ObamaCare, the Comic Book

The case for the health care law is just as annoying in cartoon form.


Health care is a giant fat person crushing Congress. Or at least that's the picture readers get—quite literally—from reading Jonathan Gruber's Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It's Necessary, How It Works, a desperate attempt to make the case for Obama­Care in graphic novel form. 

Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as a chief architect of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care reform, which provided the model for the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). He then worked as a paid consultant for the widely unpopular federal law. Gruber plays a central role in his own book, appearing as a nerdy-looking cartoon character who guides readers through an illustrated version of federal health policy basics with exciting lines like "the best and most comprehensive parts of the ACA are yet to come." 

Why deploy cartoon Gruber to battle cartoon villains such as a mummy who warns that Obama­Care won't cover the uninsured and a lagoon creature who tries to scare people into thinking the law will cause insurance premiums to rise? Perhaps because at this point the law's defenders are desperate enough to try anything to make it more popular. This is a far cry from the run-up to PPACA's passage, when Democratic strategists convinced themselves that sagging public support would be turned around once people finally understood the law's benefits.

Since then, ObamaCare supporters have engaged in superpowered efforts to explain just how great it is, launching a series of expensive advertising campaigns and advocacy groups. None has worked yet. In the nearly two years since the law passed, PPACA's poll numbers have gotten worse, not better. Pollster.com's multipoll trend aggregate showed in January that 50 percent of the public opposes the law, while just 37 percent approves, the latter down from 43 percent in May 2010. It may be that voters have learned as much as they need to know about ObamaCare and have adjusted their opinions accordingly. 

In any case, Gruber's comic book argument isn't likely to stanch the bleeding. Those who follow the intricacies of health policy and politics will learn nothing new, and those who don't will find themselves facing little more than a dull, blandly illustrated version of the same talking points that apologists have been using for years.

At times Gruber's book reads less like a comic and more like a White House press release. Cartoon Gruber happily assures readers that ObamaCare "is not socialism" but instead "a unique piece of legislation that delivers benefits to citizens while actually lowering the deficit." ObamaCare "makes sure the sick have someplace to turn for their insurance coverage" and keeps insurance companies in line by "subject[ing] them to regulations on their 'medical loss ratios.'?"

As in the noncartoon world, those talking points tell only a highly selective part of the story. When discussing the decades-long rise in health care costs, for example, Gruber notes the existence of the two largest health entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, but tiptoes around their substantial role in driving up health spending. He argues that the private sector has no incentive to cut its own costs because that would deprive the medical industry of income—but ignores the role that untamed entitlement spending and easy-money government payment schemes have had in squelching the kind of price-based competition that restrains costs in other markets. He says that the "evidence-based" assessments of the law provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) demolish conservative arguments against it but does not mention that the CBO's alternative budget outlook predicts that many of the law's cost-control schemes won't last. The result is a dull mix of policy speak, oversimplification, and partisan parsing.

Gruber combines telltale omissions with dubious logic. Responding to the argument that government doesn't have any reason to be involved in providing or paying for health coverage, he explains that thanks to Medicare and Medicaid, "state and federal governments already pay for about half of the cost of all medical care." He notes that government health spending has grown from a relatively modest percentage of the budget in 1960 to the single largest budget expense today—and will continue to grow until it overwhelms the federal budget. This is where the illustration of the fat person crushing Congress comes in. 

But since the two health care entitlements were established in 1965, doesn't this suggest that they are the source of the cost problem? If previous health care entitlements are wrecking the federal budget, why is adding another one the solution? Gruber's argument seems to be that the government needs to be involved in health care because the government is already involved in health care.

Most pages of Health Care Reform resemble a children's coloring book more than a graphic novel. Nathan Schrieber's simple black-and-white art adds little to the argument. When cartoon Gruber identifies what he believes are the twin problems of American health care—rising costs and a growing number of uninsured—they are represented by a grinning, two-headed alligator that does nothing to make Gruber's point. 

