Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant

Pat Oliphant

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)


    BIGCHRONO said, almost 3 years ago

    Junk in the trunk.

  2. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, almost 3 years ago

    Politifact has a top 16 myths about Obamacare because a top 10 wasn’t enough.

  3. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 3 years ago

    Why is it somehow wrong to oppose this horrendous piece of legislation?

  4. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago


    Nothing wrong with opposing it, if
    1. you can say what you don’t like about it
    2. suggest something better.
    1. I don’t like that it leaves private insurance companies with a profit motive in charge of health insurance, and I don’t like that it still leaves a lot of people without coverage, and I don’t like that it’s very complicated.
    2. A single-payer system would be better; it would guarantee universal coverage; it’s pretty simple to administer; it’s cheaper.

  5. YellerDogDemocrat

    YellerDogDemocrat said, almost 3 years ago


    Thanks for the link to the “de-bunking bible”
    I hope more people will check it out…

  6. martens

    martens said, almost 3 years ago


    Single payer is fine, but it is not the only way to skin this cat efficiently. The Swiss have a system using the private insurance companies, but regulated. They cannot supply the basic universal coverage at profit and cannot deny coverage to any. Those who cannot afford even the basic premium can get a subsidy from the government. If you want a Cadillac plan, however, they can charge to make a profit on the extra features and there is no government help for those premiums. So everyone is covered, all the medical personnel are paid adequately, and everyone is pretty happy with it. (Of course, Switzerland is a pretty rich little country, but they still don’t approve of people lacking the basic necessities of life, and they act on that premise.)

  7. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago


    You’re absolutely right that there are other systems. I don’t know much about them, however. I would like to know what the difference is between the ordinary Swiss plan and the Cadillac plan — what isn’t covered in the ordinary plan? There was a time in Ontario (I think I’m right about this) when you could pay extra for a private hospital room, but I don’t believe that’s allowed any more. But the care was the same no matter. If it’s that kind of difference, I suppose it’s okay. Some years back I had an operation performed at one of the very few private clinics in Toronto, and I had to pay $300 extra — not for the operation, which was covered by the provincial plan. But for the extra money, the clinic was much fancier than the other hospitals in town, carpets, nice chairs, that sort of thing, and they gave me chocolate cookies when I came for the post-op appointment. Very expensive cookies. Anyway, about a year later the owners of the clinic skipped town with some millions of dollars they had been skimming. Eventually they were brought back and I think they’re in jail now. So that didn’t give me a super good feeling about public/private systems.

  8. martens

    martens said, almost 3 years ago


    I have a friend in Switzerland who has some extras on the basic coverage. From what he tells me, it gets him a private room in the Kantonspital when he is hospitalized. I don’t know what extra coverage he gets other than that, but then we haven’t discussed it in detail. I do know that in the last few years he has had treatment for cancer which was covered by the basic plan. As far as I can tell, it was very good treatment, equal or better than what my friends here in the US have had for the same kind of cancer.

  9. Richard S. Russell

    Richard S. Russell GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    I guess that preserving a system that guarantees that tens of millions of their fellow citizens will be denied decent health care must be what Republicans mean when they refer to “American exceptionalism”. Because we ARE the exception among the industrialized democracies in that we entrust health care to the profit motive. None of the others do.

  10. AlexanderTheGoodEnough

    AlexanderTheGoodEnough said, almost 3 years ago

    Ahem. As I’ve noted here in the past…

    There is a very good and politically practical reason why “single payer” health care didn’t and won’t get off the ground here in the U. S. of A. Nearly every medical practice/clinic typically has several people working on aspects of “medical billing,” including the physicians themselves, and the “medical billing” departments of hospitals can run to hundreds of employees. And then there is a corresponding number of workers on the other side at the insurance companies. In addition, there are all the administrators, lawyers, accountants and others that are ancillary to the business. Any significant streamlining, let alone the elimination, of the insurance racket would put most of these people out of their jobs. That would no doubt add up to an astonishing number of people unemployed if we went to a far more economically efficient and rational single payer system. The political implications of that are obvious and utterly unacceptable to both the Demipublicans and Republicrats.

    But then Ted Cruz and his kind of Traitor Party Republicans really don’t care so much about all that. They have a different set of problems that are quite entirely their own.

  11. BillH77

    BillH77 said, almost 3 years ago


    Fact: Congress did write themselves out of Obama care.

    Fact: The states health department have to coordinate with their revenue departments on the sharing of tax information

    (sheeze, you guys hate the other side so much you’re willing to listen to pure lies. There is no future for this nation)

  12. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Facts wrong again. Congress will no longer be able to use the FEHBP. They will have to use the exchanges, but will possibly qualify for “subsidy”. Politifact interview on WOSU, which “myth-busted” so-called facts on BOTH sides yesterday.

  13. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, almost 3 years ago


    Are you really serious that employment created by an inefficient system is sufficient reason to continue with a second-rate system? I can understand the Republicans wanting to maintain a for-profit health care system that generates huge profits for the owners and managers, but I can’t imagine Democrats willing to co-operate. Rather I think the Democrats went along with what was possible, not what was best.
    Long run there are too choices to affordable health care – not-for-profit insurance and tight control on expenses as Martens described above with Switzerland (the so-called “Bismarck Model”), or single-payer. Both approaches violates some cherished American values, so real change will be a tough slog. Obama is probably taking the approach that a long journey starts with a small step.

  14. BillH77

    BillH77 said, almost 3 years ago

    Some of you leftists are in for a really rude shock starting on 1 October.

    So be it.

    One can only hope that some of you over 60 geezers know the people who will be evaluating your health care evaluations. To paraphrase the Soup Nazi, “No new hip for you! Use that wheel chair, old man!!!”

  15. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, almost 3 years ago


    ^A scare tactic!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).