Favorite editorial cartoons: June 09

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[Robb G]

again another fantastic representation of liberal thinking. "it's already in the hands of bureaucrats, so you're a hypocrite for wanting it to not be in our hands"

 

[Mike Ventrella]

again another fantastic representation of liberal thinking. "it's already in the hands of bureaucrats, so you're a hypocrite for wanting it to not be in our hands"

And here I thought it was pointing out the hypocricy of conservatives for pretending it isn't already in the hands of bureaucrats.

Personally, I'd rather have health care in the hands of bureaucrats who make decisions based on need instead of based on money.

 

[Robb G]

again another fantastic representation of liberal thinking. "it's already in the hands of bureaucrats, so you're a hypocrite for wanting it to not be in our hands"

And here I thought it was pointing out the hypocricy of conservatives for pretending it isn't already in the hands of bureaucrats.

Personally, I'd rather have health care in the hands of bureaucrats who make decisions based on need instead of based on money.

me too... you know any?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

me too... you know any?

Ooh, snap! Great comeback! OK, you've convinced me! I've changed my mind about health care now!

 

[Robb G]

me too... you know any?

Ooh, snap! Great comeback! OK, you've convinced me! I've changed my mind about health care now!

it's a valid point though. why is it you trust career politicians in Washington (who's sole purpose is to cow tow to lobbyists to stay in power) to regulate your (and mine against my will) health care rather than gamble with the corruption of corporate America? I prefer the power of choice. Even if I am getting ripped off, I'd rather CHOOSE who rips me off. Where do libs get this trust in government from? Mr. smith does NOT go to Washington these days... it doesn't happen.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

me too... you know any?

Ooh, snap! Great comeback! OK, you've convinced me! I've changed my mind about health care now!

it's a valid point though. why is it you trust career politicians in Washington (who's sole purpose is to cow tow to lobbyists to stay in power) to regulate your (and mine against my will) health care rather than gamble with the corruption of corporate America? I prefer the power of choice.

Who is taking away your power of choice? There's not one plan on the table that would get rid of private health care. There will still be private insurance companies who can deny your care all you want. Having public schools (horror! socialism!) didn't get rid of private schools, after all.

Even if I am getting ripped off, I'd rather CHOOSE who rips me off. Where do libs get this trust in government from? Mr. smith does NOT go to Washington these days... it doesn't happen.

Perhaps you've met my wife. She has been fighting cancer for years. Back when the tumor first appeared, we had no health coverage. None whatsoever. We couldn't afford to go to a doctor. When we finally did, we were shocked to find a tumor as opposed to a muscle problem (which is what two separate chiropractors had told us it was). The tumor was so large that it required the removal of most of her arm. You may have noticed.

As far as I am concerned, health care from a bureaucracy is better than no health care whatsoever.

And yeah, I know, I have a different view of the purposes of government than you do but we just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Robb G]

Who is taking away your power of choice? There's not one plan on the table that would get rid of private health care. There will still be private insurance companies who can deny your care all you want. Having public schools (horror! socialism!) didn't get rid of private schools, after all.

do i CHOOSE to pay medicare? social security? property tax (ie public school tax)? no.. i am legally required to.. the same will it be for obamacare if that crap ever passes.. I am sure you'll find that fantastic, you get to partake in another part of my paycheck for no reason other than our current "representatives" in Washington are on a redistribution kick. don't pretend they haven't talked about requiring insurance, or the garnishment of wages... I see we also have a different definition of "choice".

Perhaps you've met my wife. She has been fighting cancer for years. Back when the tumor first appeared, we had no health coverage. None whatsoever. We couldn't afford to go to a doctor. When we finally did, we were shocked to find a tumor as opposed to a muscle problem (which is what two separate chiropractors had told us it was). The tumor was so large that it required the removal of most of her arm. You may have noticed.

As far as I am concerned, health care from a bureaucracy is better than no health care whatsoever.

sure have, nice lady, keeps me fed during events. what does your choice to not buy health care in the past have to do with the conversation? are you implying that because of your personal experience you believe Americans cannot be trusted to make decisions about health care on their own so therefore everyone should be federally mandated to receive coverage (or pay into the system that provides it) that they may or may not be able to afford regardless of how that affects the quality of the industry or the wallets of the rest of the citizens? i can't agree with you there. that just doesn't seem right to me somehow...

 

[Angrydurf]

Try facts over rhetoric and think for a moment about something other than your wallet and I think it all will make a great deal more sense to you.

