Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    The real question is why did the Democrats do it? After all, Obamacare is TOTALLY their fault…

  2. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 3 years ago

    In an attempt to give the nation something it needed, affordable healthcare, the Dems produced a flawed product based on a GOP product but which the GOP wanted nothing to do with under this President. From the beginning, the GOP worked against the ACA/Romneycare awaiting the day they could point at the Dems failure to produce a working long term plan. Now they cheer the damage done through Dem action and GOP inaction. They ignore the hospitals closing in states where medicare expansion is not taking place and focus on a website and people who want to keep policies that, when tested by reporters, end up not providing the type of coverage the complainers thought they had.
    The ACA is not a train wreck. It is a poorly designed train that does not move or perform like it would have had both parties worked together for the good of the American people, rather than working at odds with each other for the good of their party.
    The emergency room tax is already costing us trillions a year, and for lack of preventative care and health education provided by regular visits, people are dying from illnesses they don’t even know they have. The hospital closings are resulting in more deaths.
    Those conservatives who are against the ACA need to go ahead and write their congressmen and tell them that hospitals need to be released from their duty to treat people who come to the ER unless they can pay in advance. Without a product LIKE the ACA, our healthcare system will ultimately collapse on itself and the weight of costs. If you choose to kill the ACA, you are killing people through neglect and apathy.

  3. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    I disagree Respectful. The ACA is a badly flawed model that makes the basic assumption that more government bureaucracy equals greater efficency. It relies heavily on taxes and complex regulation to operate.
    Clearly the solution lies in the opposite direction: Simplification and personal responsibility / initative. That isn’t to say taking government completely out of the picture but rather limiting government’s role to increasing competition and encouraging participation; but not through heavy handed regulation and taxes but rather through making incentives for individuals to participate.
    I have put my own idea of how such a system would work up before here and elsewhere. It may not be perfect but it is light years ahead of that bureaucratic nightmare called Obamacare.

  4. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago


    I have read your idea of a new system, and I find merit there. I agree that “personal responsibility/initiative” is a part of that equation, and that is where your plan falls to the ground.

    Even the professional hate-pundits are pushing the notion that young, healthy people shouldn’t be buying insurance. There will always be people who think that a new set of chrome wheels for the Suburban Assault Vehicle are way more important than wasting money on insurance premiums, and then they’ll fall off the roof. Oops. Expecting people to show maturity and responsibility is unrealistic. Witness how many people have not put one penny aside for retirement.

    The only way to make sure everyone is covered is to make a universal system. Single payer, single payer…..

  5. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago

    “What really befuddles me is how anyone thinks Obamacare is going to stop ER visits.”

    Allow me to enlighten you. Without dollars, a diabetic will skimp on—or not take—medication. This person will eventually end up in the ER with a need for dialysis, amputation, or with kidney failure. Big bucks to fix. Once fixed, the patient is put back out onto the street. The underlying cause is not addressed.

    With a caring system (which many posters here have no desire for), that same patient would have been put on meds which would be more affordable, likely eliminating the need for incredibly costly emergency services.

    Same for a person with a heart attack. The ER will stabilize him, but will not address poor nutrition, stress, or overweight issues, nor will the hospital prescribe meds for high blood pressure, because this requires monitoring that the ER is not set up to do.

    Hope this helps.

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    The toon addresses “second term”, but the actions of the Republican Party, starting before Obama was first inaugurated, reminds me of a movie: Instead of Butch and Sundance, Boehner and McConnell, and the gang including Santorum, Cruz, Paul, Cantor, et al, are standing next to the train and McConnell asks Boehner “Gee, John, do you think we used enough dynamite?”

    There IS a difference between “loyal opposition”, and sabotage, of EVERY action, without regard to consequences, and acting AGAINST the people you represent, to make the “party” the sole beneficiary of your actions.

  7. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    @I Play One On TV

    I Play One, I’d rather have those who made no effort to secure their own future fail rather than be coddled at the expense of the rest of us.
    Government could do more to encourage people to save for their own retirement or medical care and I have no problem with that. What I want to avoid is two fold:
    First, I do not want government in charge of or running the system. Government is a terrible businessman. Whatever system they run they will do so right into the ground.
    Second, I don’t trust politicians for a nanosecond to do the right thing. I fully expect them to loot retirement funds, as they have Social Security, and spend like drunken sailors so long as it is OPM that they are using.
    So, if you want everyone covered you do something like this within the plan I have previously proposed:
    Many of those that end up in emergancy rooms, urgent care, etc., that do not have insurance and cannot fully pay simply have their income tax return payments pulled and given to the medical provider to pay that bill.
    It isn’t uncommon for someone that cannot pay and does not have insurance to get a refund on their taxes and often stuff like EIC, etc.
    For those that get EIC we turn that part of the refund into a medical savings account for the recipent instead. That is government giving you money that you did not earn so in effect you are being subsidized to have a medical savings account.
    No system, even single payer, is going to be completely cost effective. But, I would rather have one person made poor or owing a large sum than have everyone taxed to subsidize that one person and everyone be poor.
    Is that “unfair?” Yes. Too bad for those that lose in that system. Does it create a fair and equal system? Actually, yes to the degree that everyone has the same opportunity to participate even if everyone cannot build the same size of account.
    It is like letting motorcyclists choose to wear a helment or motorists to wear or not wear a seatbelt. So long as you recognize the risk and the choice you have made you should be allowed to have that choice as poor as it might be.
    We do not need a Nanny State.

