Captain's Quarters -

Captain,

I for one would love to have policy debates ...

When was the last time a liberal commentator actually engaged in a policy debate here as opposed to and ad-h attack on motives or people ?

They usually can't have a policy debate for one simple reason; they often bring an intellectual knife to the gun fight. Its sad really that with no empirical or factual ammo they are reduced to attacking their opponents motives all too often.

And they claim Conservatives are too "faith based" while dogmatically clinging to failed socialist ideas or trying to claim that the social ills of the 50's and 60's are still with us when in fact their fine liberal policies have in reality minimized those problems for minorities and women.

It takes 2 to tango ... all too often its is the conservative commentators who debate both sides of an issue with little rational input from your liberal readers ...

The next time the dems engage on policy issues in a political debate will be the first.

I agree that the Frost's have been put out there and perhaps unfairly targeted. However, I have not read anything about 400K house other than that's what the value of the house was. Most people would see that as "OK" that's the house they bought." But to have 200K equity, this is the first I have seen that figure used in that context. Surely, Mr. Frost if need be could tap into that reserve if needed.

But as a small business owner, certainly Mr. Frost (if his accountant has any acumen at all) passes many of his bills thru the company, which would include car payments, insurance and such. Thus, the 45K income listed may be accurate, but that doesn't include any perks that the ownership of a business allows Mr. Frost to use. Perfectly acceptable though.

Ed, all the Frosts were portrayed as was an example of how S-CHIP helped one particular family. That they were subsequently viciously attacked despite the fact they qualified for the program fair and square can't just be waved away by saying that they had it coming since the Democrats used them as an example of how S-CHIP helps families when a catastrophic medical event happens. The Democrats simply thought it would help them make the case for making S-CHIP available to more families is all that was intended in the first place. 'Nuff said.

Blogger Ezra Klein to have a debate on the merits of the S-CHIP program, BTW. I hope she accepts in the spirit of having a dialog on the merits of the proposal rather than continuing to attack the Frosts.

I see I munged my link to Ezra Klein's challenge to Michelle Malkin to a debate, so here it is again:

Let's Debate

Frost says he has been turned down by 3 insurance companies because of pre-existing conditions. That's not surprising given the nature of the injuries to the children.

The cute part is how I was attacked... I said it on my blog and I'll say it here. I wasn't defending SCHIP, not at all, I was defending that families right to privacy. That's why I put malkin's real address, Phone number and Arial picture of her house on my blog. I removed it after a reporter for the Baltimore Sun asked me to kill it, because they were doing a story on Malkin.

If Malkin wants to try painting me as moonbat, fine. I'll just paint her as the right wing fascist that she is.

I'd be more then happy to debate the policy, as I think SCHIP is a good idea on many levels.

I would begin by saying: I don't think adults should be covered under a children's health insurance program! I'm not against universal health care or some sort of nationalized program; I am against using money allotted to help kids to help adults instead. Doesn't make sense.

If everyone here agrees that we need to focus on the real issues here (I'll take you at your word, starfleet_dude) and forget the Frosts, let's take a look at the key stumbling blocks. For me, it boils down to 2 things:

1) Why are they raising the eligibility cutoff from 200% of poverty line to 400% of poverty line? The whole point of subsidizing families is to help those that are truly in need. How are those making 4 times the poverty level "in need"?

2) The current "means testing" is not sufficient. It does not properly take into account ASSETS, which is precisely the problem I have with the Frost situation. Those of us who are responsible and take care of not only our immediate family but also our extended family (aging parents, grandparents, etc.), typically sell off or re-mortgage our personal assets. Somebody please explain to me why those of us that do this should have to be taxed to pay for those who won't.

Would you someday, if time ever permits, list those "right" conservative blogs that lost their minds over this? Seriously, the blogs I read do not do this...yes, some commentators do, but those are not bloggers. You are but one of many I hear use the term "right" conservatives when an issue is fought over fiercely. I honestly would like to know where I can go to read the "right" conservatives mentioned. The difference, I think and believe, is that usually the majority of voices that rise up to are the liberals and those tinfoil hatted leftist loons for which "reason of the mind" simply does not exist, to spew hate, dishonesty and smears against the right of whatever makeup it is. This is their M.O. and it works beautifully and has for decades. Scream at the top of your lungs that so and so is racist, xenophobic, homophobic or chauvinistic pig, and the world follows you...
From sciencedaily.com the beginning of the article is of interest:
"Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds (October 7, 2007) -- Though we may not care to admit it, what other people think about something can affect what we think about it. This is how critics become influential and why our parents' opinions about our life choices continue to matter, long after we've moved out. But what kind of opinions have the most effect? A new study reveals that negative opinions cause the greatest attitude shifts, not just from good to bad, but also from bad to worse. ... >"

The left has been negative for literally the entire history of this country and over time they have discovered that people who are not "properly" informed, will listen and ultimately believe the lies and dishonesty.

Cycloptichorn's post reminded me of issue #3 for me: the proposed program raises the age of eligible coverage to 25. Are 25 year-olds "needy children" now?

planetgeo, the IRS for years has allowed parents to count an adult child as a deduction on their taxes if they're in college and under the age of 24. Similarly, there may be circumstances that allow adult children to qualify for S-CHIP.

Sue, here's one example for you of a pretty nasty attack on the Frosts:

Frost family draws ire of conservatives - Baltimore Sun

When Halsey and Bonnie Frost agreed to go public with how the State Children's Health Insurance Program helped them after a car crash left two of their children comatose, the Baltimore couple expected to hear from critics of government-funded health care.

But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:

"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

Ed, your points are well stated. The Frosts bring up loopholes that I feel need to be addressed. I am using Mr. Frost as the example, but not limiting my arguement to him.

Mr. Frost is the business owner. How much of his household expenses are being legally run through the business? Is his paycheck a true representaion of what the company is paying him? I am not saying that this is illegal, but it is overlooked by the stats when one does research on small business owners.

Did Maryland even look to that, or did they just accept his W-2? Do they not include assets when figuring out where a family falls in correlation to the poverty level?

These are questions that need to be looked at prior to giving any governor the leeway to run the program.

Ed, you very well could keep your income low for tax purposes, but run "expenses" through the business, and still be within the law. Is the figure on your W-2 a true reflection of what you "earned"?

Maston, shouldn't he have looked into the insurance prior to the accident? And there are laws in place to protect him, or anyone else with pre-existing conditions, at this stage of the game. A little bit of work is all it takes to get his family covered!

Chuck- your actions speak for the intelligence level one can expect when dealing with you.

Yeah..."let's move it back to "policy", Ed. Becasue you and the other rightists got your propaganda caught in your own tactical zipper and now it's time to get back to the "policy".

What you rightists have done to this family is unforgivable. Nor is it forgettable no matter how many times you try to change the subject when the subject, rightly, becomes the extreme rightists and their hatred for anyone who hasn't drank the kool-aide. This would be laughable if a little kid and his family were not the victims of you and your kind's viciousness.

Yeah. Let's move the discussion back to "policy" once the swiftboating is backfiring. Good one.

It looks like almost everyone would agree that the present SCHIP or the plan advanced by the republicans for a smaller increase is a good idea but many are against the larger expansion the democrats have put forth. Me too. Still, one has to remember that $80,000.00 a year is not a huge income in some areas.
Insurance companies are like any large preditory beast, they pick off straglers not covered by the safety of the herd. There simply needs to be a way for small business and individuals to become a large enough group to get the type of rates enjoyed by large corporations. It shouldn't be all that hard for government to set up such an option.

"Are 25 year-olds "needy children" now?"

Well, if you believe that soldiers in Iraq - many well over the age of 18, and many under 40 - are "children", then that's the definition.

No one has asked this question: under the new plan, if one of the 22-year-old "children" gets pregnant and has the child, does that mean that there are now two "children" on the program?

I can see the waste and abuse on this program coming on the horizon.

> When was the last time a liberal commentator
> actually engaged in a policy debate here as
> opposed to and ad-h attack on motives or people ?
>
> They usually can't have a policy debate for one
> simple reason; they often bring an intellectual
> knife to the gun fight.

Surely this is parody?

Yeah..."let's move it back to "policy", Ed. Because you and the other rightists got your propaganda caught in your own tactical zipper and now it's time to get back to the "policy".

I wasn't going to say more about the conservatives' attacks on the Frosts, but that's a hilarious way of summing it up! LOL! Don't forget that it hurts just as much to unzip it too... :-)

Tim said: "Let's move the discussion back to "policy" once the swiftboating is backfiring. Good one."

Swiftboating? Who? The family that allowed themselves to be held up as the example?

I am starting to wonder if the attacks on the Frosts were intended as a distraction. Their goal being to get the MSM to cover the attacks and not the substantive debate over S-CHIP.

I think it works to the advantage of the Right to avoid debate since the optics of sick children makes it a difficult argument to win (given the superficial coverage most things get in the media).

In an attempt to keep this about policy,

I don't understand either of the arguments advanced here by Conservatives: either the 'economic argument' or the 'moral argument.' They both seem to conflict with other areas of our policy. I'm only going to use the family as an example for the arguments.

Economically, it seems that people expect this family to have sold their house, gotten rid of the SUV, gone into debt (big time debt), sold the building the business is in, or any number of other solutions rather then enroll their kids in SCHIP. How realistic is this? The house they bought for 55k may have appreciated somewhat, but has it appreciated enough that they could sell it and find another house close enough to where they work and live, and make a profit off of the sale/purchase of a new place which allows them to pay the large medical bills or insurance rates?

The father is running a woodworking business and bought a commercial building to work out of. This is typically held up by the Republicans as someone who is doing the right thing: becoming his own boss, small-business, contributing to the economy, and all that. There's little doubt that he is in debt, with a combination of low incomes, kids and rent on the commercial property.

It would seem that, to many here, this guy should have upended his entire life, sold his house and business, and moved elsewhere before anyone gives him help to do anything. Or, that he should go massively into debt to pay for it by leveraging his properties into second mortgages. This isn't a realistic proposal.

On the 'moral argument' level, surely people who advocate the continual spending of 150-200 billion a year securing freedom and happiness for kids in Iraq, can spend a small fraction of that securing the same things for our kids back home? Why do Iraqi kids deserve the help more then our own kids do? I know that many will be angered by this argument; but an objective look at Republican priorities when it comes to spending shows a MASSIVE willingness to dole out money to people and businesses in Iraq, with no real oversight, and a tremendous resistance to doing the same here at home. This position lacks consistency.

It is easily arguable that dollars spent helping kids in America are better spent then dollars helping kids abroad. Many here feel as if they receive no benefit from the SCHIP program; that is materially untrue. You will note that in the same fashion many argue that tax cuts for the wealthy spur growth, as the money is recycled into society and investment, the SCHIP program spurs growth as well. The Frosts were growing a business and a life thanks to SCHIP. If mr. Frost had to quit his job and move away b/c he couldn't afford the insurance rates, he wouldn't be contributing to fixing up Baltimore and revitalizing the area.

As I said earlier in the thread - if this is to be a CHILDREN'S program then it should go to children, and not adults. 24 is usually seen as the cut-off for 'parental household status,' at least under other forms of insurance; I don't understand why anyone older than that should bet covered under this program. I personally favor a nationalized or Universal health care program, but if we're going to go that route it's better to go whole-hog then slotting people into a program designed to help children.

As we outcompete each other for the appropriate level of funding for any S-CHIP program, shouldn't it be appropriate to debate where in the Constitution such a redistribution of wealth is described?

I know. I know. I'm a heartless conservative, but it seems we have just accepted at face value that S-CHIP is mandatory policy no matter what. Now the two major parties are in competition to either outspend the other one (Democrat tactic) or spend just enough to give the appearance of fiscal responsibility without appearing "evil" (Republican tactic).

Whatever happened to personal responsibility such that we as a nation not impose upon our government the impetus to take over our lives?

I read somewhere that this plan will cover children up to the age of 25. Does that mean that all those charged with a crime, can not be tried as adults if one is a child until age of 25.

Cycloptichorn, had he bought insurance 16 years ago, this wouldn't have been an issue would it?

Hmm - did anyone bother to read the NYT story? According to the article, the business the Frost's owned dissolved in 1999 and he's been working intermittently as a woodworker and welder ever since.

Cycloptichorn, here's something I came across on the subject of covering adult children you may find of interest:

Extending dependent coverage to older, adult children. Young adults comprise the fastest-growing uninsured population. Children typically age off their parents’ or legal guardians’ health care coverage when they turn age 19, although full-time students often get an exception. More than half the states have considered such proposals to extend eligibility to health care benefits for adult children, with 16 states passing laws extending coverage beyond the traditional age and/or in specific circumstances, according to NCSL. Utah allows unmarried dependents to continue on parents’ coverage until the dependent turn age 26; more recent efforts have been approved in Colorado (age 25), Delaware (age 24) and New Jersey (age 30). Additionally, five states have included “grandchild” in their definition of dependent.

