John Deering by John Deering

John Deering

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, about 3 years ago

    The delay of part of Obamacare only affects about one percent of workers. Those that work for companies that have more than 50 employees and don’t get healthcare now.

  2. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    Okay. I have posted this twice today already, but since you asked…

    1. ObamaCare prohibits insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get sick or make an honest mistake on your application.
    2. It eliminates pre-existing conditions and gender discrimination.
    3. Lets young adults stay on their parent’s plans until 26.
    4. Creates State based Health Insurance Exchange Marketplaces where Americans can shop for Federally regulated and subsided insurance.
    5. Protects against unjustified rate hikes and give you more rights to appeal insurance company decisions and much, much more.
    Points 1, 2, and 5 protect citizens from rapacious insurance companies and their near-monopoly status (most states have no more than one or two major plans available).
    Point 4 introduces competition — you’d think Republicans would like that — SINCE THEY CAME UP WITH IT.
    Point 3 helps cover one of the least-covered groups and also provides some financial support for the program, as young people have fewer medical needs, which is precisely why some of the jerks in the GOP are trying to persuade them to put their health at risk to suit THEIR political needs.

  3. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    Simply inaccurate.

  4. eugene57

    eugene57 said, about 3 years ago

    Free stuff, Free stuff. Where, what I find are, people have to pay for what they get, tho some will be subsidized, none of it is free.

  5. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 3 years ago

    C. The public.

  6. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, about 3 years ago


    How does #3_"provides some financial support for the program, as young people have fewer medical needs,"_? Are the increased costs to parents the “financial support” you cite? Thanks for lowering those costs. (sarcasm)

  7. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 3 years ago

    My comment went wonky, so I’ll try again:
    Number 3 makes the program more solvent in the same way all insurance companies work: they balance those who need healthcare (and money to pay for it) with those who do not need healthcare (and thus are only paying into the program). It’s a bet that you never have to pay out more than you are taking in, and they pay actuaries to make sure the odds play out in their favor.
    As for your other point on parents, the provision means kids can be kept on employer-supplied insurance. That means there may be some incremental cost to the parents if you have to pay those things, but it is certainly a lot cheaper than having to pay your child’s total medical expenses (or for them to pay their own) in case of emergency. I for one would be happy to help my kids this way.

  8. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, about 3 years ago

    Describe the pay back. How will the ACA cope when all the other younger folks pay the cheaper fine rather than buy a policy they don’t want? As usual, the Govt Geeks aren’t thinking things through.

  9. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Anybody who honestly thought a massive program like this was going to be plug-and-play can’t be much over 8 years old.
    But honesty has never come into A’s analysis of the law.

  10. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, about 3 years ago

    Juveniles backing the ACA 1000% is probably a bit of an exaggeration. There is a large contingent of sensible people, however, who think the present system is not working very well and would like to see improvements. Unfortunately, you don’t always get what you want, but what is possible. But you’ve got to start somewhere.

  11. eugene57

    eugene57 said, about 3 years ago

    " I know a divorcee, working for $15 an hour and gets $1200 a month in food stamps (WIC). Tell me that is not “free stuff.”
    Not having the particulars, I cannot judge what this person qualifies for, how many dependents and other factors.
    If you think this is more than they are qualified for, report their abuse.
    But think, if her situations improves, she will be paying this back in taxes and fees.

  12. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, about 3 years ago


    So why did “anybody” construct such an obvious monstrosity in the first place? Typical of Fanatical Do Gooders {FDGs], act for sound bites but don’t think things through.

  13. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, about 3 years ago

    Thanks for not flaming. The ACA developers have not done a good job of explaining how the new law is supposed to work. I think existing programs incentivize dependence on the Feds and the new law will increase that process. Eventually, robbing Peter to pay Paul will collapse and take our economy with it.

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 3 years ago

    Whose fault?

    "In the meantime … if Speaker [John] Boehner wants to avoid a government shutdown, he will pass our resolution,” Reid said. “Otherwise, it’s a government shutdown.”

    Uhh excuse me. The Senate has NO AUTHORITY to pass a SPENDING bill. That is reserved to the HOUSE. But, be that as it may, the HOUSE has passed a bill that the senate does not agree with and so the senate – through Reid – has delivered and ultimatum. Pass OUR version or the government will shut down.

    Now who exactly is using crisis politics?

    Go ahead and fund it. Here is just ONE consequence you seem to be able to live with.

  15. mbraun

    mbraun said, about 3 years ago

    No matter how you answer, you are right!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).