Scott Stantis by Scott Stantis

Scott Stantis

Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, about 2 years ago

    Only the insane and hopelessly deluded would have expected the Obamantion’s plan to work.

  2. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, about 2 years ago

    The Death Chair

  3. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, about 2 years ago

    If you believe that such a large program would just start up without problems, then you are indeed deluded. This would be so even in private industry! But, it does not mean that the program itself is a failure, it needs both work and some time. Something that the tea party types are not willing to do, as they do not wish to just modify the program as it goes along for greater efficiency, the just want to kill it without even having ANY kind of replacement at all.

    And of course our current program is so good. It is rated as the 38th best in the world by the world health organization, we are right behind that great industrial power of Costa Rica. But we are number one in one area, ours is the costliest in the world. So, I do not see just how we can get much more costly than that with the ACA program!!

  4. ARodney

    ARodney said, about 2 years ago

    It was a lousy rollout, but it’ll be working fine by the time people need to sign up. And anyone who has noticed how Romneycare works in Massachusetts knows it will work just fine. It sure works better than the old system of “buy insurance, and if you get sick, they are free to not cover you, drop your policy, and you and your family go bankrupt, lose your house, and end up on the taxpayer’s dime.”

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 2 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    “And of course our current program is so good. It is rated as the 38th best in the world by the world health organization,”

    I read the study from which that 38th ranking came from and consider it flawed. It wasn’t the criteria that made me come to that conclusion but the way they ranked the various categories. As they went through the categories they assigned a number rating to that category. When it came to a category that involved socialized medicine, they used a multiple of two or three to boost the raw score to a higher score. It struck me as a questionable way to give something a high score. If a particular category was so good, why not give it a higher raw score (rhetorical)? Without the use of those multiples, I don’t know whether we would be third, thirtieth, or thirty-eighth.

  6. Mark Stanger

    Mark Stanger GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    “Resources are not available, at this time, for ‘non-productive’ members of society. such procedures as you require to enjoy your retirement must be allocated for younger, working members of the population. Here’s a pill. Here’s your sign!”

  7. Enoki

    Enoki said, about 2 years ago

    I thought the wheels were triangular because they eliminated one bump over the previous system!

  8. ODon

    ODon said, about 2 years ago

    “Just another entitlement program that everyone will pay for themselves and another person.”
    Yes, that works.

  9. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 2 years ago

    Real numbers from a friend of mine on his cost if going with the PPACA:

    Bronze Plan: Premium-$200 monthly, 40% copay, $6000 deductible.

    Current employer plan: $86 monthly, no copay, $2500 deductible.

    I don’t know it these numbers are typical, but they certainly put the question to some of the blanket claims that the PPACA is cheaper.

  10. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, about 2 years ago

    I remember one time, I was watching a page on waiting for a particular item to go on sale. As the sale time drew closer and more and more people went to the page, the site became slower and slower, until all attempts to get to it timed out.
    Obviously Amazon is a complete failure as a company and should never have been started.

  11. Kevin Robinson

    Kevin Robinson said, about 2 years ago

    @Robert Landers

    in the privet industry we aim for working results, we test our products and systems before they go out to the public. Yes they maybe problems but none like Obamacare and no private industry would in their right mind allow a rollout like Obamacare has had. if it was that bad they would shut it down and work out the bugs.

  12. Kevin Robinson

    Kevin Robinson said, about 2 years ago

    It has wheels I thought all it had was brakes and payment slot

  13. ODon

    ODon said, about 2 years ago


    Mike those numbers may well be typical as employers often do pick up a substantial portion of the premium. Its another cost that business incurs making them less competitive in the world market. A single payer system would spread the medical costs of our nation across the entire citizenry thus making it better for all.

  14. denis1112

    denis1112 said, about 2 years ago

    @Michael wme

    The total cost is not altogether clear, but to within about $1, the total cost as of current date is $0.
    The fines for not having insurance start at tax time April 15,2014.
    $95 or 1% of your taxable income which ever is larger
    $325 in 2015 or 2% which ever is larger
    $695 in 2016 or 2.5% which ever is larger
    Since the fines will be cheaper then insurance for a lot of folks, tax refunds will be a thing of the past for a lot of people.That will pi$$ off a lot of those that haven’t been paying attention.

  15. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 2 years ago


    Real numbers from a person who is self-insured. I take cholesterol meds, not because of diet, but because of genetics. This is my only continuing health issue.

    Current plan: Some co-pay with a 4-dimensional explanation as to what is or what is not, $2500 deductible, $650 per month. Just for me.

    My wife and I have decided to put that same money in the bank every month. No deductible, no copay, pay as you go. The alternative from “the best healthcare system in the world” is untenable.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).