MONDAY: We're so old that we can remember...

MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2025

...when Paul Krugman wrote about this: On December 13, the New York Times ran a guest essay concerning the cost of health insurance. Headline included, the essay started like this:

$27,000 a Year for Health Insurance. How Can We Afford That?

The debate over whether to extend the expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies has consumed lawmakers over the past two months, precipitated a government shutdown and sparked Republican infighting. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong debate.

While I believe we should extend the subsidies, which expire at the end of the month, to help families pay their insurance premiums, doing so wouldn’t fix the underlying problem: surging health care spending. That’s the reason we need the subsidies in the first place, and it’s bankrupting families and shredding jobs for low- and middle-income workers across the economy.

And so on from there. The essay was written by Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale.

Topics like that have largely slid beneath the waves in this modern era, in large part due to the flooding of the zone. Distractions come thick and fast these days. Who has time for a discussion of a topic like that?

It occurred to us that it's been a while since we reviewed a basic type of health care spending data. Why does our nation's "surging health care spending" seem to exceed that of other comparable nations? 

Nostalgically, we started to click. Soon, we came upon these data, courtesy of Peterson KFF:

Health expenditures per capita, U.S. dollars, 2023 (current prices and PPP adjusted)
United States: $13,432
Germany: $8,441
France: $7,136
Canada: $7,013
Australia: $6,931
United Kingdom: $6,023
Japan: $5,640

Peterson KFF includes a "Comparable Country Average." It includes the spending figures from some smaller Euro nations. That average is said to be this:

Comparable Country Average: $7,393

People, we're just saying!

We've been puzzling over numbers like that ever since Paul Krugman did a series of columns on this topic back in 2005 or 2006, also for the New York Times. From that day to this, we don't think we've ever seen a major news org tackle the challenge of attempting to tackle this question:

Why do we Americans spend so much more, on a per capita basis, than other nations do? 

Why do we Americans spend so much more? The daily flooding of the zone makes it even less likely that you'll ever see a serious effort to tackle a question like that.

Meanwhile, if someone did develop such information, the findings would be sifted in different ways within Silo Red and Silo Blue. We've become a spectacularly unintelligent nation, which, just to be perfectly honest, doesn't differ all that much from The Way It Always Was.

We've shown you the start of Professor Cooper's essay. Before long, he's also saying this:

...Rising health care spending is killing the American dream.

Despite devastating out-of-pocket costs, Americans are generally insulated from the true cost of health care premiums. However, the expiring subsidies on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, where more than 20 million Americans get their insurance, show just how exorbitant premiums have become. Consider a 60-year-old couple earning $85,000 a year. Without subsidies, their health insurance premiums next year will approach $32,000 (akin to buying a new Toyota Camry).

Those of us who get health care insurance from our employerssome 160 million Americans—may be breathing a sigh of relief. But our health care premiums are also staggering (an average of $27,000 a year for a family of four), and the fact that our employers pay part of the tab isn’t much of a reprieve.

That’s because decades’ worth of research shows that, even though employers pay most of workers’ premiums, those costs are passed on to workers in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs.

There's a lot more to Cooper's essay than that. But such essays lead nowhere within our flailing American discourse. Thanks to the incessant flooding of the zone, that discourse is almost surely dumber now than it's ever been before.

At one point, we Americans occasionally pretended to discuss such topics. Those discussions rarely went anywhere, but today we pretty much don't even bother.

The zone gets flooded all day long. Inevitably, our attention is drawn to the endless string of inanities which rush through as part of the flood.

Way back when, Paul Krugman tried to make this a topic. Through zero fault of his own, Paul Krugman tried and he failed.


102 comments:

  1. Trump has contempt for Republican voters, which is something our media should be emulating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse flying monkey 3:21pm, if you’re going to be an anonymouse flying monkey can’t you strive to be a better one? You’ve been doing the same three put-downs for years. I want my money back.

      Delete
    2. Fuck off Cecelia. People here are tired of you.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 9:11pm, oh dear. I wish you weren’t forced to read my posts.

      Delete
    4. And I wish the wish the Republican Party wasn't a global pedophile ring.

      Delete
  2. Somerby is correct.
    The Republican Party is an amoral dumpster fire.

    Unfortunately, that won't stop the Somerby haters from claiming he's Conservative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does Somerby realize he too is flooding the zone with his silly quote from Moby Dick?