Pam,

Seeing as neither of us know much of anything about their personal financial situation today, let alone 16 years ago, your answer is just a little too pat, don't you think?

Anonymous,

Re-distribution of wealth is a governmental function. And it's been around since the beginning of America; see the Estate tax.

If you want to make a Ron Paulish argument about the invalidity of all taxes, be my guest. But it's immaterial to the current situation we find ourselves in. Most would agree that having a program to give kids health insurance is a net gain for society.

To Pam, Mary T. and A.D., you're going to have to convince me that the state of Utah is now filled with liberals, since they seem to have no problem offering coverage to dependent adult children up to the age of 26.

Maybe there's something more to this issue than just being judgmental, eh?

get it straight, yes, I read that. Did you catch the part where it says he collects rental income on the building and that Maryland does not require applicants to list their assets. And BTW, he is still self employed isn't he?

The argument for defining "children" as anyone up to an age like twenty-four or twenty-five seems straightforward to me. Most private health insurance plans cover children attending college up until an age such as twenty-four or twenty-five. Ostensibly, the whole point of S-CHIP is to provide health insurance for families that don't have it through one of the parents' employers. Hence, S-CHIP should cover the same "children" as private health insurance. Of course, someone in the Congress decided to be "generous" and leave out the college requirement.

I said "ostensibly" above because I believe the real point or goal of S-CHIP is to start us down the road to socialized medicine. Let's face it, most of the economically ignorant are going to vote for Hillary because of her giveaways, government-matched 401Ks (in addition to, not instead of, Social Security), $5000 for every baby, and socialized (which the economically ignorant hear as "free") health care.

Cycloptichorn, not at all. He couldn't afford health insurance prior to/during and after the children were born, but he could afford a building?

starfleet_dude- What? I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't commented on the issue because I was covered under my parents insurance until I left college...back in the day, as long as I was dependent on Dad for college tuition, and was a full time student, he was able to cover me...

"Most would agree that having a program to give kids health insurance is a net gain for society."

As long as the program is called 'parents', I agree. They're your kids; you had 'em, you support 'em. They're only a 'net gain for society' if they don't impose a burden on society.

I concur with Anonymous Drivel in that this very discussion presupposes the right of some to demand property/time/money from other sovereign citizens and using the power of government to get it.

If private insurers want to cover 'dependent children' up to 25, which is a joke, that's up to them but is no reason why this categorization needs spread to taxpayer-funded handouts.

One other thing: poverty levels are calculated by the amount of income earned. If you live in a million dollar house and choose to take a year off from work and live off your comfortable savings, you are counted among those 'living in poverty'.

That people on this board come brazenly out and declare they are 'in favor' of imposing their insurance and medical needs on others in the form of 'universal insurance', and they aren't pilloried, is a sign of how poor thinking and envy have weakened our national character.

Before you lefties run your victory lap, remember:

1. the MSM will be a little more diligent from now on in verifying the facts surrounding the children democrats hide behind

2. the democrat operatives will be a little more diligent in selecting children to hide behind

3. responsible parents will be wary of letting the democrat party recruit their children for questionable purposes.

It's a win-win situation for all of us!

Cyclops...

Seeing as neither of us know much of anything about their personal financial situation today, let alone 16 years ago, your answer is just a little too pat, don't you think?

We know this about their financial situation in 1999. They had the money to purchase a commercial building for $160,000. Now even with a 10% down payment, and interest at 8.5% and a 25 year amortization, the principal and interest alone is 1,100 per month. Add taxes and insurance to that.

In 1999 (before the accident) they made the choice to divert some portion of family assets and income to this commercial property. Whether they had insurance then or dropped it before the accident, at some point in time, they felt it was more important to own this property then to have health insurance.

At some point in time they made the decision to not pay for health insurance, but continue to buy/pay this commercial building. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for this choice? Taxpayers are essentially subsidizing this purchase.

Qualification for the SCHIP program should take some look at assets.

That family could have had health insurance for:

1) less than $500/month ($750 deductable)

2) Mom had gotten a job that had Health Coverage ...

she CHOSE not to do so ...

they chose not to pay for health coverage ...

they chose to buy a commercial building ...

they chose to buy their house ...

they chose to send 2 kids to 20K/year private schools ...

I choose not to have my tax dollars pay for their health coverage ...

The kid was put on TV to object to the veto ...

which ...

wouldn't effect that kid one bit ...

he would still be covered ...

Did the Repubs put him on TV making false claims ? no ...

so who was using him unfairly ?

Please note some of the worderful labels being used here ... rightists ?

Is that supposed to be a foil to the leftist label ?

no evidence or facts ... no ammo to argue with ... so ad-h attacks ...

The amount of mis-information still floating around on this story is just astounding.

We still cannot seem to get away from the Frost family.

Two of the four Frost children have pre-existing conditions from an accident.

The Frosts pay $500/year for Graeme to attend a private school in Baltimore.

The Frosts pay $0/year for their daughter Gemma to attend a private school for children with diabilities

Both their private residence, purchased for $50k, and their rental property $160k are both still mortagaged.

The mother, works part time, presumably so that she can care for her disabled children

The father, works part time as a wood worker, and welder, and part time as a commercial property owner

Their combined income over the past few years is between $45k and $50k.

The Frost's have been quoted $1200/month to insure their family. Not the $500/month assumed by many.

While it is true that they currently qualify for SCHIP, the purpose of Graeme's radio address was not, specifically to advocate for the expansion, but for the program as a whole.

All of this information is available, and that portion of the debate should already be settled. However, Michelle Malkin and others refuse to stop spreading misinformation about this story, and it keeps getting interjected into any other debate about SCHIP and healthcare in general, these past few days.

While I would like to read a substantive debate about the SCHIP program, as long as people cannot let go of the Frost family, and stop spreading mis-information, there can be no substantive debate.

star..

The post you sighted from the Baltimore Sun..

How do we know you didn't pen it? or some other Kos Kid nut...

Then use it to say "see look at those mean ol' grey haired republicans etc"..

Back to the thing at hand... those who can't help themselves should be helped..

Those who divert funds to other items such jet skiis, SUV Suburbans, etc and not provide health care for thier kids .. should be held up to public scrutiny.. whether they are republican or democrat or socialist or whatever

Lastly for the person making the comment about him dissolving his business... and now a part time welder/ woodworker etc..

Over the past 10+ years we have just enjoyed one of the greatest expansion in construction in the history of the country...

Anyone who only made 40k a year on his/her own during that period was either incompetent or didn't realy want to work considering they could suckle from the T-T of both taxpayers and parents..

AD: As we outcompete each other for the appropriate level of funding for any S-CHIP program, shouldn't it be appropriate to debate where in the Constitution such a redistribution of wealth is described?

Excellent point as usual. I and many others have asked where in the Constitution authorization for the Congress to spend money on health care for citizens may be found. Thus far, no answer on that. I guess it's in the same place that the "right" to abortion can be found, or the "right" to free education, or the "right" to free legal counsel.

"If it feels good, do it!" appears to have gone from the motto of a dissolute and narcissistic generation to the guiding principle of our government.

getitstraight: According to the article, the business the Frost's owned dissolved in 1999 and he's been working intermittently as a woodworker and welder ever since.

Oh, that makes this situation even better: Daddy Frost has been a layabout for the past eight years, yet I'm expected to pay for his family's health insurance???

When my brother married several years ago, he and his wife could get by on the small salaries they made from their low-skill jobs. Then they had a baby... and those salaries didn't cover things anymore. Unlike (apparently) the Frosts, they didn't sit around with their hands out waiting for Uncle Sugar to send 'em a check while having more kids: they got better jobs and made damned sure that part of their wages and benefits was decent health insurance (IIRC, Momma Frost works... in a job that offers NO health insurance. Here's a tip, honey: GET ANOTHER F***ING JOB!). They also decided that they couldn't afford more children and stopped with one. It would appear that the Frosts were... less responsible. Now they want me to pick up the tab. That makes me angry.

RE: starfleet_dude's citation from the Baltimore Sun:

Say, didn't Cap'n Ed have a lengthy post about "nutpicking" just a few days ago? And didn't we all sort of agree that it was quite unfair to cherry pick COMMENTS from a blog in an effort to smear the blog owner(s)? Guess neither Matthew Hay Brown of the Sun nor starfleet_dude bought into that.

RE: Cycloptichorn (October 10, 2007 11:48 AM)

Re-distribution of wealth is a governmental function. And it's been around since the beginning of America; see the Estate tax.

Yes, but this particular one? For health care? That's my point.

If you want to make a Ron Paulish argument about the invalidity of all taxes, be my guest...

No, that's not the argument I make at all. I'd prefer to give individuals the right to make as many decisions as possible and let them reap the rewards or consequences of their free choice. Why should my neighbor have to pay for my indulgence? Now, we can decide how many children are necessary and how many are an indulgence, but that is not really my focus though it should be part of every family's decision. Nevertheless, my neighbor has no say in how I spend my money or raise my kids, yet he gets to subsidize me, or I him depending on the circumstance.

Let's say I have three kids but can only realistically afford 1.5 (;)). I opt to live a lifestyle with premium cable TV, movie night every weekend, summer vacation at Disney World, and eating out 4 times a week. That money could go to insurance, but I have a subsidy funded by my neighbor to look forward to. He does not get to put the kibosh on those frivolous activities. He doesn't get to determine my kids' diet. She doesn't get to decide if I force my kids to wear a seatbelt. He doesn't get to force my kids to brush their teeth after every meal. She doesn't get to restrict them to riding the bike in the park only and not busy streets. He doesn't get to force my kids to exercise. All of those activities are choices that impact risk and health, yet my neighbor does not get to partake in anything that would reduce the health care costs (and his expenses even though he's controlling his family's lifestyle "better" through measured decision-making) that he is forced to pay via government diktat.

Is that fair? And is the expansion of yet another federal (or state for that matter) program something you envision the Constitution as having been designed to create? If it is, then there aren't that many steps until those who must foot the bill for this expanding intrusion to insist that rules/restrictions be imposed upon the recipients. So, along with increasing tax burden, and an unfair one at that, we see the ever creeping tentacles of government into our lives.

No, I think personal responsibility trumps the "for the children" card for government policy.

Ed
I can see why you would be anxious to get back to a policy debate as the Malkin et. al. vicious attacks on the Frosts have for the most part simply pointed out how broken the current US health care system is. You can be critical of the Canadian health care system but I would guess a majority of those with health insurance would trade it for something like the Canadian system and the number without insurance at all rises daily.

Cycloptichorn: Re-distribution of wealth is a governmental function. And it's been around since the beginning of America; see the Estate tax.

Could you please provide a citation from one or more of the Founding Fathers supporting this incredible assertion? Can you provide a single quote from (for example) "The Federalist Papers" that indicates that the Founding Fathers thought it right and proper to take money from one citizen to give to another as a form of charity? Can you quote that part of the Constitution that allows such legalized Robin Hoodism?

Please note that there is a difference between collecting taxes to fund the operation of the government and "redistribution of wealth", which may be accurately described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Roads, for example, are not a "redistribution of wealth" because everybody can use them; they are not built for the sole use of one person (unless you're Sen. Stevens, that is).

David...

I think you miss the point..

My household brings in about 40k per year. Over the past 8 years we have paid annually a minimum of $8k for college, we pay a mortage and live in California.. We have 100/300/100 auto and we have full medical...

All without taking one dime from the government..

Yeah is it tight... you bet... but we've made choices to be responsible PARENTS..

Whereas the Frosts chose to not inusre their SUV enough to protect their children.. The parents chose to not get medical insurance (prior to the accident) to protect their children, The parents chose to drive an SUV, have investment property, and home before protecting their children...

I do feel for the kids, I'm terribly sorry they've been in an accident and will forever carry some issues because of it...

but IMHO the parents deserve no breaks...because if my wife and I can do it they could have too..

But they made a choice not to..

And thus, the point of Ed Morrisey's post is missed.

I don't think the Federal government should be involved in health insurance, but:

If S-CHIP is "for the children", then the law should be extremely explicit about it. States that use these funds for other than the "children" should have their funding reduced or stopped.

No Adults should be covered from S-CHIP funds. How many "children" are missing out on S-CHIP funding because the funds are going to adults instead?

If you want to add students of up to 25 into the mix, explicitly state that, do not use a "global" age of 25. These "children" should prove that they are enrolled in, and attending school.

Libs are always so good about saying how many children lack health care insurance, how is the existing S-CHIP doing at covering 100% of the eligible "children"?

Why expand it if we don't know how effective the current program is?

The federal government simply cannot afford to expand the S-CHIP program. An argument could be made to increase the funding available just to maintain coverage for the existing qualified participants - medical costs have increased. The President has proposed a modest increase, and Congress should respond by strictly limiting the eligibility to the truly low-income families with limited assets.

Most of the S-CHIP benefits go through private insurers. These insurance companies should look at their own operations, becoming as efficient as possible through expanded electronic record-keeping, control of marketing costs and reasonable compensation for their executives.

