Kamala Harris Moves Out Amid Doug Emhoff Marriage Strain Rumors — Source

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

That stuff all sucks too.
But whatever Dem comes along had better focus on economic issues and have an understanding of macroeconomics. And not be Biden 2.0 on immigration.

+100
I can see the next Democrat deciding - just like Biden did - to undo all of Trump's border initiatives that have worked. It would be the height of stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve never seen him this happy ever

Looks like AI.

No it’s real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

What is natural age? Life expectancy is actually decreasing in the Us and so are births. We are a country on the decline.

[Anonymous]

Great the people love hearing about democrats wanting to let their elderly loved ones die without appropriate medical care…

What is wrong with you? Are you a human being?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala Harris reportedly moved out as rumors grow around her and Doug Emhoff‘s marriage being in jeopardy. The former vice president allegedly shifted into an $8.15 million pad in Malibu while planning another White House run. A new source claimed the move signaled campaign preparation and private strain and also tied the tension to her 2024 election loss. Moreover, they cited Emhoff’s campaign pressure and his reported wish for a quieter life.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/kamala-harris-moves-amid-doug-092213064.html

Wow.

This whole thread is gross.

And all the nasty threads about the Trump marriage? Are those gross too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

What is natural age? Life expectancy is actually decreasing in the Us and so are births. We are a country on the decline.

Natural death is about 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

What is natural age? Life expectancy is actually decreasing in the Us and so are births. We are a country on the decline.

Natural death is about 65.

Source and citation? Or are you just pulling statistics out of thin air?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

What is natural age? Life expectancy is actually decreasing in the Us and so are births. We are a country on the decline.

Natural death is about 65.

Democrats are really trying hard to alienate every normal person from their party; now we are all “naturally” supposed to die at age 65 (zero medical information required to make that claim, just some bs artist posting) and if we happen to not die naturally, we be euthanized by the government.

Notice that everyone in government is old as hell and definitely not going to voluntarily die, they will get a special dispensation and just regular American taxpayers will be put to sleep after their prime working years are over and they aren’t paying payroll taxes anymore.

Republicans suck, but I don’t see any republicans talking about killing Americans who live past age 65.

[Anonymous]

She shouldn’t run and embarrass herself. As for their private lives, i don’t care and I hope it works out for both of them whatever they decide. But she should save herself the embarrassment

[Anonymous]

The DNC won’t allow her to run-she spent a billion dollars and came up short. Won’t happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

What is natural age? Life expectancy is actually decreasing in the Us and so are births. We are a country on the decline.

Natural death is about 65.

Democrats are really trying hard to alienate every normal person from their party; now we are all “naturally” supposed to die at age 65 (zero medical information required to make that claim, just some bs artist posting) and if we happen to not die naturally, we be euthanized by the government.

Notice that everyone in government is old as hell and definitely not going to voluntarily die, they will get a special dispensation and just regular American taxpayers will be put to sleep after their prime working years are over and they aren’t paying payroll taxes anymore.

Republicans suck, but I don’t see any republicans talking about killing Americans who live past age 65.

There is a difference between treating a 65 year old who will likely go on to live another good 15-20 years, and prolonging the death of 90 year olds whose quality of life is already bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

How about preemies (some drug addicted) weighing less than 3 lbs. Talk about expensive, plus all the supports often needed as they grow.

Though odds may vary, any person can become disabled at any time, and we should help them. I’m not sure what you are getting at with the preemies.

The one thing that is inevitable for all of us is getting old and dying. That part needs to get cheaper.
If we want to keep our birth rate up, we need to make sure those preemies and every other child with disabilities get covered, otherwise what adult in their right mind would choose parenthood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

Someone's 12 yo has gotten into DCUM again.

I’m serious. Why do feel like we need to invest in prolonging life past natural age?

You could live longer than 50/60. That’s fine but not sure why it is in our national interests to expend money on those of us in our 50s/60s and beyond.

Why are NOT prolonging life. We are prolonging death in most cases. I’ve witnessed MANY seniors who seem more like Guinea pigs for medicine and they pay for the experience to health insurance and doctors. A couple years ago, a 96yo friend with dementia had hip replacement that the doctors told the family would probably kill her. Guess what? To no one’s surprise, she died three weeks after surgery.

A former neighbor, 60, has dementia. It is horrible for her and her family. Is it fair to anyone to have to keep her going as she gets older and her situation gets worse?

Be proactive . Create a living will. Choose your healthcare POA wisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If one thing is clear, it seems we are hurtling towards another Republican win because Dems have no platform other than buying votes with handouts.
Voters are done with Trumpism, but he will be gone soon enough. Hard to imagine someone like Rubio hosting UFC at the White House, and that’s a good thing.

Buying votes with handouts? Sure you mean corporate welfare, including tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies making billions? Right pal?

Right? It's payouts for me but not for thee. Since when does providing health care for those who are employed but not receiving that benefit a handout? It's what countries do to keep people in the work force.

Problem is no one has faith in our government ever delivering Single Payer that doesn’t suck or eat up 30% of our GDP.
Until then, there needs to be some sort of consumer driven part of it.
As it is right now, all plans are basically forced to be yachts, and we cannot afford as a country for everyone to have a yacht.
Give everyone a dinghy first, no questions asked, no work requirements. Bigger better boats for those with true disabilities, no questions asked.

But for everything else, for example extremely expensive cancer treatments that marginally prolong life, let that be up to consumers and the markets. No more tax breaks or subsidies that inflate prices.
No more employer provided insurance.

It’s easy to ask for inifinite treatments if other people are paying for it. But what if it was our own children who would have to pay for it? What choices might we make then?

You're joking right? Our tax dollars pay for any number of EXPENSIVE things -pointless war in Iran, anyone?- that don't benefit anyone, that eat up our budget, etc. Everyone should have free healthcare - period. For whatever. THe one concession I'd make -and it is in other countries with socialized medicine like Italy (was just there talking to people about it) is there can be a role for private insurers in some situations that are costly- that sort of thing.

Also, you're dealing with people's lives here. It is not a commodity. We need to stop treating as such. And while not an issue for me personally, some people's morality/religion promote or dictate or encourage prolonging life. My Catholic grandparents wanted every, single thing done to prolong life. You're going to have exceptions under the law to accommodate that and that will open a huge chasm. So you won't be able to eliminate the things you identify.

“Free” healthcare that covers everything at any cost results in pretty much infinite demand and infinite cost. We already have healthcare costs dragging us down collectively and that’s with some people not even being able to access care. At some point, in order for everyone to have access to basic care, choices have to be made.
I for one do not want any kind of life, whatever it takes, at any cost. That would be extremely selfish.

Cancer treatment for a 30yo with children? Maybe. Cancer treatment for someone over 60 or 70? Absolutely not. I’m in the latter category. It would be selfish to take resources from young people for older people.

Over 75? I'll agree with you. 60 is still relatively young in today's world.

Sorry, but I really mean 60, I could even be talked into 50. Why should we be foot the bill for anyone let alone people 60 give or take 10. None of us are special. Housing would free up. Jobs could free up but AI puts a bit of a wrench in things. Rich seniors would stop polluting the air with their leisure travel.

You first.

Gladly. I’ve already stepped back and I’m in the age group already. Now you. Or are you a politician who creates policies for people but don’t have to participate in the programs you push.

I don’t have millions and will likely leave social security behind too.

How about you? I’m guessing not. I’ll bet you consider yourself a liberal too. The truth is that you’re probably arent a liberal or a progressive when it comes to walking the talk.

F you, you aren’t a liberal.