  8. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 3 years ago


    Enoki, I regret to say I’ve never seen your plan and I totally believe there are simpler and more manageable ideas out there. Over the years, I’ve seen a score of programs about hospitals that are making it work for their books and their patients. If you still have a copy of your idea, I would love it if you would send it to If I like it, I’ll forward it to my legislators and even the white house with your permission.
    In an effort to make too many various interests happy, the ACA was, as usually happens with legislation, made to be cumbersome and full of loopholes. I detest this practice and would like to see ideas from folks in our forum.
    Taking the “for profit” aspect out of healthcare would go a long way towards bringing down costs.
    Thank you for the patience and respect in your reply and I will look here tomorrow if you put your plan under this reply.

  9. pirate227

    pirate227 said, almost 3 years ago

    Haters gonna hate. Party first right, cons.

  10. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 3 years ago

    MsKemple!!! Are you also a “Sane Saint”?
    I do not consider Mr. Obama to be a compulsive liar, though I do believe he has said many things based on facts over which he had little or no control.
    I have little sympathy for the Dems and none for those who have led the Republicans over the last decade. Both parties are criminally negligent but the Republicans are, imo, hypocritical in addition to being career politicians who care more for party than for country. The Dems are also party first, but they’re hypocrisies are less damaging than that of the right.
    I do not know your numbers’ accuracy or your source. I do believe that within three years, the foundation on which the ACA was laid will still be strong and if legislators will work together, they can build something strong and lasting upon it.
    However, it seems you feel that attitude is an example of my delusion so I am left asking you what I’ve asked others…
    Are you ready to give hospitals the right to refuse service on an ER visit unless payment can be guaranteed? Failure to provide preventative/educational healthcare will mean people will continue dying in ER rooms and the ER Tax will dispersed amongst the rest of us.
    The ACA if the car we have. I do not believe the GOP will replace it if they are able to repeal it. Therefore I have to ask…
    what is the plan?
    I liked the swearing in the name of Drew Brees sentence. It’s better than my swearing at him when he throws an interception. :D
    Be well, MsKemple. I do appreciate you, even if we are in disagreement on this matter.

  11. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    Alright, I will forward you a copy later this evening. It is really pretty simple on the whole.

  12. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago


    Interesting, and I appreciate your detailing for me. Thanks.

    As many posters on this site have made very plain, a large percentage of citizens do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes. Therefore, they will not receive a refund. Therefore, the idea of attaching their refund check to pay for medical expenses is a problem that needs to be addressed.

    In addition, while it will work for simple, limited problems, when there is malignant cancer, or third-degree burns, or multiple internal injuries, you could attach dozens of years of tax refunds, and still not come close to full repayment of debt. What is the taxpayer going to do under the circumstances? Choose not to work. Why bother, if most of the money doesn’t end up in his/her checking account?

    I agree on paper with your analogy of motorcyclists choosing to take the risk of not wearing a helmet. But when that motorcyclist bashes his head in as a result of an accident, his family will be working hard to find a way to save his life, which will be a far more costly proposition than if he had worn a helmet.

    Don’t think this matters? Remember the hue and cry about the 10-year-old who needed a lung transplant, but the insurance company (correctly, from a medical perspective) would not approve using adult lungs when no children’s lungs were available? Correct procedure meant nothing; the only thing important was the emotional outcry: “Can’t somebody do something?”

    I saw a news piece on TV about a community in Florida that is so anti-tax that it does not offer fire department services. You must pay $75 per year. A resident did not pay. Whether this was intentional or not is not important (to me). His house caught fire. He offered to pay, in cash, double his “fee”. No good. Didn’t pay in time. The fire department came to ensure that the fire did not spread to the homes of his neighbors who HAD paid their fee, but the fire department watched, with the homeowner, as his home burned to the ground. Could you do that?

    If you are ready to allow people to die because they made bad choices, you’re a better man/woman than I. And your plan will work just fine. For my part, though, I would want to ensure that anyone in my community could count on the fire department to help in case of disaster.

    I recognize that government screws many things up. As a provider, though, I am amazed at how well Medicare and Medicaid work, and continually infuriated with the unnecessary mazes that private insurance provides, simply to make us give up rather than to get what we pay them to provide. Granted there has to be oversight. And keep in mind that for-profit insurance companies have not been all that altruistic. Government problems come from lack of accountability. This can be addressed. Insurance issues are a result of greed, and that’s a basic human tenet that thousands of years of religious dogma hasn’t put a dent into.

    I still say, single payer. Pay for it with a national sales tax. Everyone has to invest in the system or it won’t be any better than the one we have.

    But I will agree that your plan is far better than what we are (thankfully) moving away from, and likely far better than Obamacare.

    We can hope that SOMEBODY in Congress will stumble on the responsibility necessary to create and guide a better system through the maze of stupidity and avoid the Secretary of Failure to provide a better system, and hope it’s within our lifetimes.

  13. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, almost 3 years ago


    And as a footnote, the child DID get adult lungs due to the outcry. Of course, they were too large for the chest cavity, so they had to be “trimmed”. And there is great doubt as to whether they will grow when the child does, which is one reason why medical procedure calls for not providing adult lungs for kids. So, this child is likely going to have to be very sedentary, especially if she gets portly, just to survive; or she’ll need yet another lung transplant later.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    ^also, first set failed, and they had to go back in again. Sad as CF is (my son’s favorite teacher died young of the condition), the simple fact is that survival into adulthood is rare, and “old age” is 30. Someday, with stem cell research progressing, we may end this terrible genetic disorder.

  15. piobaire

    piobaire said, almost 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    I think you summed up the situation very well. Thank you for a well-written post and thank you for your efforts to have polite conversations on difficult topics.

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