"Tell me one thing the US government has run well?"

The post office, the military, the FDA, FEMA when it wasn't run by someone appointed by Bush Jr, the space program, the interstate system...

Post office -

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110622/ ap_on_re_us/us_postal_problems

Military -

http://news.yahoo.com/next-us-defense-chief-not-gut-military-pentagon-220032583.html

FDA -

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/15/60II/main674293.shtml

FEMA -

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/12/the-truth-about-fema-analysis-and-proposals

NASA -

http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-06/ff_space_nasa

These prove my point that when you create beaurocray in government, they will run it poorly.

Not one single headline you posted had to do with comparing that system to another to say if it had more problems.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/17/prime-minister-cameron-plans-to-reform-britains-government-run-health-care-system/

I not saying that the government can't run anything, I'm saying that they aren't the best at running it.

You might want to talk to a Catholic about divorce if you believe it is not a religious thing and they are easy to get. They are two different things marriage and civil unions.

Because he didn't start doing God like things unlit he was much older. When he was a teenager stealing donkeys for fun he was human.

I disagree with the premise of the sign. I don't think babies are born gay. And another thing marriage is a religious thing. If you get marriage at a courthouse it is just a contract between two people, which is a civil union. They already have that in a lot of states.

What rights to married people have that a gay civil union don't have?

Stupid people who blindly follow someone without gaining knowledge in the subject are the one to blame. There are more of them than the intellectual elite.

I would disagree with all four of your points.

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel.

Would you want to go to a doctor that got his medical training on-line? I agree that the government is too deep with this but the elimination of this invites fraud. People are too lazy and don't think to do the necessary background investigation and would rather trust someone to there own detriment.

Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

So you would advocate people making drugs in their basement and selling them on-line as the real thing. You would have confidence in taking a drug that is suppose to help you and not now for sure if it was a placebo? You are willing to get a device or a procedure that will install a foreign object in your body not knowing wither it will work as it suppose to?

Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control.

I think some regulation is required but not completely deregulated it. I think if you could purchase a plan that was more customizable it would help control costs. (Example: A man doesn't need coverage for something that only a female would require and vis versa.)

Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency.

So you advocate the withholding of medical treatment for someone who has a genetic problem that will occur later in life? I would say we could change the system where it wouldn't need to be subsidized by the government.

I think there is no conclusive proof that socialized heath care systems are in better fiscal health with comparable or superior quality of care.

To the contrary, I believe there is more proof that it is worst fiscally and provides inadequate quality of care.

The Guardian (British Newspaper) reported these problems with the current British health care system.

10% of Hospitals Don't Meet Hygiene Standards

Heart Patients Die Because of Poor Care

Woman Denied Free Health Care Because She Paid For Life Prolonging Drug

Woman Pulls Her Own Teeth Because She Can't Find a Dentist

Lung Patients Refused Expensive Life Saving Drug

Women in Labor Turned Away From Hospitals

Smokers and the Obese Denied Care

These are all headlines from stories they did on real people. How many other stories of people were not reported on? We don't know but you don't see these type of stories hear because our system provides better care. If we get standards and the government out of it then the cost will go down and it will be better for it.

Tell me one thing the US government has run well?

Well, first the question is too broad to really argue about because a set of assumptions need to me made in order to argue the point.

I think IT is the solution IF we adopt standards in how we organize data. If the data is in the same format using the same coding system then everybody (Care Providers, Medical Administration, Insurance Providers, Patients and Local, State and Federal Governments) will have the same information which will allow for a more streamline and efficient system. This would bring administrative cost down and make decisions more "apples to apples" instead of trying to figure out what something means.

Those who attack the religious have forgotten that these large scale slaughters at the hands of atheists and their god-denying philosophies.

So I want to make sure I get this right. You are saying that the fighting and killing of people between the Jewish people and Muslims is the fault of the atheists? Or are you saying the killing between the Protestants and Catholics is the fault of the atheists? Or maybe the people that were killed because of the Spanish Inquisition were all because of the atheists?

I think the cause of religion has been the root of more war and slaughter than atheists since religious people of the past would kill atheists for not believing.

I believe that you make broad assumptions base on ill informed opinions. You need to read history and you will be enlightened.