Click Cartoon for Larger Size
Eric Holder, who famously began his role of Attorney General by pronouncing America "a nation of cowards" is insisting on bringing 9/11's mastermind to trial in New York. He made this tough decision after NOT consulting with the president, the FBI, the CIA, or the military, but he did chat about it with his wife and brother.
But what's the worst that could happen? Well, Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be given reams of top secret intelligence information in order to prepare his defense...enemy combatants and terrorists will now have unprecedented legal protection on the battlefield...and Eric Holder concedes that the man who confessed to bringing down the World Trade Centers may be acquitted.
Click Poster for Larger Size
7 comments:
Sickening.
Sorry to be off topic but I read the news headlines around the same time as I read your comic (I find your comics quite newsy!). I was horrified to find another new "rule" about women's yearly checkups...oh my word, they are starting to ration healthcare already and it hasn't passed yet!!!!!!! We don't "need" mammograms and now we don't "need" our yearly OB checkups....I guess if cancer kills off all the women, the population will shrink even if Mohammed IS wandering around the golf courses waiting to blow something up. *sigh*
A last minute thought...isn't cancer screening cheaper than cancer treatment? So...what...are they planning to withhold treatment once they catch late stage cancer with the new testing guidelines????
9/11 mom confronts Holder : Why are you doing this ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/18/911-mom-confronts-holder-why-are-you-doing-this/
Suzy- You're not off-topic; it's all "Hope and Change" whether it's the Obama administration's TLC for Terrorists, or their desire to cut basic medical services for women in order to fund giveaways for new Democratic voters.
Per the second part of your message, you touch on a hugely important point that not many people have caught on to yet. Yes, it's cheaper to screen for cancer than to treat cancer...but only from the perspective of an individual patient
But Obamacare looks at the masses, and it's cheaper to treat 10,000 women for breast cancer than to pay for annual screenings for 40 million women (note: I'm making up these numbers just to illustrate the point).
Put another way, it's not as"cost effective" for the government to detect cancer early as it is for them to provide treatment to the women who actually present symptoms at a later stage. And BONUS - since later stage cancer is less treatable, more patients will die...which saves the government additional money in medical bills and, eventually, social security.
The same financial model will be true of heart disease, hypertension, and every other major class of illness. Scary, isn't it?
Stilt -
Your analysis of the situation is exactly what I have been trying to explain to my "liberal" friends ... seems the only way they will get it is to be one of the 10,000 in your example
I pray that it does not come to that ...
Have a great weekend
Dan M- Ask your liberal friends which they'd prefer: finding out they have cancer at an early, treatable stage...or getting end-of-life pain medication "free."
Then remind them that it's NOT a hypothetical question; it's what their representatives are voting on in Washington right now.
I'm just kinda freaking out they are making changes NOW....well ahead of the passage of the health bill. As if we are all too stupid to figure out its related.
I just hope our insurance companies don't fall for it....
Very true, Stilt, about cheaper to screen fewer people...I forgot about that side of it. Its basic insurance math, really.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Sorry. Just had to let that out there.
Post a Comment