The insurers cannot continue to grow profits by denying coverage and denying claims whenever they can. If government involvement in the health care system is to be kept to a minimum level, the private companies need to prove that they can handle the job.

WOW.... reading though all the comments
is an eye opener.

what a bunch of pompous asses some of you
are.

I could only hope that every single one
of you has someone at some point
tear your lives apart the way
you have the Frosts.

Your karma bags are all full of self
rightous pompous shit... enjoy

Actually, this post's headline says it all -- the conservative blogosphere basically lost what they thought was a priceless "gotcha," which blew back in their faces. Now, they're desperate to change the subject back to the very "substance" they forgotten over the past week to attack some lower-middle-class family in Baltimore.

Bad political instincts, Mr. Morrissey.

DU

Lamont,

"

The federal government simply cannot afford to expand the S-CHIP program. "

You are incorrect, unless you mean this in a rhetorical fashion. If we can spend roughly 10 times this amount per year on foreign wars, then we can afford this amount on children's health.

Captain, the reason the Frosts took the heat is because they really do epitomize the middle class of families allowed to take advantage of S-CHIP. The debate focussed on the Frosts had all the elements (both liberal and conservative) of that debate well represented in posts here.

Under the bill (NEW BILL) vetoed by the President, there was no cap for benefits except those put in place by the States. Under the OLD BILL, New York lost its bid to have the ante upped to 400% -- under the NEW BILL, New York would have been able to do that, and more, without Federal interference.

In fact, the NEW BILL has no requirements that the states clamp their costs, and actually incentivizes the states to add more S-CHIP enrollees. The only prohibition given to the states is that they cannot enroll people of a given income level unless the program is made available to people of lower income levels (yup, you read that right!).

I, like the President, am not opposed to helping the truly needy, but, to be honest, the Frosts' kitchen really did look nice, and I've forgone such niceties in my quest for retirement self-sufficiency. The Frosts really would not want to exchange kitchens with me -- no way no how. By the way, I noticed on several liberal sites that they cropped the picture to remove the stove and countertop -- so maybe there is a little guilt for the seeming opulance of their poster child's lifestyle.

Who are the truly needy? Not those who might become impoverished by helping themselves -- but those who are impoverished -- who cannot help themselves. If we want to be really nice and up the ante to 200% of "minimally impoverished", fine. But the moment the coverage approaches what I'm earning or passes it, I think there's problems, because I am capable of paying for my healthcare coverage; why should someone else do it for me? I might not live the fancy life (nice home, LLC, private school) of the Frosts, but I've traded having my hand constantly in other peoples' pockets for an honorable self-sufficiency.

And, Chuck, you deserve to be attacked if you post other people's names and addresses. I note that your blogsite's domain is registered under an agent, so your address is protected there. In spite of that, a bit of searching coughs it up (or, rather, your parents' address). I oppose abortion, but I would not post the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions. To do so is to draw little targets on them -- don't you agree? So you drew a little target on Malkin. This is sort of the obverse of that Christian philosophy of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you [you claim to be a Christian, so that concept shouldn't be foreign, should it?]. BTW, I don't hide behind anything other than a cute moniker; you are welcome to search unclesmrgol and you'll have my real name and address in minutes. I'm not trying to hide that information -- its right there if you want it. So, Chuck, why are you trying to hide yours? What did you hope would happen to Ms. Malkin that you don't want to happen to you?

Be a Christian, Chuck, and take the high road. And note that your digg on Malkin has ZERO (read that, zip, nada, negatory), comments.

The problem I have with expanding this program so much is that once expanded, it will NEVER be cut back further exasperating the future entitlement crisis. This is a classic case of mission creep and is just another small step in the steady march toward socialized medicine. By continually chipping away at the private market, the government is slowly gaining more control and soon the whole system will reach a tipping point where the private system crashes. Once that happens, socialized health care is all but inevitable.

This is a deliberate strategy as outlined in Clinton's old health care memos. Its also brilliant politics for the Democrats.

I the dems are so concerned about the Frost kids, get congress to pass the bill as it was for the last 10 without trying to expand it, and watch the President approve it.

Cycloptichorn - I hate to say it, but we can't afford the foreign wars either at the current level of spending. One might argue that the War on Terror is critical to our national security, and I largely agree. But there are huge questions about how the money is being spent - no-bid contracts; privitization that is costing more, not less; planeloads of cash not accounted for.

But even if the fraud and waste are eliminated, there will be an enormous budget deficit. A tax increase is out of the question. So Treasury just keeps printing money and our dollar is worth less every day.

David (Austin Tx)- Of course we can't get away from the Frost family, as they are integral to the topic. The POTUS vetoed the bill because he said he will not expand the program beyond the scope of what it was set up for. Poor families.

The Democrats brought this family out as an example of what our tax dollars should be funding and the reaction is obviously mixed.

We have learned that at least one state, Maryland, only accounts for what is on a W-2, and does not consider the assets of the applicant. That is a problem that should be addressed in any legislation.

David wrote:
The Frosts pay $500/year for Graeme to attend a private school in Baltimore.

The Frosts pay $0/year for their daughter Gemma to attend a private school for children with diabilities

Both their private residence, purchased for $50k, and their rental property $160k are both still mortagaged.

The mother, works part time, presumably so that she can care for her disabled children

The father, works part time as a wood worker, and welder, and part time as a commercial property owner

Their combined income over the past few years is between $45k and $50k.

The Frost's have been quoted $1200/month to insure their family. Not the $500/month assumed by many.

David, your description of the family's finances does reveal a few things of note and suggest many personal choices made by the family that would impact the amount of money they are making. First off,they are getting 40,000 dollars worth of education essentially for free, or for barely any money at all. Which is fine if they qualify. But that should be counted towards their assets, as they are receiving the benefits that those not on scholarship would pay a lot of money for.
Two, both their buildings are mortgaged, but they own two buildings. It's hard to find many "poor" people that own two pieces of property. They are still mortgaged, but by the same token, they're also building up equity.And the house was bought years ago for 55,000. It has most assuredly appreciated over the course of the years and if sold now would be sold for much more than 55,000.
His second building according to you is a rental property, so while paying down a mortgage, he is similarly building up equity and has rent being paid towards him that is going towards his mortgage. Is that rent being counted as part of the salary he and his wife is earning.More importantly though, if he can't afford to maintain both buildings why isn't he selling one or more off so as to not bleed money. it's not the only choice of course, but it is A choice. Or if he's running low on funds, try refinancing, try renting out more of the building. And is maintaining both buildings not his choice? To what degree is that choice impacting his decision to purchase or not purchase health insurance.
Most importantly, both parents work PART TIME BY CHOICE. Working part time can limit health insurance coverage, as many part time jobs will not offer insurance, but that's the parents choice. And if one of the parents is worknig part time and spending the rest of the time raising the kids maybe the other parent needs to step up and maybe work full time.
Entrepeneurship is a great thing, and certainly conservatives want people to do for themselves. But realistically if you start a home business you very often have to get a second job to pay the bills until the business takes off. And if it doesn't then you have to make choices as to whether to continue with the business (realizing that you will not be bringing in much money) or switching to another job that will pay the salary that meets your needs.
This family though is not doing that badly. They have assets that could be used, they have plenty of free time, which could be used to generate more income and they have a rich family that they can fall back on as a means of support.

I don't doubt some of the "attacks" on the Frosts went overboard. I myself have serious reservations as to how someone with half a million dollars in property (mortgaged or not), who is either hiding income (probalby legally...) or is absolutly a terrible business operator... means I have to pay for their health coverage. That's before you start talking about scholarships to private schools etc etc.

If you hold those people up as the example of "why we need to do this", you should expect people are going to ask these kinds of questions. Particularly with such a bad example as was used in this instance. It is almost as if this example was chosen specifically because this family's situation was going to raise these kinds of questions.

But we're not allowed to (props to Ann C) challenge these sorts of people. This kid was put forward specificially so that anyone who challenged the assertions was "attacking" a kid for needing health coverage. And now it comes out that this kid's coverage was never an issue, regardless of the outcome of the veto?

It's real hard to have a serious policy debate, if all one side is going to do is argue the emotional value of making sure this particular kid gets the "medical coverage he deserves". Figuratively speaking of course. Any time you challenge the primary issue here, you're going to get accused of "attacking kids".

But when we're looking real hard at increasing the number of adults covered under a children's health care system, endangering private insurance... and risk turning a series of problems into a larger series of worse ones... as people start canceling private insurance policies in favor of this...

Yeah, lotta people are gonna have legit issues with that. And they should.

Even with the EXISTING program... I've seen people with who actually HAVE employer covered health insurance send their kids into this program... because of the relatively small employee contribution the employer requires to cover family members. The S-Chip program has a smaller contribution requirement... so the employer funded health insurance goes unused, in favor of putting their kids on a government program.

In some corners my thinking that is a bad idea... means I'm intent on preventing children from getting medical coverage, and that's just nonsense.

Doubling the coverage values... is only going to make that happen more often, and that SHOULD NOT be the goal of a program intended to help people who really do need the assistance. Even if that was the only thing I knew about the expansion, for that reason alone I'd be glad this mess got vetoed.

A poster upthread mentioned that the MSM would be more careful in the future -- maybe, maybe not -- I doubt it. The problem is that real journalists approach stories like this from both sides and ask who, what, where, when, why and how --with at least a modicum of curiosity.

Unfortunately, these tearjerker propaganda pieces gloss over the obvious questions: how is it that under the existing program, kids in private school, parents with rental property, etc. qualify? And if this family can qualify, why is it necessary to expand the program? And if it is necessary, why not at least ask for some legitimate input from the critics vs. lying about what the critics are saying.

I don't blame this family for taking advantage of what's out there, but please...if you're going to be Nancy Pelosi's pet pony don't whine if you get a little more scrutiny than the Baltimore Sun reporter is interested in.

Re-distribution of wealth is a governmental function. And it's been around since the beginning of America; see the Estate tax.

Thomas Paine argued long and hard for a redistributionist permanent estate tax. Being about the only Founder in favor, he lost the debate.

There was a temporary pseudo-estate tax in 1797 to help pay for naval fleet construction. It was very small--a stamp tax on wills and probated estates. It was repealed four years later. In 1862 an estate tax was begun for war funding. The top rate was 6%. It lasted eight years before repeal. The estate tax as we know it was originally begun in 1916, and taxed estates over $5 million (equivalent to about $97 million today) at 10%.

So I'd say you're mistaken on that.

I have questions for all of you, since these haven't been brought up:

1) How much does medical and associated care (i.e, renovating a home for access) for two disabled children cost for 10 years? A rough estimate?

2) Are there limits for coverage, under health and car insurance, for accidents in the State of Maryland?

If you're going to debate the Frosts, it seems that these facts are germane.

Has Karl Rove gone over to the other side? This little imbroglio was a perfect political set-up by the Dems to once again beat the drum of how the GOP hates kids. Was this not perfectly transparent? When are we gonna stop rising to their bait?

As I recall, the last debate I saw on SCHIP on this blog (pre-Frost) devolved into ultraconservative rants about the immorality of all taxes. How's that again? The conservatives who want sane limits on SCHIP are undermined by the loons for whom it is all a conspiracy to not just impose socialism, but turn us all into slaves.

But I'll say what I said at that time, in general agreement with planetgeo @ 10:38 am.

First, the political dialogue should be a sane one about what constitutes "need". Reaposnable people can differ on this! 400% of poverty seems high, and threatens to have a damaging crowd-out effect. On the flip side, SCHIP opponents (especially those who whine about financial coercion by the powers that be) need to get real about how much insurance actually costs. Many people were alleging that the Frosts could have bought coverage for under $450/month. That does not square at all with my experience.

It is indeed also about including significant assets in the means-testing calculus. Contemporary reality is that if you have $200k in equity, you have at least $160k in readily available cash. Of course it sucks to pay that equity out for medical bills, and it ought not to be treated the same as $200k in income - but it's completely unfair to other applicants, and to taxpayers, not to consider those resources.

We want to avoid taking families out of the game because of a single accident or illness, and that is a worthy goal. We should not let families go under merely as an object lesson about personal fiscal discipline. But at the same time, to be overly free with it, or to conduct blinkered means-testing, will be counterproductive and just end up killing those families who are just over the threshold, etc. First do no harm.

I should add that current SCHIP programs were often underfunded and ran out before year's end, so Bush's small bump in funding was just a step towards achieving what was supposed to be the status quo. I'm not well versed in the details here, but I haven't seen this angle mentioned elsewhere.

President Bush encouraged 9 states to cover not only kids but poor adults too, mostly poor parents under SCHIP when Republicans controlled congress. Now he’s cynically playing politics trying to look fiscally “responsible” by scuttling the whole program. That won’t happen but it will cost Illinois alone an extra $75 million to push these adults into Medicaid according to the Chicago Tribune, by far a more expensive program to both Illinois and federal taxpayers than SCHIP.

