Superman supports health care and welfare!

Glenn Hauman

Glenn is VP of Production at ComicMix. He has written Star Trek and X-Men stories and worked for DC Comics, Simon & Schuster, Random House, arrogant/MGMS and Apple Comics. He's also what happens when a Young Turk of publishing gets old.

You may also like...

138 Responses

  1. Ebony14 says:

    I remember seeing another Superman strip where he performed the valuable service of demolishing slum tenements, which means that he also was at the whims of absentee landlords who were forcing people out of older buildings so they could renovate the property to make it more profitable.

  2. Brian Alvey says:

    Who doesn't look forward to the day when all Americans can have basic medical, dental and vision?Preferably x-ray vision, but we'll settle for heat.

    • Linda Gold says:

      Apparently lots more than you would think-see below.

    • Anonymous says:

      Gee, I'm with you. I think we should invite more "illegals" into America. I am for at least 1 billion people in North America, how about you? I think that will make our rivers clean, our oceans safe and our farming lands reproduce even more crops! Then, once we have at least another 500 million illegal aliens, SuperManHoldren can sterilize all the water so they can't have anymore babies! Weeee weeeeed up baby!Then, SuperMan O can ship out SuperMan Holdren to sterilize water around the world! Weeee weeeeeed up baby! LOL… what a bunch of idiots. Keep on tokin that crack pipe hippies.

    • Anonymous says:

      I have all that but i work two jobs to have good insurance .When I needed help with a little bit of foodstamps the big goverment said i made too much money i would love to have that money that goverment said I made too much of … I would havea big flat screen tv new clothes ….. But oh no you maked to much money.Mr Superman I guess I'm toooooo poor are toooo rich mmmmmmmmm

  3. Russ Rogers says:

    Where's Superman's birth certificate? I heard Krypton exploded because of an "End of Life Directive" gone horribly wrong! Isn't Superman advocating Socialism? I don't think we should even have Social Studies in schools! Sure Superman, you want to protect us all under your RED cape! Ha! Facist, Picko, Death-Eater! This was published in the adventures of Bob HOPE! That's right, HOPE and CHANGE! What a joke! And look what happened to Bob Hope! That's right, he's dead.

    • Anonymous says:

      Death Eater? Like… as in the Harry Potter series? If only people like you actually involved in politics. If you were a member of Congress, we could finally get that Anti-Muggle act passed.

      • Russ Rogers says:

        Hey Anonymous, this was my first posting on what was to become a very long and involved debate on the state of Health Care and the need for Health Care Reform in our country. I was trying to mock the name calling that the Conservative fringe had taken to opposing Health Care Reform. Calling someone a "Death-Eater" seems less strident that saying that they want to impose Nazi Eugenics Death Panels. Oh well. Sarcastic ironic exaggeration is hard to portray when kooks have seriously taken their rhetoric SO far out from reality.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Of course, the earliest published version of Superman would probably have learned that Mr. Stanton keeps all of his money in a vault within his estate, would have torn the vault out bodily and would have made a donation to the hospital in Stanton's name.

  5. Steve Chaput says:

    I always had the pajama clad buffoon pegged as a socialist! Who else would wear his underwear over his pants?

  6. Steve Chaput says:

    Always had the pajama clad buffoon pegged as a socialist. A real American wouldn't wear his underwear over his pants!

  7. Anonymous says:

    Utterly brilliant. Thanks for finding this.

  8. Anonymous says:

    So…… Back in 1952, comic book creators were left wing nutjobs who supported bloated, big government programs that cost the tax payers a lot of money and did an incredibly poor job of serving those in need compared to their nongovernment counterparts. Nothing's changed in 50 years. Government's still growing, and comic books are still created, by and large, by left wing nut jobs. All hail, Obama!!! Savior of us all!(By the by, Supes isn't talking about Obamacare here. Back in the 1950's, people couldn't fathom that we'd one day become so stupid that we'd want government to take over and run our health care system. Oooooops. Wait a second. We don't. Nobody buys into the snake oil that Obama's selling.)(Well, almost nobody. But Superman would be pissed.)

  9. Anonymous says:

    The crux of the matter is that, sure, it's nice to take care of people who can't take care of themselves, but welfare and health care are not and never have been within the scope of the constitutional bounds of the federal government. If it is to be, it is a matter for the states to administer individually. It's also a matter of liberty. Taking my money by compulsion to give to someone else NOT of my choosing, for whatever reason, is a violation of my right to self-determination.

    • Sean D. Martin says:

      Taking my money by compulsion to give to someone else NOT of my choosing, for whatever reason, is a violation of my right to self-determination.So you're opposed to ALL taxes then?

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Let's quote the Constitution. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."I think Healthcare falls under the category of "Promote the General Welfare." For that matter, so does "Welfare." You can't have liberty or the pursuit of happiness if you don't first have LIFE. And Healthcare is not a luxury that only the rich should be able to afford, it's a necessity for LIFE. And so, the government needs to protect and promote that general welfare. The government was actually founded with those specific goals in mind.The FDA works at keeping your food and drugs safe. What? Why that's part of our already socialized healthcare system! We already have many, many institutions and programs of socialized healthcare in the United States. But the system is so hodgepodge that millions of people fall through the cracks. And it's wastefully inefficient and woefully expensive to the point of being cost prohibitive for a large percentage of people.We PAY like twice as much for healthcare as almost any other industrialized nation. Do you know what we get for those extra dollars spent? The 35th highest life expectancy in the world! So YOU are paying TOP dollar and getting not even second rate healthcare, but 35th rate. Enjoy your self-determination as you pay through the nose for what! Millions declare bankruptcy because of medical bills that they can't afford to pay. Who absorbs those costs? We all do! And it's a damned inefficient way to run a healthcare system, ruining people's lives.For example, relatively small investments in preventative healthcare (like making sure everyone has access to flu vaccine) can mean billions of dollars saved in treatment costs later, and billions and billions of dollars in higher productivity (that's more money for EVERYBODY, including taxes) because workers wouldn't be sick and off the job as much. And getting nearly everyone vaccinated can help prevent epidemics even pandemics. That keeps EVERYBODY healthier. Y'know, the General Welfare, what's good for everybody? When was the last time you had a nightmare about getting polio or small pox? Thank Governmental (Socialized?) Healthcare programs that you don't have those fears.The government takes your money and redistributes it all the time. But you DO get to choose how each and every dollar is spent. You get to elect Representatives who enact laws that determine how that money is spent. It's called Representative Democracy and it's how We the People determine what will happen with our money. You can claim that any law you disagree with is a violation of your right to self-determination, but then you might sound like an anarchist or just a loon.Right now, I'm hoping our representatives can figure out some methods of healthcare reform. I hope that includes, at a minimum, a public option for healthcare insurance.

    • chris stehlik says:

      How do you explain Medicare or the VA?You have a right to self determination, if you don't like the laws enacted in this country, you can work to change them or leave.

  10. Ray Cornwall says:

    Is that Plastino or Boring?

  11. Dan says:

    The artist is Win Mortimer.

  12. Christopher Butcher says:

    Actually, Superman is a naturalized American Citizen.

  13. Eddie says:

    Hey kids! Let's brush asside any substanative debate about a complex social issue! Instead let's equivicate debate and dissagreement with the most offensive extremist we can find! That way we don't have substantiate our claims, validate our logic, or apply our proposals to real world examples! Remember kids that unquestioning acceptance of our leaders is the only real way to help people in your community!

  14. Anonymous says:

    I am always pleased to find I agree with Superman. It's probably good for my health – I'm told he can be, well, sort of a dick sometimes.

  15. jimmy says:

    For a right-wing spin: http://jimtreacher.com/archives/002115.htmlIf HC is guaranteed, why isn't food? Why doesn't the government just subsidize the entire food industry and ration it…wouldn't that guarantee everyone gets the same quality, promoting equality? (all except for the politburo, I mean Congress)