      Delete
    2. There is no claim that Somerby is conservative; the claim is that Somerby is right wing, which he clearly is.

      Somerby says that while he finds some Republicans distasteful - Trump, Gutfeld, etc - he agrees with many of their values.

      Furthermore, Somerby is quite squeamish when it comes to calling out racism, sexism, and xenophobia, further indicating his right wing stance.

      Additionally, Somerby goes out of his way, typically via misinformation, to trash Dems.

      Delete
    3. “Somerby says that . . . he agrees with many of [the Republicans’] values.”

      Are you just making this up, or can you provide a quote?

      Delete
    4. Quotes have been provided in the past, DIRECTLY TO YOU.

      In fact, Somerby has indicated his inclination towards some right wing values in the past few days. He indicates this all the time, if you have your head in the sand about it, THAT IS ON YOU.

      Delete
    5. So, I guess you can’t.

      Delete
    6. We have all read what Somerby’s been saying recently. When people give you quotes you ignore them. It is a waste of time.

      Delete
    7. DG, you’ve been given those quotes in the past.

      So, I guess you're a liar and a troll.

      Delete
    8. So, your go-to move is to distract through insults. I can’t say I’m surprised.

      Delete
    9. DG's go to move is to insult our intelligence.

      Delete

  3. Everyone says that European and Canadian healthcare is crap. Horrible. Especially British. And in Canada they apparently offer assisted suicide to sick people.

    Swiss healthcare is okay, but their spending per capita is close to American, and, like American, it's based on private insurance.

    So, idiot-Democrat squealing aside, what's the solution, Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why does their crappy healthcare result in longer life expectancies? And don't worry, RFK jr is working overtime to make sure it is not even close. A whole deluded pack of idiots and fucking morons. Sad.

      Delete
    2. Why does their crappy healthcare result in longer life expectancies? And don't worry, RFK jr is working overtime to make sure it is not even close. A whole deluded pack of idiots and fucking morons. Sad.

      Delete
    3. A healthier lifestyle is one factor.

      Delete
    4. Ilya, a healthier lifestyle is not nonsense as to the impact on costs. Other factors, such as greed, play a bigger role, but that doesn’t mean you have play lifestyle down.

      Delete
    5. Nonsense was mostly an assessment of the original post, claiming that other countries' healthcare were shitty. The US healthcare is absolute garbage, which comes about -- and this is fundamental and dovetails with yours and David's inane comments below -- because it's treated as a business. It's not.
      It's garbage because doctors are conditioned to move patients along; it's garbage because of inaccessibility; it's just fucking the worst.
      Healthier lifestyle is a personal prerogative and a public policy approach. To the extent that making people healthier is a public policy, we are failing miserably on that front as well.

      Delete
    6. Ilya 6:05pm, I don’t know how you can say that US healthcare is unfortunately run like a business, and then say my comment about the price of Tylenol is inane. No, the price of Tylenol in U.S. hospitals for people who are insured is THE bottomline. It is THE emblematic picture that should be on the banner of anyone marching against the for-profit system. I’m not your choice of messenger. You can add attorneys to the stew too.

      Delete
    7. To cover high operational costs, including administrative expenses, hospitals may mark up the prices of commonly used medications as part of a broader strategy to balance budgets.

      So the specific case of overpriced Tylenol is irrelevant, the issues are structural.

      Delete
    8. "The US healthcare is absolute garbage"

      Oh really? Please, come to visit sometime, and try to use "national" healthcare here. Do you have to wait nearly a year to see a specialist in the US?

      Delete
    9. It typically takes 6-8 months to see a specialist in the USA, but they make-up for the delay by charging you hundreds of times more in costs than other industrialized nations.
      Freedom.

      Delete
    10. Forbes: "Patients are waiting an average of 31 days to schedule an appointment with a doctor, according to a study of commonly used specialty physicians in 15 major U.S. cities."

      You must be confusing the US of A with your native Albania, Soros-bot.

      Delete
  4. Health care providers don’t have an incentive to be frugal. Their incentive a to provide whatever is covered by insurance. Compare this with electronics, e.g., where the manufacturer seeks to build their product as economically as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a UofC grad, are you really that fucking stupid? Why not compare apples and oranges for Christ's sake you moron.

      Delete
    2. David -- your analogy is just so, so...off the mark (although another word comes to mind)! See if you can discern the difference between making widgets and healthcare.