That makes no financial sense at all. But then our whole hodge podge healthcare system which is twice as expensive as most other countries in the world doesn't either. Hopefully it will make no political sense either when the American people kick the Republican party to the curb next year.

Leave the Frosts alone?! Ridiculous. As Malkin put it, THEY'RE FAIR GAME. Politics is dirty, and now that they're in the mud, they're crying that they need a bath. What are they hiding?

RE: starfleet_dude (October 10, 2007 11:53 AM)

...you're going to have to convince me that the state of Utah is now filled with liberals, since they seem to have no problem offering coverage to dependent adult children up to the age of 26.

Um, what's your point?

Maybe there's something more to this issue than just being judgmental, eh?

I don't know if this has to do with your previous sentence or not, but, yes, I'm making a judgment. You make 'em, I make 'em, and the generic S-CHIP funding recipient makes 'em. So? Besides, aren't you being judgmental of me being judgmental? Where's your compassion you mean person?

Posted by Lynn | October 10, 2007 2:58 PM

I have questions for all of you, since these haven't been brought up:

1) How much does medical and associated care (i.e, renovating a home for access) for two disabled children cost for 10 years? A rough estimate?

2) Are there limits for coverage, under health and car insurance, for accidents in the State of Maryland?

If you're going to debate the Frosts, it seems that these facts are germane.

Well, I'd say if you're going to feature a family as the poster group for SCHIP expansions, these facts should have been gathered by the original Baltimore Sun reporter. My guess is that the Frosts know more about the issues than the reporter and probably could have anticipated some of these questions, but it's still the reporter's primary responsibility and his editor's secondary responsibility.

This is what happens when you have Journalism students entering the field because they want to "make a difference in the world" instead of gathering and reporting facts. The story would have been much more interesting if instead of pushing the Pro side, he had outlined the issues in the debate on both sides and used the Frosts as a springboard for complete discussion. But a maudlin push piece that tugs heartstrings is so much easier.

Ed,

I agree with you. I am sure the Democrats used this family for political purposes, but the Republicans do not have to play into their hands by going after the family in a personal way.

People talk about how Bush should do a better job of getting that conservative message out to people, but far too often the message some pundits {like Malkin} seem to want to get out is that Republicans are mean spirited and selfish. And who does that help? The Democrats of course.

biwah wrote..

As I recall, the last debate I saw on SCHIP on this blog (pre-Frost) devolved into ultraconservative rants about the immorality of all taxes.

I've not gone back and read it, but as I recall, that prior debate revolved around the immorality of requiring one man to pay for the health care of another man's kids. I don't recall (and I could be wrong) anyone saying all taxes are immoral. Additionally, as I recall, there was discussion that the reason the Dems were pushing for such a massive expansion of S-CHIP was to get the camel's nose inside the tent, paving the way for complete federal control of the health care system.

My opinion on the Frosts is very simple and can be boiled down to a question and a statement.

The statement: I have the absolute right to question who receives my money and under what circumstances, especially if some of those who have received my money already are demanding yet more money from me.

The question: Did the Frosts exhaust all other means of paying those bills before they took my money?

The statement is beyond dispute, so far as I am concerned. The answer to the question is that they obviously did not, according to every report I've seen (including the Baltimore Sun puff piece).

Shame, shame, shame on the Democratic majority for pushing a wounded preadolescent in front of the microphone to peddle their lies. Shame on the boy's parents for pimping him out.

Ed,
This is it for me. You have convinced me that you are a closet socialist. I'd like to give you a Bravo Zulu for your blogging skills, but your positions on social issues, more often associated with the left, are too much.

Aloha! As in goodbye.

biwah: First, the political dialogue should be a sane one about what constitutes "need".

No. It should be about the legality (i.e. constitutionality) of the federal government becoming a charitable organization. There is no clause in the Constitution of which I am aware that allows the Congress to set aside one thin dime for such purposes.

For those who are hell-bent on taking one person's money to give to another person in the interests of altruism (or, more precisely, making themselves feel virtuous), I suggest that you confine your efforts to the state and local levels, or get the Constitution amended to allow the government to steal from me to give to other people.

Pho: If you hold those people up as the example of "why we need to do this", you should expect people are going to ask these kinds of questions. Particularly with such a bad example as was used in this instance. It is almost as if this example was chosen specifically because this family's situation was going to raise these kinds of questions.

Exactly. Lefties whine that we on the right are "mean" because we look at the Frosts and are bewildered and outraged that they are getting such assistance. The dems put that poor kid out there to shill for ANOTHER vote-buying program, and people started asking questions about his family. The questions became increasingly pointed as it rapidly became apparent that the family hardly fit the bill of "poor" people desperately in need of government assistance. The dems, shocked that people were onto their little game, waxed outraged and smeared their opponents as heartless beasts who were picking on a little boy and his poor, poor family.

Cap'n Ed asked that we start talking about the merits (there are none) of SCHIP, but it seems to me that one CAN'T without using examples, and the Frosts make a very convenient one... for both sides. The right is interested in a debate, though the terms are harsh.

The left, on the other hand, does its usual appeal to emotion (this, I believe, is what Jeff meant by bringing an intellectual knife to a gunfight). Indeed, this is a hallmark of the left in past years: get some "victim" to shill for a liberal position, then play the righteous indignation card if anybody DARES to ask questions. "How can you be so CRUEL??? Don't you know that this person is (fill in victim status here)???"

It's a pretty sweet hustle, really: the dems get to rob the taxpayers, buy votes for themselves with the money, AND demonize their opponents are "cruel" and "heartless".

Yeah, Cap, you closet socialist! eh heh.

Jimmie,

I disagree with your 'absolute right' to know where all your tax monies are spent. You are free to disagree with the SCHIP program all you like, but not free to harass the family who was featured in the paper. There's nothing morally wrong with signing up for a program which is available for you to sign up for.

As others said above - the Bush admin supported this program for years, before the Dems wanted to increase it more then he requested. It isn't a money issue; it's a 'paint the Dems as Socialist' issue. A mark of desperation by those who can see the bloodbath of next year coming.

Witness the post above mine - Ed isn't sufficiently against helping out kids who need it, therefore, he's a closet socialist.

docjim,

Forget about the emotional angle - many Dems don't believe that the family in question is 'well off' at all. They certainly didn't have a ton of money to spend.

We don't believe that forcing someone to sell their house or take out loans against the value of it in order to pay for health care is an optimum solution to the problem.

Ed, great I agree. Let's talk about policies, not hypocritical attacks.
And let's start with this quote :

After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.

We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.

With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.

Michelle Malkin her self, August 27, 2004

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/27/americas-broken-health -insurance-system/

Cycloptichorn: We don't believe that forcing someone to sell their house or take out loans against the value of it in order to pay for health care is an optimum solution to the problem.

Which is to say that you don't think people should EVER be responsible for the results of their own choices.

BTW, I make about as much money as Papa Frost claims. Who do I contact to get MY check? After all, I don't have a ton of money to spend, either. I also don't believe that forcing somebody (especially me) to work 40 hours each week in order to pay for food, housing, car, health care, dog food, etc, is an optimal solution to the problem.

So, I repeat: where's MY check?

/sarcasm

I think this demonstrates why this IS an emotional issue. People (some well-intentioned, some cynically grasping for power) profess to feel sorry for the Frosts and / or want to demonstrate their own compassion, and so they feel completely justified - nay, VIRTUOUS - when they take my money to give to a family that is apparently making scant efforts to solve its own problems.

I would also like to note that you have not attempted to demonstrate either where the Founding Fathers thought that the redistribution of wealth was a governmental function or showed where the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to spend money on programs like SCHIP.

From Paul Howard at the Manhattan Institute:

Ice Cream and the End of Socialized Medicine

My colleague Peter Huber has a truly visionary essay in the Autumn edition of City Journal explaining how the advent of personalized medicine will shatter government pretensions to create one-size-fits-all health care.

Huber notes that medicine is increasingly making two things crystal clear to anyone who cares to notice: First, that for the most expensive chronic diseases, personal habits (diet and exercise or the lack thereof) are the real killers, and second, that rapid advances in molecular medicine are untangling our individual risks for everything from cancer to Alzheimer's. In either case, for what Huber calls genes or "gluts", government cannot pay for, or legislate, individual outcomes.

This great etiological shift-from the medicine of us versus germs to the medicine of us versus us-upends everything. Disease and its cures now depend on factors too fragmented for conventional insurance pools to contain, too costly for public treasuries to underwrite, and too divisive for public authorities even to discuss, much less manage. The era of big government is over in medicine, too. Within a decade or two, a charismatic president will deliver on the promise to end health care as we know it. What then? Science will discover, competition will supply, patients will choose, and freedom will deliver better medicine and far better health, at lower cost, to many more people.

This doesn't mean that politicians won't cling to the nanny state as long as they can. Mayor Bloomberg has banned trans-fats in New York; if he was serious he'd ban red meat, beer, and french fries. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has called for mandatory preventive screening for all Americans under his plan for universal health care - he might as well try signing us all up for yoga classes and vegan diets.

Underneath the weight (pun intended) of demographic changes (an aging population with ever growing waistlines) governments have two basic choices: leave more to free markets, or rely more on regressive taxes and micromanaging the lives of the poorest and least educated among us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Howard is the managing editor of Medical Progress Today and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress.

RE: Cycloptichorn (October 10, 2007 4:30 PM)

We don't believe that forcing someone to sell their house or take out loans against the value of it in order to pay for health care is an optimum solution to the problem.

So the answer is to get the government to pay for it? The government doesn't have any money.

No, it's not optimum, but nanny-statism continues to expand because we are finding ourselves less and less capable of turning off the money spigot due to want. Politicians expand programs using money that's not theirs. As has been pointed out, even the Constitutionality of it all should be questioned.

At what point do we halt the mission creep of this program and others? Is there ever an end? I mean a point before the IMF steps in and declares us bankrupt and then starts regulating our money like a third-world nation? Don't think that cannot happen considering our increasing globalism and the external pressures we invite.

DocJim,

"BTW, I make about as much money as Papa Frost claims. Who do I contact to get MY check? After all, I don't have a ton of money to spend, either. I also don't believe that forcing somebody (especially me) to work 40 hours each week in order to pay for food, housing, car, health care, dog food, etc, is an optimal solution to the problem.

So, I repeat: where's MY check?"

As a supporter of some form of universal health care, I'd like for you to be able to get your check as well.

In the absence of that, I wouldn't have a problem with your children being covered under the same program. I'm sure you realize that 45k a year isn't very much money these days; even though things like food and energy prices aren't counted in the 'official' inflation rates, you know that they have to be purchased by consumers nonetheless.

I have a real problem with a political philosophy which is willing to spend an unlimited amount of monies on Offensive warfare in other countries, in perpetuity, and absolutely no money on helping kids who need it here in America.

AD,

"At what point do we halt the mission creep of this program and others? Is there ever an end? I mean a point before the IMF steps in and declares us bankrupt and then starts regulating our money like a third-world nation? Don't think that cannot happen considering our increasing globalism and the external pressures we invite."

You're correct; we are going to have to start cutting spending AND raise taxes. Anyone who tells you we can 'grow our way out of debt' is lying to you.

I suggest we stop spending 150 billion a year on the war, to begin with; raise the retirement age of SS and streamline Medicare (Especially part D - thanks for that Republicans, great job limiting entitlements!); and raise taxes back to the levels we had in the 1990s. But, that's just me.

Now, there's always the question: is the combined amount of money spent on competition between insurance companies, and premiums paid by insurance purchasers, larger then the amount of the cost of a nationalized program? It's hard to calculate this, but it could represent a huge net savings for consumers - and thus a boon to our economy.

RE: Cycloptichorn (October 10, 2007 5:03 PM)

...start cutting spending AND raise taxes. Anyone who tells you we can 'grow our way out of debt' is lying to you.

I'd like to see the cutting spending before the raising taxes just to see that politicians will do the former, but, yes, we are reaching the outer edges of growing out of debt.

I suggest we stop spending 150 billion a year on the war, to begin with; raise the retirement age of SS and streamline Medicare (Especially part D - thanks for that Republicans, great job limiting entitlements!); and raise taxes back to the levels we had in the 1990s. But, that's just me.

Not sure about the tax levels first but not inconceivably opposed IF spending across the board is reduced first to avoid all that is possible. I'm afraid I don't trust government of any stripe to make an earnest attempt, so I'd need proof rather than promise. Much agreement here except that the war funding (well, armed militia anyway) is explicitly defined in the Constitution, so I give it a priority for that reason among others.

I'll stop here because I don't want to go too far off the beaten path and because we are reaching some agreement. Hey, look! A flying pig!

Cycloptichorn: As a supporter of some form of universal health care, I'd like for you to be able to get your check as well.

In the absence of that, I wouldn't have a problem with your children being covered under the same program.

First of all, I have no children. I still want my check. In fact, NOT getting a check just because I have no children strikes me as discriminatory.

