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.

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,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

 

[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.

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

I wonder why you would want to take away a very good benefit away from a hard working employee that depends and needs insurance. The other option is government paying for the employees insurance.

 

[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,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

 

[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.

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?

It limits job mobility and many smaller employers are not able to offer healthcare. Maybe think about more than your own demographic a time or two. Other countries can do it, I'm pretty sure we can to eventually.

 

[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.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

 

[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.

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?

It limits job mobility and many smaller employers are not able to offer healthcare. Maybe think about more than your own demographic a time or two. Other countries can do it, I'm pretty sure we can to eventually.

why are you sticking your nose in other peoples business??

 

[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,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

 

[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.

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?

It limits job mobility and many smaller employers are not able to offer healthcare. Maybe think about more than your own demographic a time or two. Other countries can do it, I'm pretty sure we can to eventually.

why are you sticking your nose in other peoples business??

As an American citizen I think I get a pass on the reason and ability to comment on our nation's healthcare.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

democrats are moving too far left

republicans have gone too far right

i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days

we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

Republican Party Platform of 1956

 

[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?

It limits job mobility and many smaller employers are not able to offer healthcare. Maybe think about more than your own demographic a time or two. Other countries can do it, I'm pretty sure we can to eventually.

My employer is a company of less than 20 people asshole, why not think about others instead of yourself?

You are one closed minded bigot with nothing but insults for people that think and believe differently than you. If you want to discuss solutions or ideas that is fine, if all you are going to do is insult others I can play the same.

 

[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.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

 

[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.

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?

It limits job mobility and many smaller employers are not able to offer healthcare. Maybe think about more than your own demographic a time or two. Other countries can do it, I'm pretty sure we can to eventually.

why are you sticking your nose in other peoples business??

As an American citizen I think I get a pass on the reason and ability to comment on our nation's healthcare.

but not on people private lives,, that would be fascist and besides youre not commenting youre actively trying to control their private lives,,

 

[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.

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?

It limits job mobility and many smaller employers are not able to offer healthcare. Maybe think about more than your own demographic a time or two. Other countries can do it, I'm pretty sure we can to eventually.

My employer is a company of less than 20 people asshole, why not think about others instead of yourself?

And?

You are one closed minded bigot with nothing but insults for people that think and believe differently than you. If you want to discuss solutions or ideas that is fine, if all you are going to do is insult others I can play the same fucking game, dumb shit bigot.

Weird, not really sure where I hurt your feelings but not too concerned either.

 

[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,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

its getting that way with the more control dems and some repubes have,,,

I AM ANTIFA!!!

 

[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.

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,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

 

[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.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

its getting that way with the more control dems and some repubes have,,,

I AM ANTIFA!!!

You're going to hate the future then.

 

[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.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

 

[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,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

its getting that way with the more control dems and some repubes have,,,

I AM ANTIFA!!!

You're going to hate the future then.

its common that people hate facsist times,,,

 

[Papageorgio]

As long as insurance companies exist there will never be government healthcare, unless you guarantee insurance companies a cut of the pie. Insurance companies will always be as long as they pay politicians.

 

[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.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

its getting that way with the more control dems and some repubes have,,,

I AM ANTIFA!!!

You're going to hate the future then.

its common that people hate facsist times,,,

Maybe learn to spell it first, you've spelled it wrong 3 fucking times now.