There were several good political cartoons this week. None were specifically on our issue, although Blue Dog cartoons, which along with Beer/Obama cartoons predominated, were related. But first, a few wild cards...
by Chip Bok of Townhall.com...
by Dana Summers of Townhall.com...
by Jerry Holbert of Townhall.com...
And now, on to the Blue Dogs satire...
by Glenn Foden of Townhall.com...
by Lisa Benson of Townhall.com...
by Glenn McCoy of Townhall.com...
by Glenn Foden of Townhall.com...
Ah, sigh, Congress never thinking of the people...
It is likely that that piece of paper that says health care can say "cash for clunkers" or "bank bailouts" or, once in awhile, "U.S. Constitution" before going ahead with Roe v. Wade.
Sorry, that last one was directed at the Supreme Court.Posted by: Vannah at August 2, 2009 11:04 AM
The definition of successful financial planning is for the end of your resources to be conincidental with the end of your life.
pbho's health care plan will ensure that happens one way or another.
Either you die and your money runs out,
or your money runs out and you die.
But whatever the case, in the process, the government will take as much of your money as it can.
Better get those living wills in order and make your 'end of life' decisions now, or 'obamacare' will be making them for you whether you or your loved ones like it or not.
Obamacare is coming and your 'end' may be sooner than you think!
"They shoot horses, don't they?"
yor bro ken
The lustre is fading fast from the halo of the 'one'.
Juan Williams of NPR and FOX fame has spoken bluntly and forthrightly about pbho's stumbling blundering foray into the Gates meltdownn with the Camebridge police department.
Though Juan is as black as many of his african-american critics he is now condemned by them as not being an authentic negro because he was born in Panama.
But the real reason has nothing to do with his place of birth and everything to do with his refusal to toe the liberal party line and join the chorus of nattering naybobs screaming 'racisim', when they were was no racism evident in the Gates incident, unless you take in to consideration Gates racial profiling of a 'white' police officer.
The minority police on site when the incident occurred and the african-american female police officer who has known and worked with the arresting officer for more twelve years places the responsibilty for the mess directly with Gates and indicts pbho for jumping feet in mouth first into an incident, he by his own admission, knew little about.
The smart 'one' continues to extinguish himself at an ever incresing pace. Pretty soon all that will be left of his once god like illusion will be his 'Radar O'Reilly' ears.
(Does pbho wear mascara?)
This was, and continues to be, a continuing teachable moment for those who are willing to learn.
$2,000,000,000,000.00 (Thats two trillion dollars) in debt and growing.
Those are not 'o's as in the letter 'O' as in O'bama.
Those are zero's!
"Yes we can!" (Yes you did.)
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at August 2, 2009 12:56 PM
Re: the cartoon about Congress.
I am STILL waiting for the MSM to make it known that a Republican deliberately put in a provision that said all Federal employees had to partake of the healthcare plan but the Democrats took it out and then actually exempted all Federal employees from ever having to use it.
Didn't just say "You don't have too if you don't want" but actually said "We are giving you a whole different (and of course better) plan."
It's just like the Social Security Administration employees that don't get SS at retirement, they get something a whole lot better.
I'm sorry, but what's good for the goose and all that... The democrats want everything "equal" on two different fields. Wealth and health for those in power and poverty and death for the rest of us.
Did you know that Feinstein had a town hall and her elderly constituents showed up to protest the health plan and she HAD THEM ARRESTED? Nice of her to listen to the peoples' concerns.Posted by: Kristen at August 2, 2009 2:00 PM
I'm still stunned by that answer that BHO gave about the active, healthy 100 year old woman who needed a pacemanker, and BHO said "perhaps it would've been better if she'd just been given pain killers"....Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 2, 2009 2:24 PM
Why does anything revolving around health reforms never make sense? What exactly is is that President Obama is trying to do? And I don't understand what's happening with the abortion mess that has sprung up.
Is this new coverage going to help pregnant women, children, and veterans? Because none of this legal talk makes sense to me. Someone needs to explain what's happening in English. :(Posted by: Vannah at August 2, 2009 2:42 PM
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 2, 2009 2:24 PM
He is obviously totally ignorant about any kind of medical issue. My mother-in-law has had a pacemaker for years and years. She has atrial fibrillation (as well as 2 MILLION other Americans)and her father and brother both have pacemakers. She leads a more active lifestyle than most people her age but Obama would rather just shoot her. So stupid, but that's who would be making the decisions about who gets care. Now a pacemaker is too much trouble...Good gracious!Posted by: Kristen at August 2, 2009 3:40 PM
I think the "blue dogs" turned out to be pretty wimpy in the end. Why did they go through the trouble of raising a ruckus and then just scoot off with their tails between their legs? They gave up much too easily.
"I object... never mind."