Secondly, I'm not especially excited about having my health care provided by the government. I had my experiences with "government" health care in the military. It sucked, and I'm not eager to find out that national government-run health care is just as bad. Let's remember that the government that you are in such a damned hurry to have giving us womb-to-tomb care is the same government that spends $400 on a hammer. It is also run by those same politicians that you criticized for fouling up Medicare Part-D. Now, why in the world do you think I would want any part of that? Why would ANY sane person want any part of that?

Finally, you're right: $45k isn't all that much money, but, as a single man, I don't need all that much. If I had a family and needed more money, I'd do what my brother did when the needs of his family outstripped the means of his paycheck: get a better job. Or I'd do what my father did when the needs of his family outstripped the means of his paycheck: work a second job. Or I'd do what my friends do: don't have any children at all.

See? Lots of choices other than sticking one's hand in somebody else's pocket and stealing their money.

But if you still want to be altruistic and give me money, I'll arrange for you to get my address. Certified checks or money orders only, please.

But if you still want to be altruistic and give me money, I'll arrange for you to get my address. Certified checks or money orders only, please.

You see Doc, Cycloptichorn and others of the same meantality don't see this as coming out of his pocket. It's the governments pocket and that makes it o.k. This is just the beginning of the "re-distribution of wealth" schemes that the democratic party with their socialist agenda are intending to place upon those who work and earn money AND live within thier own means, to support those who choose not too AND have their hands in our pockets. There are already government safety nets in place to provide for the truly needy.

An expanded SCHIP and Hillary's latest SS2 401k are the latest in the guise of the "buy your vote" and let the sucessful pay for it. Utter BS.

universal health care? Don't make me laugh. Next we'll be subsidizing health care for our dogs, and the tree in the front yard that makes me feel sooooooo good.

Insofar as the Frost family was offered up by the Democrats as an example of why the program was needed, it is more than fair people to take a close look at the family's circumstances. But what has been missed in the coverage (especially by the Baltimore Sun, of which I am a local subscriber) is any discussion of the family's situation before the accident.

Given the family's current circumstances, enrollment in the program may not be unreasonable. But no one has discussed when the Frost's were first enrolled. Were the children on full scholarship prior to the accident? Was the family opting for private schooling rather than paying for health insurance? Why were the parents (or at least the father) not seeking more lucrative employment opportunities after the birth of their children? Could the family have obtained reasonably priced private insurance prior to the pre-existing conditions caused by the car accident? According to the newspaper reports, the home was refinanced to pay for renovations to the home to accommodate the handicapped children. This suggests that there would have be substantial equity in the home prior to the accident that could have been tapped for the expense of health insurance. (Indeed, the neighborhood where they live has been one of the neighborhoods that have undergone gentrification and seen appreciable increases in value since the late 1990s.)

Since most families enrolled in S-CHIP are not victims of catastrophic accidents, the policy debate should be looking at the situation of typical families, such as the Frosts prior to the car accident. But the Baltimore Sun has been distinctly uninterested in this questions, while spilling lots of ink yelling "meany" at any one who dares question the Democratic talking points that they run as news.

And again let me explain that if the SCHIP program was left as it was intended to do---which was to help the truly needy, my meagar tax dollars can cope with that. What the democratic (joke) party is doing is expanding it beyond the scope of it's intended purpose.

Anyone remember just after the republicans took over the house in 94 that there was a bill introduce that the dems claimed the majority was taking food out of the mouths of babes?

This is the SAME PAGE IN THE SAME PLAYBOOK.

The democrats and the MSM rammed that BS down the publics throat and they all bought it, hook, line, and Clinton. It worked then because there was no blogosphere to fact check the realities.

No where in the Constitution does it say that the needy are ENTITLED to heath care any more than they are entitled to have two cars in the garage.

The Democrats were demagoging by using a 12-year-old boy to go on the radio and say thank you for the medical care?

REALLY!

Okey dokey, then please point me to your criticm of Bush for dragging a nine-year-old boy around with him when he was trying to steal one-third of the Social Security Trust Fund and give it to the banks. Did they object to Bush's 2004 campaign ad that exploited a young girl's grief over her mother's death at the World Trade Center on Sep. 11, 2001?

No, not at all. You see, you don't have any principles, because principles apply across the board. In the right-wing nutosphere, the Republicans and the Democrats can do the same thing but it's only wrong if the Democrats do it.

The Republican attack dogs hakid goes on the radio to THANK his country for providing his medical care, and for that the Republican Party smears the child and calls his parents every name in the book. I hope people take a good, hard look at this one.

From Red State:

"If federal funds were required they could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I’d do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

And this:

"Hang em. Publically (sic). Let em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

Finally, the mask has dropped.

Given the family's current circumstances, enrollment in the program may not be unreasonable. But no one has discussed when the Frost's were first enrolled. Were the children on full scholarship prior to the accident? Was the family opting for private schooling rather than paying for health insurance? Why were the parents (or at least the father) not seeking more lucrative employment opportunities after the birth of their children? Could the family have obtained reasonably priced private insurance prior to the pre-existing conditions caused by the car accident?

Just because your idiot president won't read doesn't mean you have to give it up, too. The wingnut attack on the Frosts has been a fact-free attack, starting with their insurance situation.

The kids were always insured, including at the time of the accident. They were covered by SCHIP. It's the parents who can't get coverage for less than $1,200 because of their pre-existing conditions.

Now, wingnuts, do some math. Some of you do math, correct? Multiply $1,200 by 12. Hint: $14,400. Now look at their income: $40,000 to $50,000. Much of it from self-employment, which entails 13.x% payrolls taxes right off the top. I think it's fair to guess that these people clear about 30 grand after taxes.

So, if the parents pay nearly half their take-home pay for their own insurance, they won't have enough for food, shelter, clothing, and the tools Mr. Frost needs for his business.

So much for Republican entrepreneurship. So much for compassionate conservatism. So much for basic intelligence. So much for human decency. This is what you have come to. Finally, you won't get away with it. This is something people can relate to.

See you next November.

The kids were always insured, including at the time of the accident. They were covered by SCHIP. It's the parents who can't get coverage for less than $1,200 because of their pre-existing conditions.

Now, wingnuts, do some math. Some of you do math, correct? Multiply $1,200 by 12. Hint: $14,400. Now look at their income: $40,000 to $50,000. Much of it from self-employment, which entails 13.x% payrolls taxes right off the top. I think it's fair to guess that these people clear about 30 grand after taxes.

Wait a minute, if the kids were covered by SCHIP but the parents weren't and this is a program for poor children, why did the dems bring out the child and not the parents and why are they using this test case when talking about SCHIP. In other words, if the issue is not the kids covered by S-CHIP but the parents not covered by S CHIP, then how is this even relevant to the argument? what conditions do the parents have? (maybe I'm misunderstanding where you're going with this)
Now as far as how much they are earning, the article above states that the mother is working part time,and the father is working intermittently in his business. That might be the problem right there. Many (most) people have access to their insurance through things like jobs. If someone works part time and/or intermittently it might have some effect on both the amount of money that is being brought in but also access to health care. Not to be flip, but its in the parents hands to support their family. Why are they working intermittently and part time? Also if the father is self employed there should be a means to purchase health care for himself and his family as the owner of his business.

But in any case, since your job is the primary means of earning money, and both parents are barely working, or only working partime, is it a surprise that they are earning less than a couple that say is worknig full time? And who's fault is it then that they can't pay for insurance?

It's doubly strange when the children of the family attend private schools, even on scholarship. That calls into question whether the family has made choices to be without health coverage, or really have no resources to get it for themselves.

I see that Edward Morrissey also has a reading comprehension problem. Ed, stop imitating your feckless, imcompetent president. The Frost family isn't without coverage. The kids are covered by SCHIP. It's the parents who are without.

Oh, and for the other wingnut who thinks the parents are without coverage because of accident-related pre-existing conditions, there's no evidence of that. Looks to me as if they were without coverage before the accident, too.

A wingnut insurance agent posted what I think is a baldfaced lie about FAMILY coverage being available in Baltimore for $452 a month. You can't even get INDIVIDUAL coverage for that price. But none of this stopped the wingnuts from repeating it all over the place, including the fiction about the family having no insurance.

It's amusing to see you pull the "Reasonable Republican" act. Come on, no one's buying it. You might as well go the Malkin route and let the blood keep dripping from your fangs.

I see these jagoffs are making the rounds trying to infect sane sites with "liberal guilt. Sorry boys, we bought offsets from some other sanctimonious jerks before you showed up, so yer peddlin' yer fish in the wrong market.

Magic dog writes:
I see that Edward Morrissey also has a reading comprehension problem. Ed, stop imitating your feckless, imcompetent president. The Frost family isn't without coverage. The kids are covered by SCHIP. It's the parents who are without.

Oh, and for the other wingnut who thinks the parents are without coverage because of accident-related pre-existing conditions, there's no evidence of that. Looks to me as if they were without coverage before the accident, too.

Now you're confusing the issue. This is an argument about SCHIP. the C in S-CHIP stands for children. Thus the childrens parents wouldn't be covered. If the child was covered and is covered by SCHIP and if Bush wasn't in fact arguing to end the program what exactly is the relevancy of whether the parents were covered or not or even whether or not S-Chip should be expanded?
The dems brought out this spokesman and this family as a test case for what? That the program shouldn't end (well guess what, bush wasn't planning on ending it) or should be expanded so as to include the kids parents who also don't have health insurance?

It bears repeating just for you Magic..

I live in California... San Diego to be exact. Because I've chosen to pursue a dream our household income went from over $100k annually to just around 40k... we have a mortgage, we have two honda cars, 3 children (2 gone now) and for over 8 years of lowered income paid a minimum of 8k per year for college educations.

In spite of all the bills... we ALL had insurance paid for with our own money...

Then again we've had No vacations..no invesment property..no SUVs.. and that's OK

Just us being responsible for ...ourselves

Then again we believe our children.. our repsonsibility..

ps... did ya consider not being so ugly in how you right... or are your Teresa in disguise?

Magic Dog said

The Frost family isn't without coverage. The kids are covered by SCHIP. It's the parents who are without.

Magic Dog, of course, gives the microsoft tech support answer -- absolutely correct, but absolutely useless for making any determination of the problem at hand. A typical nutroot reaction.

The problem at hand is the ability for people who can afford healthcare coverage to not buy that coverage and to instead rely upon the government to provide the coverage under CHIP.

Sec. 116 of the HR976 conference bill addresses this issue by requesting studies of the effects of substitution of CHIP coverage for private insurance coverage, and studies of "crowd-out". Studies are not the substitute for action. The bill as formulated allows the problem to continue (albeit with a mandate to study it); it does not mandate a solution. The bill allows "higher income states" to enroll children under CHIP; this allows coverage in those states of children whose family earnings are above 300% of maximum poverty level. Congress states that it agrees with the President that states which offer a high income person entry to the program should have a substantial percentage of low income people enrolled, but then puts no teeth in the law to force this to occur -- only another "study".

Magic dog then accuses people of lying, particularly about the cost of coverage, spraying the "wingnut" "epithet" about mightily in blustering fashion to prove his point. He then tries to make Mr. Frost's claimed net income from his business into a gross income, and then factors payroll taxes and tools as part of that, all to show why it is impossible for the Frosts to self-insure. All of us who have or had businesses understand the basic fallacy of Magic Dog's reasoning -- most business expenses are deductible (including the payroll taxes and the tools) and are never subtracted from net income -- only from gross. And you never count as your income the gross, only the net (particularly if you are paid by an LLC or you are a Democrat trying to make the point about how poor you are). And some things, like SUVs, can be carried on the books as assets of the LLC, and therefore don't count as part of the person's income, although they constructively are part of that income.

If Mr. Frost is truly as destitute as Magic Dog thinks, then why the remodel, the LLC, the extra building, the private school? When you are making only $30K (as Magic Dog claims is the case here), doesn't even $1K of avoidable school expense matter?

The Frosts serve to crystallize the view of the problem, as Magic Dog shows us yet again.

"... comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:"

Attacks on "attacks" from a commenter? This is the best the socialist/communist leftist can come up with? Blather on about inappropriate attacks?

You mean from the bunch that keeps giving every day... Marcus "Screw Them" Moulitsas?

Please, get off your fake sanctimonious rants.

Truth is, Democrats rolled out a family that were

1) covered already by SChip
2) not in threat of losing coverages
3) Were a terrible representation for covering people in "poverty"
4) Was an example of SCHIP being utilized to subsidize financial decisions, not healthcare. They easily could've made decisions to purchase healthcare at anytime for their children.

I grew up in poverty. I know what it is. My mother and I lived in poverty for most of my life. We had broken bones, surgery, hospital stays and not once needed the government!

This is called Consumer Excess and Socialized Government endorsement of overtaxing. MediCare is a Shambles, Social Security is a Mess and now the far left want to add to the boondoggle.

And pretennd self-righteous indignation at anyone who questions their values and judgements.

