sit on it's hands and do nothing?
No way.

Would it be easy to rescue them?
Probably not. In fact, it might be very difficult and cost a lot of money and very sadly, wonderful American military lives. But I know, as sure as the sun rises, America would fight it's heart out to save every last one of those fellow Americans.

America lost around 3,100 Americans to terrorism on it's soil between 2001 and 2015.

Currently, about 30 million Americans don't have healthcare coverage. Roughly 0.1% of them or 30,000 are going to die in 2016 because they don't have healthcare coverage. That's a fact:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Here's a good estimation of how many folks died each year since 9/11 because they didn't have healthcare coverage:
2001 41,200
2002 43,600
2003 45,000
2004 45,800
2005 46,600
2006 47,000
2007 45,700
2008 46,300
2009 49,000
2010 49,900
2011 48,600
2012 48,000
2013 42,000
2014 33,000
2015 33,000
==========================================================
Roughly 664,700 Americans have died since 9/11 because they didn't have healthcare coverage.
That works out to 44,313 Americans dying per year on average.

That's a lot more Americans dying than the 3,100 Americans lost on it's soil to terrorism since 2001.

Americans spent trillions to avenge 3,100 lost to terrorism but there's a lot Americans and politicians who wouldn't chip in a dime to save the lives of 664,700 Americans lost to a lack of healthcare coverage. That fact astounds me.

On a side note, nobody talks about jobs related to this. Single payer substantially reduces healthcare costs. That means that after implementing it, Americans will not be as expensive to employ. Americans will take home more pay but the overall cost to do an hour of work will trend towards less over time - attracting employment because Americans improved their cost effectiveness. The only real loser is the health insurance industry.

Obamacare only solved part of the problem saving about 15,000 to 18,000 or so lives per year. It didn't solve the problem for the 30,000 others who will die in 2016 and each year after because they didn't have healthcare coverage.

Getting single payer (or even universal) is really hard - probably as hard as fighting ISIS. Politically, it's even harder than fighting ISIS because politically, America loves going to war to kill it's enemies.

ISIS sympathizers killed 14 in California not long ago. Media coverage was non stop and the country was outraged and collectively wounded by the tragedy as they should. That was minor compared to the media coverage on 9/11 when we lost 3063. But for 15 years, by comparison, we've been collectively pretty silent on the 664,700 lost since 9/11 and the 30,000 that won't be with us by the end of this year because they didn't have healthcare coverage.

To have this going on for so long, it seems over the top for me to say it but it strikes me like political genocide. Because we don't get to see these 664,700 people without healthcare die on the evening news, we kind of overlooked the 664,700 Americans who died on our watch since 9/11. I guess they don't seem to matter as much or something. Somehow jumping out of the burning World Trade center is more meaningful than quietly dying in an alley somewhere. I don't understand why. This haunts me. Both deaths are equally tragic. It really bothers me to the extent, I'm for the first time repeating a post, trying to refine a message that will get through.

Maybe some of it is our fear of terrorists. We don't want that stuff happening to us so yeah, let the US military might take care of them. Those who have healthcare coverage do not have to fear dying because they don't have healthcare coverage. I guess selfishly, those folks don't have to worry about the others who will die without healthcare coverage. I have healthcare coverage. But I simply cannot be one of those who can look the other way - like Hillary.

A lot of us are very, very thankful to the members of the military who did their duty by fighting terrorists to keep Americans safe and in doing so, won our everlasting respect and eternal gratitude for their courage and in some cases their ultimate sacrifice. As citizens, like the members of our military, I think we also have a civic duty to look after each other. I do not see why that duty does not extend to fighting to see the end of Americans dying without healthcare. Heavy odds are, you knew some of the 664,700 who died without healthcare. And maybe you'll know some of the 30,000 who are going to die this year or in future years.

Even though it's very tough, Bernie is willing to fight for all 30,000 who are going to die this year because they do not have healthcare coverage. And Hillary isn't - she's going for the easier 'save a few thousand while the rest die because it's too hard for me and the country to save all of them'. Under the life and death circumstances, which Hillary has to be acquainted with, I think that's astounding bullshit - a dereliction of duty. We owe it to our fellow citizens to try to save their lives.