The book takes the form of a long lecture, words and images swimming in the cluttered visual metaphors of Gruber's mind. But it offers nothing like the enveloping dream logic of great surrealist comic memoirs such as Craig Thompson's Blankets or the clarity and informational elegance of historical explainers such as Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou's Logicomix

One might think that the point of presenting an argument for ObamaCare in comic book form is to deliver complex ideas in a simple way. Instead, Gruber has chosen to present simple ideas in a simple way, favoring easy talking points over a substantive grappling with the distortions that decades of subsidies, tax breaks, regulations, and entitlement programs have inflicted on the cost and delivery of health care in the United States.

In the process, Gruber gets the story backward and identifies the wrong villain. Health care isn't a giant fat person crushing Congress. If anything, it's the other way around: Congress, through laws like ObamaCare, is crushing American health care.

Peter Suderman is a senior editor at reason.

NEXT: Bernanke: Less Than Candid About Central Banking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know, if health care is a big fat person crushing Congress, it’s because Congress put him there and votes to keep him there year after year.

    I’d say they want him.

    1. No hot Anime chicks?

      But seriously: You know, if health care is a big fat person crushing Congress, it’s because Congress put him there and votes to keep him there year after year.

      If healthcare is the fat person, Congress is the refrigerator.

      1. America is the schoolgirl; Obamacare is the tentacles.

        1. …said “Masturbatin’Pete”

      2. “No hot Anime chicks?”

        Tentacle rape is a vital women’s health issue!

        1. Dammit!

  2. Can you imagine being the retarded dork who drew this shit? He might as well cut off his dick right now.

    1. Yeah really, they can follow this up with a graphic novel explanation of Obama’s war on terrorism.

      1. Obama’s war? How about the military industrial complexes war?

        1. Obama could stop it anytime he wants. But campaign donations are more important to him than innocent dead people in dirka dirka land.

    2. He might as well cut off his dick right now.

      Increased healthcare costs!

      1. Decreased: he wouldn’t be able to have kids who would also need healthcare. This is why birth control is a cost-reducing measure.

      2. We will all face cuts under Obamacare…

    3. We need Peter Bagge to step up and kick his ass.

      1. YES!!!!! ^^^^^^ this

  3. Whoa exactly is the target audience for this propaganda? Young hipsters? Are they expected to pay for it themselves? How much?

    1. The same people that Jack Chick converted to Christianity with his nuanced and well-researched comic books.

      1. I must have missed that one. Dang.

        1. Never heard of “Chick Tracts”? It has nothing to do with baby chickens or young women.

      2. So, hipsters who like to laugh at things ironically and people who already believe? Because those are the only people I know who take Jack Chick as anything other than deranged.

  4. Technology, served as a chief architect of Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care reform, which provided the model for the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

    Everyone else, including the Obama administration says it is, Tulpa says it isn’t.

    1. Does anyone care what Professor Pomeranian–I mean, Tulpy-Poo–says?

      1. The fact that the same guy was involved in both is pretty damning.

      2. He’s an OK guy, he can string a sentence together, and we do agree with him 62.966% of the time.

        Just don’t get to talking to him about:

        Police cameras or privacy, Romney or a few other specific topics.

        1. or a few other specific topics

          Like being perpendicular to anything.

          1. I don’t even know what you’re referring to, but I actually laughed out loud.

            1. I don’t even know what you’re referring to
              Probably better that way.

            2. It’s a little chestnut I’m rather fond of. It was born here.

              1. What about orthogonality? Is he pro or con?

                1. He supports a war on orthogonality, due to its simple expediency.

  5. ObamaCare supporters have engaged in superpowered efforts to explain just how great it is, launching a series of expensive advertising campaigns and advocacy groups. None has worked yet. In the nearly two years since the law passed, PPACA’s poll numbers have gotten worse, not better.

    Another way the ObamaCare law is wasnting money – not even the expense in advertisement for it is resulting in better poll numbers. The whole thing is a waste!

  6. …a desperate attempt to make the case for Obama?Care in graphic novel form.