I question the man Frost and I question the Democrats. It is one thing to provide healthcare coverage for the the truly destitute, the truly poor - that happens today and was not in any danger of being lost.

But now here come the rants of commenters on this site as if they're gods of light. Phony and fake finger pointing to the extreme. The Democrats are mockers and scoffers of any truth. They take a false positive and rake over the coals anyone who disagrees.

The Frost were false positives. At any time in their life they could make better choices, just like my mother did in the past and I did once I graduated high school and left on my own.

What all the handwavers, socialist and fake "social justice" pounders of faux disgust are doing is racheting up a false sense of injustice so high, so outrageous, so phony, that the Republicans in this instance will have to settle for "300%" instead of 400. Next year it will be 400. Under Hillary, everyone. It never ends because their end game is to turn our system into the failed systems of France, England, etc.

Only recently Tony Blair announced how proud they were to reduce surgery wait times down to 3-6 months! Huh!???

Is this truly what we want? No!

The big lie is "conservates and people on the right" do not care.

The truth is this is just one more step to Socialism and Centralized government putting its hands into every single part of our lives.

I for one am sick of it. It teaches a nanny state, that we cannot think for ourselves and need some secularized socialist godless man-made government program to regulate every single step of our being. It teaches irresponsible decisions.

Ask yourself this question. Why did the Frost not put their children into the wonderful leftist, socialized system of education????

When you can answer that - then you will understand why the last thing this country needs is another government controlled enterprize.

And to the zealot who post pictures of peoples homes, address, etc. Your actions speak loudly of just what kind of person you are.

People have a right to know the truth about the Frost, what the Dems are doing.

They lied about what would happen. The Frost received healthcare and would not have lost it. That is the truth that is being missed here.

For the unhinged on the far left that attack Malkin. She went to interview, she talked to tenants, which is exactly what reporters do and did.

For an example of mistreatment, lunacy, attacks on people. One need look no farther than what leftist do daily to our military wounded at Walter Reed.

And it appears now, they're even feeding on their own...

CODEPINK:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/10/look-whos-stalking-nancy-pelosi/

if you want to talk about stalking, harrasment, please clean out your own house first. Take the log out of your own eye.

What Michelle did is what any good reporter does, following up a story. What we find is a false story by the Democrats yet again, exaggerating and misinforming the public on policy. They didn't talk policy, they embellished and mislead the public.

if the issue is not the kids covered by S-CHIP but the parents not covered by S CHIP, then how is this even relevant to the argument?

The wingnuts decided to trash the kids and trash the parents by co-mingling their situations so they could accuse the parents of being irresponsible, lazy, fraudulent and so on. You know, the typical swiftboating. Sorry, wingnuts, the game's up.

if the father is self employed there should be a means to purchase health care for himself and his family as the owner of his business

Yes, there should be. As it now stands, the parents would have to pay about half of their take-home pay for their own insurance, and in doing so literally take food from their kids' mouths and clothes off their backs. Which, of course, is what the "compassionate conservatives" want.

The dems brought out this spokesman and this family as a test case for what?

The 12-year-old gave thanks for the program. This offended the "pro-family" and "pro-life" Republican Party, which prefers that they'd be dead because they're not rich. From Redstate:

"If federal funds were required they could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

The problem at hand is the ability for people who can afford healthcare coverage to not buy that coverage and to instead rely upon the government to provide the coverage under CHIP.

Coverage for the parents alone would cost about half of their take-home pay. Leave it to the "compassionate conservatives" to suggest that parents take food from their children and clothes off their backs to pay their own health insurance. Finally, the mask comes off.

All of us who have or had businesses understand the basic fallacy of Magic Dog's reasoning -- most business expenses are deductible (including the payroll taxes and the tools) and are never subtracted from net income -- only from gross.

Another wingnut lie. You subtract taxes, including payroll taxes, from gross income. The result is net income. But hey, let's imagine that they netted $45,000. The parents' health insurance, not including the kids, has been costed out at $14,400, which would still be one-third of their income.

Leave it to a wingnut to argue that health insurance for two members of a six-member family should be one-third of their income. Love your "compassion." Fact is, you people would prefer it if the Frosts were dead.

The Democrats are mockers and scoffers of any truth. They take a false positive and rake over the coals anyone who disagrees.

The pot calls the kettle black. From Redstate, the wingnut website:

"Hang 'em. Publically (sic). Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

[Comment deleted for a complete lack of class. -- Ed]

Magic Dog wrote:
The wingnuts decided to trash the kids and trash the parents by co-mingling their situations so they could accuse the parents of being irresponsible, lazy, fraudulent and so on. You know, the typical swiftboating. Sorry, wingnuts, the game's up.
This is a discussion about the S-CHIP program which would only impact the child who took advantage of the program so got the coverage. Further, since Bush wanted to expand the program he would still be covered. But if the issue is really about the parents lack of insurance and not the child losing out on S-CHIP if the heartless conservatives cut the program, then why bring it up when discussing S-CHIP? Can you explain that to me? THe parents lack of health care is not relevant to the discussion about S-CHIP. In additon to lying about what Bush had planned for S-CHIP (an expansion of an existing program that is supposed to help POOR KIDS), the discusssion it turns out, was never even about the S-CHIP program at all, apparently.

Yes, there should be. As it now stands, the parents would have to pay about half of their take-home pay for their own insurance, and in doing so literally take food from their kids' mouths and clothes off their backs. Which, of course, is what the "compassionate conservatives" want.
Holy crap, this guy has assets, he has a rental property, and a business. And a rich family to fall back on. And he works INTERMITTENTLY, and his wife works PART TIME. Where are they expecting the money to come from to feed their kids? What does intermittent mean, 10 to 15 hours a week? What does part time mean? 3 days a week? Why don't one or more of these parents work full time if they're so worried about the food and clothing for their kids? They can do what millions of ADULTS do every day, work for a living. and if they can't pay the bills get another job.
Here's a hint magic dog, when you work intermittently, your pay is usually piddling. So then the key is to try to make work more regular like. Because in the real world things like food and clothing and insurance cost money. Do I have to explain cause and effect to you? Work = Salary = Money. Full time work = Larger salary + Insurance = Money and food on table. No work = No Money. Intermittent work = Little money and food on the table. Of course in this case the family also has assets they can fall back on if need be, they have a rental property as well as equity in the house. So if they are only making 45,000 a year combined maybe the key is the number of hours worked in a week.

and not only are the evil republicans trying to deny health care to someone they even want to take the food off of the childs plate. Good thing the S-CHip program also provides food on the table and clothes on the kids back. Oh wait it doesn't? SO then why don't you stop your useless demagoging. Have you no shame?

Coverage for the parents alone would cost about half of their take-home pay. Leave it to the "compassionate conservatives" to suggest that parents take food from their children and clothes off their backs to pay their own health insurance. Finally, the mask comes off. And why is that? Maybe because they only work part time and intermittently. See how Lifestyle choices can impact your financial bottom line? It's not like health care insurance is the holy grail only available to the most chaste and pure of knights. you can go to any number of companies and get health care from them. I know waitresses who have health care insurance.
But here's the thing. You do want you want or what you have to and deal with the consequences. Someone who wants to work as a stock broker will USUALLY earn a lot more than the starving artist selling his paintings on the corner. The starving artist doesnt' HAVE to be a painter, but his choices will impact his finances down the road, and that's on him, as its his life led the way he wanted, therefore the consequences are his to bear. If the starving artist has kids to feed and his selling of paintings isn't bringing home the food for his kids then he has choices to make. The govt isn't going to simply pay his rent, feed and clothe his kids and tuck them in at night and do the dishes. He is responsible to find a way to provide. And this family seems quite capable. They have princeton degrees, they have plenty of time on their hands (what with the working intermittently and all), they have free education. Are they resonsible for ANYTHING in your mind?
I'd love to work intermittently. I'm thinking 3 hours a week would do me great. Now where's my insurance, beyotch?

Leave it to a wingnut to argue that health insurance for two members of a six-member family should be one-third of their income. Love your "compassion." Fact is, you people would prefer it if the Frosts were dead. if one family member is working part time, and the other is working intermittently and the business isn't doing well, then they will only be able to afford so much in the course of a year. Since they've already gotten a free private education and insurance for their kids through the S-CHIP program already that's already a lot of money they don't have to spend which they can use to feed and clothe their kids instead. Why not also increase the pool of money to begin with? Hows about one parent, or both work full time instead of intermittently.Sell off one or more assets, refinance. I'd almost guarantee that the more they work in a week, the more money they'll bring home. That's usually how salaries work at any rate. But since S-CHIP is not a program for poor adults, how is it relevant to the discussion any way if the two parents don't have insurance? They wouldn't get it from the S-CHIP program, at least in theory. (then again considering 45% of people taking advantage of the program are adults, you never know).

Magic Dog is a good example of liberals bringing an intellectual knife to a gun fight. He takes the moral high ground and accuses several posters here (and even Cap'n Ed) of having "reading comprehension problems" even while he offers nothing but suppositions. Read these excerpts from his rants carefully:

... for the other wingnut who thinks the parents are without coverage because of accident-related pre-existing conditions, there's no evidence of that. Looks to me as if they were without coverage before the accident, too. [emphasis mine - dj505]

So, does he KNOW these things to be true? Or did he just get a hot tip from the voices in his head?

A wingnut insurance agent posted what I think is a baldfaced lie about FAMILY coverage being available in Baltimore for $452 a month. [emphasis mine - dj505]

And he bases his belief on the mythical wingnut insurance agent's dishonesty on... what? Did this mythical wingnut insurance agent post a link supporting his assertion so his claim could be checked? I note that Magic Dog doesn't.

On a slightly different subject, this statement from our friend Magic Dog boggles the mind:

The wingnuts decided to trash the kids and trash the parents by co-mingling their situations so they could accuse the parents of being irresponsible, lazy, fraudulent and so on.

OMG! You mean to say that (gasp!) nasty ol' conservatives have the NERVE to consider minor children as part of the family unit, to look at the Frosts' TOTAL situation??? Horrors!

What's next? Will the libs claim that little Graeme qualifies for unemployment or welfare?

Are his parents responsible for NOTHING concerning him?

I guess that, as far as liberals are concerned, the answer is NO.

Finally, I would like to echo jr565:

Now you're confusing the issue. This is an argument about SCHIP. the C in S-CHIP stands for children. Thus the childrens parents wouldn't be covered. If the child was covered and is covered by SCHIP and if Bush wasn't in fact arguing to end the program what exactly is the relevancy of whether the parents were covered or not or even whether or not S-Chip should be expanded?

What jr565 points out is that Magic Dog can't even stay on topic. Indeed, Magic Dog complained that Papa Frost can't afford his tools, food, clothes, etc, all items that aren't covered by SCHIP. It's not about intellectual argument, rational debate, or even reading comprehension, you see: it's all about feeling good and virtuous by DEMANDING that Uncle Sugar pay everything for everybody... and calling anybody who doesn't agree with you a heartless cretin with blood dripping from their fangs.

Indeed.

I think Ed has pretty much put the policy debate to rest here: S-CHIP is a mighty waste of taxpayer dollars and expanding it full well knowing that who it will be expanded to under the Democrats' plan is a further waste is why we saw the Dems' drag out the Frosts to begin with. The American people are smarter then that. The Democrats? Well, jury's still out on that.

For all the screaming by the nutroots that conservatives made a "political issue of attacking the Frost family" it behooves both sides to remember that the Democrats made a choice to use the Frosts a political issue rather first rather than the policy itself being debated. Nobody's debating reducing the program. What should be debated is if the program is the best use of billions, and it clearly isn't.

But in the end, the Frosts were used as political theater of the most banal and manipulative kind. They got called on it.

There's too much at stake not to.

I haven't really been following this, but I found this comment on John Cole's site (who seems to be right on about this debate and cites Ed's post here). Naturally, I think it hits the nail on the head:

Option 1: Real Journalism

1. Call the Frosts to verify the details about them.
2. Call the agency that handles S-CHIP in Baltimore to find out their situation.
3. Talk to anyone else that can independently verify the Frost’s situation (i.e. doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.).
4. Publish the facts.

Option 2: Wingnutosphere Journalism

1. Show up at the Frost’s house unannounced and spy on them.
2. Guess as to what the Frost’s situation is based on their car, the value of their house and some Google searches.
3. Talk to neighbors and co-workers to get the inside dirt on the Frost’s (do they throw lavish parties?).
4. Publish their personal information along with your opinion of their situation and invite further scrutiny from the general public based on misinformation.

Also, some of you may remember when I got worked up about the Columbia poly-sci student who, along with her family, was attacked by the right-wing blogosphere. Same thing here. Show some respect for this family... even if they are in the way of you making a political point.

Magic Dog,

When the Democrats dragged a 12-year-old boy to Washington to have him attack Republicans on air for SCHIP, they knew damn well we'd question exactly how qualified his family actually is to not have insurance. They knew this would happen.

"You know, the typical swiftboating. Sorry, wingnuts, the game's up."

