Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (13) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, over 3 years ago

    You have to launch it to find out what is in it.

  2. D PB

    D PB said, over 3 years ago

    If it was reported, then you wouldn’t mind providing the link then.

    Oh, and remember your own criteria for links, it has to be a credible source and not one from one of the left leaning blogs. I believe you demand the source be a government one or at least be based on information provided by the government. like that it really any more reliable.

    But i digress.

    Otherwise your entire post is just an opinionated rant, in fact after the first sentence it’s pretty much opinionated ranting. Are you ever going to get over your envy?

  3. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    Mechanic is mostly right, though, D PB. States that have refused federal funds, like WI, have exchanges that are being set up by the Feds and those exchanges are horribly behind and underfunded. But unlike Mechanic, I have a different approach:

    What this tells me is that the federal government was trying to force something on the states that the federal government wasn’t capable of creating, and was dumping it on the state. Making a federal decision a state burden. This tells me that the PPACA was never a truly viable option.

    Mechanic, the reason Republicans are against this program is because they have looked 10 years down the road and don’t like what they see. When federal funding for Medicaid/care support wears off, the states are going to be left with a massive financial burden. I will remind you that this financial burden is something like 54% of this country doesn’t want (i.e. that’s how many do not support the PPACA and want to see it removed).

    So in all reality, the Governors of these states that are saying, “no,” to the federal funds are obeying their people’s will… something Governors are required to do. Being a taxpayer in WI, I approve of Walker’s actions, and every other Governor who says, “No,” to this program.

    The federal government tried to mandate that states take their porridge and like it, but the SCOTUS said that exceeds their Constitutional authority. It’s for this exact reason.

  4. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago


    Well put. Thanks for your thoughtful explanation.

    I had a professor whose favorite phrase was “right thinking, wrong answer”. Obamacare fits this description.

    Should have gone with single payer from the beginning. It is the final option; it is only a question of how many years and how many dollars will be wasted before we get there.

    Repubs say “Repeal and Replace”, but when asked what they will replace it with, there are no plans. So, neither party is blameless, and neither party has the guts to do anything about it. Sooner or later, somebody has to do something. I fear it will be later.

  5. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    Well, based on what’s going to happen with the PPACA, I don’t foresee single payer flying any time soon. With all the swelling distrust towards Federal Government anything, given all the scandals/coverups/issues/whateveryouwantotocallthem, people are exceptionally soured towards the feds controlling much.

    I believe your professor was right. I have a different twist: Great idea, crappy execution. We do need to do something about the uninsured in this country, but placing them on the backs of existing taxpayers is exceptionally unfair to those who pay taxes. Because let’s face it, those 30-some million people who are going to be signing up for the PPACA likely are in the 0% net tax bracket.

    There’s really only one approach to single-payer that I would even consider: State-based single payer, and it is funded through sales taxes and property taxes. Those two taxes cannot be avoided, and can’t be cheated. AND, they can’t be usurped by the feds.

    But the problem with single payer is the intent of government to force costs down by shorting the doctors’ pay. That discourages the best and brightest doctors and forces a rationing due to lack of availability. Instead you would need to pay the doctors above-market rates, and require people to have deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses so they share in the cost. The reason auto insurance is so inexpensive (relative to other insurances) is because there is a deductible for each occurrence.

    So to provide a single-payer that would possibly work, you’d need state-managed, above-market pay for doctors, deductibles per claim, cross-state cooperation, empowered HSA’s, and maybe a rebate program for those who don’t use their health insurance.

    The federal government needs to butt out and let the states do their jobs. After all, if Romneycare was so wildly successful, why haven’t ANY of the other states done the same thing? Just food for thought.

  6. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago

    “I pay 350 dollars a month for health care and I’m retired”

    Why do I have a hard time believing that, especially since you should be enrolled in Medicare, which costs you nothing. And don’t tell me the AARP, since they’re supplemental insurance not full coverage insurance.

  7. D PB

    D PB said, over 3 years ago

    I think Wraithkin is all right, you see he explained how we got to the mess, did you notice it wasn’t any one party involved?

    You’re quick to blame the Republicans, I know you would rather use a pejorative there, the blame doesn’t fall to any one party. You’re on the same rant cycle you were on before.

    For a brief time you had toned down the rhetoric and rant, but now you are back to the whole blame game for one party without acknowledging there is more then enough to go around. Oh, and the Democrats protect there rich supporters just as well if not better then the Republicans, your diatribe and Democrat talking points on that are just old and tired.

