a new party

[HappyJoy]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

You are right the market can do many things but there is still a need for Government.

At least you are one of the few who understand Trump is far from Conservative. He is simply a fraud and con man. This is why so many turned to Biden. They know he is a Democrat but they also understand he is well known for working across the aisle. This will give real Conservatives time to put their party back together. I see that as good news.

Of course there will always be the nay sayers, those mired in anger but they will become the minority..

When has he worked across party lines?

 

[MaryAnne11]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

You are right the market can do many things but there is still a need for Government.

At least you are one of the few who understand Trump is far from Conservative. He is simply a fraud and con man. This is why so many turned to Biden. They know he is a Democrat but they also understand he is well known for working across the aisle. This will give real Conservatives time to put their party back together. I see that as good news.

Of course there will always be the nay sayers, those mired in anger but they will become the minority..

When has he worked across party lines?

Ask the Senators that have worked with him.

 

[MaryAnne11]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

It is, I do not disagree and those who have it want to keep it. Those who have lost do not! I am not expert enough to have a solution.

 

[Papageorgio]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

Budget cuts and tax increases yes, raising the age of retirement no. You will never be rid of insurance companies as they give politicians way too much money.

Change the Constitution in what way, it is still a good document, we need to phase big business out of Congress.

We need to quit trying to fill every want and allowed w people to live their lives and when they retire let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Why keep them working and stuck in the system doing low paying jobs. Seems very cruel.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

You are right the market can do many things but there is still a need for Government.

At least you are one of the few who understand Trump is far from Conservative. He is simply a fraud and con man. This is why so many turned to Biden. They know he is a Democrat but they also understand he is well known for working across the aisle. This will give real Conservatives time to put their party back together. I see that as good news.

Of course there will always be the nay sayers, those mired in anger but they will become the minority..

When has he worked across party lines?

It's kind of his schtick. Maybe get out of your bubble and breathe it in.

Biden and Sanders â Comparing their Bipartisan Index Scores

www.thelugarcenter.org

Joe Biden ranked in the top 20 percent of the lifetime Senate rankings (47th out of 250). Biden registered only one Congress with a score below 0.00. That was the 105th Congress, when he ranked 57th out of 98 Senators. In the Bipartisan Index, 0.00 represents the average score of a Senator during the twenty-year baseline period (1993 through 2012). Biden scored above the baseline average for Senators in each of his other seven Congresses. Of the seven, his highest ranking was fourth in the 107th Congress. His ranking in the other six Congresses ranged from 16th to 42nd.

...

In the narrowest term, what our rankings show is that, at bill introduction, Senator Biden was frequently seeking out Republican partners, while Senator Sanders was rarely doing so. Biden’s score was significantly above average, while Sanders’ score was lower than any Democrat who has served more than one Congress and lower than any Senator of either party who had served more than four Congresses.

 

[PredFan]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

that’s a good answer, I could nit pick but I haven’t seen a better answer yet.

 

[Papageorgio]

When has he worked across party lines?

Ask the Senators that have worked with him.

So you have no examples of him working across the aisle? I didn’t think so. Wasn’t he the one that didn’t want to hold confirmation hearings back in the 80’s or 90’s on a Supreme Court Justice if they stepped down or passed away during an election year? Didn’t he say something about if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black? How about his 10-15% of Americans are not good people? Seems divisive to me. I think he will be less abrasive than Trump but he has never seemed like a unifier, nor a strong leader.

 

[Papageorgio]

When has he worked across party lines?

It's kind of his schtick. Maybe get out of your bubble and breathe it in.

Biden and Sanders â Comparing their Bipartisan Index Scores

www.thelugarcenter.org

Joe Biden ranked in the top 20 percent of the lifetime Senate rankings (47th out of 250). Biden registered only one Congress with a score below 0.00. That was the 105th Congress, when he ranked 57th out of 98 Senators. In the Bipartisan Index, 0.00 represents the average score of a Senator during the twenty-year baseline period (1993 through 2012). Biden scored above the baseline average for Senators in each of his other seven Congresses. Of the seven, his highest ranking was fourth in the 107th Congress. His ranking in the other six Congresses ranged from 16th to 42nd. ...
In the narrowest term, what our rankings show is that, at bill introduction, Senator Biden was frequently seeking out Republican partners, while Senator Sanders was rarely doing so. Biden’s score was significantly above average, while Sanders’ score was lower than any Democrat who has served more than one Congress and lower than any Senator of either party who had served more than four Congresses.

“Schtick?” Trump had a “schtick” and it didn’t work. We need a leader, Biden is not the guy, Sanders may have been a better choice, for the party that likes old white guys.

My hope is that Congress puts the brakes on spending and can agree on getting rid of tax breaks and loopholes and reduce debt.

 

[candycorn]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

 

[HappyJoy]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Completely agree. Insurance should not be tied to employment it's just making that step is a big one and whatever plan we go with had better be solid.

 

[Papageorgio]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

 

[progressive hunter]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Completely agree. Insurance should not be tied to employment it's just making that step is a big one and whatever plan we go with had better be solid.

I like having it connected to my employer,, and no one says you have too,,

so why would you take away what works for me when you dont have to if you dont want to???

 

[HappyJoy]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

 

[progressive hunter]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

 

[candycorn]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

Its a mess. Who knew healthcare would be so hard?

 

[HappyJoy]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

 

[progressive hunter]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

Its a mess. Who knew healthcare would be so hard?

its only hard for stupid people,, after 45 yrs of dealing with it I've never had a problem,,

 

[progressive hunter]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

 

[Papageorgio]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

That is why you can’t separate the employer insurance. It is a great benefit for those that have it. It relieves them of the burden of having to worry about another bill.

Unless you want government to foot the bill, why would you want to take away a benefit from an employee?