It's an obscene war on so many levels.
Excuse me?
I AM aware.
You're not reading or understanding my comments.
OK.
I've explained all that.
2/
And multiple studies have shown it to be true including the first Yale study that I already posted.
I didn't choose the name.
It has some positives.
It expresses that, like Medicare, it's an entitlement that we all pay for.
Single Payer, Universal Healthcare would be another option but it's a cumbersome handle.
I think housing should be a right too.
But in these comments, I'll stick to medical care.
😊
Right.
The name isn't perfect.
I always have to disambiguate it somewhat from our current Medicare system.
What is your specific concern?
I think you're asking if Medicare for All will affect any aspect of Social Security.
It won't.
1/
Medicare for All does not affect Social Security.
It's funded through taxes. An average American family could save roughly $2,400 to over $3,000 annually under a Medicare for All system by eliminating private insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.
(See link)
It's not Medicare.
Everyone is covered from birth until death.
No co-pays for care, no deductibles.
It is not part of Social Security.
That's so weird.
Anyway, I tried to answer your question in the comments.
So, Medicare for All is not Medicare.
When the bill is passed, everyone of all ages is covered from cradle to grave.
No co-pays for care and no deductibles.
You couldn't put that in comments?
I'm talking about major corporations, not small businesses.
Can you share examples of large corporations that don't demonstrate such growth?
A LOT of us do.
Physicians for a National Health Program is one membership group.
But many practicing doctors with no group association also do.
pnhp.org
Not sure.
But a call for universal, single payer health care would be a great move by Dems both morally and electorally.
💯
It's also favored by most Americans.
At least 60% of Americans favor M4A.
navigatorresearch.org/three-in-fiv...
Medicare for All:
The only moral means to provide medical care.
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/h....
Let me be clear.
Yes, it's very negative about capitalism.
That's because unconstrained growth, beyond the sustainable is required to compete for market share.
It wasn't meant to say that conscientious use of our shares resources is bad.
A meeting of all four horsemen.
Energy independence you say?
He was in the thick of it!
Didn't Philadelphia have WW1 large Liberty Bond parades?
💯
There's gold in them thar pills.
Yeah.
Monitoring of so many toxic gases is sporadic and/or under-reported.
TRUMP'S EPA: AN ILL AIR
Ethylene Oxide exposure increases the risk of leukemia.
Roughly 2.3 million people live within two miles of facilities entering the gas in what are often low-income neighborhoods or communities of color.
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/13/c...
On the topic of the Iran war, which is what this comment is about, I've stated my suggestions.
On other issues, we must continue to protect targeted people, protest (including civil non-cooperation when possible), boycott, vote, educate, and relentlessly resist this Reich.
There's also the House Progressive Caucus and some other Senators like Markey to name a few.
