Comments (33) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   "Friendly"Kitty said, over 3 years ago

   Libs really have the “evil” anti-healthcare-reformers meme down real good.
2. 

   toasteroven said, over 3 years ago

   Right on, NoFearPup! Why, if I had a nickel for all the times I’d seen some liberal comparing the health care debate to two snakes devouring a road sign, well… I’d have five whole cents, is what I’d have.
3. 

   HUMPHRIES said, over 3 years ago

   Toast, give the shakey pup a break. Them’s a whole lot of “Lib” boogeymen under his bed to deal with ;oD
4. 

   GNWachs said, over 3 years ago

   The problem is when ObamaCare proponents use the word “lie” they think it applies only to opponents. If the healthcare bill doesn’t actually use the words tax increase, rationing, longer waits etc. any accusations of those are called lies. After all the bill doesn’t use those words. However when in 6 months all of those happen it is unplanned consequences and we weren’t lying. It is going to happen.
5. 

   Copperdomebodhi said, over 3 years ago

   GN: Conservatives aren’t talking about unplanned consequences. They’re making specific false claims about death panels, federal access to bank accounts, health care for illegal immigrants, federally-paid abortions, British-style health systems and socialized medicine. None of them are true. When you says something that isn’t the truth, it’s a lie.
6. 

   ezdeb said, over 3 years ago

   Hey, righties! Heroic repub leaders agree with 80% of dem bills going thru congress, and it’s only necessary to hammer out 20% of details, IF ONLY! those stubborn dems would just compromise more.

   If that’s true, why is it necessary to scrap the whole approach, start from scratch, make a totally different approach?

   Whaddup? You’d almost think that righties really don’t want to improve pending legislation; they don’t want any reform at all!

   http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019877.php
7. 

   GNWachs said, over 3 years ago

   Copper

   There will be no death panels but there will be rationing. It will be decided that spending $200,000 for a cancer treatment for a 75 year old is not financially feasible. He will die. If you want to say the committee that made that decision is not a death panel, that is your prerogative.

   Undocumented workers (illegal aliens) will continue to get billions of health care dollars. You are not allowed to ask for proof of citizenship at a hospital. Once you begin you are obligated to treat even if it takes years and millions. You may say there will be no treatment for illegal immigrants, that is your prerogative.

   Women will continue to get abortions and they will be paid for by insurance. You may say it comes from a different financial source so is not federally paid, that is your prerogative.

   You just proved what I said above- planned and unplanned consequences will occur just like the accusations made by opponents.

   Do you honestly in your heart not believe everyone of the consequences that I have listed will occur. You cannot be that naive.
8. 

   dtroutma said, over 3 years ago

   “Private” health insurance places catastrophic limits on care, pushing the client off on government largesse. Rationing- read cost - benefit analysis, says curing a 25 year old with a future is more rational than spending millions on a 75 year old who has lived past the “biblical” three score year and ten already.

   The only euthanasia should be for those who have refused to negotiate for the benefit of ALL Americans, or lied during the confrontation- oops- there goes the right wing.

   I remain amazed that Democrats either voted for war in Iraq or were branded “traitors”. Now those who want to provide health, and life, to OUR citizens are still the “traitors”.

   And for those who demand control over other people’s bodies (read women)- HOW is keeping them alive and free to chose their lives, YOUR business when YOU want to be FREE of “Government interference” in YOUR life???

   The absolute hypocrisy of the “religious right” when attached to the health care debate is far the most vile bile, and much behind the demonstrations in the street.
9. 

   motivemagus said, over 3 years ago

   GNW - there is already rationing. The question is whether you trust a for-profit company, which is rewarded for reducing costs, more than the government, which is rewarded for keeping its citizens happy, to make decisions regarding rationing.
   There are two solutions to the “illegals” problem, which I still think is blown out of proportion: (1) require ID, and (2) allow illegals to participate in the group plans so they can pay in and belong to a plan they can pay for. Both have been suggested. As for the abortion issue, coverage hasn’t been proposed, and in many states now it’s extremely difficult for women to even get an abortion, so that’s hardly an issue. Shall we eliminate Viagra coverage in parity? Let’s stop that problem at the source, eh?
10. 

    ezdeb said, over 3 years ago

    If illegal aliens (or anyone) will be turned away at private insurers or at co-ops, and not allowed to buy insurance with cash, how does that benefit anyone?

    In fact, if an undocumented person is not able to buy insurance with their own money, and they get sick, three guesses as to how/who pays for their care then.

    Short sighted bigotry from righties does not improve healthcare in this country. Let’s stop taking it into account when making policy decisions!
11. 

    believecommonsense said, over 3 years ago

    I like the toon, and appreciate the comments of copper, dtroutma, and motive

    a lie is a lie, and no amount of rationalizing makes it anything other than that. we do have rationing and it’s based upon insurance coverage and financial resources.

    This bill will retain the status quo re illegal immigrants in ERs, require hospitals to stabilize each patient. Immigration reform, which I think is badly needed, will come later and I have no idea what proposals will come out of that. It would be foolish to try to accomplish immigration reform in a healthcare bill.

    I don’t buy the statement that potentially-life-saving treatments for 75-year-olds will be denied by some panel. I support the concept that a 75-year-old with a terminal condition should be informed of the entire range of options available so they can make a more informed, free choice.
12. 

    Tecolote said, over 3 years ago

    Those who shout NO TO SOCIALISM, what they have deep in their hearts is NO TO A BLACK PRESIDENT, NOW OR EVER IN THE FUTURE ! That makes more sense than shouting no to socialism, go back to Russia ( a country that is not socialist anymore). Are they stupid or what? No, just bigots.
13. 

    ezdeb said, over 3 years ago

    tarf, hold on there. No one is defending socialism, right? Not in all caps or anything!

    Righties accuse the president of being a socialist. Why are you yelling at lib pinheads about how they don’t understand what socialism actually is? You’re screaming at the wrong pinheads.

    Lefties keep telling repubs that it’s wrong to scream socialist/communist/Nazi without understanding the definition of the different terms.

    So to summmarize, no one on the left is “giving an opinion regarding the benefits of socialism.”

    My response then, is huh?
14. 

    believecommonsense said, over 3 years ago

    tarf, I appreciate you sharing your sentiments. But I am confused that you specifically cite “liberal pinheads” in your criticism, when it has been those on the right, especially thr far right, claiming Obama is leading us into socialism and to reform healthcare is socialism.

    While I have read or heard an occasional person of “far-left” bent extolling socialism, the use of the word is overwhelmingly coming the right.

    Why did you choose to criticize “liberal pinheads?”
15. 

    believecommonsense said, over 3 years ago

    GNW, response to you on Bok 9/909
16. Load the rest of the comments (18).