Chip Bok by Chip Bok

Chip Bok

Comments (35) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. eepatt

    eepatt said, 12 months ago

    Death panels have been here for a long time. They are the lowly insurance company employees following their employers’ order to maximize insurance company profits by denying you health care that you thought you had paid for. The ACA does NOT have death panels.
    You probably think Sara Palin is an intellectual, too.

  2. 282Mikado

    282Mikado said, 12 months ago

    @eepatt

    Who needs death panels when you have Harry Reid?

    CNN reporter Bash (Oct. 2, 2013): But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

    Harry Reid: Why would we want to do that?

  3. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 12 months ago

    “next time you vote, do some research…”

    That would be good advice to the Republican party. If they continue to run clueless candidates like Mitt Romney, or any number of people who are certain about everything but know nothing, like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, they are doomed to continued losses. If Republicans want to defeat Democrats, they’d better find a more qualified group of candidates. Not everyone feels that military spending is more important than……anything. Not everyone thinks that the most important priority is to take rights away from gay people, or to turn the US into a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

    Many voters, like myself, are tired of the crap coming from the Democratic party, but find that the alternatives coming from the Republican camp are even worse. We’re waiting, but we’re smart enough not to hold our collective breath.

  4. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, 12 months ago

    Talk about zombie brain-eating monsters, the privatized ‘system’ we had before Obamacare insured that the UNinsured were forced to use the Emergency Room, the very EXPENSIVE Emergency Room, while the costs were passed along to the rest of us. Zombies are returning from the grave all right, setting up ‘death panel’s all right; they’re part of the conservative “plan” for ‘health’ care.

  5. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, 12 months ago

    Only 50 more days (Dec 15) to sign up for insurance Jan 1.
    Or until March if you are not in a hurry.

  6. efells

    efells GoComics PRO Member said, 12 months ago

    @russell5419

    You have absolutely no idea what health insurance on the individual market costs or covers. Although the prices on the exchanges may seem shocking to someone who has either their employer or the government picking up the premium, the prices on the exchanges in many cases are far lower than the prices on the open market. Talk about not doing research….

  7. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, 12 months ago

    Yeah, you can keep your plan (sometimes), but the rates will shoot up horrendously. This whole debacle has got to be one of the most ill-conceived, idiotic moves by the federal government in a long time.

  8. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, 12 months ago

    @russell5419

    “Obama has to be getting some kick backs from this.”

    Obama had very little to do with this. It was rammed down his throat exactly as it has been rammed down yours, by the GOP, because Romney and the insurers wrote most of it for Massachusetts.

    It would be more accurate to call it RomneyCare. Another case of the GOP refusing to own their own problem child.

    Quite right it doesn’t fix anything for anybody but the insurers – in fact, what it really does is preserve the status quo.

    Preserving the status quo is the GOP’s job. The Dems are charged with other tasks.

  9. 282Mikado

    282Mikado said, 12 months ago

    @efells

    Here is some factual research for you.

    Because of the cost of Obamacare to my company they had to change providers. Now I work for a pretty decent company that pays for 80% of our healthcare coverage. Going into Obamacare they are continuing to pay 80%, but because the plans are much more expensive they had to alter what is offered and by whom. Not to mention, had they kept us in our existing plan, the cost of which also went up, they would not only have had to pay extra for that coverage (as would we the employees) but they would have also been saddled with the 40% Cadillac tax that Obamacare mandates for those that offer premium coverage (the gov’t seems to feel the need to punish those that desire better plans).

    Because of all this and in spite of what Obama “promised”:

    1.I had to change doctors.
    2.My premiums went up 61%.
    3.My previous plan had no deductible, I now have a $1,000 deductible.
    4.All my co-pays went up. ER co-pays went from $100 to $300.
    5.Prescriptions, which were previously covered, now require an additional policy at a cost of $72/month.
    6.My taxes are also going up to support this garbage.

