I'd like to see more discussion in this forum of the candidate's policies, and less of this media focused style of blame game, unfortunately there's very little coverage of the policies anywhere to draw conclusions from, based on what I've seen anyway, certainly not the nominees websites.

From what I can tell, the US presidential race is really only decided by that "swing" group in the middle, the 30-40% of voters (if it's that great) who rely on all their knowledge from the mainstream media, unfortunately neither party seems to do anything to step it up and ensure people really get the facts about policies. My guess is that the majority of people fall into Republican or Democrat, probably 60-70% of people would brand themselves one way or the other, it's the undecided group they're electioneering for, not the ZDs or NOFXs who know where they stand, but the middle ground. Based on it being a wishy washy middle area where neither can have policies that will turn voters against them, it becomes a more damning race, turn the voter against the other guy/gal.

If you look through the topics in this forum for the last month, it'd probably be more accurately titled the "televised news/propaganda asylum" and not the political asylum, it'd be nice to see it be more policy based debate/discussion than what we have at moment.

I guess the point of our arguments is that yes, they both have issues but in our personal experiences they work, for the vast majority both systems do work (although I do believe it to be more expensive in terms of cost to businesses and the individual when it is not nationalized and I'm not saying it's the solution), the biggest difference I can see is that in the UK and probably Canada (but I'm not that familiar with their healthcare) everyone has coverage.

You will not find an individual in the UK bankrupted over medical bills or frankly just unable to get medical attention when required due to the cost.

If I didn't believe in the quality of service I can get here, I wouldn't pay for the premium healthcare coverage that I do, it would be cheaper to get the basic coverage and fly my family back to the UK once a year for major procedures if required. But the previous statement really outlines my situation, I am one of the fortunate 85% who have adequate coverage.

While I'm far from being a socialist and I don't believe that everyone should have the right to everything, what I do believe is that in the developed world the government has a responsibility to provide care to its population when required. It's the line between it being someone's right and government's responsibility, this is very similar to my opinion on education, I don't believe it should be everyone's right to a college education I believe it should be something that is earned through academic achievement, and where certain abilities have been demonstrated it should be the responsibility of the government to ensure that the brightest and best are provided with the opportunity to study to be come doctors, nurses, scientists etc.

Personally I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to fund college education, particularly if the education system became more merit and achievement based rather than commercially based.

The knock on of this is that doctors and dentists don't come out of college with 200K+ of debt already around their neck and need to charge the unfeasibly high rates they do in an effort to pay off college tuition bills.

My personal issue is with Obama's approach which I see as a half hearted attempt to provide some style of socialist healthcare for all type program where the government dictates who gets healthcare, punishes those who don't abide by it and which will ultimately cost more for everyone than what is already a very expensive system.

it also funded a fully functioning (if not perfect) nationalized health service.

 

NO where near perfect. It is actually so bad and the lines are so long that those who run the nationalized healthcare pay tons of money each year to get their employees private medical care. Says a lot about nationalized healthcare.

 

People forget though that we already have national healthcare. Join the military and have a kid and then tell me later if you want that type of medical care for your family for the rest of your life. If you still want it that bad, join the military and then let me know how it is in 4 years.

 

Yes, with my family and myself living under the NHS for my entire life until 2004, my grandmother and uncle having received cancer treatment through it, both of my grandfathers being through elongated heart issues, myself having had a serious accident at the age of 16 and been treated by it, I'd have no idea whether it works, my apologies for even commenting.

 

Hey, I'm glad that you all got good medical care before 2004. Things may not be the same now.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle3056691.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7041291.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...4/23/do2301.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-privately.html

 

Should I go on?

If you wish to quote your readings versus real world experience of the system, feel free to continue. My father went in for a cataract operation only this last Monday, with his other eye scheduled for early November, my grandmother is going in for surgery on her shoulder later this year.

As you quite accurately posted from my original post, it's not perfect, I haven't claimed it is, but to tell me that I'm effectively wrong based on your extensive web trawling doesn't really hold water when nearly 16% of the US population held no medical coverage at all in 2005, I'm sure you don't want me pulling up web links to the problems both these and in fact insured people have had with the commercial healthcare system here in the US. It could become a very long and tedious post if you do.

The private treatment for NHS workers mentioned in the last link you posted, costs an average $71/per session for private physiotherapy, I've not had to have physiotherapy here in the US, but I would be somewhat surprised if a session would cost that little where all treatment is essentially private and there is no competition between private services and a nationalized system.