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Jimmy, Healthcare ISN'T guaranteed now. That's the problem. There are millions of people who go uninsured. So comparing Healthcare to Food is a bit of a stretch. Right now, 15.9% of Americans go uninsured and the numbers are growing. If 15.9% of Americans were starving to death, wouldn't you expect the Government to do something about it? If 15.9% of Americans were starving, trust me, you would see some rationing going on. Or you would see rioting, take your pick.But you act as if there are NO government programs that subsidize the food industry. Quite the opposite. Agriculture is one of the most HIGHLY subsidized businesses in America: from Milk to Sugar to Corn. So the government is already paying a lot of YOUR food bill, Jimmy. [Shh. Your food is being subsidized, does that mean it's SOCIALIZED? Oh NO!] On top of that, you act like there aren't already a host of governmental programs designed to combat hunger. There are many. These programs don't promote equality. Not everybody gets to eat the same things. But they do promote the idea that everyone should have at least enough to survive. And more money is funneled to big business to subsidize food production than food assistance and welfare programs.Jimmy, my guess is that your tax dollars pay for your local fire department? Why is that? At one time in America, if you wanted a fire company to put out a fire at your house, you had to contract with a LOCAL FIRE COMPANY, a private business. People had individual contracts and there were competing fire companies. Doesn't competition lower prices? Why don't we have that system anymore? Why did the government feel it necessary to take over the running of perfectly legitimate private businesses and have SOCIALIZED fire coverage? Because it was a dreadfully inefficient way to handle fire prevention! If you had a fire, you had to remember that you were covered and by which company. What if a fire started at your house and spread to your neighbor's house, who was uninsured or worse insured by a different fire company? In short, a system of private competing fire companies didn't work. The system was inefficient and dangerous. Towns found out it was much safer and cheaper to pool their resources and hire just ONE company, or better yet just start their own. Because covering everybody for fire prevention makes everybody safer, both the rich and the poor (who might not be able to afford it at all). The same is true for health coverage, where pandemics have the potential to spread like wildfires.But the current government health care reform plan doesn't socialize medicine. The current plan isn't even to have a subsidized public medical insurance plan. The current plan to is have a competing, self-sufficient medical insurance plan that would make the essentials of healthcare affordable for everyone. The public option would provide an agency that could compete with private insurance, forcing them to be more competitive and fair. The public option would provide a large base that could negotiate prices for drugs and medical coverage.If you think your healthcare insurance program is better, keep it! Nobody will stop you. If your private healthcare insurance is better than the public option, good for you! Nobody will be coming around to make sure that it's no better, that we have perfect equality or rationing. This public option for health insurance would be similar to our current postal system. The US Post Office is supposed to be a self sufficient, publicly owned business. And for the most part, it is. This doesn't stop UPS, Federal Express or other delivery services from competing in the marketplace. But, it does mean that almost everyone in the US has access to at least the affordable public option of mail delivery. Sometime UPS can deliver a better product and you are free to use their services.So stop trying to muddy the waters by implying that a public option for health insurance will lead toward the rationing of food or a radical shift in our system of governance. And whoever Jim Treacher is, his scare tactics about the current healthcare proposals leading to a system of eugenics and death panels, paint him as a real wing-nut. A loony. Those are just bald-faced lies! That cartoon spoof is filled with dangerous hyperbole and disinformation. And you can't logically argue with someone who is willing to just make up lies in an attempt to scare people away from real debate.Jimmy, right now the USA pays the MOST for healthcare in the world. That is the most per capita in dollars and the most as a percentage of GNP. And about 50% of that is paid for by the government already! [50% SOCIALIZED!] You would think that we would be getting the best health care in the world. We don't. In the UK, which has a socialized system of care, about 85% of healthcare is paid for by the government. Who has the better system? Well, in the UK, they have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. In the UK it's practically unheard of that someone would go bankrupt trying to pay medical bills. Even people WITH medical insurance go bankrupt in the USA trying to keep up with the percentages of bills that aren't covered! By the way jimmy, check out http://comix4sight.com/ and make a donation.I'm not saying the UK's system of healthcare is perfect. But, objectively speaking, it's cheaper than ours and their outcomes are better. They pay less; they live longer. Obviously they have something to teach us, something we could learn. Why would you want to continue to be overcharged for what is not even a second rate product?Why do we have to have a medical system that is subsidized by spaghetti dinners, meat raffles and charity auctions? Turns out our system of health insurance is just woefully inefficient at providing health coverage, but it's extremely efficient at funneling profits to the big medical insurance companies, who have some of the biggest profit margins and the highest paid executives.

      Our healthcare system is broken (and getting worse by the day); it's in need of major reform. So stop listening to lying wing-nuts like Jim Treacher, Jimmy. Start considering the facts and stop spreading hype and lies.

      • Loriborealis says:

        It is funny how some people think "health insurance" and "health care" are the same thing.

      • Greg PArramore says:

        Health Care like the current Postal Service. Aren't they broke? Oh and talk about the service, have you ever dealt with them? How about the dmv. Morons who think they are smarter then everyone else are the reason we're in this mess. What about that founding philosophy," If you don't work you don't eat".

  16. Lockestep says:

    Yep. Americans do have a tradition of pitching in and helping each other when someone is in need. We do it voluntarily, instead of being coerced by a central government. And guess what…it works.

    • Linda Gold says:

      That's great, how much will you all give me for my open heart surgery? Do you really think people should depend on the charity of their friends and neighbors for hundreds of thousnads of dollars in medical bills. I have 3 friends who have insurabce and still need thousands of dollars for medical bills. How do suppose I can help them and at the same time pay oalmost $1000 a month for coverage for myself and my husband?

  17. Anonymous says:

    In 1952, when this comic was written, the Federal budget, in constant dollars adjusted for inflation, was one-fifth what it is now. The population at that time was about half what it is now.But hey, the problem is not enough taxes, right? Couldn't be the spending.

    • Linda Gold says:

      Great, let's chop the Pentagon's money since that's where most of your taxes go.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wrong. Military spending – which is constitutionally mandated by the way – only accounts for about one-third of the Federal budget. Welfare, socialist security, HUD and other social spending now comprise the bulk of the Federal budget.

        • Linda Gold says:

          Military spending isn't mandated at 21% of the budget which is what it was last year (and of course from 2003-2008 the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afganhistan weren't counted as part of the budget's military soending so the percentage is really much higher).

          • Anonymous says:

            Oh, so in your mind 21% (your number) to 34% (my number) is "most" of the Federal Budget? Is all your math this good, or are you just the gal that buys $50,000 hammers for the Federal government?

          • Linda Gold says:

            At either number it is still the single largest portion of the Federal budget especially if you add in the overseas "operations" which are currently keep off line. And my point wasn't to dispute the numbers but what the money was being spent on. And it was a $500 hammer (not $50,000 Mr. Anonymous Math Whiz) and they were purchased by the Pentagon so it looks to me like they could spare some money to help sick people instead of Blackwater.

          • Anonymous says:

            Wrong. The single largest portion of the federal budget is not the Department of Defense: http://www.federalbudget.com/And that does not include socialist security. I find it interesting how the federal government's constitutionally mandated duty to provide for the common defense should, in your mind, take a back seat to free medical care to illegal aliens. Asking me to pay for your doctor bills so you can label me a "racist" in place of maintaining our national military that protects my wife and son from the brutality we recently watched in Georgia is unconvincing to say the least. Go ahead and have the last word Ms. Gold- just bear in mind that there are those that will not submit to your collectivist designs without a fight.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            Anonymous, you are a coward and a bully. How DARE you call Ms. Gold by name without having the guts to leave your own! HOW DARE you threaten her personally! "Ms. Gold – just bear in mind that there are those that will not submit to your collectivist designs without a fight." I interpreted those words as a threat. I don't know how Ms. Gold read them. You didn't say, "go along without serious debate." You started slipping into what I interpreted as violent, gun-toting rhetoric and threats. How the HELL did you mean that statement?And Ms. Gold is NOT a collectivist. Ms. Gold is a capitalist. I believe Ms. Gold OWNS a good chunk the site where you are spewing your collectivist threats! So it's rather ironic that you are here, using her site for free, tossing about your insult, "collectivist."This is not the forum to rant about what expenditures you feel are Constitutional and which aren't. This isn't the forum to rant about which revenue collecting methods the governments uses you feel are or aren't constitutional. Income Taxes are legal. They happen to be an extremely efficient way of raising money. Social Welfare programs are here to stay. You are late to the game if you are trying to claim that they are unconstitutional now. Get used to it.Either learn how to sign in to the site (It's not that hard. Even I figured it out!) or type some kind of name or nickname at the end of your rants. It's easy to spew hate and fear behind the shield of anonymity! Try backing up your word with your name if you feel so strongly about them. Jerk. Try being a little politer and not falling back into violent threats when you fear you are going to lose an argument.

          • Anonymous says:

            Well Mr. Rogers (if that's your real name):1. After being maligned as a "racist", "terrorist", and "Nazi" being labeled a "coward", "bully", or "jerk" just doesn't have the impact that it used to.2. I fail to see where you derive any "violent, gun-toting rhetoric" in my posts. Perhaps support for the constitutionally mandated provision for the common defense offends you?3. As for the "serious debate", it seems you are not inclined to it either as my simple question [Anonymous (12:40 PM on Thu Sep 3, 2009)] has gone without reply whilst you have had the time to accuse me of spewing "hate and fear" and threatening physical harm to Ms. Gold.4. "This is not the forum to rant" – really? Is that why you have more post here than nearly everyone else combined? Or is this forum just set aside for you to rant?5. I'm only "losing the debate" because I disagree with you- which apparently isn't allowed. I also noted that Ms. Gold failed to acknowledge that she was mistaken about her assertion concerning the federal government's spending habits.6. As for the politeness, since Ms. Gold failed to include her preferred title with her post I was forced to make a guess. Having had hostile responses to the titles "Miss" & "Mrs." over the years and having noticed that most liberal women tend to prefer the title "Ms." instead, I went out on a limb with "Ms." As usual, I appear to have guessed wrong. Oh, and I was trying to give her the last word on the subject without giving you the impression that I surrender my position. I know that holding an opinion different than yours offends you, and I must say, right now, that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling all over.7. You seem concerned about my identity, and so there can be no misunderstanding I've outlined below the posts I've made here on your forum- though if you are so concerned about the identity of your posters one wonders why an Anonymous option is made available:(3:50 AM on Thu Sep 3, 2009)(4:29 PM on Thu Sep 3, 2009)(5:25 AM on Fri Sep 4, 2009)(12:40 PM on Thu Sep 3, 2009)(5:26 AM on Fri Sep 4, 2009)My name is Jason Francis. I live at 18159 SW Rosa Rd #62 in Beaverton, Oregon- or maybe Aloha, Oregon, the city boundaries are not well marked around here.8. This proposal is "collectivist". There are only two kinds: "individualists" (like me) and "collectivists" (like you). You believe that I should pay for your medical care, that you have a "right" to take property from me to satisfy your wants. I do not. As the primary architect of the Constitution said:"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."James MadisonNow if this proposal was suggested at the state level, where people would be free to choose to live with it or move to another state without it, you would not be encountering such resistance. If, for example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were to implement this idea, other states could observe it's success or failure and then decide whether or not to adopt it themselves. But you don't want to do it on the state level. You want to enforce this on everybody, over their objections- and worse yet, you get offended when they have the nerve to object! That is why you are a collectivist and why I, as an individualist, oppose your efforts.Now, since you are such a fan of threats, hate and fear, I leave you with both the last word (which I won't read because your provocations will only encourage me to re-engage in this pointless exchange of text) and these choice quotations for you to ponder- not that you will:"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them."Thomas Jefferson"By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt."James Madison"…therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."John Adams

          • Linda Gold says:

            You win. Let people die in the streets. If you represent what America is I give up. This country has gone insane.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Anonymous, you fail to take into account the growth in GDP over the same time period. We pay more in taxes because we make more and earn more. The budget has stay very close to 30% of GDP since 1952. Spending has grown faster than receipts, so obviously deficits have grown. Yes, there is a problem with spending. And a higher and higher percentage of GDP is being spent on health care. Health care costs are growing at an unsustainable rate. We need to find some reforms to control those costs. Health care costs have grown at a much faster rate than taxes or the GDP.

