Telling someone to Google it..you sir are a true warrior..and clearly the irony was lost on you..yet again proving my original point

Thanks bud..you just proved my point.

Jeez I hate assumptions like this without studies or some specific economic analysis even if referenced. Obama care was supposed to save a lot of money and if you were alive around the time the bill was being debated the cbo had an extremely hard time calculating cost of the bill since they couldn't model a lot of assumptions. Estimates varied wildly and as expected when looking at the costs retrospectively the original estimates were not close to the actual costs of implementation. When the word trillions is thrown around my eyes start to glass over and say..here we go again.

Healthcare can't be a lost liter. Are you aware what percent of gdp in America Healthcare takes? It needs to break even at a minimum. Education payed for by either federal government..or mostly property taxes for grades k-12. What taxes would you like to raise to offset Healthcare losses? Nothing unfortunately is free

You can't run Healthcare at a huge loss..HUGE..and expect a viable future. Sure point to insulin that's been around a long time and generics that represent old drugs...however where are new meds and treatments that haven't even made it to market yet? Even modern day equipment..pacemakers, joint replacements, stents, robots..they all cost money.

Huge losses in Healthcare?? So yeah Im sure that particular area will be ripe with innovation in the future.

Hospital administration and insurance companies love this attitude. Make all those save the world doctors do all the work and we'll reap the profits while cutting their reimbursement at same time. I mean they are only in it to help people

Thanks for reply..so in the end it's a money problem..

I don't really know anything about the treaty that was signed in the past so I won't common on that however on face value this entire project just seems like a stretch and huge waste of money with questionable results. I've read the link you posted however I'm always cautious about projections that take years to show results. There are a lot of variables that could come into play effecting results..either positive or negative. The US and I think the world in general are looking for clean sources of energy and here this proposal are tearing down clean sources of energy. Spending a lot of money to construct the damn..then tear them down..then to reconstruct alternative sources of green energy seems in my opinion a huge waste. I appreciate opposing points of view however.

And so removing this damn is going to improve salmon population? Any evidence this is going to actually work? Being that there a I believe 4 other damns on the river is removal of this one damn going to actually accomplish what they claim?

Well Idk..neither does anyone exactly since experiment to test was specifically denied during litigation since the settlement attorneys are all scientists

so the silt and sediment that's going to be released when the damn is deconstructed..scientists actually worried this will do far more harm at this point to salon population..