What game? What, have you "caught" us in questioning the financial means of a family whom Democrats sent out to attack our party?

"Yes, there should be. As it now stands, the parents would have to pay about half of their take-home pay for their own insurance, and in doing so literally take food from their kids' mouths and clothes off their backs."

Really? Well, as someone who previously spent about half of his paycheck on health care, I'm happy to know my family's starved. See, I got a second job. I never knew they starved. Thanks for telling me.

"Fact is, you people would prefer it if the Frosts were dead."

Yeah, that's the obvious conclusion when we question someone attacking our party. (Rolls Eyes)

They knew this would happen.

So, you're saying you guys are a known bunch of feral dogs and cannot be trusted NOT to attack a family that the Dems believe show the benefits of the SCHIP program?

Republicans have trotted out everyday Americans to show the benefits of some of their policies in the past (can't think of off the top of my head, but I recall over the past 6 State of the Unions Bush referring to many guests of his in the balcony). I don't recall those people being attacked and invaded like this family.

You can go and legitimately do some reporting, but that's not what happened. The right-wing blogosphere needs to do some serious reflection on how they "report."

"So, you're saying you guys are a known bunch of feral dogs and cannot be trusted NOT to attack a family that the Dems believe show the benefits of the SCHIP program?"

No. I'm saying they're Washington politicians who knew the other party would respond when they're attacked.

"You can go and legitimately do some reporting, but that's not what happened. The right-wing blogosphere needs to do some serious reflection on how they "report.""

So looking into their financial means that led them to not apparently be able to afford their own insurance, Michelle going by their place of work and talking to a friend willing to talk to her after already talking to two other media outlets, and then publishing findings as a bases for an opinion, isn't reporting.

Guess we should've just written sob stories, not questioned, placed wonderful picture of the family on our blogs and attacked President Bush as a heartless individual. Gotcha.

Coming Soon:

Political Ad -- Conservatives are Meanies!

Actors -- Crystal Gail Mangum and Cindy Sheehan pushing Max Clelland in a wheelchair with Graeme Frost on his lap.

Script -- (None required)

Action -- Lots of sad faces

Voice Over -- Anyone who disagrees is a meanie! Media Matters (a non-partisan division of Vote Hillary in '08) approves of this message.

Tom Shipley, I love your number three of the proper journalistic procedures. Somehow it's scurrilous knavery to drive by a person's residence, but it is the ethical thing to do to get their doctor/lawyer/accountant to violate patient/client privilege to dish the dirt out to you? Strange world you live in.

Tom Shipley, another thing, in your first step in proper journalistic procedure, you should know darn well that the agency that handles the Frosts is bound by law to keep their information confidential.

The Hillary War Room strategy: Let's argue about the Frosts-- not about policy!

Government-financed medicine is a dinosaur. It's already failing. And the Republicans and Democrats are argung over whether SCHIP should be expanded a little or a lot?

Because we should be moving away from government and HMO-financed medicine entirely, the Republicans are somewhat wrong about this, and the Democrats, very, very wrong.

Deja Vu anyone:

Posted by Rovin | October 10, 2007 8:22 PM
"Anyone remember just after the republicans took over the house in 94 that there was a bill introduce that the dems claimed the majority was taking food out of the mouths of babes?"

"This is the SAME PAGE IN THE SAME PLAYBOOK."

"The democrats and the MSM rammed that BS down the publics throat and they all bought it, hook, line, and Clinton. It worked then because there was no blogosphere to fact check the realities."

Then just a few hours later in the same thread:

Posted by Magic Dog | October 11, 2007 2:05 AM
"Yes, there should be. As it now stands, the parents would have to pay about half of their take-home pay for their own insurance, and in doing so literally take food from their kids' mouths and clothes off their backs.
Which, of course, is what the "compassionate conservatives" want."

Actually, now that I have reflected on this, I believe it was a bill that the Republican's were blocking when the mantra came forward: "taking food from kids mouths"

I rest my case.........

Tom Shipley;

Your lists of "REAL Journalism" vs. "WINGNUT Journalism"... really aren't that different. In both cases, people are making efforts to get at the truth. What I think galls you is the fact that the "truth" is this case doesn't reflect well on the Frosts, their filthy democrat masters, or SCHIP. Oh, and that the "WINGNUTS" don't have Press Cards or work for prestigious, unbiased, holier-than-thou media outlets such as CBS or the NYT. You know: like Jayson Blair or Dan Rather?

I also echo those (like Benson and MarkF) who indicated that some of your "REAL Journalism" practices are unethical if not downright illegal.

However, I would welcome an in-depth investigation of the Frosts. How much HAVE Papa amd Momma Frost worked these past several years? Do they have income that they don't declare on their 1040? Does he have expenses that he runs through his business? Did his family have any insurance prior to the accident? If not, why not? It seems to me that the dems would also welcome such an investigation as it would (presumably) show just what dire straights the poor Frost family is in and show up us conservatives as the ol' meanies that you libs claim we are.

What the libs have done is set this family up as an example of the poor, poor people in American who simply CAN'T get by without handouts from Uncle Sugar. Unfortunately for them, there are enough questions about the Frosts, their financial situation, and their past decisions to make them a bit LESS than poster children for Big(ger) Government. How it must rankle!

Incidentally, you ARE aware that Michelle "The Stalker" Malkin is the one who found that the Frosts' house isn't worth as much as some people orginally thought / claimed, right? And that she very quickly and honestly published that information, right? If she worked for the NYT (you know: as a REAL journalist?), how long do you think it would take for her to publish such evidence damaging to her own position? And do you think it would be front-and-center, or buried back among the classifieds?

Blackmail:

"If we don't pass this bill, Terri Schiavo will die!"

Fact:

"If it weren't for SCHIP, I wouldn't be alive today!"

Which is worse, in your opinion, and why?

Scarshapedstar,

What are you talking about? Did you read what the 12-year old said? He said roughly that the program helped him, and he hoped that others would benefit from an expanded bill.

And what is this about the kid 'attacking' Republicans? By advocating for a program that helped him, he's not 'attacking' Republicans? I'd like to see the logic behind that statement.

I'm still confused at all of those who think it's vital to spend billions in Iraq, but not on increasing coverage to children.

I agree that I think the program shouldn't cover up to 24 years old, and that instead of increasing the percentage of coverage, they should increase the dollar amount to cover more families.

But I am amazed at the amount of people that think that people should be forced to sell their home or car to pay for health coverage, honestly. I'm not sure that SCHIP is the best program, but at least it seems to be a bandaid that's working for our crappy medical coverage.

Several "facts" seem to be lost.

How does one hide behind a child who is merely saying "I benefitted from this program. Others may also."?

If the child was not eligible then it is the government that made the mistake, not the family.

The cost to society is far greater if we require everyone to surrender all of their assets, become bankrupt simply because our health care system is broken.

No one chooses to be born. No one chooses to need health care.

Finally, Malkin creates a straw man that won't debate the issues and facts about this program and then refuses to debate anyone who would be a possible debater because anyone who disagrees with her must be arguing in bad faith.

Destroying defenseless opponents (who have not actually attacked their supposed "opponents") is the only refuge of those who have no spine, values and true belief in their own positions and would rather "create" facts by insinuation.

This is not about a dialog. It's about bullying.

"our crappy medical coverage."

This is where the BIG difference is LnGrrrR----you seem to think this is something that everyone is entitled to.....WHILE MANY DO NOT!

Show me in the constitution where it say's heaLth care coverage must be supplied to the masses.

YOU CAN'T

This is not any longer about helping the poor children.....it's about expanding this program to provide government health care to those that can afford to purchase their own.

I don't think anyone's "entitled" to it, HOWEVER, I do think that it's better for our country as a whole to have affordable health coverage. I don't necessarily think this bill is the best way to cover it, but I think it's ridiculous that people are expecting the Frosts to sell a house and drive around a beater to be able to afford health insurance. America should be able to develop a system where it's not a "Either you buy a house or you have healthcare" option, because it is in America's best interests to do so.

As far as the Constitution, well, there's alot of things it doesn't say in the Constitution. For instance, it doesn't say that churches should be tax-exempt, right? So show me why they don't have to pay taxes just like other businesses. (Frankly, I think is just a bs argument in response to another one. Just pointing out the problem with that argument.)

However, if we want to use quotes, I do remember a certain one, something along the lines of inalienable rights being 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', of which it can be certainly argued that health care probably falls under life. I mean, most right-wing people do believe in a persons right-to-life when it comes to abortion... so why abandon children that are already born due to poor choices made by their parents? Are we to abandon them? I think it's a valid question to ask if children should be punished for mistakes made by their parents, especially if we have the means to do so.

I voted for George Bush in both 2000 and 2004. I believe that government should be restrained and personal responsibility should be the order of the day. In other words, I am a conservative. A Goldwater conservative, to be sure, but a conservative. And I am frightened and appalled at what I have witnessed from conservative bloggers and commentators with regard to the Frost family. They were attacked without having facts or context, not because they had done anything reprehensible, but because they dared to say that a program some on the right despise might actually be a good program. Here are some of the arguments I've seen from right-wing commentators:

Argument: The Frosts live in a palatial house.
Fact: The Frosts bought this house for $55,000 in 1992 when their neighborhood had not yet undergone gentrification and was considered quite dangerous. They have a 2nd mortgage on the house and very little equity. The house has been appraised for tax purposes at $260,000.
Comment: These facts were readily available to anyone who cared to do some real journalistic research. Unfortunately, some right wing (I will not call them conservative, they don't deserve the title)bloggers chose to go with gossip and innuendo rather than facts.

Argument: The Frost children go to a private school which charges $20,000 per child per year.
Fact: The Frost children are on scholarship, and even part of that is paid through special education funds because Graeme and his sister, both of whom were severely injured in an auto accident, need the special education facilities which this school provides. The family pays approximately $500 per child per year.
Comment: These facts were also readily available if anyone had cared to look before smearing the family with false allegations.

Comment: Mr. Frost owns his own business.
Fact: His business has been closed for several years and he takes carpentry projects where and when he can. Mrs. Frost works part-time. Their combined income is between $45,000 and $50,000 for a family of 6.
Comment: This information was also readily available to anyone who wanted to look.

Argument: Graeme Frost was advocating for an increase in SCHIP.
Fact: He was simply telling how the program had helped his family. Note that the Frost family was already eligible for the program even without the expansion.
Comment: The transcript of his remarks has always been available to anyone who really wanted to make a reasoned rebuttal. Apparently, a lot of people simply didn't read it.

Argument: The Democrats are to blame for using a 12-year old boy for political purposes. They should have known he would be attacked.
Fact: This is the most pernicious argument of all. Why are the Democrats to blame for the vicious attacks that have been leveled at this family by the right wing? What these attackers are really saying is that the Democrats are not allowed to do or say anything that contradicts one of the right wing's closely held beliefs, and if the Democrats don't know that, they should.
Comment: Does anyone remember the 9-year old named Noah who traveled around with President Bush talking about Social Security? Or the "snowflake babies"?

Finally, I completely agree with Captain Ed. If we want to argue, let's argue about policy. The Malkins, Limbaughs, and the other right wing attack dogs are wearing very thin with everyone but the members of their devoted echo chamber. Many more performances like this debacle and the 2008 elections may be a disaster for the GOP.

Oh, and one more thing. Does anyone here really know how insurance companies operate? The Frost children have "pre-existing conditions". This means that any insurance their parents might be able to purchase privately for them (neither of the parents has insurance available at their work)is either going to 1)exclude the very conditions, brought on by the auto accident, for which the children most need the insurance, or 2)be ruinously expensive. I pay $450/month for insurance for myself alone, no pre-exisiting conditions, $500 deductible. And that's in a midwestern state where insurance rates are considerably lower than on the east coast. How much do you suppose it would cost for a family of 6 in Baltimore with pre-exisiting conditions?

Beej,

The democrats placed the Frost family in the forefront of their response to Pres. Bush. The reason that the Frosts were chosen is because they are basically a working class white family that had a terrible tragedy affecting their children. The democrats thought that this would help white Americans feel sorry for, and relate to, families on the program. It also served as a shield, in that they could claim that anyone who looked a little deeper at the family would be written off as "heartless."

As mentioned in many posts here (which you ignore to try and score debating points), and also by Capt. Ed, the bottom line is that the program as it currently exists worked for the Frosts. Pres. Bush's proposed plan would not change that. Why didn't the democrats choose as a spokeschild someone who needs insurance, doesn't qualify under the plan as it exists now, but would under the vetoed plan?

There have been many substantial posts on the facts of the new plan, and reasons why it shouldn't be passed as it is currently constituted. But you ignore those posts and arguments to try and score points against those "right wing attack dogs." That doesn't sound very much like a Goldwater conservative to me.

From the speech Frost made:

"I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. "

I'd say that's why the Frosts have been attacked so much.

For Beej:

Fact: The Frost's own a $160,000 commercial building, purchased in 1999, before the accident which created the now pre-existing conditions in 2 children.