Apparently, they didn't feel too strongly about their objections to Big Brother's health plan, after all.Posted by: army_wife at August 2, 2009 3:48 PM
It suddenly occurs to me that though I've noticed an increasing trend in our country to care for all BUT those who need it (really, our policies are increasingly caring only for the middle-aged working man/woman), this health care policy just nails it all down.
Goodbye to our sense of responsibility for those who need our help. We're going to mandate abortion coverage but we're not going to provide adequate health care to the elderly.
Nice.Posted by: MaryRose at August 2, 2009 4:02 PM
He is obviously totally ignorant about any kind of medical issue.
Posted by: Kristen at August 2, 2009 3:40 PM
I respectfully disagree, Kristen. Remember that Michelle O sat on the board of a hospital that seems to have had a nice little cherry picking scheme going. I think PBHO is trying to overwhelm the health care system Cloward Piven style in order to force its collapse and usher in socialized health care for all.
Private health insurance isn't the villain in health care, but it's the target the libs need to neutralize (Alinsky's rules for radicals) to force everyone onto a government run plan. Anyone who doubts this should read the Kucinich amendment.
If it passes, States may set up a single payer health plan which prohibits private health insurance for services covered under the state plan. The only "private" health insurance options allowed are state-regulated HMOs (socialized health care) for additional services not covered under the single payer plan. Residents in these states will not be allowed to keep their current private insurance, despite rhetoric to the contrary, because the amendment outlaws such coverage in single-payer States.
Try looking at obamacare from the perspective of Alinsky's rules for radicals and creating crisis to overwhelm the system and it all falls nicely into place. I don't think PBHO is ignorant, just lacking in transparency about his real objectives for health care reform.Posted by: Fed Up at August 2, 2009 8:17 PM
Hey, whatever happened to the right to privacy a woman has between her and her doctor? Didn't the supreme court find this right somewhere in the constitution? And if so, will it not apply to all of us in our relationships with our doctors? Someone had better tell crazy Nancy, because it sure seems like the government is going to be taking up residence from now on in our doctor's offices--telling us who is eligible for what and whether the bureaucrats on the advisory board will allow for certain expenditures.
And then there is "choice". Maybe the rest of us will have "choice" too? After all, "choice" is the libs big mantra that we have heard now for nearly four decades. If "choice" and "privacy" are both sacrosanct, then it would apply across the board, right?
Wrong! The libs are going all out to impose their utopian socialist agenda in all facets of our society. It is no longer good enough to have safety net legislation. No, everyone must be equal, we all have a "right" to health care, so we will hammer the rich to pay for the poor and the homeless and the illegals to have basically the same coverage.
Never mind that many of us have scrimped and saved our entire working lives to provide for retirement years, only to have our health plans decimated by libs looking to pander to constituency groups so they can get re-elected.
For those who are laying in the weeds waiting to see how much free medical care you will be getting, remember: there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somewhere, somehow you WILL pay, either in the form of higher taxes eventually, or in the form of less care, and most likely in a combination of the two.
Posted by: Jerry at August 2, 2009 8:23 PM
Well, I agree with the general sentiment here that people aren't entitled to anything: they have to earn it through work, but being upset that the homeless and immigrants (legal or illegal) and the poor will get coverage is missing the point.
It's not as though the poor are just lazy and feel entitled to coverage: they're working. There are single moms or grandparents working three jobs and getting no where but they still have children to look after and feed.
They're working very hard and getting nowhere. So it's not that anti-capitalist spirit has befallen them- they're just needing something new so that they can get care, too.Posted by: Vannah at August 2, 2009 9:43 PM
that the homeless and immigrants (legal or illegal) and the poor will get coverage is missing the point.
Posted by: Vannah at August 2, 2009 9:43 PM
Indeed. But I think it's you who are missing the point, with all due respect, Vannah. Having coverage doesn't automatically entitle a person to care. The nature of socialized health care is to cut costs by restricting access to treatment.
Doesn't do that poor person or that homeless guy much good to have coverage for surgery when a political appointee in Washington overrides his doc's recommendation and decides he isn't an appropriate candidate for surgery. Covered benefits don't translate into entitlement to treatment, Vannah. They translate into government determination of treatment options rather than patient-physician determination of care.
I get your point, Fed Up. :)
I'm not saying that socialized health is good. The only thing that I'd ever heard about it was positive until I came onto this website and read that rationing health was basically still denying care. That spurred me onto research and I don't support it anymore.
I'm sorry, I don't think that I was very clear (I have an inclination to be so vague all of the time, I'm afraid). I wasn't talking about socialism at the moment, I was talking about backing poor people into a corner and labelling them as enemies of capitalism, which I'm sure wasn't the point that Jerry was making but that was kind of how it read (but, evidently, I have a problem getting what I mean out without being a clunker so I shouldn't be talking :)).
