Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (38) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    So…..then prove where it’s wrong. Already hundreds of thousands have lost healthcare because Obamacare wrote the ACA to make it impossible for insurance companies to comply to it. And in comparison….HOW many people have signed up for Obamacare vs those that are losing it?

  2. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago


    Try actually looking at the cartoon. It shows the incredible lies of the Tea type Republicans as a torrent, which they were, and Obama’s lies as a garden hose, which, in comparison, it is. Obama’s hose is still shown as water poured on a person drowning in the Tea torrent..

    Some of us think the Obamabot claims about the ACA sound a little too good to be true, but, thanks to the outrageous lies with which the Tea types have tried to attack it, lies easily refuted by anyone who can read, the overwhelming majority of voters don’t believe any of the criticisms. The New York Times wrote that there have no “true” cancellations, and most accept that. They have comments saying the ACA saves people who had individual policies $1,000 a month, and most believe that. (Most Americans are covered by Medicare or employer insurance, and have no need to check for themselves.)

    And the reason most accept such stories is that, after the torrent of really idiotic lies by the Tea types, they no longer bother to question the Obamabot MSM.

  3. Darsan54

    Darsan54 said, over 1 year ago

    The whole point of the ACA is to make sure everyone has good insurance. The policies being cancelled are junk, incapable of covering anything. I always took the remark as if you have decent insurance, and affordable, then you can keep it. After all, it’s a forced market based solution. But it makes sense if you have junk, then the junk gets cancelled..

  4. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    @Michael wme

    “Try actually looking at the cartoon. It shows the incredible lies of the Tea type Republicans as a torrent,… "

    I’m not sure about all of those banners being lies, Michael. As an example from the PPACA:

    ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide grants for the establishment and support of Shared Decisionmaking
    Resource Centers (referred to in this subsection as ‘Centers’) to provide technical assistance to providers and to develop and disseminate best practices and other information to support and accelerate adoption, implementation, and effective use of patient decision aids and shared decisionmaking by providers.

    When it comes to death panes and care rationing, what does “shared decisionmaking (sic) by providers” really mean.

  5. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 1 year ago

    Outrageous lies. By the TEA Party. Really? Do those that are in this country with no legal status get turned away from the ER? Who pays for that? Have companies gone to great lengths to reduce their liability by reducing the hours of full time employees or reducing the number of employees so as to not be under the ACA requirements? AND with the advent of the law, has there been any impact on the kind of coverage offered and has the cost gone down?

    I’m sure if you can be honest with yourself that you understand the health care industry has been changed by this law with the government requirements affecting millions of people and NOT reducing the cost of plans. Can you be honest?

    Now think about it. Obama on over 2 dozen occasions with planning and full knowledge that what he said was NOT TRUE addressed the nation and LIED. His counselors approved of the LIE and then when it was shown to be a LIE he lied again by saying that he never said it in the first place.

    It seems that liberal democrats have no problem with the President of our nation planning a lie, executing a lie and then covering up that lie with another.

    And there are a bunch of you.

  6. ODon

    ODon said, over 1 year ago


    I ma not sure what the “shared decisionmaking” means either but my best guess is it very similar to what happens now when my docs have to get approval from my insurance provider to treat a variety of ailments.

  7. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    Nailed it! But, I’m sure most of the cons on this site won’t see it. They are too blinded by anger and ignorance.

  8. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago


    No one has lost their health care. They’ve had their policies cancelled BY THE PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT ISSUE THEM. Since they were grandfathered in, it’s purely a business decision on their part to cancel the policies. Surely no conservative wants Obama to FORCE private companies to offer policies that they don’t want to? Or do you?

  9. retpost

    retpost said, over 1 year ago

    The republicans tried to derail social security back in 1944,but after dec. 7th forgot all about it.

  10. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 1 year ago

    Into a river of truth Obama is pouring a cascade of lies…

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago


    “When it comes to death panes and care rationing, what does “shared decisionmaking (sic) by providers” really mean.”

    Good point, to a point. I will counter by saying that I am “counseled” at least monthly by each insurance company that I am credentialed with. Each one tells me what I can and cannot do. Each one tells me what approach for a particular malady is the one that I should use. Each one tells me which medications I should prescribe, regardless if whether a different approach or medication might be more beneficial.

    Again, do you want a government bureaucrat making those decisions, or an insurance bureaucrat (who is being paid bonuses for denying coverage) to make those same decisions? Those decisions have not been ours to make for decades.

  12. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    The Wall Street Journal is not to be trusted for facts about ACA. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch, after all. If you need more proof, look up their publication of Suzanne Sommers’ op-ed, which is based on the premise that ACA is socialized medicine, which is actually the antithesis of ACA.

    And please see my response to Mikefive regarding rationing/death panels, etc. Thank you.

  13. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    “Good point, to a point….”

    I brought the point of “shared decision making” out only because I think many believe that no bureaucrat is going to regulate how much treatment a person can get for a health deficiency. From the portion of the PPACA cited, it may be probable that, in the event of a budgetary shortfall by the government or insurance company (I’m not really sure of who is in charge of payment), that the death panel thing might not raise it’s ugly head.

  14. Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future."

    Baslim the beggar says, "The past is the enemy of the future." GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    All the “death panels” hysteria ignores the fact that in the past, physicians and administrators and sometimes non-medical people did make decisions about who would receive extraordinary care. In the early days of transplants, a panel would decide who might get a kidney transplant. And they would have favored a younger person over an older person. And this would be the logical decision.

    However, with doctors now receiving more and more money for doing the kind of expensive, but potentially life saving procedures, they tend to exercise less discretion. So you will see 90 year old patients getting expensive procedures (probably NOT heart transplants, but certainly others). My wife has been a nurse for nearly 50 years. She was an ICU nurse early on, so she first-hand saw how things were done then and now.

    So what should be done is to reign in the greed of doctors and hospitals. Make them accountable for decisions which may enrich them but not necessarily improve quality of life for patients. But neither should rules be engraved in stone. A heart transplant for a 90 year old would have been ruled ridiculous 40 years ago, but 30 years from now, it may not be.

    BTW insurance companies also frequently show an amazing lack of judgement and pay out big bucks for things nearly as amazing as a transplant for a 90 year old.

    So there should be some non-medical, non-insurance industry input on such decisions. Should those non-aligned members be chosen from the local community with standards decided locally? I am doubtful of that being a truly impartial process given the history of civil rights in America.

  15. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    Con is short for conservative, it displays shorthand you however are making my point.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (23).