  18. David Aitken says:

    Hey, Russ Rogers, is that General Welfare clause the same one that authorizes warrantless wiretaps, rendition, and the like? Just askin', you know. BTW, the powers authorized to the government are listed in Article I, Section 8, not the Preamble.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Hey David Aitken, I'm a guy who likes comic books; I'm not a lawyer or Constitutional Law Professor, like Obama. I'm just saying that if you are arguing against Income Taxes or Social Welfare programs on the basis of them not being Constitutional, you are a little late to the party. There is no way the USA is doing away with the Income Tax or Social Welfare programs now or any time soon. I think there has been plenty of time for these arguments to filter up to the Supreme Court and be ruled on by the real authorities on what is or isn't Constitutional. I'm sure somebody will challenge whatever form health care reform takes on the basis of it's Constitutionality. We'll see if the Courts look at those cases and how they rule.No, I don't think that warantless wiretaps, rendition or torture promoted the General Welfare or provided for the Common Defense (even if that was the intent of the people doing it). I think our own laws and International Laws were ignored and broken. I don't think that promotes anyone's welfare, especially not the people getting tortured or the reputations of the people (you and me, the USA) doing the torturing.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Superman? I thought that was Barack Obama! Well, that explains that weird S design on his chest.

  20. Anonymous says:

    It's not really that hard — Superman is trying to convince Mr. Stanton to contribute, voluntarily, out of his own funds, to the hospital. Superman is NOT saying, "Mr. Stanton, cough up the dough or I'll personally beat you silly until you give it up, and then I'll congratulate myself on what a compassionate person I am for having been so generous with your money." That is precisely the distinction — or at least one of them (effectiveness being another one, of course) — between private philanthropy and government coercion. Sorry the distinction is too subtle for you.You'll note that I'm not saying that Superman is wrong — only saying that Superman isn't demonstrably on your side. Back a few years ago I spent over $60…,000 of my own money (and I'm no Bill Gates, and the newest of my three old cars is the one that has only 155,000 miles on it) to adopt four kids from Kazakhstan even though I already had four of my own biological children, then took six months' sabbatical from my job as a self-employed consultant to go around raising funds for the kids who had to be left behind. In the end I raised enough money to put another seven Kazakh kids through college, and to set up two transition homes for kids who were leaving the orphanage system to live in while they went to college, and to install a new telephone system in one of the orphanages I worked with, and to bring seven more kids to the United States for a summer, in the process of which three of those kids found American adoptive parents. So I certainly can't be accused of being a callous conservative unwilling to take big hits to my own lifestyle out of compassion for others, or to be unwilling to do exactly what Superman is doing in this strip and attempt to raise funds through private philanthropy. But I would never do what you want to do for YOUR own favorite personal cause, which is enlist the coercive power of the government to do my fundraising for me, and to place the wellbeing of those for whom I care deeply in the hands of government bureaucrats and Washington politicians.In other words, if you think this Superman strip is at all relevant to the debate about nationalizing health care, it merely shows that you do not understand those who disagree with you. Most Americans who are opposed to Obamacare have no problem with the ends in view; we too would be happy to see everybody in America — indeed, everybody in the world — have the best possible medical care. We just prefer Superman's approach to yours, on both moral and practical grounds. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a government bureaucracy and private philanthropy…well, that's a big part of the problem, right there. And the fact that it doesn't seem to have crossed your mind that Superman could absolutely overwhelm Mr. Stanton with irresistible force and yet chooses instead to respect his freedom and appeal to his conscience, and that this decision on Superman's part is the antithesis of your preferred approach… [sigh] the truth is, most of your opponents share Superman's compassion, but, alas, you don't share his humility and self-restraint.

  21. Robert says:

    "Let's quote the Constitution."Yes, quote the preamble, the part that has no legal force whatsoever. And when it talks about promoting the general welfare it talks about protecting people from force and fraud, not the people who have more than others. General welfare, not class warfare.Everything else in your post is garbage. "Your money is redistributed all the time…" And that makes it right? Of course we get to elect idiots and croneys and morons who know what's right for us all, so that makes it all better, doesn't it. But it's reprentative democracy, so it's all good. Hey, buddy, the majority is giving you the finger, take the hint why don't ya. And after that, read the Constitution, all the stuff after the preamble, particularly article 1, section 8 which delegates authorities to Congress. Lets see, government takover of business, government run health insurance…nope, don't see it. Maybe cause it's NOT THERE! Neither is Medicare, Social Security and about 90% of the things our sainted government does. But hey, who needs rules, right? Majority rule, baby! Might makes right! SUPERMAN SAYS SO!"35th highest life expectancy…" Yeah, correlates 100% with access to health insurance, has nothing to do with other social problems or even levels of crime. Completely ignore that NEARLY ALL MEDICAL INNOVATIONS come from the United States because of a nominally market based system. Single payer? Sure, have fun with that. And when the only payer decides we don't need any new advancements in medicine we won't get any. But hey, it's all about costs with you, isn't it? Grandma sure could use that hip replacement, but an appointed healthcare panel says it's too expensive and grandma is gonna have to just suck on aspirins in her wheelchair until she dies. Have fun with that.

  22. Anonymous says:

    If health care system is broken, should we look to the failure-prone Fed Gov't to fix it? I think not. Should we look to the "wisdom" of comic book writers for advice on running our lives? I think not.

  23. Anonymous says:

    No one seems to have noticed that the cartoon is about soliciting *donations* for a community hospital (see "Hospital Fund Drive", first panel, the grouchy old man "I'm not *giving*"), not forcibly-collected taxpayer dollars. Back in ye olden days, "welfare" meant charity, not the government dole. Superman here is encouraging charity, the very opposite of socialism.Reality intrusion over– please resume vicious debate over policy…

  24. Jim Treacher says:

    "There are millions of people who go uninsured."Most of whom are either illegal immigrants, unemployed for 4 months or less, or simply choose not to buy health insurance because they don't think they need it. It's not 47 million. It's more like 10-12 million.

    • Anonymous says:

      My husband, who has been employed for over a year at the same place and has solid work history prior to that, hasn't had insurance in over five years. His father runs his own company, and nobody in his family is insured. My infant child and I have insurance through the state of Illinois; prior to that, except for a brief stretch of time, I lacked insurance for about six years… I worked full time that entire time, but like my husband, I either worked for places that didn't offer insurance, or that had such high costs/co-pays/etc that it wasn't worth it. Many insurance companies consider my husband too high risk to cover, as he had brain surgery as a kid. He had an aneurysm. He will never have an aneurysm again, and having had that surgery, the problem is completely solved. But companies still refuse to offer him coverage. I have PCOS, which many insurance companies consider a pre-existing condition. Untreated, there is a VERY good chance I will develop diabetes, heart problems, and develop fertility issues that will prevent either becoming pregnant or sustaining a pregnancy (in fact, I've had 3 miscarriages). Treatment includes a form of oral insulin that is relatively cheap, and which goes a long way toward mitigating those side effects. Yet because I've already been diagnosed with PCOS, there are insurance companies that will either refuse me entirely, or refuse to cover treatment for my illness.There are a LOT of folks who don't have insurance available to them despite steady job histories and citizenship status. There are lots more who can't afford insurance– my parents' insurance is something like $500 a month, not counting the actual cost of co-pays and prescriptions. That's about the same amount of a studio apartment in Chicago. Like many Americans, my family and my husband's family are one medical disaster away from being bankrupt by incredibly high medical costs. I have (employed, US citizen) friends who've had to debate whether they should go to the emergency room for cellulitis (which can lead to loss of limbs), jagged bleeding wounds, and potentially broken bones because the potential cost of an ER trip could have ended every chance they had at owning a car or a home.

    • Anonymous says:

      No, sorry, the 47 million *is* people who've been uninsured for over a year. Have some tasty facts.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29508916/

  25. Jim Treacher says:

    Oh, I didn't scroll all the way down to where you baselessly called me a liar. Well, you have a nice day too, sir.

    • mcg says:

      That's right Jim. Government health care is just fine… just stay outa my womb! Wait… what?

    • Russ Rogers says:

      I didn't baselessly call you a liar. I read your comic spoof. I found it riddled with illogical hyperbole and lies. It was more of the rantings that the current attempts at healthcare reform are pointing on a slippery slope toward death panels and eugenics. It's total crap, Mr. Treacher. Baseless lies. Nobody wants to kill your grandma. You have swallow a bunch of hooey and are regurgitating back in a very creative way. But the MILLIONS of people who declare bankruptcy because of health care costs or not all uninsured. There are NO plans in current health care legislation to cover illegal immigrants. So why make up these lies?

      • Jim Treacher says:

        I said, good day, sir.

        • Russ Rogers says:

          So if you or your family gets sick during that 4 months (or less) when you are unemployed and uninsured, who covers you then? What about the people who do choose to buy health insurance but then are denied claims or find that they are woefully under insured? Oh did you mean, "God Day: I don't have to explain why I'm spreading lies about death panels and plans for eugenics, I can just spread fear without backing any of it up with more than baseless innuendo and hyperbole"? Nope, that doesn't make it a good day at all.

