Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 4 years ago

    I love that appeals court telling Obama to have a written statement on its bench by thursday. Thank God for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

  2. SusanCraig

    SusanCraig said, over 4 years ago

    the Affordable HealthCare Act was duly enacted with bipartisanship…. in my humble opinion, it has accomplished great things: extended children’s coverage, prevented coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, fully covering preventive screenings. Continuing the current system denies access to health & wellness to those in need. Do we want a system that provides ealth care for only the rich? Don’t we require people who drive cars to be licensed and carry insurance? Shouldn’t health be as much as a right as driving?

  3. hanmari

    hanmari said, over 4 years ago

    Mr. Obama is simply pandering to the most ignorant of the U.S. population and hoping they have enough wits about them to at least know how to check his name in the ballot box this November. If you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying close enough attention! Time to vote this clown out of office before he damages our country any further.

  4. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 4 years ago


    First, it wasn’t bipartisan at all. 60-40 along party lines. 7 vote separation in the house, along party lines. That’s not bipartisan. That’s a supermajority blitz.

    As for the “only for the rich,” you need to stop regurgitating the crap the talking bobbleheads on TV are spouting. While it is true that the cost of health care was going up faster than the rate of wages, the health care system would collapse if it was only funded by the rich; not enough money in just the rich’s pockets to keep the lights on in all the hospitals. There aren’t that many of them. It requires a large pool of people to make any insurance system work, public or private.

    As to answer your questions… yes and no.

    First, yes, you have to carry a license and insurance to own and operate a motor vehicle, but you don’t have to purchase said motor vehicle. You have the choice to ride a bike, take a bus, or walk to name just a few alternatives. You should not be forced to purchase insurance, just like you shouldn’t be forced to buy a car. After all, the argument could be made that you have to buy a car because you will invariably need to travel further than the local transportation needs can provide. See how silly that sounds? Same principle.

    And secondly, no, health care should not be as much a “right” as driving, because being able to drive is a priviledge. Neither of them are a right. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That’s it. End of sentence. Health care, and specifically the means for which to pay it, is an individual’s responsibility. I personally wait for 4-6 weeks for a “pain” to go away before I go see a doctor. Some people wait 2. Some wait until it goes away. Those are all personal decisions.

    How would you like it if I forced my decision-making process on you? Because that’s effectively what you are suggesting by forcing me to pay for you to go to the doctor and you not having to pay for it. Because if I’m paying for it? I want you to not go to the doctor, so I don’t have to pay for it! See how silly that sounds? With the freedom to choose comes the responsibility to be self-sufficient. I’m not any more responsible for your health care, constitutionally, than you are for mine.

  5. indieme

    indieme GoComics PRO Member said, over 4 years ago

    We had a health care system that was destroying the lives of anyone who needed expensive care and was told by the insurance company that they were not covered due to $ limits, pre-existing conditions or just that the CEO needed another yacht. Obama tried to fix that. The Repugs of course tried to block it. What was able to be passed was this abortion of a health care law which pleases few and angers many. Single payer is the only way. Medicare for all and let’s get on with fixing the rest of the economy.

  6. Rick

    Rick said, over 4 years ago


    It’s ok for other civilized country to have healthcare, but it’s unconstitutional for the USA to have healthcare?

    All that this means is that the rich 1% do not want to help pay for the healthcare costs of the poorer 99%.

  7. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 4 years ago

    Rameriz took one day off yesterday from criticizing Obama (sort of) and now it is the same old bull.

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 4 years ago

    Don’t agree with the REPUBLICAN (see Chafee et al) "individual mandate to profit corporations, but “Single Payer” should have been the “Constitutional” substitute.

    But is Ramirez using a bear’s paw supposed to represent the “Russian bear” ripping the Constitution? Yep, better a Fascist “Patriot Act” and “Military Commissions Act” , and “Citizens United”, than actual acceptance of that document’s intent.

  9. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 4 years ago

    First how did we get on the Patriot act, Second Obama has used it to his advantage and extended it.


    Next tt is not a republican supreme court it is the United States Supreme court. If Bush did not appoint three members to the court then it would be fair, is that your vision of the United States only one side gets to decide?

    Honest I am trying to help you here, today’s strip is about Obama messing with the Supreme Court and your argument is about the patriot act which had little to do with the Supreme Court plus Obama extended the Patriot Act. Come on.

  10. petergrt

    petergrt said, over 4 years ago

    0bama is playing to the dumbest, the most ignorant gutter slime which is so well represented by his apologists hereon.
    Only a constitutional scholar of 0bama’s ilk can utter an intellectually and factually dishonest quip, and get away with it – he might even get reelected.
    Any doubt about America’s decline is about to be refuted?

  11. geedub

    geedub said, over 4 years ago

    Another Ramirez Strikeout for a triple play!

  12. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 4 years ago


    I agree with RightisRight.

  13. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 4 years ago


  14. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 4 years ago


  15. charliekane

    charliekane said, over 4 years ago

    Historically, the test of constitutionality in terms of the commerce clause is:

    1. Is “health care” an item of interstate commerce, or does it have a substantial effect on commerce?; and
    2. Is there a rational basis for the regulation congress has proposed?

    If the answer is yes to both, a law stands.

    Most “experts” I’ve seen think the neutral arbiter’s answer to both, based on existing precedent, should be “yes”. Hence the AHA would stand as written.

    But politics may intervene. . .

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).