      Delete
    3. No, it’s not. Go ask a hospital what they charge an insurance company for a couple of Tylenol tablets.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all heard the Tylenol story. I give a much more comprehensive example below. And if you talk to anyone who knows anything, they will come back with: oh, but we have to charge so much, because so many people can't and don't pay. David's analog is ludicrous. At its core: healthcare cannot be treated as a widget manufacturing business. Start with that understanding.

      Delete
    5. If you’re going to go with the widget trope, then start talking about the price/cost of some actual…widgets. The cost of the widgets as to compared to… elsewhere and as to insured and uninsured. I appreciate your accident story and I’m very glad you’re ok, but you don’t own this topic, no matter how much you think that you do.

      Delete
    6. The only people given tylenol are hospitalized and receiving other forms of care as well. Otherwise the doctor tells the patient to go home and take tylenol without charging them anything.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 7:02pm, is hospitalization no longer a part of health care? Otherwise, what’s your point?

      Delete
    8. About 30% of our private healthcare costs goes to administrative costs, mostly the operating costs of insurance companies.

      With government run healthcare - Medicare and Medicaid - administrative costs are about 2%.

      Government is way more efficient than private.

      Government programs are designed to provide care rather than generate profits, allowing them to allocate more funds directly to patient care.

      The government can leverage its size to negotiate better rates for services and medications, minimizing overhead costs.

      Even right wing think tanks have run the numbers and found that Medicare For All will save something like $150-300 billion a year. The ACA is in fact a Republican policy, first instituted by Republican MA governor Romney.

      In surveys the vast majority of Americans support M4A, including many Republicans. Republican leaders will not let it pass because it would give the Dems a win, and corporations a loss. That is all there is to it; to Republicans life is just a game, a game they must win at all costs.

      Our country is becoming a shithole because corporations have all the power.

      Corporations have power because Republicans gave it to them, and some Dems (Clinton, Obama) did little to change that.

      Delete
    9. Ceceliia, I get it that you’re stupid, but an individual patient has less overhead associated with stocking tylenol than a hospital does. At home there is no nurse fetching it from a pharmacy shelf and writing the info in a chart. Use your head.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia probably asks why restaurant meals cost so much when she can cook herself much cheaper.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 9:08pm, that’s a very good point, but at the same time how much is a hospital spending on that Tylenol? They buy in tremendous bulk. What’s their cost per pill as compared to my cost for the medication and does stocking it and nurses bringing it to me really justify the difference?

      Delete
    12. Anonymouse 9:21pm, I can make it cheaper at home, but at what point should we start questioning things like this? Do hospitals —some businesses., overcharge or is that concept merely something you pull out when you wish to complain?

      Delete
    13. If you want to participate in a discussion go back to the top of the thread and follow what people are talking about. If you have nothing to add, there is no need to stick in a vapid irrelevant comment just to attract attention to yourself.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous 10:07pm, you don’t control the line of discussion. Someone answered my vapid comment and I replied in return. That scenario does not inhibit anyone else as to what they wish to discuss in any way. Anonymices don’t own this joint.

      Delete
    15. Cecelia,
      Hang in there. Don't let the snowflakes take away your love for being the victim.

      Delete
    16. It was already explained, hospitals have high overhead costs, so they mark up prices to cover the costs.

      The issue is not what hospitals charge for Tylenol, the issues are structural.

      For-profit healthcare is dumb and bad for society, but good for corporations.

      Rich people can get fantastic medical care in America, everyone else gets some of the worst healthcare of any modern industrialized nation. It is shameful.

      Delete
  5. Why do we Americans spend so much more?

    Because there is an infinite demand for health care and the government provides an infinite amount of money trying to satisfy that demand. Endless demand and endless supply means higher and higher prices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, you missed the plot, man. That is just sad.

      Delete
    2. It is sad. The inability to see the forest for the trees is mind-boggling.

      Delete
  6. Yes, our media, while harping how the healthcare is about to become unaffordable (I understand that the whole affordability thing is a "Democrat Hoax(tm)" ) for millions of Americans are missing the forest for the trees. We are constantly forced to fix things with duct tape and chewing gum. Why? Because at its very core, our healthcare system is idiotic on many different levels. Insurance companies are just one profiteering entity who feeds at the trough of our broken systems. There are others, including some doctors, private equities, medical device manufacturers (worked for a few), pharmaceutical companies.
    A fundamentally new approach is a must. Healthcare cannot be treated as just another "free market" business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Every nook and cranny in the healthcare system is a profit center. The complexity requires the kinds of wholesale changes that I think are beyond the vested interests of congress. I don't see enough public input from experts (healthcare economists). Any solution will require the control of costs via government action. The process of insurers contracting with hospitals and providers and passing on inflationary costs to patients is a large part of the problem.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely! Everyone is trying to squeeze out a dime without providing and discernible contribution to anyone's healthcare. I forget to mention pharmacy management companies.