    In this comic have they repealed the 22nd Amendment, therefore allowing Nixon to still be president? Because that’s the level of delusion I want from my graphic novel.

    1. You just read it for the giant blue wang.

    2. Scoop Chang: Scoop Chang, Beijing Bugle. Sir, the constitution clearly states that nobody can be elected president more than twice.

      Nixon: That’s right, no…body. But as you can plainly see, I’ve got a shiny new body!

      1. “May death come quickly to his enemies.”

        1. Nixon: “Hey there, Morbo, how’s the family?”

          Morbo: “Numerous and belligerent.”

  7. Incubus (Inkubo), filmita en la jaro 1965 en Usono kaj “elfosita” pli ol 30 jarojn poste, estas ver?ajne la unua horora filmo plene en Esperanto. ?ar origine ?i ne estis farita por esperantistoj, anglalingvaj a? franclingvaj (onidire anka? itallingvaj) subtekstoj akompanas la dialogojn. Pro la fu?a elparolo de la ne-Esperantistaj aktoroj, la subtekstoj estas utilaj por kompreni la dialogon de la filmo.

    1. And it stars William Shatner! Excellent taste, spambot.

    2. Seriously, squirrels? You tag my shit as spam and this gets through. I hope my cat eats your babies.

      1. Dankon, spamboto!
        Estas spamboto de vero!

        1. Incubus is actually a great looking film (belega filmo). Conrad Hall, who also photographed In Cold Blood and Road to Perdition among many others, was the cinematographer.

      2. Esperanto isn’t a foreign language. It’s a universal language.

        1. It’s universal the way anything that’s made up and called universal is universal.

          If a business exec in every major corporation in the world speaks it, then there’s your 50,000 speakers.

          It’s a bizarre contrivance that suffers from not having a culture. And while I’m no expert on linguistics (despite having family members who are/were), it would seem like Asian tonal language speakers would find it incredibly foreign.

          1. I suppose my sarcasm was too subtle?

          2. It’s a bizarre contrivance that suffers from not having a culture

            Sigh. (Ho, ve.)

            1. Or — Esperanto is to linguistics as libertarianism is to politics.
              Yes, yes. (Jes, jes.)

              1. Harrison made Esperanto the universal language in some of his books–the Deathworld and Stainless Steel Rat series, for instance. At least, I seem to remember that.

                1. See, this is why nobody takes Esperantists seriously!

              2. You’re more correct than you know.

                1. Or — Esperanto is to linguistics as libertarianism is to politics.
                  Yes, yes. (Jes, jes.)

                  You’re more correct than you know.

                  Damned threaded comments.

                2. I’m always correct, and I always know it.

                  1. Or, mi cxiam gxustas, kaj mi cxiam konas!

            2. Citizen Nothing|3.22.12 @ 2:18PM|#
              It’s a bizarre contrivance that suffers from not having a culture

              Sigh. (Ho, ve.)

              Actually this is one of the core criticisms about its bloated vocabulary. Because esperanto was created to be ‘culture neutral’, new words aren’t created from root words, but created out of whole cloth. Whereas languages which grow organically and built around specific cultures create offshoots from existing root words.

              1. Bloated vocabulary? Cxu ve?

                1. (I really need to download the Esperanto alphabet if I’m going to be doing this. But that seems like a lot of trouble.)

                  1. (I really need to download the Esperanto alphabet if I’m going to be doing this. But that seems like a lot of trouble.)

                    Apparently there’s another competing universal language called “Ido” which attempts to address the problem of Esperanto’s diacritic letters.

                2. Bloated vocabulary? Cxu ve?

                  Here’s an interesting discussion of the large vocabulary in Esperanto.

                  I don’t follow the language closely(or know it), but apparently there’s been a movement amongst its speakers to reform this aspect:


                  Your thoughts?