There is private medical care available in the UK and I myself have used it, that doesn't mean for a second that the government's role in providing the right to medical care for all is of no value, my issue with Obama lies around the route he is apparently going to take to achieve some of this goal.

The biggest issue in the UK is that of balancing a budget for the UK citizens with "health care tourism" from other European, particularly Eastern European EU states where due to EU membership you're eligible for free coverage, I don't believe the US would have that issue, particularly when they get the 50ft razor wire tipped fence erected all around the border and can stop people breaking the law bringing cheaper medication in from Canada and Mexico to treat their problems as they can't afford medical coverage or costs here.

it also funded a fully functioning (if not perfect) nationalized health service.

 

NO where near perfect. It is actually so bad and the lines are so long that those who run the nationalized healthcare pay tons of money each year to get their employees private medical care. Says a lot about nationalized healthcare.

 

People forget though that we already have national healthcare. Join the military and have a kid and then tell me later if you want that type of medical care for your family for the rest of your life. If you still want it that bad, join the military and then let me know how it is in 4 years.

Yes, with my family and myself living under the NHS for my entire life until 2004, my grandmother and uncle having received cancer treatment through it, both of my grandfathers being through elongated heart issues, myself having had a serious accident at the age of 16 and been treated by it, I'd have no idea whether it works, my apologies for even commenting.

Post edited by Unclean. Please keep the foul language and euphemisms out.

I have 2 young kids and a wife, there's no way I'm skimping on their medical care.

Just another aside, before I lived here, I lived in the UK where taxation ran at c.40% for those making over the equivalent of $60K, 17.5% sales tax and such heavy import duties that the BMW 335 I bought here cost me $39K it would have cost nearer $60K, I actually had no issue with the income or sales taxes, yes it was high but it funded state education which included universities, it also funded a fully functioning (if not perfect) nationalized health service.

I honestly believe that there is a line between a truly capitalist society and one that does the most for it's people while enabling capitalist business practices, there are some things that should be state controlled as they can offer the best value and coverage and some things which the government should just stay the hell out of.

Having read some in depth analysis by the Wall Street Journal (and their sister publication Smart Money), it appears that the magic number is actually around $115K p.a. nowhere near as high as 250 where you'd start to be better off under McCain than under Obama.

As a side note, the number of US citizens making over 100K a year has only just run over the 20% mark so I'd frankly be amazed if 11% of households make over than $250K a year, the $250K figure is for a "household" not the individual.

I personally thought McCain did excellently last night, he tripped over his words in several places, but it's the first time I've actually see him fighting and Obama on the back foot.

I'm not going to hide that my politics/economics lie on the Republican side, but in all honesty if I were in a position to vote and not just a GC holder I would probably vote for Obama, the truth is that as a "ticket" Obama and Biden have McCain and Palin beat. In my opinion McCain talks a lot of sense and did a great job last night, but if you can take the presidential nominees out the picture for a second, and tell me if you'd rather have Biden or Palin as president it is a one sided argument. There's no doubt that Palin was a gamble, a political and publicity gamble to try and harness the power of some of Hilary's support, it's backfired unfortunately for the Republicans and in this election it's impossible to overlook the running mate when Palin was such a wild card choice.

Personally I like Palin, my concern is where she is today, she doesn't have the political experience (which is ultimately what is required in Washington and globally for the US), if she'd been pulled in as running mate in 4-8 years, then she'd probably have the background to warrant the gamble.

I'd actually disagree with most people's opinions of Obama winning the healthcare issue, of course I'm looking at this from my standpoint. My healthcare coverage through my family costs me roughly $500 a month, with a company contribution on top of this, with a $5K rebate for healthcare and the $500 a month I spend, I could ,and I've researched this, find a more cost competitive healthcare policy for myself and my family than the one I'm currently on with my company.

I also felt that Obama's stance was/is a halfway house, it's neither nationalized healthcare, nor is it privatized. While I agree with it in principal, banning medical insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions can only result in one of two things, either them not discriminating and making healthcare for those with pre-existing conditions unaffordable thus defeating the objective, or the burden being shouldered by the rest of the population (which for all intents and purposes makes it a nationalized healthcare system but with commercial level costs).

The policy of non discrimination and compulsory coverage provided by larger companies also strikes me as the same socialist rhetoric used to determine that mortgage applicants couldn't be discriminated against due to their prior credit history/record by the Freddie's and Fannie's of this world, that didn't turn out to be the best decision this country's government has ever made.

I personally saw my healthcare coverage go up in cost by 30% this year alone, I see nothing in Obama's policy on the matter which will ease that cost, it will only increase it.