      Delete
    3. The idea that health care workers do not care about patient health is wrong. In fact, it is insulting to the sacrifice and risks they all took to help people live during covid, and the caring and concern that you cannot put a pricetag on because it is above and beyond any job description. Health care workers are often frustrated by the economic emphasis of their managers and try to help patients work around them.

      Delete
    4. Because of our society, doctors and many others in healthcare tend to be more motivated by financial benefit than helping those in need.

      This is very different than most countries, where doctors are middle class, and have no expectation of becoming rich, as most US doctors do.

      Delete
    5. Look at all those doctors and nurses who burned out saving lives during covid. Obviously they did it to get rich, even when staff were getting sick and dying themselves. Those greedy bastards!

      Delete
    6. Why would a med student or intern work their asses off to become doctors if they can earn a lot more designing computer games? Top students are going into fields where they can get rich, like Vance did. So who does that leave? The competition for smart hard working talent means higher salaries, to keep those students out of tech & finance. Doctors are not plumbers.

      Delete
    7. 9:04,
      We can teach and train people in third world countries to meet our medical standards, and pay them $100K annually to be doctors here.
      Why should manufacturing workers be the only folks who compete against the rest of the world?

      Delete
    8. Doctors are more like glorified mechanics than plumbers.

      It is not hard to become a doctor, but it does take a long time.

      Most people become doctors in the US, not to help those in need, but to get rich.

      Doctors are some of the highest paid people in our country, and it’s a laid back job; you see patients for a few minutes, techs and nurses do most of the work, and the rest is done by searching for diagnoses and prognoses on their version of Google.

      Delete
    9. We could hire doctors from China, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc for a fraction of the cost.
      Just as we could lawyers, dentists, and other professionals.

      Delete
  7. At the beginning of August, I had a little bicycling mishap on the way home from work, where I ended up separating myself from the bicycling and meeting the pavement at 25+mph. I spent about four'n a half hours in the ER; mostly idly sitting in the nursing station, observing a stream of ailing humans, and making small talk with the nurses. I had x-rays and a CAT scan -- took about half-an-hour for the two procedures. Two doctors stopped by for the total of 15min. In the end, I left with the same diagnosis with which I came in: a broken bone in the hand and a few broken ribs. The ER bill -- which I don't have to pay, but I happen to know -- was close to $19K. I am sure my insurance will pay about half of that, which is still about 70% too high.
    How's it that we have ended with our healthcare being so massively bloated? I will defer to Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal on that. She was a long-time New York Times reporter and wrote a book called An American Sickness. Per Dr. Rosenthal: first and foremost it is because we treat healthcare as business. Per Bob's post, no one, save for Bernie Sanders, talks about the big picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you didn't go to the ER and had a serious untreated problem that became life-threatening, you wouldn't be so cavalier about the costs. The wait times are because others are using the equipment too.

      There are plenty of books written about the hospital experience, different ways of organizing and providing care, the success of medicine in various countries and so on. Somerby doesn't bother reading them and appears to have no background info about the changes in the US in medical care. It is easy to say that it all ought to be different, but you need a committee like the one Hillary Clinton ran back when her husband was first elected, some serious proposals and then a campaign to get change enacted. That is a lot of work, given that things have changed since HIllary first tried to improve things (and got no thanks for it).

      When the US stops being capitalist and declares itself socialist, you will have different complaints but there will still be problems and compromises and inconveniences. Then people will say that all the difficulties are because we have socialized health care (as they currently say about public health care in Canada and the UK and other countires that have side-by-side public and private health options. There is no magic solution. I find Somerby's gripes particularly annoying because he puts so little effort into understanding the issue.

      Delete
    2. While your first statement is absolutely ridiculous, it does shine the spotlight on exactly the point that I've made in several posts: healthcare is not a "free market" commodity. When there's a chance that you have a ruptured spleen or a bruised kidney, it's not an opportunity to go shopping for the best deal.