                  1. Well, Esperanto is certainly not easy to learn. No useful language would be.
                    But it is certainly much easier to learn than “natural” languages.
                    I took four years of high school French and another year in college. I also took a year of Russian in college.
                    I can barely read French, and my only Russian is “I hear the tractor.”
                    But I could read anything in Esperanto easily after a year of self-teaching.

                    1. It’s true that many of the roots are of Latin or Germanic origin, giving Europeans a leg up on learning the language. But because of the agglutinative nature of Esperanto the vocabulary is actually very small (in comparison to a national language).
                      I think any reasonable person could learn enough Esperanto for basic communication very quickly. And if everone learned it as a second language — voila! (See, I do remember some French.)
                      That’s a big if of course. If no one learns it, it has no utility — the ultimate downfall of what is actually a very beautiful, clever and potentially useful construct.

                    2. Well, Esperanto is certainly not easy to learn. No useful language would be.
                      But it is certainly much easier to learn than “natural” languages.

                      Apropos of my “bizarre contrivance” and “language without a culture” comment, I come from a family of native Czech speakers. Make no mistake: Czech is a bizarre contrivance with a culture.

                    3. I also hear that Czech beer is much better than Esperantish beer.

                    4. Don’t we already have English?

                    5. Yes, and many of us are still working on learning that one.

        2. 10,000 speakers of a universal language?
          Next in line is Chamicuro, of course!

          1. How many people speak Klingon?

          2. 10,000 speakers of a universal language

            Estimates range from 10,000 to 2,000,000. Even at the more impressive 2,000,000, when calculating the cultural impact against world population, basically you could fill a few nighborhoods in one major city with speakers.

    3. And Esperanto horror film? Nice. If people go to this extent to try to sidetrack someone’s message, they think you’re being terribly effective.

      So Ron Paul has a chance? Or is this something more in the future than that?

  8. Here’s a personal anecdote:

    I went to the CVS minute clinic yesterday because I have a cold that won’t go away and I don’t want to miss work because of it. I went in, paid the fee, had the nurse practitioner analyze the problem, she prescribed some antibiotics, I went to the CVS pharmacy, picked up said antibiotics and was out the door in less than 30 minutes.

    A free market answer to the supposed health care “crisis” that didn’t put me out thousands of dollars and quickly provided me with professional relief.

    Maybe we should put CVS in charge of healthcare reform.

    1. I have suggested Walmart should run the health care systsem, but I’d like to see Target involved as well for a little competition.

      1. No target, leave it to just Walmart. The entire left will die of treatable diseases because of their steadfast refusal to shop at Walmart. Total win-win.

        1. Ew but then I have to go inside Walmart. It’s just so…gross.

    2. And those anti-biotics won’t do shit for your virus-induced cold, except to increase anti-biotic resistance in general.

      1. OK, read down (nice work Spoonman!), never mind.

    3. Yeah, that is exactly the kind of reform needed. There are so many things that currently require an office visit for no good reason.
      If there are any drugs that should be limited access, I’d say antibiotics are it. People are stupid and would take them every time they felt a little sick, making them completely useless. But any nurse, or pharmacist, should be able to make that call and give proper instructions on taking them as any MD.

      1. I get a transfusion whenever I feel ill.

        1. This is why it’s important to blood test your child workers prior to hiring them.

          1. enslaving =! hiring.

            Much less paperwork.

        2. You know who else got a transfusion every time he felt ill?

          No, not Hitler. This time it’s Ryan White.

        3. I just keep adding leaches until I feel better.

    4. Maybe we should put CVS in charge of healthcare reform ban CVS.

      FIFY, & Don’t tempt me.

    5. ” I went in, paid the fee,…”

      See, there is why it will never work.
      Go look in any emergency waiting room in the country and you will see multiple kids with colds and runny noses clogging up the place, waiting for hours sometimes for exactly the service you just described. They go there because they dont have to pay a fee.

      As soon as CVS minute clinics accept medifuk or any kind of govt assistance it will turn into a zombie hell.

  9. I have a cold that won’t go away and I don’t want to miss work because of it. I went in, paid the fee, had the nurse practitioner analyze the problem, she prescribed some antibiotics

    Uh, I hope you don’t have a cold then.

