Recent Comments

1. about 10 years ago on Mike Luckovich

   It’s not the government’s job to micro manage our lives, and it is most certainly not its job to practise medicine without a license. Not on us, not on our kids, nor on our pets and livestock. Yes, I know there are plenty of industry whores who hold medical licenses who are more committed to bullying the vulnerable than to dealing with their health, they enable government abuses.

2. about 10 years ago on Grand Avenue

   Idunno … offered that kind of choice, I suspect the novelty of doing anything at that hour would inspire us to clean.

   YMMV, of course! lol!

3. about 10 years ago on Grand Avenue

   Yours, maybe … mine were more cynical. But it you really want a useful, extensive vocabulary … Read. Read non-fiction, read literature, read even high end novels.

   Just keep reading …

4. about 10 years ago on Chip Bok

   @bb d

   Seems to me everybody misses the point … after all, Ms. Lerner’s first commitment is not to the US government or its constituents, it’s to the radical Animal Rights lobby. No problem, of course if you are a committed vegan who hasn’t yet got the message on the AR pet keeping policy.

   Sure they are loons. Sadly, they control the USDA, which means your access to animal protein, pet companionship and any other sort of animal enterprise is in jeopardy.

   HSUS and its satellite organizations are animal RIGHTS organizations, not animal welfare.

   It is Ms. Lerner’s job to police NPO charters, not protect the criminals.

   I’d call that a scandal.

5. about 10 years ago on Clay Bennett

   Oh dear … my apologies folks. Posting from devices is a business fraught with pitfalls, and I should swear off forthwith. That reply should go to Tigger, on a different ´toon.

6. about 10 years ago on Clay Bennett

   Gosh – you must have missed the news. Obama did, in fact, sign a health care bill, which did how a clear intention to address accessibility issue’s. He knew it would be challenged, but what sort of crystal ball would have told him that the Supreme Court would arbitrarily redefine the term as “a tax”? What that means in practical terms is that insurers can deny any claims they don´t want to pay.

   Let´s stop pretending, shall we? The thing has been ruled to be a tax, and apparently the insurers are tasked with collecting those taxes. Hard to see how this will benefit any taxpayers’ health, though.

7. about 10 years ago on Jeff Stahler

   Or, just another open sewer ..

8. about 10 years ago on Matt Davies

   “I thought we had moved on from this type of state sanctioned bigotry.”

   If we didn’t have this state sanctioned bigotry, we’d have no bigotry at all! What sort of society would that be? Isn’t that what we expect from governments? To deal with those situations we can’t or won’t handle ourselves?

   It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it, right, and if the taxpayers won’t, well, guess the gummint has to step in.

   I certainly won’t.In fact, I think l’ll just avoid Arizona altogether.

9. about 10 years ago on Steve Benson

   Well … the world is in BIG trouble :-/

10. about 10 years ago on [Deleted]

    Don’t believe me? Read the findings of the Actuary for Health and Human Services which runs Medicare and Medicaid. It may be ok to all the talking heads on PBS now, but eventually even Mark Shields won’t be able to afford out of pocket medical care.

    Don’t believe me? Read the findings of the Actuary for Health and Human Services which runs Medicare and Medicaid. It may be ok to all the talking heads on PBS now, but eventually even Mark Shields won’t be able to afford out of pocket medical care.

    Right you are. As soon as insurers understood that they would now have to cover pre-existing conditions, the panic was on for a fix. The Supremes came through for them handsomely. What they have now is carte blanche to deny any coverage they don’t feel like paying.

    This is called ‘bait and switch’ by cons and the cops who chase them. We’ve been scammed, people.