      I wasn't complaining about the wait time; it was just to emphasize that for the most part I was just sitting there.
      The equipment is nothing special and has long been amortized. In any other civilized country, the cost would've been maybe $700; okay, I'll accept $1500. Clearly, $19K doesn't align with any cost structure. There's no rhyme or reason to that number, and we all know that. Again, while I had to go to the ER, the care that I received was trivial, while the price tag was not.
      The point being that our healthcare system is irreparably broken.

      Delete
  8. Old parable
    "Only the government would believe that you can cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and get a longer blanket."

    Similarly, only the government would believe that they can take money from the people and use that money to pay the peoples' health care costs, and thus lower the overall cost of health care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recommend taking MoCa, David.

      Delete
    2. Quaker in a BasementDecember 22, 2025 at 6:34 PM

      Only a Republican would look at a system in which employers pay for the majority of healthcare expenses while the government calls those subsidies nontaxable, and tell everyone left out to just "make better choices."

      Delete
    3. I agree with you Quaker. Employer-funded health insurance came about during a time of wage controls during WW2 IIRC.

      A better system would have people get higher salaries, buy their own health insurance, and generally not buy insurance coverage for routine medical care. Our current cockamamie system is all tied up in tradition and tax treatment. so we're stuck with it.

      Delete
    4. David doesn't remember the times before ACA when people were routinely refused insurance for preexisting conditions, such as diabetes or a prior cancer, a child's birth defect or a chronic illness such as asthma.

      Delete
    5. David is a troll, nothing he says is real, including his personal story, it is all made up. Don't be a sucker.

      Delete
    6. "...so we're stuck with it."

      But are we?

      Delete
    7. David, perhaps a better system would be for the government to offer groups of people who band together under an insurance policy the same terms they give to employers.

      Delete
    8. A better system would be David not lying about everything, and Cecelia stop pretending he is a woman.

      Delete
  9. Quaker in a BasementDecember 22, 2025 at 6:30 PM

    Back in 2010, T. R. Reid published "The Healing of America," a book that offered a comparative view of healthcare in the United States and other industrialized countries. It was an insightful work that drew almost no attention. One reason out of many that our system is so expensive and complex is because we refuse to learn from other countries while we congratulate ourselves that we have the best of all possible systems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Medical malpractice lawsuits are an enormous difference between the US and everyone else. Years ago, I had some figures showing the cost of med mal lawsuits ten times any other country's. Not only did these suits directly add costs, they provoked defensive medicine that added a lot more costs.

      Delete
    2. Medical malpractice suits account for a little over 1% of the healthcare costs. But, hey, I an fine if we impose a limit on malpractice lawsuits if we also impose limits on healthcare costs. In other words, if you want to socialize this aspect of healthcare, we should socialize the other aspects as well.

      Delete
    3. Ilya - they’re not quite parallel. If we impose a limit on lawsuits, nothing happens. We don’t need anyone’s cooperation. But a limit on healthcare costs will work only into the healthcare providers are willing and able to keep providing their services and products for less money.

      Delete
    4. AI is now being used in medicine. We’ll see whether people like interfacing with a bot when their health is at stake.

      Delete
    5. "Medical malpractice lawsuits are an enormous difference between the US and everyone else."

      I'd say that's an unintended consequence of the way our healthcare system is structured. When medical practitioners and practice groups are organized as businesses for profit, they have a duty to deliver the services they promise. If they fail, a patient victim's *only* recourse is through the courts.

      Delete
    6. 7:03. Ilya, first the Rosenthal book is excellent. Second, agree that med mal contributes little to the overall cost of medicine. In states (like Texas) in response to the argument that costs were significantly impacted by ambulance chasers, doctor friendly laws were enacted and later shown to have no impact on the cost of medicine. There are regionally specific difference in Medicare outlays for care such that the same patient treated in Minneapolis costs significantly less than in New York. At least that was the case years ago when I last checked. Some regions cost more because of practice patterns, just as some regions have more fraudulent activity.

      Delete
  10. Somerby is understandably concerned about health issues, given his age. But why does he not discuss what has been going on in Congress involving ACA subsidies and the Republican refusal to keep health insurance affordable? That is more relevant than anything happening in other countries, unless you are thinking of self-deporting. I wouldn't expect heath care if you are put in a camp or forcibly deported though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meanwhile Somerby continues to deflect attention from the Epstein Files non-release that didn't happen last Friday. Here is what Mark Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein's brother) has been saying:

    "Mark Epstein, the brother of Jeffrey Epstein, lobbed an explosive claim at the Trump administration Monday as its Justice Department continues to face scrutiny over its botched release of files on the disgraced financier.