    1. In my experience a viral cold or allergies will cause congestion which then traps bacteria, resulting in a bacterial sinus infection that can last weeks without antibiotics.

      1. A virus lasts seven to ten days. If you’re still sick after that, you need anti-biotics.

        1. Wrong place, sorry sarcasmic.

        2. Yeah, that’s why I went in. It started out as a viral infection from one of my co-workers little disease factories children who infected the office, but it got stuck in my lungs and I haven’t been able to juice it/garlic it away so I went to get some drugs.

          Had I gone to my primary care provider it would’ve taken several hours and probably hundreds of more dollars.

          1. First step on the road to recovery: Stop putting garlic in your lungs, no matter how finely you mince it.

            1. And juicing them is probably worse.

          2. Garlic? That’s vampires, you fool!

            1. Wrong. Vampires LOVE the stuff!

              1. Maybe fake, sparkly vampires, but not the real ones.

      2. I had that cold this year. It was awful. Lasted for weeks.

  10. This comic basically amounts to: “ObamaCare is good, mkay?”

  11. Huh, comic books. I have a bunch of comic books at home from my banking days that were produced by the Federal Reserve (pretty sure it was the Fed–might’ve been another federal banking regulator). I ordered them because the whole idea made me laugh for some reason.

    1. I always used to like the deranged maintenance comics the Army made. PS? PM? Something like that. I used to read them religiously. They were far more entertaining than the actual FMs.

      1. Really, all government publications should be in comic form.

        1. All government publications should be in the form of Chick Tracts.

          1. I changed my opinion to porn below somewhere.

            1. Chick porn.

        2. They arent?

  12. I just love having my intelligence insulted by one of Obama’s TOP MEN (Gruber). What a fucking asshole.

    “Those silly rubes in fly over country still don’t like Obamacare. I know! Let’s make a comic book to explain it to those simple minded morons! Stupid people love pictures, right?”

    1. They’re the idiots, regardless. If they really wanted to convey this message, they should’ve used porn.

      1. True. But I think the point of this is to explain the talking points to their supporters in terms they can understand. Hipster doofuses are having a hard time defending the law in public. Publishing a graphic novel explaining the lies and talking points in terms the average hipster doofus can understand is one way of remedying that.

        1. What, hipsters don’t consume porn? That seems unlikely to me.

          1. We do if it’s printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks.

            1. Well, if any porn were to do so, it would be government-published porn.

              1. Cool. It’s free, right?

            2. Aren’t those hippies?

          2. Of course they do. But they understand graphic novels better. It is kind of their way of communicating. You have to have lots of pictures or hipsters alderall addled brains won’t understand.

            1. There’s no reason graphic novels and porn couldn’t be combined, is there?

              1. No there is not.

              2. Ahem.

              3. I note someone did an illustrated version of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography report. I believe the illustrations were photographic in nature, not drawings.

        2. It hadn’t occurred to me that this would be more to help their useful idiots try and defend the law to other people. And since most hipster douches have about a 2nd grade reading level this would be the best way to disperse talking points to them.

          1. That is exactly what this is. No one who hates the law is going to read this much less be persuaded by it. But it does explain the talking points to the army of idiots.

          2. I saw someone dressed in full hipster regalia the other day, but they were driving a 5 series BMW. Does that make this person a Yupster?

      2. Oh, Barack, you fill my MediGap so well!

      3. The “doctor” will “see” you now.

      4. “the best and most comprehensive parts of the ACA are yet to come.”

        My best parts are coming NOW!

      5. It would lend itself to a lot of medical/nurse fetish stuff.

      6. Sandra, we have to check that your Government-provided birth control is working.


    2. Yes, YES, YES!!

      Thanks to PPACA, I no longer take it on the chin!

      1. We’ll see about that.

  13. “the best and most comprehensive parts of the ACA are yet to come.”

    Are you serious?

