And, once again, the argument ignores the core issue.

That core issue is WHY DO WE PAY MORE AND GET LESS THAN ANY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION?

Here we are trying to figure out how to "pay for" adding all the uninsured to the 'health care tab' and paying roughly $5700 per capita for it. Meanwhile, other countries "get by" on $2900 - $3700 per capita and provide systems where everyone has access and gets better care on the whole.

And here's another bit - about the Obama "promise" - and taking what the OP said at face value.

Obama's 'promise' was concerning people who make less than $250,000 per year. Now, if you sold your house and profited by more than that then, well, you DID earn more than that - and that's assuming you didn't turn around and put that money into another house LIKE MOST PEOPLE WHO NEED A PLACE TO LIVE. It's just like holding on to stocks that appreciate over time. HOWEVER - you CAN do something called "income averaging" that will CERTAINLY lower your tax hit.

Think about it - complaining that Obama promised no tax hike for those making under $250,000 because when they 'make' over $250,000 they'd (allegedly) be hit with this tax hike.

There's no *practical* (or idealogical) difference between the middle-class wage-earner making a salary of $60,000/year who, one year, gets a 6-figure boost from the sale of a home and the CEO who has a "salary" of $1/year and takes his compensation in stock options to circumvent FICA and other taxes on 'regular' income. It's just a matter of scale.

...oh - and one other thing. That home sale profit? Of course you know that all the money you put into that house counts as cost. Like, buying a house for $200,000 and put a new $10,000 roof on it and sell for $210,000 your profit is ZERO. Keep your receipts!