    • Gordon McAlpin says:

      Russ, I have to chime in and speak up on Jim Treacher's behalf. He's not lying. He honestly believes everything he said, and lying means a willful intention of deceiving someone, not persuading them to share a belief that you earnestly hold yourself.That means he's NOT a liar. That means he's an idiot.

      • Jim Treacher says:

        And a good day to you as well, Gordon.

        • Gordon McAlpin says:

          Thank you, Jim! I would much rather have had you actually back up your right-wing claptrap with actual, substantive arguments, because if there are any, I have never once heard them from a single Republican, but your well-wishes are heart-warming consolation.

          • Jim Treacher says:

            You insult me, and then complain that I don't reply with a substantive argument? Maybe it's your approach.

          • Gordon McAlpin says:

            You've failed to make any relevant, substantive points to anybody here, Mr. Treacher. Keep waving the victim card, but you obviously have nothing to say that could interest me.And since you also seem to be unable to allow other people to have the last word, no matter how little you have to say, you may respond now:

          • Jim Treacher says:

            If I have nothing to say that could interest you, Gordon, why are you talking to me?And the "You can have the last word" ploy? How amateur.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            Well, I didn't insult you, Jim. I characterized your statements as lies. They are. They aren't opinions. We aren't having a difference of opinion here. You implied that Obama's proposals for health care reform include plans for eugenics and death panels. Nonsense. That's not an opinion, Jim, that's slander. It's not funny, because there are people who actually believe that utter line of bull crap. I said that those statements made you sound like a wing-nut and a loony. Gordon was willing to attribute your statements to mental deficiency. I' think that you are smarter than that, Mr. Treacher; but you just seem far more callous and callow.You can't walk into a crowded movie theater and shout, "FIRE!" And then claim that was just your review of the movie. "They should have run from the theater, that movie was awful!"I don't care how bad you think health care reform is, it's not right to get people to run away from it by pretending there is scary shit in there that just ISN'T. There is NO fire in the theater, and there is NO plan for death panels or eugenics in Obama's health care reform. If you make the argument that you believe that's what it's about, you are either a liar, an idiot, seriously deranged or a dogmatic wing-nut. Possibly a combination of those. Because that is not just untrue, it's inflammatory, slanderous and dangerous rhetoric. Why? Because you are saying that the Obama health care reform is a secret plan to kill the defenseless and innocent among us. What if some even kookier fruitcake uses violent means to "defend those innocents" because they believe this lie? You are treading in murky waters, spreading this kind of vicious hate.

          • Anonymous says:

            Maybe you need to look at what people mean when they talk about death panels, and why they think they will necessarily be part of the implementation of socialized medicine.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            Michelle Malkin? You point to a series of anecdotal accounts about the British health care system that Michelle Malkin has collected? (I really haven't considered Michelle Malkin a credible source of commentary since the Rachel Ray Kefia Kerfuffle. Look it up. It's hilarious!) For every horror story you can come up with about British Health Care, someone else can come up with an equally horrorific story about American Health Care. Anecdotes aren't statistics. They can illustrate your argument, but not make your case. And the current proposed health care reforms are not modeled on the UK. So it's apples and oranges. There are NO proposed death panels. There is NO proposed eugenics programs. Anyone who says there is or implies that's what health care reform will lead to is simply deranged, confused or lying, just trying to cloud real discussion about what health care reform is by spreading hate and fear about what it is not and what it will never become.

  26. Anonymous says:

    "Jimmy, Healthcare ISN'T guaranteed now. That's the problem. There are millions of people who go uninsured. So comparing Healthcare to Food is a bit of a stretch. Right now, 15.9% of Americans go uninsured and the numbers are growing. If 15.9% of Americans were starving to death, wouldn't you expect the Government to do something about it? If 15.9% of Americans were starving, trust me, you would see some rationing going on. Or you would see rioting, take your pick."I see what you did there. You deceptively conflated health care insurance with health care. See, not having insurance does not necessarily stop you from getting health care. Indeed, you can walk into any emergency room in the country and get treatment without ever having had health care insurance for a second. It is not the ideal method of getting health care but it is health care.To use your food analogy: just because you don't have a Local Deli Discount Card that makes your sandwiches less costly doesn't mean you can't go into Local Deli and buy a sandwich.When you accuse someone of lying, you shuold probably make sure you didn't beging you entire rant with a really big one.-Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Jimmie- Part of the reason we are paying so outrageously through the nose for health care is that people without Health Insurance end up using Emergency Rooms as their Primary Physicians. It's an insanely expensive and inefficient way to dole out treatment. Worse, it clogs our already crowded Emergency Rooms with more patients than they can handle. One of the major savings that having an affordable Public Option to Health Insurance is that it might help solve is this terrible waste of money and time in Emergency Rooms. Another savings might be that if everyone could afford to have a regular primary physician, preventative medicine might also save money over reactive Emergency procedures later on. It's a lot cheaper to treat someone with blood pressure medication now than to treat a stroke or heart attack later on."To use your food analogy: just because you don't have a Local Deli Discount Card that makes your sandwiches less costly doesn't mean you can't go into Local Deli and buy a sandwich." Yes, but what if you can't afford to buy a sandwich at any price, discount card or not. Do we expect the Deli (a private business, not the government or charity) to just hand out sandwiches for free?My analogy may not have been perfect. But it's a damn sight better than the lies that "Health Care Reform is a secret plot to kill the indigent and infirm." There are no death panels. There are no eugenics programs. Obama is not trying to institute a socialist, fascist or totalitarian state. Those are nonsense boogyman scare tactics and lies.

      • Linda Gold says:

        Don't forget to mention that the uninsured pay 3-4 times what the insured do for care in the emergency room so people don't go unless they have to. My daughter who is uninsured refused to go to the hospital after rolling over her car because she knew she would never be able to pay for the treatment at the hospital. Another time when she fractured her arm the hospital charged her over $2000 for x-rays and a soft cast .

  27. elladeon says:

    Dude, you do know that agri subsidies are supposed to keep prices artifically HIGH, right? They're not to help consumers; they're to help farmers. So, my subsidized food is actually more expensive – substantially – than if the government would just butt out. Not to mention the millions of acres of fallow farmland and thousands of tons of destroyed crops, every year, from government subsidies. But whatever. That's a great metaphor. I'm not even going to touch your infant mortality and life expectancy stuff. Let me just say – other countries count things differently than we do, and that makes their numbers look better.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Hey, I'm not saying that Government Subsidies of farming are a great idea. 80% of the subsidy money goes to 10% of the farms. It's another way to funnel tax dollars toward big business. It's more corporate welfare. But, there's no question that your tax dollars have gone to the farmers who have grow the food (or been paid to NOT grow the food) you put in your mouth. Also, there are plenty of Government programs designed to feed the hungry. I'm not saying it's a perfect metaphor. It was jimmy who started down the road that healthcare reform was some form of government rationing system, like food rationing. I just tried to tell him that the Government is already involved with food.If you have better statistics, point me toward them. I got mine from http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_…If you have more objective and reliable statistics, I'm willing to look at them.By your count, how many people went bankrupt in the United States last year because of medical bills they couldn't pay? By your counts, how does that compare to Canada or the UK?By your numbers, how much does the USA pay for healthcare? And by your numbers, where do we rank as far as outcomes? What is our life expectancy and infant mortality rates compared to the UK? Do we pay more or less than the UK? Are we getting better results? How?

      • Stephen R says:

        RE: Infant Mortality numbers: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=…Basically, in this country, if it's born and it's moving, it is counted as a "live birth". In other countries, anything under a certain weight is simply not counted, OR anything that doesn't survive 24 or 48 hours is not counted, OR….In the USA we count them all. Pretty much every other country pushes its infant mortality numbers down by simply discarding a whole lot of dead babies.

        • Russ Rogers says:

          Stephen, great article! This is informed and intelligent debate. You are right, in that other countries do seem to inflate their infant mortality numbers. So factoring in how Norway inflates theirs, their numbers are no better than ours. But they are no worse either. Still, this is interesting.The article you cite has many anecdotal cases of Canada sending their premature babies to US hospitals for treatment. Does it? We could applaud Canada for it willingness to seek out the best, most cost effective care, even if that means having some patients seek treatment outside of Canada. And, I don't think this means that the parents are on the hook for paying for that treatment. The article didn't say that. In the USA, if you are even transfered away from a hospital that is within your coverage by YOUR doctor to a hospital outside you service plan (for better treatment), the insurance company may sock you with the bill. I don't have statistics, but anecdotally, that happens a lot in the US.I might be wrong. But, I think the medical bills for Canadian preemies sent to be treated in the USA are still covered under the Canadian health care system. So, anecdotally Canada sends some of it's citizens to the United States for better healthcare for premature babies. Good for them. Anecdotally, we are sending many more people across the border into Canada for cheaper prescription drugs. This is even after passing the largest single piece of social legislation since Social Security in the Medicare Drug Benefit. Obviously, both systems of health care have something to learn from each other.How does Canada inflate their life expectancy numbers? We pay the most for health care and from what I can see, our life expectancy numbers rank around 28h to 45th in the world. (Depending on the numbers you look at.) In the USA it's 77. In Canada, 80. How do other countries inflate those numbers?Take a look at this statistic: The probability of not reaching the age of 60 is 12.8% in the USA. In Canada, it's 9.5% and in the UK 9.9%. Now, a lot of factors besides health care factor into this statistic. But I think it's still significant.Canada has the 5th most expensive health care in the world. And the still pay more than $2,000 dollars a year less than we do per capita. We pay the most, by far. We pay $4,60…0 dollars per year per person. Switzerland has the second most expensive health care and they pay only $3,200!The UK spends around $1800 dollars per person per year. Are we getting two an a half times the health care that they get in the UK? You would think that we would live longer in the USA. But the UK's life expectancy is 79. So for paying 40% what we do for health care (on average), they live 2 years longer? Is the UK inflating those statistics?

