Please explain how it's sexist.  Because after growing up with a feminist mother and sister, I still don't get it.  It may be in questionable taste to some people, but really is it sexist.  Is it really true, that by posting the photo, and making a comment about her body really sexist?  Does it show a disrespect towards women...?   Personally I don't think it does.

Would it be homophobic, to post a photo of an attractive gay guy?  

I don't question the sanity of the Le Pen clan, I'm straight-up telling you they're sick fucks.  The father, the daughter, and the National Front.  Unholy frickin' trinity.

Did you pay less for the same coverage or less for a worse coverage?

In a few years the coverage is going to go down and the prices are going to go up

To be honest hope it falls to $50 then I can buy 20 for a Grand,just mine them save them and in a year check the price.

Because they say we will get free stuff, and free stuff is pretty cool?

Unless "unknown" is actually just ghash or dicussfish to hide their true hashing power?

Buying at the exchange saved me about $2400 last year. I'm going to try for an even better deal this sign-up period.

Thanks for your intelligent response. Usually when people disagree, it goes straight to name calling and hyperbole. Then someone invokes Godwin.  

I'm not necessarily assuming everyone is not behaving rationally, but I am assuming that people have the right to decide things for themselves. If your sole basis for a conclusion of "irrationality" is that someone elects not to have health insurance, I dispute that. You don't have enough information about specific people to make a general conclusion with that being the sole factor. But irrationality is not relevant to my point. If we take as given that someone not buying health insurance is irrational, they should be free to be irrational. The list of who gets to decide what is best for an individual should read like this: 1) The individual; 2) anybody else. Obviously, #2 is a distant, distant entry.

As for the purpose of the state, I don't disagree that that's how the state operates. The state is a monopoly on force, and the adjudicator of when force used by others is inappropriate. But how the state operates now doesn't mean it's optimal. And I agree that forcing the unwilling is inconsistent with the concept of a state, but that doesn't mean that forcing the unwilling isn't tyranny. [1] Using force on the unwilling is literally the definition of tyranny, because what is deemed "oppressive" is subjective. No government thinks it's tyrannical! Tyranny is always defined by the people subject to the state's rule, and in every case of tyranny ever charged, the people supplying the charge of tyranny had only one thing in common: they objected to the state's use of force and they were unwilling.

That's not to say I am an anarchist. I believe the state is necessary. But the state's role is not to make individual decisions for people, as is being done with requiring everyone to have health insurance. It's to protect everyone's natural rights: [2] life, liberty, and property they justly derive. Anything more than this is when the power of the state corrupts the individuals wielding it to believe they have the moral authority to force their will upon the unwilling. I do not accept this conclusion.

....can force the collection of a vast treasure under the name of providing medical care and and then split it up between friends and cronys and wind up giving just enough to the people so that they don't complain too loudly.

We have been on page 10k for 12 hours now..   the price will be > $400 at some point on 10k

I am not Satoshi.

impressing.

Very probable

Have the ends, with regard to a one-payer healthcare system in other countries, justified the means to enforce it?

I wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that the healthcare market in the US is a free market approach, but definitely a crony capitalist approach. It's extremely disorganized (as a result of intimidatingly-thick pricing books?), and as a result, nearly a quarter of health expenditure ends up in administrative fees, not too dissimilar from many US-based charities. Healthcare for those in between Medicaid coverage and genuinely good private insurance is awful, the worst among high-GDP industrialized nations (even though we have excellent training of medical professionals, some of the greatest medical innovation, and unmatched ability to handle a large number of people needing major, complicated operations). Canada has superior healthcare ratings while spending ~half as much on the same operations. Consumers in the US can't get good cost estimates on six-figure operations nor have reasonable ability to compare costs prior to any medical procedure. An American, for example, probably wouldn't know a simple allergy prick test costs $hundreds, $thousands or $tens of thousands depending on where it's done, and how would they?

Can free market healthcare resolve these issues? Are there any examples of a post-industrial country with free market healthcare?