  14. Gruber put the cartoon before the horse.

  15. Why deploy cartoon Gruber to battle cartoon villains…

    “I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Senator Brown did not see it that way… so he won’t be joining us for the rest of his term. We can go any way you want it. You can walk out of here or be carried out. But have no illusions. We are in charge. So, decide now, each of you. And please remember: we have left nothing to chance.”

  16. Jerry Brown occasionally does the right thing, and FoxNews just can’t stand it.

    FTA: In Los Angeles, Lindsay Lohan served only four hours of a month-long sentence. Lesser known offenders, like James Lucio and Angel Espinoza, were re-arrested for committing more crimes just days after their release in Gilroy.

    Nice reporting, you fucking idiots.

    1. If we just locked everyone in prison and never let them out, there wouldn’t be any crime.

  17. Gruber?



  18. “Women getting insurance on the individual market are paying $1 billion more than men”


    1. That is because women have more health problems than men. You allegedly being a woman should know that. If a woman’s body were a car, you could return it under any state lemon law.

        1. Most individual male policies don’t cover childbirth, for one thing. I hear that’s spendy.

          1. “Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, said the study found that in states that have not banned gender rating, 92 percent of best-selling plans charge women more than men, even though the vast majority of these plans do not cover maternity services.”

            Try again, T

            1. Serious question here, rather: does she offer any evidence supporting this claim? “Most plans” doesn’t exactly mean “most policies signed.”

              Hell, “most (17 of 20 last year) 401k accounts my company offers lose money annually.” But 95% of the employees who participate put their money in the 3 that were profitable.

              Do you see my point?

              1. The facts are stated here

                1. The facts are stated here

                  No, their claims are stated there. For example (from the link): For example, one company charged 25-year-old women 85% more than men for the same coverage, again excluding maternity coverage altogether.

                  No footnote. No naming the company. This is just more from the playbook of the left, as evidenced in their “endnotes” that cite a few advocacy publications as source material and nothing about the companies actuarial tables.


                2. from the link: a. “Best-selling” status is assigned by eHealthInsurance.com, based on the number of applications submitted through its website and approved by the insurance company during the most recent calendar quarter.

                  I would hardly consider that the best way to determine “best selling.” One quarter’s applications? And we’re supposed to base national policy on one quarter’s applicants on one website and the approval of insurance carriers?

                  You’re better than this, rather. Seriously.

                  1. “You’re better than this, rather. Seriously”
                    Be careful, next they’ll think I’m invited to the wedding

                    BTW, we will see how rates change under ACA

                    1. Everyone is invited to the wedding.

                      Or they’re all invited to spend a little time on our registry.*

                      *It’s technically not blogwhoring, is it?

    2. According to the census, there are 4 million more women than men in the USA. Assuming the %ages are the same for the private insurance market as they are in the population, which your study neglects or refuses to tell us, there are 200000 more women in the private insurance market than there are men.

      That would mean that if men and women were paying the same, each person would be paying $5k annually for insurance. And the men would be somewhat lower than that and the women would be somewhat above it. If you took the entire group of 14.8M people in the private insurance group, then you would find that women pay $67.56 more a year than the average man.

      1. And since men cannot and do not have a need for birth control, which costs on average $150 a year retail, women are getting at a minimum $83 of their annual needs covered that men aren’t.

        Why is the private health care marketplace so geared toward catering to women?

        1. Your data is fantasy; women are not in one pool.

          1. There are 200k more women in the private market if the same %ages apply as an overall % of the population. Your article conveniently leaves out how many more or less women there are in the private market. (One has to wonder why they do that.)

            And if the #’s are identical, women would pay on average $133 a year more than men, which would still be a net winner for women on birth control alone. Take pap smears into the equation, and it ends up being an even shittier deal for men.

            1. First, not all women are on BC
              second, it is based on the same age group, paying for the same care, and no maternity
              Third, a female with a vagina pays more than a male smoker-argue he’s a deal!