          • Stephen R says:

            The thing that skews our life expectancy *heavily* is the inner cities and gang violence. If you remove all the gang bangers and such from the equation (and of course all those troublesome babies that other countries don't bother to count), we have one of the best life expectancies in the world. I'm not saying that gangs aren't a problem, but they're not a **health care** problem. Some teenager getting capped by a rival gang is not a failure of health insurance.So my chances of living to see 60 are quite good, thanks.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            So as long as we ignore a certain segment of our population, everything is fine. Might some of our problems stem from that segment of our population systemically getting ignored already?Fine. I will accept your premise. Our infant mortality number and our life expectancy numbers are no worse than other industrialized countries. I will take it on faith. What about the millions of people who declare bankruptcy because they can't keep up with medical bills. Medical Bills were a leading cause of bankruptcy, at least in 2005. And most of those declaring bankruptcy HAD medical insurance at the time their financially catastrophic medical problem.http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankru…Look at the statistics. Most of the people in bankruptcy from medical bills are middle class and college educated. Most HAD medical insurance when their lives began to fall apart.Our current medical system is BROKEN and is in desperate need of reform. I think that reform should include a Public Option to Health Insurance. But I'm willing to debate the issue with rational folks. I'm not in favor of a single payer system, but again 'm open to the idea and willing to listen. I'm not in favor of nationalizing the entire health care system. I don't think a Public Option to Health Insurance logically leads to death panels or eugenics programs. Those are illogical, hyperbolic exaggerations so far afield from the issue at hand they can only be characterized as pernicious lies, designed to mislead and misinform.

          • Anonymous says:

            Not true. Even if you just look at white Americans, we don't do that well.http://mindstalk.net/socialhealth/mfandinfants.ht

          • Stephen R says:

            Umm…. not so fast. You're still completely overlooking those troublesome infant mortality stats. If it's born and moving, we count it. Not so in other countries. I stand by my statement. It *is* true.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            OK, Stephen. I will accept your premise that other countries count their infant mortality numbers differently. That ours are skewed. I will accept as a premise for argument that our Infant Mortality Rates are even better than the rest of the world. There are certainly areas of Healthcare that are better in the USA. We have some of the finest Universities and Medical Research Labs anywhere in the world. But what about the numbers of people who go bankrupt each year because of Medical Bills in the USA? It's in the Millions. In 2005, it was the single biggest reason for declaring bankruptcy. Most of those people were middle class, college educated and HAD Medical Insurance at the time of their initial medical crisis. How does this compare to the rest of the world?Do we have to sacrifice millions of people into bankruptcy to maintain our low infant mortality rates? Do we have to see 16% or more of our population go uninsured (and not get preventative medical attention or prenatal care) to keep wait times short at the Doctor's Office?Must we make a growing portion of our Country use the Emergency Room as their Primary Physician?Is there a way to FIX what is obviously broken in our healthcare system without breaking what currently works?I don't think it works to claim that, "The Problem is for such a small number of Americans, it's not really a problem." We can't say, "As long as I've got mine, we're fine," any longer. Rising Healthcare costs are a drain on everyone's budgets and a bigger and bigger sinkhole for rising National Deficits. We need to find a way to manage costs while still improving care.

          • Stephen R says:

            So you accept my argument that we have a better (that is, more successful) health care system than in other countries, but you want to change our system to make it more like that of those other countries? I'm confused.There's an old saying: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." People love to look at something they want to change and say "It's Not Perfect! Therefore…." But nothing is perfect. Anywhere. Ever.The 40 million uninsured" (your 16%) is an inflated number on several counts: It includes young people who think themselves invincible and **choose** not to spend the money on health insurance. It includes people who are well off enough that they feel they don't need it. It includes illegal immigrants (Obama himself promises up and down that his plan will NOT cover illegals). Frankly it probably includes a whole lot of people who "can't afford" insurance but somehow *can* afford $100 cable TV plans and widescreen TVs to watch them on (those those are a bit harder to count….)The remainder is about 6 million genuinely uninsured Americans (citizens who would get it if they could, but can't), which is about 2% of the population.I don't claim "the Problem is for such a small number of Americans, it's not really a problem." But when the system is working well for 294 million Americans, you don't screw up the 294M in your efforts to help the 6M. A government run plan would do that, just as it did to the private school loan industry. What's that you say? "What private school loan industry?" Exactly. If government "competes", the private health insurance industry will cease to exist.

  28. Anonymous says:

    The US Post Office is supposed to be a self sufficient, publicly owned business. And for the most part, it is. This doesn't stop UPS, Federal Express or other delivery services from competing in the marketplace. But, it does mean that almost everyone in the US has access to at least the affordable public option of mail delivery. Sometime UPS can deliver a better product and you are free to use their services.Russ – that's a total falsehood. UPS and Federal Express are prohibited by statute from delivering first-class mail. In other words, the only way the government (or a government-sponsored company) can be successful is if it has a monopoly.What makes you think that the government won't similarly "eliminate" the competition for the public option in the future?Oh, and those life expectancy numbers? Cooked. As are the infant mortality numbers. You're comparing apples and bricks.For a more realistic assessment of the American health-care system versus Europe's, try comparing 5-year survival rates for various cancers, and survival rates for heart disease.I think you'll find that the Europeans can't hold a candle to us. The uninsured in the US get better care than anyone gets in the socialized health systems.

    • Linda Gold says:

      It is rediculous to say that the unisured get better care. I have a family memeber who is uninsured (doesn't make enough to afford insurance, makes too much to get Meidcaid) who gets NO care becuase of this. And don't recommend the emergency room where the unisured pay 3-4 times as much as the insured. My doctor has been advocating single payer heathcare for years and I have to believe he knows more about it than you do.

  29. Bob Reed says:

    Take a breath Russ…Obama will still love you even if you don't baselessly attack people who don't share your point of view; especially those who simply ridicule Obamacare. Look at it this way, they're not holding protest marches wearing giant paper-mache heads, burning Obama ineffigy, or calling him "chimpy" or "Hitler" are they-no…Here's a clue, friend. Disagreeing with Obama's legislative of view is not patently "lying", it is simply holding forth a different opinion on a complex issue. That's a right we have here in America, one that I'm pretty sure didn't get revoked in the last election…

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Look, Obamacare (as you call it) has no plans for death panels or eugenics. These are lies made to smear attempts and healthcare reform by spreading fear. Feel free to put forth a differing opinion. But try to keep that opinion grounded in reality. And don't try to make your argument by fear mongering.

    • Linda Gold says:

      Actually, they are calling him Hitler and carrying signs that say so along with those of him in Joker whiteface -which by the way isn't racist in the least now is it? So whose lying here? Everything Russ has said is factual as far as I can tell and if those disagreeing wwith him are spouting the kill grandma eugenics nonsense and the covering illegal immgrants bs they they are lying.

      • Jim Treacher says:

        The Hitler signs are being carried by Lyndon LaRouche supporters. The guy who did the Joker Photoshop is a Palestinian-American who wishes Dennis Kucinich were president. Other than that, you're right on the money.

        • Linda Gold says:

          I've heard and seen plenty of Hitler remarks from people who have no idea who laRouche is. His people may have started it but the right has run with it. Same for the Joker.

          • Jim Treacher says:

            I understand that this is your assertion, yes.

          • Linda Gold says:

            If by assertion you mean actual conversations I have had with people.

          • Jim Treacher says:

            Ah, so "plenty" of people have walked up to you and made "plenty" of Hitler remarks. And this anecdotal evidence proves that "they" are all racists.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            I don't think you have to be a racist to invoke "Godwin's Law," just tasteless. It's tasteless and inflammatory to make comparisons between Obama and Hitler, especially when no logical comparisons exist. It cheapens the debate. It plays to people deepest fears instead of their intellect. Because Hitler is a historical figure so universally accepted as evil and dangerous, it's not only slanderous but dangerous hyperbole to make comparisons between Hitler and Obama, especially if you are starting with the patently false premises that Obama is trying to implement some evil system of death panels or eugenics. Those are dangerous lies to make.You need to find some other way to make your point. This one would be laughably tired and silly if it weren't so vile and dangerous.

          • Anonymous says:

            And by "slanderous", you mean what? That Obama could file suit and win? Or are you engaging in hyperbole?Were you equally outraged when Bush was equated to Hitler? Did you seek to elevate the conversation then? Or do you think it was appropriate?

          • Russ Rogers says:

            Anonymous, Yes I generally feel that reductive comparisons to Hitler are silly at best and generally cheapen any debate. They are occasionally dangerous. And I'm always willing to point out Godwin's Law, especially since you run into people doing it all the time. I will admit, that I saw a lot of "Big Brother" in what Bush was trying to pull: warrant-less wiretaps, rendition, torture, a power grab by the executive branch on the tides of fear-mongering. Yeah, what the Bush Administration did scares me…a lot. The fact that Bush tried to claim that he could just declare anyone (including US Citizens) Terrorist Enemy Combatants and then just hold them indefinitely without trial or appeal, that's just spooky! It's not just BAD policy, it's scary-bad. It's humiliatingly scary-bad policy. I'm ashamed to live in a nation that tortures people. The fact that the Obama Administration doesn't seem to want to investigate Torture or worse seems to want to continue some of those misguided totalitarian policies seriously creeps me out. But I drew the line at calling George Bush an idiot and Dick Cheyney an Evil Puppet-master. I didn't refer to either of them a Hitler or even Hitler-Lite.And by "slanderous," I meant cheap attacks without any basis in reality, false malicious statements. Not just white lies, lies of omission, exaggerations or mis-characterizations. These are lies designed to spread hate and fear without any basis in reality. Obama is not Hitler. Obama has NO plans to institute a eugenics program or death panels in the USA. Those are malicious lies. But I didn't mean "slanderous" in any formal legal sense. It would be a waste of time for the President to try to sue every wacko who slapped a little square mustache on his picture.