Why do we get so upset about the 14 in California lost to terrorism and not the 664,700 lost to a lack of healthcare? Why is that so hard for Americans to figure out? WHY!!! Because it's not on the news? Maybe civic duty is protesting to get it on the news. Or getting behind Bernie. Or rallying others to get out and vote. The one thing I'm sure of is that we have not done enough collectively and I think that is a national disgrace.

I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record on this as I've chatted some about the above in prior posts. It upsets me. It just doesn't make any sense. I'll never ever understand it or accept it. Please look into your hearts, help however you can and elect people who will solve this.

Thanks for reading.

No way.

Would it be easy to rescue them? Probably not. In fact, it might be very difficult and cost a lot of money and wonderful American military lives. But I know, as sure as the sun rises, America would fight it's heart out to save those fellow Americans.

30 million Americans don't have healthcare coverage. 0.1% of them or 30,000 are going to die in 2016 because of that. Getting single payer is really hard - probably as hard as fighting ISIS. Politically, it's even harder than fighting ISIS.

ISIS sympathizers killed 14 in California. Media and the country got bent out of shape as they should. But we're collectively pretty silent on the 30,000 that won't be with us next year.

To have this going on for so long, it seems over the top for me to say it but it strikes me like political genocide. Because we don't get to see these people die on the evening news, they don't seem to matter as much. But it bothers me.

Even though it's very tough, Bernie is willing to fight for all 30,000 who are going to die this year because they do not have healthcare coverage. And Hillary isn't - she's going for the easier "save a few thousand while the rest die because it's too hard for me".

Why do we get so upset about the 14 and not the 30,000? WHY!!!

I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record on this. It upsets me. It just doesn't make any sense. I'll never understand it or accept it.

Doesn't anyone recall her hammering Obama's healthcare efforts during the 2008 election? "Shame on you Barack Obama" for criticizing her plan. And now it's fine to criticize Bernie's single payer, while she loves Obama's healthcare so much she wants to expand on it? (and let the .1% of Americans without healthcare who miss out on that expansion die - it is a tough climb to single payer but at least Bernie's going to fight for them)

In 2008, she was Annie Oakley on guns. Now?

I could go on and on.

I swear that if you presented a black automobile tire to Hillary, she could argue relentlessly that it was really white all along if doing so would get her any more votes.

That BS is such a turnoff to me, she's not much better than the GOP.

The more this campaign has gone on, the more confident I've become in Bernie Sanders and my confidence in Hillary Clinton has fallen along with that.

0.1% of that 30 million = 30,000 Americans, according to Harvard's study, die each year because they don't have health care.

45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/


Because Hillary thinks solving that would be hard, even if she improves healthcare, she's accepted that thousands of Americans must continue to die each year because they don't have healthcare coverage. Bernie disagrees and wants deaths due to lack of healthcare coverage to stop happening in America.

This is a life and death issue. In 2016, the United States will quietly endure the deaths of ten times the number of Americans we lost on 9/11. Now the GOP were hot to spend trillions to avenge those 3,000 on 9/11 but they won't spend a dime to avenge the 30,000 dying each year because they do not have healthcare coverage.

It blows my mind. I just cannot understand how these folks could let 30,000 Americans die year after year.

Hillary's direction doesn't fully address it. And she should be called out for it.

I don't know why Bernie doesn't hit folks up with those facts.

TIME
http://time.com/4183949/democratic-debate-fourth-charleston-poll-survey/
Sanders 87% Clinton 10% O'Malley 3%

in Dec Sanders 84% Clinton 13% O'Malley 3%
in Nov Sanders 81% Clinton 14% O'Malley 5%

heavy.com
http://heavy.com/news/2016/01/poll-who-won-the-democratic-debate/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeavyTV+%28Heavy.com+%C2%BB+TV%29
Sanders 90% Clinton 8% O'Malley 2%

syracuse.com
http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/poll_who_won_sundays_democratic_2016_presidential_debate.html
Sanders 95% Clinton 4% O'Malley 2%

Nov Sanders 92% Clinton 5% O'Malley 3%

nj.com
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/poll_who_do_you_think_will_win_the_democratic_pres_1.html
Sanders 91% Clinton 6% O'Malley 2%

politicalpeopleblog.com
http://www.politicalpeopleblog.com/poll-who-is-winning-the-nbc-news-democratic-debate/
Sanders 93% Clinton 6% O'Malley 2%

newsok.com
http://newsok.com/article/5472783?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NIC-Twitter
Sanders 68% Clinton 20% O'Malley 11%

Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/who_won_the_democratic_presidential_debate_vote_in_our_poll.html
Sanders 82% Clinton 14% O'Malley 3%

Dec Sanders 81% Clinton 13% O'Malley 3%
Nov Sanders 80% Clinton 14% O'Malley 3%

Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2016/jan/17/who-won-democratic-debate-sunday-night/
Sanders 55% Clinton 7% O'Malley 2% Trump 19% GOP 19%

Dec Sanders 87% Clinton 7% O'Malley 1%
Nov Sanders 95% Clinton 4% O'Malley 3%

FOX
http://fox5sandiego.com/2016/01/17/poll-who-won-the-4th-democratic-debate/
Sanders 94% Clinton 4% O'Malley 2

Dec Sanders 92% Clinton 7% O'Malley 2%
Nov Sanders 94% Clinton 9% O'Malley 3%

CSPAN
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN?_rdr=p
Sanders 72% Clinton 23% O'Malley 6%

Nov Sanders 80% Clinton 16% O'Malley 4%

I realize the above are online and not scientific but many of the above do not allow more than one vote per IP address.

Rechecked at 12:16am.

Dec Polls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251926577#post8

Nov polls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251810199#post43

expecting to "to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates" then she's proven she really hasn't got a friggin' clue and should resign immediately.

Fact is the co-chair of the Clinton campaign is just doing what her candidate did this week and for much of her political career: lying.

Her candidate had a big lead and the schedule was to minimize anyone seeing a debate that could cut into that big lead. Sanders wasn't well known and co-Clinton campaign chair Debbie wants to keep it that way (which is why you need to be wary of the national polls).

the last few days have convinced me that Bernie would be the better president.

Bernie has a real rudder. He know what he believes and why. He's consistent. He can be honest about it and has been. He can compromise to get things done, etc. He's got wisdom based upon common sense. He's a solid, decent, principled human being truly interested in helping Americans more than taking money from special interests and lusting for power like Hillary.

The last few days remind me of the difference between Obama and McCain when McCain suspended his campaign while Obama stayed calm and cool. During the 2008 primary, Obama stayed calm and cool under pressure while Hillary and her campaign flew off the handle. In 2016, we're seeing more of the same: quick, thoughtless reactions to developments or circumstances instead of calm, cool and carefully considered leadership. That's a disturbing pattern from Hillary over a long span of years.

Recently, once again, like the bogus "shame on you Barack Obama" Hillary claim of 2008, we've seen Hillary and her campaign lash out, get dishonest and mean. That's not a good trait for someone who would be walking around with launch codes (not that she's certain to use them but she's looking more likely than Bernie).

And we've seen the result of "no drama Obama" compared to past administrations. We have not been overwhelmed by scandals in the administration with the biggest being ... Hillary.

How Hillary has run her last two national campaigns is indicative of how she'll lead the country - just like we saw with the Obama campaigns and how he ran his administration. I question her ability to do the job well because she is reactive, like McCain doesn't think things through and will quickly resort to dishonesty like she did this week and has done her whole career. She's not locked down in her beliefs - she'll opportunistically flip-flop like McCain to whatever way might get her more votes. Her primary principle seems to be to get power.

I'm more positive than ever before that Bernie will make a much better president than Hillary. I have absolutely no doubt about it now.

Win or lose, I think I'll always have the utmost respect for Bernie Sanders. He gave a lot of good people in America really good things to hope for based upon honesty, decency, fairness, respect for his dishonest opponent and a plausible path to get them. That's really good leadership.

my thoughts since yesterday.

There's a lot about what happened in 2008 that feels similar today except that "shame on you" came after 2/3rds of the primary was already over and Obama had it pretty much locked up.

Clearly, something is up and Clinton is desperately trying to stop the bleeding.

... he's better!!

(not serious - I'm very fond of both of them)

I'm just a little giddy with the Berns from the apparent implosion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511005890

after all of her experience in that area since Hillarycare ...

Then she should withdraw because she clearly isn't up to doing the job she's running for.