    In New York State where I live, to get a similar plan of coverage under YOUR wonderful Obamacare exchanges I would have to fork out $1,228.31 a month. $1,228.31 per month is almost $200 more than the coverage I had before Obamacare. Just so I can have significantly worse coverage than before Obamacare.

    I agree something had to be done to improve the cost of healthcare, but Obamacare was not the right solution. It was rammed through Congress with no one getting an opportunity to assess the absolute merits or faults. Statements like Pelosi’s “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” exemplify the rash manner in which this was handled. This was a Democrat power grab plain and simple and the American people will suffer for it.

  10. l84lnup

    l84lnup said, 12 months ago

    i love the comic it right on and very funny. of course for humor to work it must have a large portion of truth.

  11. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, 12 months ago

    The quote from President Obama in the top right is problematic because effectively you CAN’T if the insurance does not meet the minimum standards. But – if taken apart very carefully – it is NOT an outright lie, because the law doesn’t force YOU to quit your insurance, it forces the insurance company to update or cancel their plan.

    -

    It would have been easy to meet the minimum requirements, the decision to dump the plans instead is part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” (as Hillary called it back in the 90s) that has been going on in the health-care sector since Nixon got the whole thing started…

  12. Stipple

    Stipple said, 12 months ago

    40 years of paying premiums and one year after contracting cancer the policy was cancelled.
    .
    I use the emergency room as I have no more assets to sell.
    The nuclear stress test combined with the contrast cat scan cost taxpayers over $7000 dollars only two weeks ago.
    .
    When Obamacare kicks in it will cost the taxpayer about $2000 per year to subsidize me.
    .
    If you hate taxes this is the way to go and single payer would be even less expensive.
    Ignorance is not cheap.

  13. Snoopy_Fan

    Snoopy_Fan said, 12 months ago

    @I Play One On TV

    I agree with you regarding the Republican Party’s recent choices of candidates. But I know of few Republicans who believe that military spending is more important than anything. Rather, most believe that the military is one of a few things that government should spend money on. Government has gotten too big. As Ronald Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to the problem; government IS the problem.” As for “taking away rights from the gay people,” gay people have NEVER had the right to marry other gays. They have the same fundamental rights as everyone else, including the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, if marriage is so important to them. The Founding Fathers were clear that our rights come from God, NOT from government. The government who is seen as the “source” of rights can just as easily take the rights away. Besides, marriage is not a “right.” It is a contract, like a driver’s license, and the government has the right and responsibility to set criteria for acquiring the license. Marriage is not fundamentally about “who you love.” Even if it were, there are inappropriate “sexual/love” relationships, including incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. Just because a married woman “loves” a man other than her husband doesn’t make the adulterous affair right. Throughout much of history, love has been secondary to this one constant across cultures: the POTENTIAL to carry on the species. The heterosexual relationship is UNIQUE in that it is the ONLY relationship that has the POTENTIAL to carry on the species and propagate a society and its values. Gays can have sex, yes, but that does not equate to the heterosexual couples’ potential to reproduce.


    Finally, I know of NO ONE who wishes to turn the United States into ANY kind of theocracy. Just because a majority want to return to our Founding values (which included Christian morality) does not mean that they want anything to do with a Church/State government as has been proven to fail in the past. Most Christians know that combining Church and State hurts BOTH. But a country without fundamental morality will not remain free for long. Since the government does not dictate each person’s individual morality, it relies on the people and their religion to refrain them from wrong actions.


    “…we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    —John Adams, 1798


    “A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.”
    -

    -Thomas Jefferson

  14. Donald Williams

    Donald Williams said, 12 months ago

    @282Mikado

    CNN reporter Bash (Oct. 2, 2013): But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?
    Harry Reid: Why would we want to do that?