          • Linda Gold says:

            I didn't say they were all racists or that they "just walked up" to me. I actually have friends and aquantainces who have conversations in person when they get together and we dicsuss things that effect our lives. Since Mike and I have been struggling with crappy overpriced health insurance for sometime now this convesation has been going on for a while. I recently cut ties with my oldest friend over his insane comparisons to Obama and Hilter.

  30. TXCHLInstructor says:

    Unfortunately, if Dear Leader has his way, it very well may be revoked by the time the next national election rolls around.On a related note, it's interesting that Russ makes a number of statements that are easily verified FALSE, and then call Mr. Treacher a liar. Sweet.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Y'know, I'm not an expert. I'm just a guy who reads comics. And if I've made verifiable FALSE statements, I would love to see which ones you are talking about and what facts you have to rebut my statements.I said that it's hard to argue with someone who is willing to spread the fear and disinformation that health care reform is some kind of attempt to impose death panels or a program of eugenics in the USA. That's blatant hogwash. Wing-nut fringe hype. It's patently false and I have no qualms about calling it that. Those are lies. Fear-mongering lies that don't belong in public debate.

      • Stephen R says:

        Depends on what you mean by "death panels". If you mean a panel that will decide to kill people, then no, of course not.But there will be a government panel somewhere along the line that will decide who gets treated and who doesn't, and when funding starts running short (as it has in every other country that has socialized health care), they will *have to* start deciding that certain people aren't (economically) worth treating. "This guy's 75 years old; we're not going to pay for a transplant because he doesn't have a long time to live anyway."When politicians get involved, which they will, these decisions will take on a political element, and politically, it's best to keep the young going (who will vote for you for years to come) than the old.Don't insist it won't happen. It IS HAPPENING right now in Great Britain. Do a little research into the so-called "NICE".Meanwhile, in the private sector, a 67-year-old friend of mine recently got a major organ transplant (paid for by Evilcorp Insurance Inc.) and has most likely gained years of life from it.

        • Russ Rogers says:

          Stephen R said, "Depends on what you mean by "death panels". If you mean a panel that will decide to kill people, then no, of course not." Unfortunately, that is what MOST people think of when they here the words, "death panels." That is why the phrase is being bandied about, to create hysteria. If people don't mean "Death Panel" the way it is commonly understood, then they shouldn't be screaming "Death Panel!" Because, I don't know if you noticed, but it's created quite a bit of hysteria.Politicians are already involved! Medicare is a GOVERNMENT run health insurance program. It covers the ELDERLY! Why? Because Politicians have found that it is economically and politically advantageous to insure folks and EXTEND their lives.Your scenario, that politicians will necessarily decide to keep the young going versus the old is just pure Science Fiction. It's ludicrous. If that were the case, Medicare would cover young people just getting out of college, not old people in their twilight years. You are creating Hypothetical Bogey Men with evil hidden agendas. And I don't believe it. I don't believe the basic premise. You are imagining a future where young people won't care about their parents and vote against any politician who tries to deny their loved ones coverage.Reform in the style of Great Britain and "NICE" is not on the table here in the USA. So I'm not planning to do research. I've done enough already. If you want to research and post links, fine. I will glance at them. But I'm the only one who will. Everyone else is tired of this debate. But don't say, "Take this a fact, because I say it's easy to research and prove as fact." If you want a little research done, you do the research. Posting your findings is as easy as copying and pasting a link.I'm glad your friend was able to get an organ transplant. It's a nice anecdote. Sometimes the system works. I won't deny that. That doesn't mean the system works, because sometimes it doesn't. Here's another story: Crystal Lee Sutton just died of brain cancer. (She was the inspiration for the movie "Norma Rae.") In June 2008, her medical insurance company denied her drug treatment for two months while they disputed the medical claims. I'm not attributing motives to the insurance company. But they saved two months worth of treatment costs at the beginning of Crystal Lee Sutton's cancer. And how much money did they save because her life was cut short? What was the Insurance companies incentive for extending Crystal Lee Sutton's life? Obviously, for the Insurance Companies these decisions will take on a financial element, and it's best to keep the young going (who will pay premiums to you for years to come) than the old.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM…For every anecdotal horror story you have for NICE and Great Britain, someone can come up with an anecdotal horror story for USA medical insurance. It doesn't prove anything.If your car started just 85% of the time you wanted to drive it, would you say you have a working car? No, you would take that car in to get fixed, maybe overhauled, maybe buy a whole new car. If our health insurance system only covers 85% of the people in the USA, do we really have a working system?Look, I'm just a house-dad and a children's entertainer. I'm a singer/comedian. I read comic books. I don't know what your background is, Stephen R. My point is, I'm not a lawyer, a politician or doctor. My opinion doesn't carry that much weight.Recently the New England Journal of Medicine conducted a survey of Doctors to get their opinions on healthcare reform. Nearly 10% favor nationalized healthcare. More than 60% favor a mix of public and private insurance options (the Public Option). That's more than 70% that want to increase the Government's role in solving this crisis. Less than 30% favor Private Options only. http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790Feel free to have the last words. I'm tired of typing out the same things. There are no death panels. There is no eugenics programs. Obama is not Hitler. Our current Healthcare System is broken and we need to reform it. I think reform should include an optional public medical insurance program. I don't think that makes me a Socialist, but if it does, I can live with that. Stephen R, you are a smart guy. Beyond that, you are polite. Yeah! Your comments haven't devolved into name calling. If you are at all interested in Comic Books, check out the ones at ComicMix. These are some of the best written, most innovative comics I've ever read. (And I've been reading comics for 40 years!) On top of that, you can read them for FREE! If your comments on the comic books are even half as informed, well written and polite as your comments here, you will be a welcome addition to our super-secret comic book clubhouse!Bye!

  31. TXCHLInstructor says:

    I get "Fatal error: Call to a member function toUnix() on a non-object in /var/www/html/clusters/comicmix/framework/shared/lib/php/framework/filters/AbstractFilterer.php on line 236" Whenever I try to sign up.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Here is a video that addresses some of Russ's points:

    • Linda Gold says:

      You guys need to coordinate. Jim Treacher already posted this link. This video proves nothing.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      I responded to this video more fully above. "That video you gave a link to amounted to making straw horse arguments and then shouting them down. It's cited no references. It just assumed that we would accept whatever they said loudest as fact. I remain unconvinced."

  33. Jim Treacher says:

    Here's another "lying" "moron":

    • Linda Gold says:

      I fail to understad why you people hate the government so much and I'd love to see how long you'd last without them. And please stop throwing the word socialist around. You have people have no idea what a socialist government is.

      • Jim Treacher says:

        There's no way you watched that video in the 5 minutes between me posting it and you replying to it.

        • Linda Gold says:

          I saw enough to make the comments I made.

          • Jim Treacher says:

            As long as you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, fine.

          • Linda Gold says:

            Wow, you really are something. I admit no such thing. I do admit that what I saw was uniformed and full of misconceptions if not out right falsehoods.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Jim, I watched that video all the way through. I was unconvinced. I was unconvinced by their argument that "Taxation" means "Force" and a lack of choice. We are a Representative Democracy. We choose our representatives and they choose how our taxes are spent. To deny that we have any influence on that process is silly. Just because you don't agree with every piece of legislation that has ever been passed or expenditure made, that doesn't mean you are forced to live with it. It's a Democracy, make your voice heard. Try to change it. Taxes are not evil. And nobody is forcing you to live in the USA. But if you choose to live here, you are choosing to pay taxes. How much you pay and what that gets spent on is up to you and your representatives. And like the Stones say, "You can't always get what you want."I was unconvinced by the video's arguments about preexitisting health conditions not getting required covered, because this is insurance we are talking about not some kind of welfare system. That argument is just too heartless. What if someone is born with a congenital condition outside of health insurance? In the USA are they just shit out of luck for the rest of their shortened lives? What if they are born within a health insurance program paid for by their parent's employment? Are those parents forced to remain with that same employer for the rest of their lives, because if they change jobs, they'll have to change insurance companies, and no other insurance company is morally or legally bound to accept anyone with a preexisting condition? Is that child forced to remain living with their parents forever, because they can never afford to move out, get a job and find insurance of their own? These aren't just rhetorical questions. Folks are forced to make those kinds of Hobson's Choice all the time in the USA.The only reason the US Postal Service continues to regularly run into the red is that the Government controls the prices they are allowed to charge. It takes an act of Congress to raise the price of Stamps. But Congress won't do that until the Post Office runs out of money. The US Post Office isn't allowed to charge "what the market will bear." They aren't part of a free market. It's required to keep it prices artificially low. And believe me, this helps control the prices of UPS and Federal Express. UPS and Federal Express seem to still stay profitable. And the shortfalls that the US Postal Service has run into have been relatively low compared to their overall budgets. These are next to nothing in comparison to the shortfalls insurance companies ran into last year and the amount of financial bailout that was poured their way.How much does the highest paid USPS executive make? Compare that to the bonuses that were handed out on Wall Street like party favors in the wake of utter failure.I don't believe that Medical Companies pay lobbyists to compete with the vast hordes of so called "socialists" lobbying for health care reform. They pay lobbyists to try to get the most dollars they can from the Government and to ensure their profits remain maximized. And it's working. If you look at the dollars spent on lobbyists and political contributions by Medical Companies for the legislation that they favor, it FAR outweighs the amount spent on lobbying and political contributions coming from the other side. This isn't a question of equity, staying even with the other side; it's a question of buying influence. And if legislation is based in part on influence, what is fair or unfair influence? Can you make your voice as loud as the millions of dollars Medical Companies are pouring into Washington? The Medical Companies see the lobbying dollars they spend as an investment that they can make a return on. Obviously it's making great returns for them, because that investment keeps going up.Medical Company Lobbyists had a direct hand in writing the Medicare Drug Benefit Legislation. This legislation made it illegal for Medicare to use it's vast buying power to try to negotiate lower drug prices. In essence, it is as much a massive corporate welfare program as social welfare, designed to funnel more money to pharmacuetical companies. And it makes trying to control drug costs with negotiation illegal!Jim, that video you gave a link to amounted to making straw horse arguments and then shouting them down. It's cited no references. It just assumed that we would accept whatever they said loudest as fact. I remain unconvinced.