You do in fact choose to pay for medicare, social security, property tax, etc. You choose to do so when you choose to live in this country. Don't like it? Move. the greatest redistrubution of wealth in known history has occured int he 20th century with the flow of wealth fro mthe poor to the rich being at the highest under so called conservative doctrines.

You act as if it is a choice not to have health insurrance further proves how out of touch you are with the reality of the situation. Insurance companies not only provide bad care but will refuse to serve people, particularly sick people, where is their choice? Should they just decide not to be sick? I'll tell you something almost no one chooses not to have insurrance they are forced by insurrance company policy and prices to not have insurrance. Then they go to emergency rooms when they have no other option and get care because we don't just let people die for being poor and the bill is passed on to you the insurance consumer. So you already pay its just that the money goes to some corperate CEO and his cronies and ruins the credit of some poor person who 'chose' to be poor and sick at the same time.

 

[Robb G]

talk about rhetoric... it's nice to see the libs pick up the torch the "conservatives" carried a few years ago when they used the same line of "oh you want to be gay and marry... you can.. just leave America".. you don't like our foreign policy? the war in Iraq? you don't have to.. just leave America."

Having health insurance IS a choice. Which part of the bill of rights has you confused exactly?

I think it's fantastic how you point out again that "we are already paying for it in some way... so why not give it to the government to run instead". god forbid we stop paying for it all together. Maybe if all of these people who needed health care didn't have to pay for all of the social programs that exist, they'd have more money to pay for their own healthcare and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Angrydurf]

I'm glad you caught the then leave line it was meant to be a referance to that rhetoric exactly. But you do have that choice its just not a reasonable one

What part of the bill of rights exactly covers health insurance? I'm saying if the companies will not cover you you do not have a choice. Due to the inflation of health costs perpetrated by insurance and drug companies it is no longer feasible to pay as you go for health care. I suppose if you overhauled the system such that that was a possibility government coverage wouldn't be needed. Doctors would need to charge less and drug and medical equipment companies would have to accept a sharp cut in their profit margin not to likely to happen with out heavy regulation being used. The other option is for those unable to pay to be refused service which has too high a human cost.

 

[Tyson]

Wheeeee! political debate.

All I know is that I'm extremely grateful for Medicaid, which has enabled us to get some wonderful care for my daughter's speech and behavioral delays. Without it she could have become one of "those kids" that a lot of people would like to just sweep under the rug. But with it she's making some great developmental strides and I'm very hopeful for her future.

I'm also very happy that her coverage won't disappear if I lose my job, or they change to a provider who decides that they won't cover the needs we have. I wish that would be the case for the rest of us, whether it's through reasonable and affordable single-payer care or reasonable and affordable public care.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

do i CHOOSE to pay medicare? social security? property tax (ie public school tax)? no.. i am legally required to..

And fire stations! And public parks! And libraries! Dammit, why doesn't the government only listen to me?!! Why do they spend money on what the majority wants?!!!

the same will it be for obamacare if that crap ever passes.. I am sure you'll find that fantastic, you get to partake in another part of my paycheck for no reason other than our current "representatives" in Washington are on a redistribution kick. don't pretend they haven't talked about requiring insurance, or the garnishment of wages... I see we also have a different definition of "choice".

I sometimes feel the same way about the huge amount the government spends on military equipment we don't need, bailouts for companies that are horribly run, and corporate loopholes that allow big businesses to pay less taxes than I do. The point is that we ALL have things we don't like that government spends money on. That's why we vote for guys who will spend it on things we agree on. Yes, I would much rather have my money going to educate people and keep them healthy. Call me a dreamer, I know.

what does your choice to not buy health care in the past have to do with the conversation?

Ah, so it was my choice to pay rent and buy food instead of health care? I suppose you're right. I should have lived in a cardboard box. You know, technically, it's also my choice not to buy penthouse apartments in Manhattan.

are you implying that because of your personal experience you believe Americans cannot be trusted to make decisions about health care on their own so therefore everyone should be federally mandated to receive coverage (or pay into the system that provides it) that they may or may not be able to afford regardless of how that affects the quality of the industry or the wallets of the rest of the citizens? i can't agree with you there. that just doesn't seem right to me somehow...

Yep, and those damn schools too. Poor people who can't afford education should just suck it up. How dare we, as Americans, try to make life better for other people? And those fire stations! Do you know that if your house burns down, they'll come to help -- and they don't even send you a bill afterwards?!!! How unAmerican! (Free fire protection was an idea of that noted anti-American socialist Benjamin Franklin, you know.) Why is my tax money going for this crap? People should be forced to buy fire engine insurance! Just like if you suddenly get sick! If you can't pay, screw you! Now that's the kind of America I want to live in!!!