    The DOJ released a trove of Epstein-related files on Friday, but has faced backlash over failing to adhere to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the agency release all of its files on Epstein by Friday, and with limited redactions. Instead, only a fraction of the agency’s files on Epstein were released, and redactions were made that critics have called unlawful.

    President Donald Trump also initially opposed efforts to compel his DOJ to release the files, dismissing inquiries around Epstein as a “hoax” created by Democrats, though ultimately flipped in support of the effort after it became clear that enough Republicans were disregarding his objections.

    “I’ve been recently told [that] the reason they’re gonna be releasing these things, and the reason for the flip is that they’re sanitizing these files,” Mark Epstein said during an appearance Monday on NewsNation.

    “There’s a facility in Winchester, Virginia where they’re scrubbing the files to take Republican names out. That’s what I was told by a pretty good source.”

    While Mark Epstein provided no additional evidence supporting his claim, his remarks were partially consistent with previous reports that suggested FBI agents had been instructed to “flag” mentions of Trump within the DOJ’s trove of Epstein files for potential redactions or suppression.

    Mark Epstein has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and has said he was unaware of his brother’s crimes until 2006. Mark Epstein has also cast doubt on the circumstances surrounding his brother’s death in 2019, which, while officially ruled a suicide, has sparked speculation due to several oddities surrounding the incident.

    “It looks more like a homicide,” Mark Epstein said of his brother’s death last month."

    Or Somerby might discuss Trump's threats to invade Greenland again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Recently Krugman has spoken out about his time at the NY Times, saying he was severely hampered by the more conservative values of the decision makers at the NYT.

    This blog is completely out of touch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw him talk about that with Heather Cox Richardson.

      Delete
  13. Bill Clinton seems to enjoy the company of young women while flying around the world with Jeffrey Epstein on his fuckplane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to break it to you but Epstein died in 2019, you stupid troll. Use the past tense asshole. Don’t they teach you anything in troll school?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 9:11pm, the media — crickets…

      Delete
    4. President Clinton is not immune to the delights of the beautiful young nymphets who accompanied him on all those hot flights with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex trafficker.

      Delete
    5. Seeing how content President Clinton is in the photographs makes you understand why Hillary just stood by and let him openly stick his pickle in any and every white trash that came along. If I was Hillary, I would have accepted all his cheating too.

      Delete
    6. The same people who don't think Bondi is withholding incriminating material about Trump in the Epstein files are also gullible enough to think that Epstein committed suicide.

      Delete
    7. Which Bill Clinton?
      The Marxist commie, or the one in the pockets of big business?

      Delete
    8. And Trump raped a 13 year old.

      What’s your point, 9:11?

      Delete
    9. 12:34 Bill Clinton seemed to enjoy the sexual playthings provided to him by convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein while they were hobnobbing together.

      Clinton was notorious for having sex with a very, very young women so all that time he spent associating with the young women hired by convicted sex trafficker must have brought him a special thrill.

      Delete
    10. It makes sense why Hillary let Bill Bill cheat so openly for all those years.

      Delete
    11. 12:54: out of the 15 or so times Bill Clinton had sex with " that young little woman" in the oval office, only two of them included vaginal penetration and only four included labial grinding.

      Delete
    12. I'll make allowances for anyone who could stop the Deficit Clock.

      Delete
    13. Bill Clinton enjoyed so many women. Sometimes you forget

      Delete
    14. No teenage ass rape goes unpunished. Amirite?

      Delete
    15. Whether it's Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, or any other President who is a sexual abuser, the Republican Party will do everything in their power to assure no one is impeached for raping children.

      Delete
    16. Hillary, understood women are obligated to satisfy men's sexual needs.

      Delete
    17. Hillary's response was the right one. Demonize the victims, call them sluts and try to destroy their lives.

      Delete
    18. Republican voters crave the bigotry they get from Republican politicians, and accept the child rape as the price that have to pay to receive it.

      Delete


    19. Well, she still had to pay $850K to Paula "kiss it" Jones.


      Delete
  14. As my esteemed colleague, Fannius Fanois, so eloquently put it, "When in doubt, fart it out."

    ReplyDelete