      • Stephen R says:

        "We are a Representative Democracy"No we're not. We're a Representative Republic. Big difference there.The ONE thing I agree with you in all this is that insurance needs to somehow be decoupled from employment. But just for the record, the reason it got so firmly connected to employment in the first place is, you guessed it, well-meaning government intrusion.Two step health insurance reform:1) rein in ridiculous medical lawsuits that drive up costs enormously2) decouple insurance from employment (in part by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, which will help make it directly affordable)

        • Russ Rogers says:

          Stephen, we are a Democracy. We elect Representatives who then effect legislation (generally) by voting amongst each other. We are a liberal and constitutional democracy. If you want to bog this discussion down with a Civics Lessons and Semantics Lessons, please, go ahead. Explain in tedious detail the differences between a Representative Democracy and a Representative Republic. I'm all ears. And I will be the only one listening.Yes, I think some kind of Tort Reform is necessary with medical lawsuits. Doctors aren't just practicing Preventative Medicine, they have to practice Defensive Medicine. They are forced into ordering costly tests and procedures just to cover their asses, just in case some lawyer tosses the question at them later, "Well, why didn't you do EVERYTHING you could to help my client?"You act as if MOST of the people without insurance choose that as an option. You act as if the MILLIONS of people who go bankrupt in this country because of medicals bills just made bad choices. They didn't. The majority HAD health insurance at the time of their medical disasters. The majority of these people falling through the gaps are middle class, college educated, employed AND insured. My point, Stephen, even if you have health insurance in the country, you really aren't protected against financial ruin.Yes, reforming commerce laws to promote competition might help. But Tort Reform and Inter-State Commerce Reform are only small pieces in the puzzle.If Medical Insurance is supposed to be a safety net protecting people from financial ruin, it's not working. Too many people are falling through the net. People who THOUGHT they were covered.Yes, we have some good elements to our healthcare in the USA. I can see that. I'm not willing to toss the baby out with the bathwater. But, if you can't see there is more systemically wrong in our current crisis than just TORT reform and inter-state competition, you're wearing blinders. People are not CHOOSING to go uninsured. People can't afford it. Insured people are not CHOOSING to go bankrupt. People aren't CHOOSING to use Emergency Rooms as their primary physicians.

          • Stephen R says:

            "Explain in tedious detail the differences between a Representative Democracy and a Representative Republic."Simply put, if you're using the word "Representative", it's not democracy. Democracy is when everybody votes on everything. Show of hands. "Representative" is when we choose representatives to make the decisions for us.The founders were very careful *not* to create a democracy, because that rapidly devolves into mob rule. ("Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.") But then, the word "democracy" itself didn't enter into the popular lexicon until the 20th century, if I'm not mistaken. Historically, people talked about "the Republlc".Onlooker: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it""…and to the Republic for which it stands…"

          • Stephen R says:

            "They are forced into ordering costly tests and procedures just to cover their asses, just in case some lawyer tosses the question at them later, 'Well, why didn't you do EVERYTHING you could to help my client?'"Right. And how do you think it's going to go when people think it's "free"? I'm not paying for it so I want every test possible. They' run to the doctor every time they get the sniffles. Infinite desire and finite resources — the most basic lesson of economics. When the finite resources fail to fulfill infinite desire, the government will have to start cutting people off. "No, we're not going to pay for that." In the current system you have options. When the government runs the whole show, you won't.(In Canada right now, if the government won't/can't do it, your option is "go to the USA, where there are more MRI machines in a single city then there are in entire provinces in Canada.")

          • Russ Rogers says:

            Then I guess it's a good thing that the government running the whole show is being considered right now. It's a public insurance option, not the whole show.Tell me the last time you enjoyed getting a colonoscopy? Even if tests are "free," people won't be lining up to get them. Why isn't the Canadian Healthcare system overburdened by people lining up to get frivolous healthcare every time they get the sniffles? Because people don't behave that way. People's desires aren't infinite, generally they are pretty basic.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            EDIT: "the government running the whole show *ISN'T being considered right now."

  34. epobirs says:

    So Linda, have you ever read Astro City? It features a black superhero called Jack In The Box http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack-in-the-Box_%28A… who wears a mask simulating white clown makeup. Is he a racist character or is it OK because he's one of the good guys?One thing you Obamaton bozos don't get is that cries of 'Racism!' aren't going to fly anymore. Your genetic history is not a shield against being mocked via images drawn from popular culture. Trying to avoid the real issue only serves to bolster the belief that Obama would be a nobody if he merely had melanin levels more like his mother's side of the family. (Outside of coloration, he actually resembles his maternal grandfather quite a bit.) The LaRouchites are being provocative for its own sake but there is an interesting note in that a scholarly analysis of the current administration show it be the first in US history in which the fascist label has some basis in relation to what the word meant before the Nazis tied it to a vast array of crimes.And for the record, Linda, Russ' nonsense has been refuted in detail elsewhere if you but look. US survival rates for cancer and other major diseases are better than anywhere else. The mortality rates have far more to do with the propensity for homicide in certain neighborhoods than it does with inadequate healthcare.

    • Linda Gold says:

      Oh right. Of course. When Obama got elected all the racists just disappeared. Ever occur to you that it's not racist because Jack chooses to wear it? Or that it might be a statement on racism? Are you familiar with the history of blackface in this country at all? And where were you people when Bush was gutting habeas corpus and spying on U.S. citzens without warrants? Oh, silly me, healthcare for everyone is a lot more of an infringement on our rights. How stupid of me. By the way, if Russ is so wrong why are we number 37 in heathcare in the world when we spend twice as much as everyone ahead of us? And what do you propose for those who can't afford heathcare or are denyed it because of a pre-existing condition or end up losing their house or bankrupt because their insurance won't pay for procedures to keep them alive. Half of bankrupcies in this country are caused by medical bills many incurred by people with health insurance.

      • Marc Alan Fishman says:

        Alex Ross stated emphatically that Jack-In-The-Box used white makeup/mask because: 1. It was typical "clown" makeup. 2. It matched the color scheme of the rest of the costume, and 3. For the eventual reveal on the cover of issue 12, of Jack's hand. So, there was NO intent of costume being racist, as much as it was made for aesthetic choices. Period.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      So epobirs, if my nonsense "has been refuted in detail elsewhere if you but look," why are you pointing us toward Wikipedia articles about fictional Astro City characters? Wouldn't it be just as easy to point to the rebutting facts that you claim are so easily found?I don't think it's racist to characterize Obama as Hitler or the Joker, just utterly tasteless and vile! If you think Obama is a clown, why isn't he showing up being painted like Bozo? Because Bozo is not a mass murderer. The subtext that is trying to be portrayed is that "Obama is somehow as dangerous as Fictional and Historical Mass Murderers!" That is pure hyperbole. It's a crass lie that is trying to play on people's worst fears. It's trying to muddy the waters of serious, contentious debate with clouds of hate and fear. It's despicable.Dick Cheney is out and about in interviews defending his administrations use of TORTURE and yet you claim the Obama administation is the first one in US history that can be described as fascist! Get real. What "scholarly analysis of the current administration" are you talking about? This is the Internet. It makes citing your references as easy as copying and pasting a Web Address.Obama is not a mass murderer. Obama is not a fascist. I have seen nothing with any serious, objective, scholarly analysis that can defend those outrageous lies.So you blame our lower life expectancy rates on "certain neighborhoods." Because certain economic classes of people tend to despair and kill each other, that brings down the average life expectancy for us all. That has a certain twisted logic to it! We just need to discount THOSE certain neighborhoods and everything looks rosy. Aren't these the same classes of folks that find themselves unable to afford health care in our society too? So what you are saying is, as long as we are willing to marginalize "certain neighborhoods," as long as we are willing to see "certain neighborhoods" as outside of our own, our statistics come out looking just fine. As long as we are willing to cast aside certain portions of our population based on where they live, how much they earn or what they look like, we are doing all right.You may be right, epobirs. But that is one of the coldest statements I've heard in a long time. I prefer to believe in a Nation that stands for more than that.

  35. TJenkins says:

    I like Jim's version of the comic better, it's more in tune with reality.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Fatal error: Call to a member function toUnix() on a non-object in /var/www/html/clusters/comicmix/framework/shared/lib/php/framework/filters/AbstractFilterer.php on line 236Good job on the coding guys, it's working about as well as Obama's admin.Btw, Jim's version of this comic is better.

  37. Marc Alan Fishman says:

    I love a good debate as much a the next comicmixer, but seriously… If you have a problem with your government, learn to work within the system we created. You have representation who's job it is to listen to your opinion and bring it to congress. If that isn't enough for you, well, no one is forcing to live under the tyrant Obama's goose-stepping radical pinko-commie regime, now is he? NO, he's not.I can't stand people who bitch and piss and moan about this country, but never choose to do anything about it. Opinonated? Write your congressman! Form community groups… make your voice heard! Equating our current president to Hitler makes about as much sense as Michael Moore doing a pro bush documentary. Simply put, if the reform to our healthcare system causes you this much duress… Canada is right up the turnpike.