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Parks, fire stations, schools--all things that should be handled by the local government and people. There is no reason to believe it can't be. The federal government is hardly the answer to everything. I'd rather they not spend money or even make any more laws. The best thing they could do IMO is go on vacation. Stop passing laws and spending money we don't have. Stop destroying the already nearly worthless dollar. Go to the beach or something. Please! Or even better--undo some of the horrible laws you've already passed, especially the Orwellian Patriot Act.

 

[Duke Frost]

Gee's absolutely right. So many of those things that you mention are handled by local government, not federal...yet federal is by far the biggest chunk of my taxes.

Private corporations are greedy. Absolutely agree with you there Mike V. But our politicians are also greedy, but under the guise of "helping the people". I guess I just prefer the greedy folks that don't pretend to be anything else and don't live a life of hypocrisy.

Politicians are first and foremost supposed to be public servants in this country. How many do you know that actually are?

I actually kind of believe B.O. is trying to be, but even if he has the best of motivations and strategies, he is driving a machine full of corruption and vice.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Gee's absolutely right. So many of those things that you mention are handled by local government, not federal...yet federal is by far the biggest chunk of my taxes.

Private corporations are greedy. Absolutely agree with you there Mike V. But our politicians are also greedy, but under the guise of "helping the people". I guess I just prefer the greedy folks that don't pretend to be anything else and don't live a life of hypocrisy.

Politicians are first and foremost supposed to be public servants in this country. How many do you know that actually are?

I actually kind of believe B.O. is trying to be, but even if he has the best of motivations and strategies, he is driving a machine full of corruption and vice.

Scott

Well, I agree with that in general although not completely. I am not a pie-in-the-sky person who thinks that if we all just hold hands and sing kum-bay-ya that the world will be perfect, and I am as cynical (if not moreso) than the next guy. But then again, I've worked for politicians and political groups, and the ones I have worked with were all sincerely trying to make the US a better place. Not all politicians are corrupt.

But ironically enough I am an optimistic cynic. It's just the way I view government -- I want to at least try to make people's lives better. I certainly understand the libertarian attitude of just getting government out of the way but from history, I see that lives are much worse when we allow the free market to run unregulated. Some things need to be provided to the public for the benefit of us all.

I'll give you an example: Basic utilities. If it were up to electric companies, homes in the middle of nowhere would have to pay huge prices to get electricity. Most of the rural south would have never been electrified in the 1920s or so without the government telling business that they had to do so if they wanted to get permission to run wires everywhere.

I contend that we are all really in favor of government involvement in some way or another -- the issue is over how much. Very few of us disagree with government regulation of the meat industry to make sure we're not eating e-coli. Most people agree with pollution controls on factories. Lots of people benefit from government student loans and grants, unemployment benefits to get through hard times, medicare and medicaid. It's just a matter of degree. I personally don't see a big difference between government providing free education and government providing free health care.

Are there abuses? Do some people take advantage of this? Absolutely. (With medicare and medicaid, it's usually unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies that are the abusers, really.) But I don't believe we should hurt the many for the abuses of a few.

This is not an issue where there is a "right" or "wrong" answer (as there is, for instance, in the "evolution" verses "creationism" debate). It's all a matter of our own personal views on what government should provide.

 

[Duke Frost]

Well, I'm a firm believer that people that are smarter, that work harder and that are responsible shouldn't be punished because people are stupid, lazy and irresponsible.

And that's what our government is doing every day. People who got irresonsible mortgages can refinance and get government aid, but people who were responsible and can still afford their homes get nothing...and they get worse then nothing because their taxes our going to go up to cover all these bad debts people got themselves into. NJ now wants to make credit card interest tax deductible to help people who spent and spent and spent without foresight. That lost tax money is going to have to be made up for somewhere. So once again, people that were stupid and irresponsible get rewarded while those that did the right thing will get punished.

The US is supposed to be the land of opportunity, not the land of laziness and indigents. And the people that seize the opportunities are then punished because of those that don't. And soon there will be no opportunities left...along with no middle class.

You may have worked with a few "good" politicians...but maybe they were just good at hiding what they were really about. You'll probably never know. The most successful crooks are those that everyone thinks is a good guy.

Scott

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Well, I basically agree with you there, Scott. I am in favor of spending tax money to help people in need, but that doesn't mean we should do so stupidly. My earlier comments were primarily aimed at the view that we should never use tax money to help people at all.