  8. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    If Mechanic (A liberal) and I (A conservative) can agree on a specific factoid, both without links, would you not agree that it is likely to be mostly true? C’mon Ansonia, cut ‘em some slack. Everyone can’t be as awesome as you all the time. ;P

    And mechanic, don’t lay this entirely at the feet of Republicans. The Democrats have a history of passing/pushing things they know Republicans won’t approve. It’s all drama/theater, not actual work.

    The problem is most of the time in Congress (and people in general) don’t know how to properly identify the problem, and only look at the symptoms. We need a serious revamp of how we approach these problems.

    Part of the other problem is both sides are heavily steeped in Old Fart Syndrome, where someone has made a career out of being in Congress for the rest of their natural lives, and they only care about getting re-elected, not identifying, nor fixing, the problem.

    A couple ideas would be term limits, thunderdome, single-item bills, and state enhancement.

    1) Impose a maximum of 2 6-year term limits on both the house and the senate. That way people like Pelosi, Boehner, and Reid can’t sit and flap their gums just to get re-elected. While I have a personal interest in making sure we apply fiscal conservatism, it doesn’t mean the same conservatives should stay in office for 50 years. Fresh ideas, people!

    2) Thunderdome! No, not battle to the death. But lock them in. They don’t go home until they hammer out a bill. Period. Food catered in, but they only get water. When those caffeine headaches start setting in, they’re gonna get awfully grumpy and increasingly desire to get something hammered out. Plus, no staff writers. The Congress should write the bill themselves. Period. Have 1/2 the house and 1/2 the senate, and equal (even) numbers from each side of the aisle. Deadlock? Don’t care. You don’t leave until you get it figured out. And by the way, you only get paid when the bill passes. And then we don’t get any more crap about, “have to pass it to know what’s in it.”

    3) Single-item bills. No frigging favors. No wrapping massive items into one bill. PPACA? That would have been at least 10-20 separate bills. And each item has to pass the constitutionality test. So that means the Judicial system will have to review each bill before it’s presented to Congress to ensure we aren’t going to choke up the system with stupid legal battles. And no amendments to bills. Up/Down vote. No pork. You want pork, you draft a new bill, and drag some 200 of your co-workers into a room, Thunderdome style. Page limit per bill: 10 pages, total, single space, 8-pt font. If it’s more than that, it’s too long.

    4) State Enhancement. Return back to the states being the ones with power, not the feds. States are much more nimble and able to adapt to issues. States are required to provide and inform the public of all bills that are being passed in Washington. Federal income/social-security/fica/medicare/etc taxes disappear. All taxes are collected at the state level and a stipend is sent to the federal government. The government supplies a requested amount from each state, that is published for the public to see, and is included in each and everyone’s tax return, and how much it cost that person, broken down by general area (defense, welfare, SS, medicare, etc). Ease the burden of reporting for small businesses. Federal government/Congress should be restricted to the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution. Period.

    Part of the reason people are numb to the size of our current government is because they don’t see how much it directly impacts them. If you get a bill on your tax return (effectively) of $15,000, you’re going to suddenly blink and reflect on what exactly your money is buying you. I can guarantee you’d have a lot more public involvement if they saw how much of their tax bill was going to … say… the study of the mating habits of fruit flies. It enables the public to ask questions. Which it should. Which it currently doesn’t.

  9. D PB

    D PB said, over 3 years ago


    Hear hear!

  10. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    @D PB

    I especially like #2 ;D

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago


    Thanks again. Isn’t it interesting how libs and conservatives can be civil to one another?

    I agree, to a point. One thing that I have to point out is that insurance has been shorting doctors to cut costs since they took over health care in the early 1980s. We’re used to it by now. Although I’d love it if we’d start receiving above-market pay, I won’t hold my breath.

    I agree with most of what you say. I am concerned with the idea of state management for these reasons: one is that it may cause a massive population shift from one state that offers worse benefits (or hasn’t gotten around to having anything to offer) to one that offers better benefits. We ran into that with Medicaid at first.

    The other is that, although no one will ever tell us how much it cost in dollars (although we can tell in terms of time) for Obamacare to go through all the courts through SCOTUS, we can all agree it was a f##kload.

    Now multiply that money by 50 plus one for DC. I fear if we go state-managed, we will turn into a country where most are sick and poor, and only the lawyers will be wealthy.

    But we agree on the major points. It’s just the details….I’ll vote for you if you run.

  12. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    Thanks. Well folks, time for this guy to go home for the weekend. Try to keep it down to a dull roar while I’m gone. ;)

  13. warjoski

    warjoski GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    I agree with your comment about the two sides being civil. This is one of the most iteresting threads I’ve read here. And though I would have liked to have seen Machanic’s comment… guess it got deleted…it’s good to see actual civil intelligent debate. Thanks

  14. Refresh Comments.