    • Linda Gold says:

      They can't go to Canada Marc. Canada already has "socialist" healthcare. They can't even go to Mexico since Americans who live on the border are crossing over to Mexico for treatment to save money. They'll have to find some 3rd world country.

      • Marc Alan Fishman says:

        My guess is they'll moan and cry and piss about how our country is going communist, and then… when they eventually get sick, and see that they can still go to the doctor, and use their own insurance they already have, and note that they still have a paycheck, despite Der Komisar Obama taxing them to oblivion… maybe they'll stop whining. But I doubt it.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Mmm, no, he is not wrong. Voluntary contributions to hospitals is a good thing. Let's not project onto Supes something he was not talking about, whether it is socialized medicine or even public funding for medicine.Indeed, here, "welfare" doesn't even appear to be about "welfare" the government program, but just the welfare of your fellow man.Btw, treacher's takes is hilarious, though.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      You are right, Superman was not talking about socialized medicine. And the current bill for health care reform, including the proposal for a Public Health Insurance Option, is not a proposal for socialized medicine either. The proposal on the table right now might be better described as better organized "public and private agencies [that] help to the protect the welfare of our community — and that means your welfare, too!" Huh. Sounds familiar.And Treacher's version might be hilarious. I mean, it's a ludicrous caricature of the Obama Heath Care Proposal. And it cleverly boils down many of the right-wing's most radical talking points to just a few lines. But I found this amusing only in the darkest sense. Because so much of what Treacher says are such crass distortions, such heavy handed exaggerations, and such massive illogical leaps to what are patently evil conclusions. Doctors discussing the wishes of patients for their end of life care is NOT the same thing as assisted suicide. Studying and comparing the efficacy and cost efficiency of various treatments is NOT the same thing as rationing care. There are NO plans for death panels. There are NO eugenics programs. Nobody in the Government wants to kill your Grandma. Those are just dangerous and pernicious lies.There are rational reasons to oppose health care reform or argue what shape eventual health care reform should take. I'm willing to listen to and debate with those. I'm just sick and tired of rehashing and rebutting these irrational lies and disinformation.

      • Anonymous says:

        I have a simple question for the proponents of the President's proposal:Should this bill become law, what would have to transpire before you would declare this law a failure, and how much time would you need to observe before making that judgment?

        • Anonymous says:

          No takers huh? So much for the willingness to listen and debate.

          • Russ Rogers says:

            I am willing to listen and reply to polite people. And as soon as you start paying me to type comments or as soon as you volunteer to come over to my house and take care of my kids so I have the free time comment, then you can criticize the timeliness of my responses. You waited (less than a day) for this response from me, because most other sane people are bored with this tediousness debate. I know I am.But your simple question was actually a very good one and deserves a response. It gets to the heart of the debate. I would judge the success of health care reform by the very criteria that demand that we make it! We need to lower health care costs. We need to make health care more affordable and more effective. We need to make sure that a higher percentage of USA Citizens are covered under some kind of Medical Insurance. The rising rate of uninsured (currently around 15.9% or more) is too high. That needs to come down. There are too many people declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills that they can't pay. This is in the MILLIONS. Most of them are college educated and middle class. Most of them HAD insurance at the time of their cataustrauphic medicals bills. Nobody should be forced to go into the poor house just trying to keep their children alive. No child should die because their parents can't afford the treatment they need.OK, so one goal of health care reform is to Increase the number of Americans with Medical Insurance. 100% coverage is a goal, but a dramatic reduction from the 15.9% that go without would be a success. We want to lower costs while increasing efficiency and efficacy. We want to make health care both cheaper and better. SO if health care becomes more expensive or measurably worse, those would be failures. If the number of people declaring bankruptcy because of medical costs doesn't dramatically decrease, I would consider reform a failure. Your chances of surviving specific diseases should rise, or at the least stay similar to now. Life expectancy should rise or at least stay similar. Medicine and medical care should get better not worse, or reform will be a failure.I figure it will take several years (at least) to implement whatever health care reforms we end up passing. Of course if we are faced with an obstructionist Republican Party, who are more interested in seeing Obama fail than in fixing real problems, implementing reforms might take longer. After that, it will take several years to measure which reforms are successes. I think if reform is passed this year, it has a chance of being implemented by the end of Obama's first term. And real measures of it's successes and failures might come in as early as the end of his second term. (I'm being optimistic.) Health care reform won't be perfect. Whatever fix we make will need tweaking and fixing down the road. But the system is BROKEN now and only gets worse as we do nothing.Finally, learn to sign into the site. Put a name to what you are saying. That's how polite people talk to each other. I so much prefer having some clue as to who I am talking with. And, as a general rule, "Anonymous" comments tend to have a higher percentage of the lunatic fringe/troll elements of the crowd. They tend to be ruder, sillier, stupider and more violent. (I'm not saying you are, just that you are lumping yourself in with others who have been.) I'm not as likely to check in to see what "Anonymous" has currently said in the comments. I'm more likely to pass over "Anonymous" comments when skimming through lengthy ones like these. If somebody doesn't value their own comments enough to put a name to them, why should I value them!It's not hard to learn how to sign in to the site. And there are benefits. You can choose to be notified when people have replied to your comment or when anyone comments on an article you've commented on! Plus, you will inherently seem friendlier and less like a troll, at least to me. You will be far likelier to get a friendly, timely response, at least from me. I'm a neurotic commenter. But even I can go several days without visiting and commenting on this site. I do have a life. At least I think I do.

  39. malclave says:

    Superman is no longer a moral authority in the U.S. since he no longer stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".

  40. Christopher Back says:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/15/8319/…One of the reasons why some of the Radical Right act like selfish bastards is that they tend to view things like: charity and helping others out because it's the moral thing to do is as at best in there twisted world view, a stupid waste of time and at worse evil. If comes down to that I'll gladly take charity, selflessness, diversity, and alltustive over selfishness, greed, bigotry, aka the what Right is peddling now of days as "American Values".

  41. Anonymous says:

    If you would add a standard-form commenting system, with, say, a TypePad or similar sign-in, and eliminate the 'anonymous' option, then you wouldn't have to complain about your own commenting system. Sheesh.Oh, and you say "We need to lower health care costs. We need to make health care more affordable and more effective. We need to make sure that a higher percentage of USA Citizens are covered under some kind of Medical Insurance." and you propose that a Government solution is answer to the problem? That's not a logical approach. Our health care costs only started to explode after the Government got involved, in the late '60…'s, with Medicare, Medicaid, and other 'entitlement' assistance programs. Look it up…g00gle is your friend.Anything that's an entitlement (and yes, a new single-payer, or government-run health care program would qualify as an 'entitlement') will cause base costs to skyrocket. Anything that low-rent people see as 'free' will be abused, just as the nation's Emergency Rooms are flooded by not-legal immigrants seeking 'free' health care. And, yes, anything that is free and abused will be subjected to…controlling factors that would limit costs. That wording can be aggrandized to 'death panels', but that aggrandization is similar to the stuff Democrats say all the time, and have said in the past (e.g. Kennedy during the Bork nomination, "back-alley abortions"; and what you and yours did to Boooooosh! for eight years). I don't feel bad at all about the 'death panel' wording. Saul Alinsky, what goes around comes around, and all of that.Serr8d

    • Linda Gold says:

      It's not Russ's commenting system. He just comments here and has nothing to do with how thw commenting system works. I hear you saying what we shouldn't do about the healthcare probelms but I don't hear you making any recommendations on what should be done. Or do you think things are fine the way they are now?

    • Linda Gold says:

      Also, I suspect you are too young to remember when back-alley abortions were the only option for women who couldn't afford to travel to places where abortions were legal.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Dude, if finding evidence to support your case is as easy as a Google search, then do it! Backing up your statements should be as easy as copying and pasting a web address.What is being proposed is not a single payer system or an entitlement program. The Public Option (as proposed) would be a non-profit insurance system, eventually funded by payments into the system.What kind of people in your estimation are "low-rent"? What kind of talk is that? The current proposals specifically say that illegal immigrants will not have access to the Public Option Health Insurance program, so why are you bringing it up? Why lie about what is NOT in the bill, like "death panels" and coverage for illegal immigrants? You are just making shit up. That's no way to debate.Fact: the number one reason for declaring bankruptcy in 2005 was medical bills. Fact: the majority of those people who were made broke were college educated and HAD health insurance at the time of their medical crisis. Are those folks, "low rent"? Should we drive millions of people into bankruptcy each year just to maintain the status quo on a system that is so obviously broken?http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankru…See how I supported my argument with citation and fact, and not just, "It's easy to look up, so I can say whatever the hell I want!"

  42. Anonymous says:

    Russ,While I generally agree with your comments, I do wish to make one correction: the form of the US government is a Federal Republic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republicA federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation is the central government. The states in a federation also maintain the federation. Usage of the term republic is inconsistent but, as a minimum, it means a state or federation of states that does not have a monarchy.The table on that page lists the United States of America as a Federal Republic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."While our representatives (congressmen and senators) may be democratically elected, they represent us in our federal government. It is very important to note that the President himself is elected by the Electoral College, and not by the US Citizens directly. This is how we can have situations like occurred in 1876 (Hayes v Tilden), 1888 (Harrison v Cleveland) and 2000 (Bush v Gore).http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/…-John H. Robinson, IV

  43. mike weber says:

    I notice that the most combative (and psychotic-sounding) comments are all anonymous. What a surprise; most of those people are afraid to come out in the light, just like all the other cockroaches.

  44. cos says:

    The medical services are necessary for all people regardless of their age. It is always appropriate to a medical check in which we can realize our health and best of all, prevention

  45. Anonymous says:

    IF YOU WERE SMART YOU WOULD KNOW WHO ANONYMOUS ISAND MY HEATHCARE IS GOING UP AGAIN B/C BIG GOVERMENT INVOLVED