Comments (40) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   NebulousRikulau said, 3 months ago

   And Wall Street Tycoons are obviously more caring than the politician bent on reelection.

2. 

   wolfhoundblues1 said, 3 months ago

   Is there a “lesser of two evils here”?

3. 

   Corosive Frog said, 3 months ago

   This toon is spot on.

4. 

   Kingoswald said, 3 months ago

   Hey, bud, stop trying to put facts in the way of our argument. That’s Unamerican! Need to bring my gun along next time I argue with you …

5. 

   xlcustom said, 3 months ago

   Insurance is a HUGE scam. The government and the insurance industry both need major overhauling. The government isn’t for the people by the people anymore. Insurance premiums make sure that the people don’t have more money than they need. FREE THE PEOPLE NOW!!!!!

6. 

   xlcustom said, 3 months ago

   OH! And by the way, I really don’t appreciate the insurance industry (with no medical training) telling me what treatments I need.

7. 

   BOB HASTY said, 3 months ago

   ANandy hasn’t read my testimony in favor of everyone having Medicare. With my Medicare there is no COMMITTEE between me and any doctor I want to see. Medicare pays all bills from health care providers. The private health insurer industry really proved that they would rather I die so that they would not have to pay for the care my genetic disease required.
   ANandy has to be from the private Health Care monopoly. ANandy keeps repeating lies. This proves that most people believe the loudest lie is the greatest “Truth.”

8. 

   Gary Kleppe said, 3 months ago

   Gotta disagree with you, BH. If the insurance racketeers wanted to send a paid flak here, they’ve enough money to afford somebody with some basic competence.

9. 

   harleyquinn said, 3 months ago

   An insurance company has to keep you alive to collect it’s premiums. The government can just collect a death tax and tax the next healthy person.

10. 

    harleyquinn said, 3 months ago

    xl that is not the insurance telling you what you what treatments you can and can not pay for. that is the feds making sure you are covered for everything. Please, if you are a 39 year old man go out and try to find a insurance company that will sell you a policy with out a pregnancy rider.

11. 

    lalas said, 3 months ago

    There are some Wall St profiteers between you and your Dr as well.

12. 

    harleyquinn said, 3 months ago

    Oh no lalas, someone can make a profit! Better call the fishy line and report that.

13. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    INanity said: “Bob Hasty desires the Medicare entitlement to be extended to the entire population. Good thinking Bob Hasty.”

    DrCanuck responds: Good thinking, indeed. Health care is a RIGHT to which all citizens are entitled in all other western democracies, just like freedom of speech and religion. Why does the US have fewer rights than other countries?

14. 

    harleyquinn said, 3 months ago

    “Health care is a RIGHT to which all citizens”
    Really???? where??? How?????
    Where is it written that if you go into “health care” that you are a ward of the state? Where is it written that if you dare become a doctor or nurse that your time and talents are not your own. Someone else has a RIGHT to that time and talent and it should be the governments job to make sure you get it. The government has to make sure it is fair..

15. 

    HUMPHRIES said, 3 months ago

    Bob Hastey, read ANandy’s fantisy about health care at Dick Locker. PS - hq when do you plan on joining the 21st centry?

16. 

    Corosive Frog said, 3 months ago

    Sooky Rottweiler says;

    Anybody said anything about vet care reform, we need that, too!

17. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    harleyquinn, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says in no uncertain terms that medical care is an inalienable human right.

    And no doctor or nurse would become a “ward of the state” under any legislation before Congress. This is a fact. Medical professionals would continue to receive payment for their services by insurance companies as well as by government insurance entities.

    This posting is entirely based in fact, so I completely expect harleyquinn to disregard it in favor of all sorts of fanciful tales and accusations that I have here done nothing more than chant “hope and change”.

18. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    @tpenna

    Just for curiosity, in your philosophy does the UDOHR outweigh our Bill of Rights? If there is a conflict between the two would you surrender the Bill of Rights?

19. 

    believecommonsense said, 3 months ago

    this is a good toon, and quite accurate … many people have experienced exactly this situation … including my sister whose insurance denied a procedure her doctor said she needed, and one month later she had a stroke, which was what the procedure would have prevented.

    (written about it before, sorry, for the repeat, but this is exactly what this toon is about)

20. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    GNWachs, I appreciate the question, but I believe it to be a false bifurcation. Both documents stand for freedom and dignity, and I find no inherent conflict between them.

21. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    harleyquinn said: “Health care is a RIGHT to which all citizens”
    Really???? where??? How?????”

    DrCanuck responds: I told you. In all western democracies, and many other countries as well. Pay attention.

22. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    I don’t believe I have ever defended GN nor ever questioned tpenna on these pages before, so two firsts here.

    GN is playing my game here and tpenna is dodging it. We all agree there are few conflicts between the two. But the question was “IF there is a conflict, WHICH takes precedence”?

    Good question; I’d love to hear several answers to this one.

23. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    I appreciate your candor, DrCanuck, but I insist that to artificially pit one declaration of rights against another is a false bifurcation.

    I see no need to discard one in favor of the other.

24. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    @tpenna: You have brought up, maybe inadvertantly, a thread of questions posed to Sotomayor. Should our Supreme Court consider other countries views in reaching their decisions? Or should just our Constitution and body of laws prevail. Wishing to get seated Sotomayor brilliantly answered in favor of our Constitution.

    Apparently you believe we should consider what other countries do when we act. Perfectly legitimate view, tending to be on the side of the liberals.

    If you really wish to know why we come from where we do carefully read the Bill of Rights 10th Amendment. I apologize for my ignorance about Canada and don’t know if that is present in theirs.

25. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    This actually skips topics, GNWachs, and I appreciate you pointing that out. That said, I really need to detach from this website soon and take care of my actual work.

    I am quite familiar with the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, as well as the federalist arguments that undergird it. As long as we are looking at the Constitution, however, we might do well to look at Article I, Section 8’s “General Welfare Clause” which provides federal authority for such programs as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. A proposed “public option” would fit quite nicely under the clause, as well.

    A right to medical care (even if guaranteed at the federal level) does not violate the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

26. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    And thank you, GNWachs, for not spewing bile about “death panels” and euthanasia, but for instead engaging in a civil debate. I’m sure you disagree with my interpretation of the General Welfare Clause but you nonetheless do so in a civil manner. Kudos to you.

27. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    tpennna

    You are correct, I do disagree with your view of the general welfare clause. :>)

    I belong to a libertarian legal blog which has given the law professor’s views as to why the welfare clause does not do what FDR and the Warren court said it does. Not being a lawyer it was way too complex for me but it clearly got positive response from the other libertarians and negative response from the communitarians.

28. 

    Colleen Sheehy said, 3 months ago

    Just finished jumping through hoops again with my insurance provider, to get referrals to see doctors whom I’ve been seeing for years for long-standing problems… What a waste of time, effort and money!

    Back in the day, I worked as a low-paid peon for a health insurer. I know, as one of those instructed to give insureds the run-around, the games companies play to avoid paying out on claims. the majority of claimants get tired of fighting and give up, so the insurer keeps the funds they were supposed to have paid out.

    Now the government wants to add another layer on top of this mess? Unless it’s an army of patient advocates, NO THANKS!

29. 

    fennec said, 3 months ago

    Have you considered that just maybe the reforms could reduce the layers of which you are complaining? Let’s try to encourage our reps to get the courage to do so.

30. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    The point of a single-payer system is to remove ALL layers of bureaucracy between the patient and the doctor. Which is why health care is so much cheaper in Canada and Europe.

31. 

    4uk4ata said, 3 months ago

    Well, there will always be some form of a middle-man, whether private or public. Evidence suggests Canada and Europe minimize the role (and the profits) of that intermediary, and thus reduce health care costs. This is why I find their models, by and large, better than the one the US currently has.

32. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    I tend to agree with the last few comments, but I should point out that none of the options currently before Congress look like the Canadian system (or any single-payer European systems). Rather, the plan (at least as it is before the House) suggests competition between the private insurers and a public option in order to weed out waste. The private insurers will be forced to kick out the waste or they won’t survive. It’s the story of capitalism (competition to provide the best product for the consumer).

33. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    4uk’: The only middlemen we have in Canada are the government secretaries who write the reinbursement checks.

34. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    Since high cost is a problem in every system pretending that it doesn’t occur is foolish. Our northern neighbor was genuinely surprised at the huge number of MRIs we have in NJ. But therein lies the problem. If you have one machine and use it 8 hours a day the secretary has to write 8 reimbursement checks. Easy. But if there are hundreds of machines going 24 hours a day, well you do the math. The rest of the world trades convenience and promptness for less charge to the patient. I accept that but in fairness don’t lie to the American public and imply they will be getting medicine as practiced today but just for free.

    There’s no free lunch.

35. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    There are also multiple unnecessary MRI scans (for instance). It’s not called “rationing” when we rightly tell a doctor that his or her patient doesn’t need a new scan when he or she can simply look at a scan done two days ago that was ordered by another doctor.

    We’re not talking about free lunch here, we’re talking about trimming out the (highly expensive) fat.

36. 

    deadheadzan said, 3 months ago

    typenna, thanks for your very informative posts.

37. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    @tpenna

    You make the crucial mistake of having a logical argument. Everything you say makes sense for 99% of the discussants not having to actually face the problem on a daily basis.

    Here is where your logic fails. We have a system where if you don’t order that totally unnecessary MRI you might get sued and spend years in court and hundreds of hours defending yourself. We all acknowledge that 20% of what we order and spend is totally unnecessary and is only for defensive purposes only. Obama took tort reform off the table. Don’t blame physicians blame the lawyers. Your argument is not with organized medicine it is with the trial lawyers association and Obama.

38. 

    tpenna said, 3 months ago

    I appreciate that response, GNWachs. I wonder, though, whether this problem might at all be addressed by statutes limiting wasteful spending.

    A prospective litigant will have a hard time filing suit if the doctor can turn to statute to back up his or her decision not to order that third MRI.

39. 

    DrCanuck said, 3 months ago

    GNW said: “I accept that but in fairness don’t lie to the American public and imply they will be getting medicine as practiced today but just for free.”

    DrCanuck responds: I’m not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I’ll respond anyway. I have never said it’s a free lunch; I pay premiums and I pay taxes, and yes, it’s expensive. I haven’t heard anyone else say it’ll be free either, so I don’t know where you’re coming from on this.

    I AM surprised when people in the States ask where the 1.8 trillion (or whatever) over the next ten years will come from. Mostly from government-charged insurance premiums, I should think. Exactly how it’s being done now, only cheaper because of the lower overhead. And it’ll be far more if medical costs aren’t brought under control. Appears obvious to me; what am I missing here?

40. 

    GNWachs said, 3 months ago

    DrCanuck

    No, I was not at all addressing you. I was addressing those advocates of the 47 million without insurance. Medicaid is free to the recipient.

    If the poor can’t afford to pay now why will they be able to under CongressCare. But to sell it to the rest of America they say you will still receive everything you are getting now but it will be cheaper because we will cut out insurance company profits. They may be able to cut out the profits but in addition to save money the practice of medicine will change. Just be honest and tell America that. Long waits and much more of a restricted formulary.