Thanks for pointing that out, though. :)Posted by: Vannah at August 3, 2009 12:16 AM
Ahh, Vannah, now I get where you were coming from. Sorry I misunderstood you. Glad to know we're on the same wavelength after all :)Posted by: Fed Up at August 3, 2009 12:43 AM
Posted by: Fed Up at August 2, 2009 8:17 PM
I understand what you mean. That is exactly what happened in Canada and why so many people have to come here for treatment. But where will we go?Posted by: Kristen at August 3, 2009 10:03 AM
But where will we go?
Hi Kristen. We go to the polls and we toss out the clowns who think they should play by a different set of rules than everyone else.
www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/07/31/democrats-reject-two-measures-to-create-parity-between-congress-health-coverage-and-the-publics/Posted by: Fed Up at August 3, 2009 11:31 AM
"Why does anything revolving around health reforms never make sense? "
IMHO....If you get the Life issue wrong, there's a very big chance you will get the other issues wrong, too.Posted by: RSD at August 3, 2009 11:40 AM
If this health care legislation was about providing a wider safety net I would favor that. But, it is not about that at all. Rather, it is about socialism. Socialism is intrinsically class conscious, it seeks to level the playing field. In so doing, it takes away control the individual exercises for himself and family, and cedes it to big brother. This results in a plethora of problems ranging from a decline in health care excellence all the way to the denial of care to certain individuals based upon yet to be disclosed formulas.
It this legislation were so great, why has congress decided it will not apply to them?Posted by: Jerry at August 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Hi Kristen. We go to the polls and we toss out the clowns who think they should play by a different set of rules than everyone else.
Posted by: Fed Up at August 3, 2009 11:31 AM
Posted by: Kristen
at August 3, 2009 3:42 PM
Ah, if it were only so easy. Unfortunately there is such ignorance about what happens with things like this it's almost impossible to vote out the clowns. And since the MSM is in league with Obama's plan the scariness of this is not being talked about like it should.
We do have news to celebrate prolifers, the Parental Notification Law is now in effect in Illinois, 48 hour notice to parents before an abortion. YAAAH!
This is bittersweet because this law was passed in 1995 and has been held in limbo all these years. Illinois joins 34 other states with parental notice. High five to all prolifers.
Did you know that even though Obama praised Mayo Clinic for their excellent, cost-effective healthcare, Mayo Clinic does not endorse his healtcare plan they say it will not improve but reduce quality of healthcare, will not cover everyone and will not solve the healthcare problems? If our healtcare is so bad why do people come from all over the world to get access to our care in the U.S. and why do 83% of Americans rate their healthcare as good to excellent? Only need to fix what is broken we do not need socialized healthcare, social engineering and healtcare rationing to kill off the elderly and murder more unborn babies. Help legal citizens with catastrophic illnesses, pre-existing conditions, reward healthy lifestyle changes and prevention.
The Safeway Corporation has their own healthcare which is excellent care, keeps their cost down and insures all of their employees. I think 20/20's John Strossel and even Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity did a special report about this company. Did anybody see the angry response Sebilius and Arlen Spector got about healthcare reform at the townhall meeting they just had, was reported on Hannity and Greta Von Susteren's program last night?Posted by: Prolifer L at August 4, 2009 12:49 PM
I saw the video of the town hall meeting with Specter and Sebelius. The Dems sure don't like it much when the public doesn't kowtow to them. It's hard to take them seriously when they get so defensive.
I've hear that there will still be uninsured people under a new healthcare plan. Who? Why bother with a new plan?
* * *
If there is to be transparency between doctors (putting all medical records in a database) how will proper healthcare be provided to women if doctors will have no record of the abortion history of women according to current law. Abortion is a factor in future health issues such as infertility. In the name of efficiency, how can abortion records continue to be "private" in a government health program?Posted by: Janet at August 4, 2009 5:43 PM
how can abortion records continue to be "private" in a government health program
Yeah, Janet, I'm waiting to see if abortion records will get the exemption that certain mental health records will get. I wouldn't be surprised if they are exempted because the purpose of the database isn't to help docs get a patient's history. That's just an added benefit they can use as a talking point.
If the purpose were to share patient histories, they would use a records depository system not affiliated with the government. The feds want your record in order to monitor whether your doc is complying with federal protocols for your care. They need to be sure he's doing what they say he should be doing, otherwise socialized healthcare can't work.
I am amazed that so few people are concerned about the feds having this kind of citizen database. It's not just your medical record they're collecting.Posted by: Fed Up at August 4, 2009 7:04 PM
Just a point that should be made:
We have healthcare coverage for the poor, at least those under the poverty line. In most states, even a bit above the poverty line still. In OR, at least, I know that pregnant women and children under 1 year of age are automatically eligible regardless of income. And the health coverage that we have for the poor isn't terrible. It's rather good, actually.
It's not like we're not trying to look out for the poor already. That's what really gets my goat about the socialization plan. Coverage is out there. Just because it takes actually applying doesn't make it less existent.Posted by: MaryRose at August 5, 2009 1:27 AM