The VA.
Items which should appear in the missing 4th panel:
- But don't raise taxes to pay for health care for Veterans!
- This is outrageous, but I couldn't have cared less when President Bush was in office.
- And yet, the VA provides better healthcare than the private medical system the rest of us are forced to deal with.
11 comments:
The second one made me laugh.
Men CAN have PMS. It's related to hormone levels, not the actual organs. Poor diet, not enough exercise and an excess of fat gives them all the mood swings, back aches, and headaches women suffer on a monthly basis.
I suppose Ducky thinks veterans would be better off playing survivor without the benefits of the earned health care. PTSD victims wandering streets, men sexually assaulting women, those unable to handle the stress of a normal family life and taking that stress out on their family, people with no arms trying to get normal jobs, it really would be a survivor show entertaining to some. The reality is that psychological help is lacking in most affordable insurance plans, and private companies would charge someone missing a limb or 3 a small fortune. Even if the gov't completely eff's up, they've still provided more than the free market would be willing to cough up out of profits.
About a year ago, Tinsley used endoscopy equipment in his harangue against VA Healthcare.
Again I invite him to review the up to date Inspector General reports for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Now, see what you can find out about a private hospital or clinic where you may go for your colonoscopy. (Also compare the level paperwork involved and don't forget the insurance!)
I know. VA healthcare is part of the gubmint, so it is bad. Scrap it and buy all the vets lifetime, premium health insurance and be done with it then. I'm sure that will suffice. (An early Happy Memorial Day to you, too.)
Last January, all Bush's deliberate neglect of the VA (which had been pretty good under Clinton) became Obama's fault. Prior to that, it was of course Clinton's fault.
When the GOP writes their history of this era, Bush will be represented by a mischievous little spook whose chest is emblazoned with the words "NOT MY FAULT."
I forgot to ask what that thing is that's holding Mallard down by the crotch. Did QVC finally send him his very own robot Teabagger?
I'm paraphrasing, but when news about this broke some time back, Rush said something to the effect of "Why are the veterans such whiners? They act is if we owe them something."
There's some great conservative hypocrasy for you- we should get down on our knees and thank the military for every last freedom we Americans have, but if they want someone to tend their wounds, they're just a bunch of whiners.
The easiest way to improve the VA would be to lessen its workload by cutting back on our land wars in Asia.
Until Mallard utters one quack about that, he's just using our troops for his private political advantage. Surprise?
I agree: just stop the Bush/Obama wars in Iraq and Afganistan and these problems can be addressed and alleviated. But that isn't going to happen.
the Bush/Obama wars
...You care to rephrase that?
Drawdown is occurring as scheduled, but spontaneous withdrawal was never an option for grown-ups. We should've never gone to Iraq in the first place but a full-blown cut-and-run will only make things worse in the long term.
By calling them "Bush/Obama wars," you're diverting blame from the punk shits who are actually responsible. This will also make things worse in the long run (i.e., the next time the GOP gets a chance to play real-life Risk).
Protest the wars, but do not blame Obama for them. It's ignorant, and it's counterproductive.
Clearly we have two Anonymoi, Anonymelonfucker, plus Concern Troll Anonymous, whose position seems to be, "Obama hasn't put out all of Bush's flaming bags of dog shit; therefore let's give the Republicans more dog-doo bags and matches".
Here we see Anonytroll Number Two. As it were.
@Not THAT Anonymous --
Iraq perhaps not, but Afghanistan? You don't think Obama bears any responsiblity for being "at war" with Afghanistan? Even after he increased troop levels there to their highest point since we started? To be more specific, are you saying the bill just approved in the Senate providing for an additional 30,000 troops in Afghanistan is in no way, shape, or form a responsibility of the current administration?
Quite honestly, given that increase, and given Chimpy's pretty much ignoring Afghanistan for the last 6 years or so of his tenure, a better name for the doings in Afghanistan, instead of Bush/Obama's war, would just be Obama's war.
As for the "drawdown", it may be a drawdown in Iraq, but in terms of the entire Middle East, Obama is just rearranging the pieces on his game board.
I know it's considered "progressive" in some circles to feign severe simple-mindedness in order to justify calling Democrats DINOs and voting for Nader, but until you cough up an alternative that works in the long run I'm not listening.
We aren't "at war with" Afghanistan. That would make things much simpler. We're "at war with" the Taliban in Afghanistan. And the reason we're stuck there now is because Bush immediately shifted his attention to Iraq. In the end, Obama is still just cleaning up Bush's messes. That doesn't mean his name belongs attached to said messes.
If progressives hadn't rallied so hard against Gore back then, perhaps he would've won. Would there have been a 9-11? Would we have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq at all?
...Whose wars are they now?
Post a Comment