    .
    When statements are taken out of context, they can be distorted to misrepresent what was actually said. Below is a link to the actual interview, and viewers can determine for themselves what was said and what was meant.
    ,
    In my honest opinion, Harry Reid was contrasting the “pick and choose” mentality of the GOP and actually supporting the idea that BOTH the child with cancer and those others who need health care should be covered.
    .
    Immediately before this quote, he had said: “So they have no right to pick and choose.” Schumer had interjected: “Why pit one against the other?”
    .
    Thus, Reid’s comment has been taken out of context and distorted to suggest that he is unsympathetic to children with cancer. That whole concept is dishonest.
    .
    Judge for yourself:
    video

    transcript

  15. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 12 months ago

    @Snoopy_Fan

    Thank you for your reasoned reply. We see similar things differently. For example, the often-used Reagan quote about government being the problem: clever. The only nits left to pick are what to do about that problem. It appears that there are a lot of politicians (mostly Republicans) who hate government but still can’t wait to become part of it, and don’t ever want to leave it once they get there, like my current “representative” who is serving in his twenty-first year after promising not to stay any longer than six terms. I will agree that shrinking government is a great idea. I don’t like the idea of continuing to fund more and more military while our roads, bridges, power grid, internet connectivity, growing sick and elderly populations, etc., take a back seat. And it appears that there is no military project that Republicans don’t want. This is not to say that Dems don’t support waste and bloat in the Pentagon, but they are not as willing to spend on the Pentagon to the exclusion of everything else.

    Whenever I hear about cuts, I hear about cuts to entitlements. I almost never hear about cuts in defense. And you can’t tell me that the military does not have significant waste that can be reduced without harming our readiness.

    As regards gay marriage: I could give a rat’s patootie, myself, regarding the “marriage” part. However, couples who love one another should be allowed to have survivorship and even hospital visiting rights that heterosexual spouses have. If a couple has been together for 30 years, and one member has a medical malady that calls for a family member to have to decide on life-or-death issues, does it matter if the partner is straight or gay?

    In my state of Virginia, we passed a constitutional amendment……not just a statute, mind you….specifically not recognizing gay marriage, civil union, or any other similar legal contract, regardless if those contracts are legal in their state of origin.

    Guess which party brought that legislation through. To me, this is intentional discrimination. To compare a committed loving couple to man-boy love or women marrying snakes is absurd, and to assert that accepting it is the first step into bestiality, pedophilia, etc., is just bogey-man stuff. Sorry. The fact that I am a social liberal does not mean that I accept sexual relationships where one or more do not consent. Please do not assume that most liberals do.

    Regarding the separation of church and state: although I would very much like to believe that the average Republican thinks that combining church and state harms both, I just haven’t seen it. I have lived in many parts of Virginia, and I can tell you that many people here believe God is an Ameirican, and that Jesus is a Republican. And that, because they know what God and Jesus want, they have the obligation to
    “dictate each person’s individual’s morality”, as you so aptly put it.

    The Republican candidate for Lt. Governor in Virginia has gone on record as calling the Democrats “the Anti-God party”. A lot of religious Democrats don’t really appreciate that. The Republican running for governor believes that oral sex between two consenting married adults should be illegal, and unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court (as Attorney General) to restore Virginia’s unconstitutional sodomy law.

    He also told a state board that is responsible for interpreting state law regarding abortion clinics that if they did not interpret his way, he would not be able to defend them if they were sued in connection with their decisions; a clear indication that his personal values system was more important than his sworn duties as Attorney General.

    A few years back, another Republican attorney general was required to defend a state-supported university that had been sued by a former student who had once asked to have his publication funded by the school, and was turned down. He was obligated by law to defend the university, but because this publication was religion-based, he signed on as a friend-of-the-court for the plaintiff. In other words, he represented both sides of the case; one because of his job, and one because of his personal beliefs. Surprise: the university (and we taxpayers) lost the suit.

    Although I agree with most of what you say, and although I often agree with what many Republicans say, I rarely agree with what they do. And the fact that the two don’t match so very often is the reason I cannot support most members of the party. When they do, I will.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (20).