America the "exceptional" should provide free healthcare....

Yeah, that's totally true when one ignores the examples of Russia and China and Eastern Europe and North Korea and Cuba, and ...

venesuala has turned itself around brilliantly in the last 15 years under the direction of socialist not sold out to blueeys pride and joy

nowhere on the globe matches their achievements in the reduction of poverty and the advancement of education and healthcare

no wonder the capitalists are pissed...

Venezuela is still part of opec!

Do you follow geo-politics? Venezuela is seizing private businesses by the gov't! They are actually turning from communism into a fascist State.

My old man always taught me that the good lord saw fit to give you two things for free. Air and water. Everything else in life that you want you'd better go and get yourself.

Nothing is free in the world - including health care. If you want it you'd better be willing to work for it.

Your old man was wrong. 1 out of every 8 people on the planet do not have access to safe and clean drinking water...free or not. 99% of all fatalities from drinking water occur in the third world.

You mean,better than the one he himself inadvertently presents?

No need.

Curt...

Just curious...

Why do you sign "Curt"???...

You're name's right next to your post...

???...

we should have no public education, no public police and fire services and no public roads - to but name a few. No public libraries, either. That is the natural conclusion to what you are putting forth.

It does not sound to me as though they brought in on consult anyone who particularly knows his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to healthcare.

he Atlantic reports that in practice, this means that a married couple in New York making more than a combined $62,040 gets no subsidies from Obamacare. But two people who live together without getting married? They can make up to a combined $91,920 and still get subsidies from the government.

The government has a clear and compelling interest in promoting marriage: Virtually all of the research shows that stable marriages increase economic output, reduce poverty, shrink income inequality, lower rates of incarceration and drug use, and spur the creation of future taxpayers (aka babies). The tax code already discriminates against the government's interest by providing an economic incentive for couples to choose cohabitation over marriage. Now Obamacare has come along to magnify the discrimination.

It's not clear whether this perversity is accidental or by design. But it's yet another line item in the argument against what is clearly the most catastrophic piece of legislation in modern American history

If you - or anyone else - opposes public healthcare, why are you not also opposing public education? Public roads? Public police services? On what basis do you make this distinction? What is your criteria. Using your logic, we should not pay to send poor people's children to public schools? Actually that is a rather good question given some of the outcomes of various schools but such is another issue altogether issue having nothing to do with what we are addressing, at hand.

What if someone never worked a day in his life but he goes to the library and checks out a book? He did not pay one cent for that book yet he read it cover to cover? Have you been violated? Blue, TGT, others? Why are you OK with public education and public police protection but you are NOT OK with public healthcare. On what basis do you make the distinction?

Water has never ever been free. Not in the history of the world.

DMT

blue:

people are not "f*#king stupid" albeit some may be so. We are not talking about "feeling" anything. We are talking about delineating what are your criteria for that which falls in the public realm. There is nothing "stupid" - f*#king or otherwise - about this question. It is simply asking you to define your criteria.