              1. Define “best-selling.” And in one place, she throws out the “92% charge more” and in another, it’s “56% charge more,” thrown in about an overall stat of 7.5M in the marketplace.

                The entire article looks like an attempt at throwing a bunch of numbers and stats out there that have very little to do with each other in an effort to confuse and steer the reader in a certain direction.

          2. Your data is fantasy; women are not in one pool.

            You can’t use overall #’s in your argument and then pull the “women aren’t in one pool” comment out. The study you cited gave an overall #. I’m gonna do the same to show how absurdly low the difference is, and that since women have certain issues they deal with annually that men do not, how it is in fact a financially better deal for women.

            1. Ya a vagina is equal to a male smoker!

              1. Also, FTA: More than 30 groups, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, FamiliesUSA, and and SEIU are part of the National Women’s Law Center campaign. The National Women’s Law Center also found the vast majority of plans on the individual market do not cover maternity services, unless required by the state they are operating in. That means the high costs that can be associated with pregnancy cannot explain the discrepancies between covering men and women.

                I learned in 5th grade that if I put these sentences in a paper together, I would have received an “F.”

                This is an advocacy piece. Put the facts together where they belong and you end up with women paying very little more annually as a % of the policy cost and that there are many “facts” out there about “best selling plans” that cannot or will not be substantiated.

                1. Also, FTA: “The difference in premiums charged to women and men varies to such a large degree across states and insurance companies, that it is difficult to point to actuarial justifications as the cause of much of the difference,” said the report. The health reform law bans insurance companies from charging different rates based on gender in 2014, and will require individual insurance plans on state insurance exchanges to cover maternity services.

                  They don’t know why it’s being done, but they sure know that it’s not fair.

                  Hey, I see a business opportunity for someone. Come in and offer insurance to women for less because greedy companies are screwing them unfairly. It can’t miss!

                  1. You know damn well insurance is a very controlled market that discourages competition and both men and women have no product choice

                    1. You know damn well insurance is a very controlled market that discourages competition and both men and women have no product choice

                      You’re absolutely right. And as soon as the people controlling it (read: federal and state governments) get out of the way, the free market will find what is the true market of insurance and both men and women can benefit from dramatic cost savings.

                    2. Women are halfway there; Obamacare will prevent the dry cleaner game with women’s healthcare

                    3. Obamacare will completely destroy the choice in healthcare that can only be provided in a free market. It will stifle innovation, surrender competition to government bureaucrats and disincentivize providers from offering alternatives.

                      It will be the death knell of efficient and effective care in America.

                    4. and then we can start over

        2. Every salesman knows that chicks are an easy up-sell. The difference is probably the undercoating.

    3. Seems like an excellent opportunity for a company to step in and offer cheaper insurance to women. Unless there are good reasons that women are paying more.

  19. Filling the heads of children this kind of propaganda, ought to be punishable by death.

  20. Everyone’s invited. We’ve maintained this all along.

    1. btw, I didnt get an invite and couldnt go anyway, but if you email me an address of some sort I will send a gift.
      When is the wedding?

  21. I read over the comments here, and I am sure some WH operative or Truth Squad member or some other Obamazombie is too. Considering the ocean of derision that obamacare is drowning in, how can they possibly think they can sell this stinking pile of shit? A comic book for the rubes?

    They fuckin’ well know we are going to hate it worse when it fully kicks in, and knew it from the inception. That is why they dont have it kick in fully until after captain zero gets re-elected.

    Once it is in place do they think we are going to just eat it and like it? It hasnt occurred to these fucks that people are already starting to sharpen their pitchforks and gather rope?

    1. That is why they dont have it kick in fully until after captain zero gets re-elected.

      President Biden is sure going to have his hands full explaining it. But Biden will only get one term. After that President H. R. Clinton will have to mend it, not end it.

  22. All power to the Soviets

  23. Is the Romney campaign like an Etch A Sketch?

  24. Nice information, many recognition to the author. It is incomprehensible to me now, but in general, the usefulness and significance is overwhelmingoverwhelming. recognition again and good luck!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.