flyguy8650 - You got the scenario all weighed up... I'd say vote against establishment!

DHBranski - After WW2 there was a pull from politicians to elevate all upward in effort to achieve the American Dream... then what was fought against in that war was quickly forgotten and about 1980 Reagan unwittingly embraced Facism fed to him by economists and corporate greed interests of the period... along with that inhuman Ayn Rand... the trick (le) down economic BS theory

No. It might look better for the middle class, but that's all. The US continues to deny the reality that not everyone is able to work, and there aren't jobs for all. Thus country shut down/shipped out a massive number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. We're 20 years deep into one hell of a war on the poor that has taken a heavy toll, but as long as we all ignore it, no problem. The overall quality of life in the US has gone from being rated at #1 when Reagan was first elected -- far from perfect, but much better -- down to #48 by the time Obama was elected. But this issue simply doesn't resonate with today's middle class, so never mind.

The More Democrats that win the election the better off the chances of putting the US back on top where it belongs.
All the more reason for reforming election laws to accurately reflect the will of the majority of US citizens.

Although the information would be unclassified, it's possible that Comey's letter could have been restricted as "law enforcement sensitive". Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) is a designation of information in the United States federal government that, though unclassified, often requires strict controls over its distribution. SBU is a broad category of information that includes material covered by such designations as For Official Use Only (FOUO), Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES), Sensitive Homeland Security Information, Sensitive Security Information (SSI), Critical Infrastructure Information (CII), etc.

At the end of Bill Maher this week they finally went beyond insurance companies, and talked about doctors, hospitals, medical schools and phrama. Insurance companies just pass the money along and take a cut (Obamacare reduced that cut and should reduce it even more). But 3/4 of the problem is the medical profession has been overcharging for decades.

Healthcare is a four headed beast (insurance, doctors, hospitals and phrama). Obamacare only went after one head of the beast. The reason Medicare works is because they also control the price doctors, hospitals and phrama can charge.

I think it would be a good start

I do not understand all this prevarication and pedantic plonking around with semantics etc

What the US needs is a National Health program... period!

In accord with its status as the largest economy on the planet

Public Option is probably the best short term solution. Medicare-for-all is the best long term solution.

Republicans want everything to be privatized so they can make profit, even from people's suffering. That's unconscionable and sociopathic, maybe even psychopathic.

In Europe people may pay more taxes for health care than people in the U.S., but people in the U.S. pay way more out-of-pocket thus paying way more for health care than Europeans pay. And the U.S. is ranked 37th among nations in terms of the actual health care provided. So Americans pay more and get less.

The U.S. health care and health insurance system is as sick as the millions of Americans who have life threatening chronic illnesses.

We need single payer health care to heal the health care system.

And we need to get Americans off the standard American diet and get them to start eating a whole food plant based diet to heal Americans of all these chronic illnesses.

Watch a youtube video by Dr. Milton Mills in which he exhaustively goes through anatomy and physiology comparing carnivores with herbivores and shows conclusively that humans are herbivores. Thus, humans should be eating a plant based diet, not meat and dairy.

While Obama care is going up, nobody is mentioning that employer rates are going up even more! We have a health care cost problem that has gotten buried in the political posturing. Single payer is a possible solution but I think it's time to go lots deeper than talking points.

I have taught political economy for nearly four decades. Yet, what constitutes the most cost-efficient yet compassionate means of delivering health care eludes me. On moral grounds, it seems unacceptable that medical care should be a for-profit industry. Access to decent, affordable medical care ought to be a fundamental right as a member of a caring society. Society, then, should enable individuals to become doctors or nurses or other medical specialists without having to incur huge amounts of debt. Compensation could then be scaled based on where the need was greatest.

And, of course there have to be conditions and rules established for eligibility under a single-payer program. For example, if I was a physician I don't think I would accept a person as a patient who displays a flagrant disregard for his or her own health by engaging in risky behaviors. But, where to draw the line? Under what conditions should society stop providing medical care to the individual who is determined to be beyond recovery?

What then ought society do when the biological parents fail to provide a positive nurturing environment for the children they bring into the world. Is childhood obesity a sufficient cause to remove a child from the home because the parents are not providing nutrious food to eat?

What we have now does not work very well. We still have not reached consensus on where individual responsibility begins and ends and where societal responsibility begins and ends.

The Law was designed as a framework for Democrats and Republicans to build. As everyone knows, the Repugs, immediately turned their backs on the American people, thus it is declining, because of them.

As usual, the Repugs always turn their backs on America.