Arguement: Prior to the time of the accident, the Frost's apparently made the decision that it made more sense to own and make payments on the commercial property than to pay for their own health care and insurance.

Comment 1: SCHIP allows the taxpayers to basically subsidize the Frost's purchase of commercial property by relieving them of the need to purchase health insurance.

Comment 2:It seems likely, although not certain, that the rentals on the $160,000 commercial building are not included in the $45,000- 50,000 per year income of the Frost's.

Comment 3:Carpenter/woodworker/cabinetmakers at my place of employment make in excess of $15 per hour with benefits. Hard to believe that such work is not available in Baltimore to someone with 15 years experience.

Astounding.
The meanness here knocks be back on my heels.
Let's go over a few things:
Maryland had declared this family eligible for te program. There's nothing shady about it. They make about $45,000 a year, and live in a house that has appreciated a great deal, but it's nothing they can just cash in. The children get scholarships to go to their private school.
I mean, this family seems to be doing everything that conservatives seem to think people should do: work hard, own a house, be married, raise children...
But something awful and unforseen happened to the and they were overwhelmed. They couldn't get by without help. So they got help from the government. Good for them. I happen to think that's one of the government's jobs, to help people when they get a punishing blow from life.
Now, a lot of the conservatives here are harping on things the Frosts didn't do: they didn't get insurance ahead of time; they didn't sell their house and live in a box to pay the bills; they didn't sell the business and take up a new line selling pencils from a tin cup on the corner...
So, sure, I guess they could have done some things better. I'm sure that even a few of you conservatives might have made a mistake now and again in your oh-so-exemplary lives. And if something truly awful ever happens to you, I hope the government will be ready to lend you a hand. I'm glad to live in a society where the government helps people when they need it. I don't begrudge some of my income going to help people less lucky and less well off than I am. Why are you so resentful?
I think a lot of you consevatives here like to think that you have everything together and that you're just on top of everything and you're the models that we should all look to in how to live a productive and useful life. Oh, yes, and everything you have, well, you've gotten it all under your own steam, and conversely, people who are having trouble in life, well, it's all their own fault, so they deserve no sympathy, and certainly no help from anybody else.
Well, whether you want to face up to it or not, a lot of what happens to us in life is not of our own making. Luck takes a big hand in life. Where you were born, where you grew up, what kind of family you had, what color you are, whether you had the bad luck to get in a car wreck, all this stuff makes a difference.
A whole lot of you smug, contemptuous snots here badmouthing a decent family tat had the bad luck to have an awful car wreck, well, if your life's backstory had been changed a little bit here and there, you'd be in no position to look down on the frosts.

Olaf asked:

Why didn't the democrats choose as a spokeschild someone who needs insurance, doesn't qualify under the plan as it exists now, but would under the vetoed plan?

Because 25-year old slackers living with mom and dad who make $85K/year just aren't as sympathetic.

So many commenters have so many of the facts concerning the SCHIP expansion just plain wrong. As far as 400% above the poverty line being the norm - WRONG! That figure applied only to New York state, and it was not a given. The only given was that New York state could apply for a waiver, not that a waiver from the federal government would necessarily be approved. And, where states do apply for waivers to exceed 200% of the federal poverty level (about $42,000 for a family of four), the federal government provides a reduced amount of federal funding, with the state picking up a larger share.

This is also NOT government healthcare. This is a program where states help individuals who meet specified criteria obtain and pay for medical insurance, almost exclusively for children, provided by private insurers, and a portion of the state's cost to do so is refunded. In many states, beneficiaries of this program with household incomes above a certain amount pay a portion of the premiums on a sliding scale.

Given the constant increase in the cost of medical insurance and health care costs, the very modest expansion proposed by the Bush Administration (5 billion over 5 years) would actually have the effect of causing states to have to drop current participants in the program as the years went on and the money had less purchasing power. With the 5 billion the Administation proposed, it would not be possible to newly cover additional poor children without dropping more from the rolls.

As the wife of a small business owner with sixteen employees, I can tell you exactly how much insurance costs - because we pay for it for all of the employees. Is it expensive? Yes it is. Family coverage for a family of four costs approximately $1,450 per month. Is it good coverage? Yes it is. There is a $30 co-pay for all doctor visits and prescription co-pays range from $10 to $45 on covered drugs. However, to keep the premiums affordable, deductibles had to be raised to $2,500 per person/$5,000 family. A trip to the emergency room will turn out to be very, very expensive.

Many, many people have jobs that don't provide such group coverage and it is even more expensive to try to purchase individual coverage. I cannot imagine having a family of four, with an income of less than $42,000 (before payroll, state or federal taxes), trying to shell out over $17,000 annualy for health insurance for a family. I also cannot imagine having no insurance when faced with a hospitalization.

All in all, if forced to make a choice, I'd rather have a few people enrolled that possibly should not be, than have the thousands and thousands of kids truly deserving the coverage the SCHIP program provides not have it available.

Mumphrey Bibblesnæð said:
"A whole lot of you smug, contemptuous snots here badmouthing a decent family tat had the bad luck to have an awful car wreck, well, if your life's backstory had been changed a little bit here and there, you'd be in no position to look down on the frosts."

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. But sometimes people make their own luck. The choice of having insurance when the accident occured, versus owning a commercial building is one way they could have changed their own luck. This is not their home, it is an optional investment asset.

$160,000 building mortgage, with 10% down, and 8.5% interest for 25 years is over 1,100 a month. That would have paid for most or nearly all of a monthly health insurance policy, before the injuries to the children. But they didn't choose that. They chose to purchase commercial real estate.

Do I have sympathy for them, sure. But sympathy is not expressed through government programs. Sympathy is expressed by individual actions.

Luck has a lot to do with life, but there are ways to mitigate luck. Insurance is one of them.

There are alot of conservatives who have overcome bad luck. In my own instance, I sold the first house I bought. But due to the way the market had changed (circa 1987), instead of getting a check at closing, I wrote the check. Significant out of pocket loss for a 27 year old. Compounded by my giving $10,000 to a family member so that her children could continue to eat, after her husband lost his job. My credit cards ended up maxed out and my bank account was flat. But I ate a lot of ramen and mac & cheese for a couple years, put the credit cards away and worked my way out of it.

So don't talk about how mean conservatives are. Or how unaware we are of the vagarities of life. We live in the real world, perhaps more so than those on the left. We may give a hand out when it is asked for, but we object to someone reaching into our pocket and taking what they feel is desired.

What is important in this instance is how well crafted this program is. Whether it is a safety net, or a an enabeling device. The lack of asset testing is obviously a problem with how this program is designed, and I am NOT talking about their home. And perhaps the idea that rentals received are not counted as income for program inslusion.

Lynne,

We don't know that the 42,000 (actually stated as 45,000 - 50,000) is before payroll taxes, in fact, the implication it is not. Self employed people don't generally express their income as the gross, but more normally as the net.

Don't know where you live, but you might want to shop that health insurance plan a bit. Our plan, from BCBS for a family of four or more is $1050/monthly. Deductibles are 2250/4500, no co-pays on drug or doctor visits, all goes towards deductible. Our plan is a little bigger with 66 contracts, and we have an HSA to support the deductible. But markets vary. Good luck!

There are alot of conservatives who have overcome bad luck.

Medical emergencies are the leading cause of bankruptcy, so it seems that a lot of conservatives who have not overcome bad luck. Despite what some would have you believe, argument by anecdote is not in fact argument.

$160,000 building mortgage, with 10% down, and 8.5% interest for 25 years is over 1,100 a month. That would have paid for most or nearly all of a monthly health insurance policy, before the injuries to the children. But they didn't choose that. They chose to purchase commercial real estate.

Would you dismiss the possibility that the availability of S-CHIP influenced their decision? Or did that not occur to you?

I might be more sympathetic to the idea of private insurance if the reality of our current market was not so cruel to people like the Frosts. Most here do not realize that the family was lucky to get an insurance quote at $1200 per month. In many states insurance agencies won't quote a policy at all if you have anything from a growing list of preexisting conditions. If you're born with the wrong genes, good luck with those $15 hospital aspirin pills.

What amazes me the most is how badly this ideological rightwing stance against healthcare reform hurts the small business owner in America. Without the shelter of a massive group plan, the entire operation is one bad fall away from ruin. The pressure to avoid care and hide developing conditions lest the coverage be dropped can be practically unbearable.

The massive risk premium strongly encourages capable and smart people to park themselves in machine cog jobs rather than go without care. America has just as many Jon Galts as always, but too many of them are pushing pencils in a cubicle rather than start the next garage success. The rightwing ideological fixation of privatized healthcare is wrecking the same entrepreneurial spirit that put America on top.

Loren-

I never addressed the Frost family's personal circumstances in my post and my post does not concern their personal circumstances. The $42,000 figure is the 200% of the federal poverty level figure for a family of four that is the most commonly used income qualifer for SCHIP coverage in most states.

To the best of my knowledge, this $42,000 figure the federal government uses is a gross income figure.

Concerning our personal health insurance coverage, we live in the state of Tennessee, and coverage is with Humana. Rates are based on the number of employees in the company and also on the health history of the employees/families within the plan. We have a few that have long term/expensive health problems and one that is looking at needing a lung transplant. Once that happens, watch the rates go up!

Many people don't understand that health insurance operates like any other insurance - prior claims do factor into the cost of renewal premiums. While anyone can be responsible for their own health decisions, when a group is involved, other's health problems have an affect on your premiums. Health problems within the group can also make it difficult to transfer coverage to another carrier. I know - we looked. Every quote was higher (a little or a lot) for coverage benefits no better, and many times much worse.

Also, in group coverage, there are economies of scale. Typically, coverage for 66 employees will be less than for 16 employees on a per-employee scale.

The current cost of health coverage, combined with spiraling health care costs, is a very large problem facing this country and, over the long term, must be addressed in some fashion - Just like the projected long term Social Secuity problem.

Beej,

Pre-existing conditions are covered when you join an employer-sponsored healthplan. Mr. Frost has made a choice to "be the Boss" in his carpentry business. That choice meant no healthcare coverage until the Feds stepped in. Had the feds not stepped in, do you think the Frosts would have let their kids die in order to keep their way of life?

The Frosts still own (and rent out) that second property.

We are talking about policy here. Perhaps some of our assumptions about the Frosts are wrong, but the arguments based on those assumptions are correct, when you think of the policy implications. The biggest is: what will the Feds do to prevent people from abandoning their private insurance coverage if they qualify for SCHIP?

Note the question, and note its implications. Why would someone ever pay for what they can get for "free"?

One liberal commenter has already made that point (that the Frost children are already covered, and therefore the Frosts have no obligation to seek out other medical coverage).

As I've pointed out over and over in my posts, the bill lets "higher income states" let their people with 300%, 400%, 500% +++ of poverty into S-CHIP. They don't have to ask permission any more -- they just have to cover the identical situations under their state programs. All the new SCHIP bill mandates is a study of the effects on the program of allowing this.

None of us want any of the four Frost kids to suffer, or even their parents. But I don't want my family to suffer either, because kids at 200% plus of poverty level are first, then adults at 200% plus, and the next thing you know I'm paying the health costs of another family in addition to mine. Each line is a heartless line to draw, isn't it. Some poor parent who will die and leave only the family mansion to the kids...

So, what we really have here is a bill that incentivizes a state-by-state march to socialized medicine. The states actually have incentives under the bill to get as many people into the program as possible.

I hate tobacco smoke, and I detest people who smoke (my mom died from this foul habit, having smoked from the age of 12, starting in an era where the tobacco companies touted the healthfulness of smoking, and my wife's father, who started at the age of 8, did likewise), even though I understand that it's nearly impossible to quit once you start. But, when we start taxing people who smoke cigarettes for the social costs of something other than their own bad habit, we are stealing their money. The size of the tax is designed to keep people smoking, and to also fund SCHIP. I have real problems with that. All those Senators from tobacco states making sure that we don't go too overboard with taxes to the point where people really stop smoking...

Well, when they've bled the smokers for the kids, whom will they come for next?

Mumphrey wrote:
Maryland had declared this family eligible for te program. There's nothing shady about it. They make about $45,000 a year, and live in a house that has appreciated a great deal, but it's nothing they can just cash in. The children get scholarships to go to their private school.
I mean, this family seems to be doing everything that conservatives seem to think people should do: work hard, own a house, be married, raise children...
Here's the thing. A lot of cross talk has been going back and forth, and people are arguing differnt things. But this family had access to SCHIP. The dems lugged out this family as a test case as to why SCHIP needs to be expanded and then lied about what the presidents intent was. The president did not intend to end S CHIp, so when the little boy said "why is the evil president trying to end this program for the poor kids" thus it became a political attack to ramrod the dems plans for this program through, by using a kid to essentially lie and not be questioned because he was a poor kid and suffered an injury. That' fundamentally dirty pool and dishonest. And this family was brought forward to push forward the drastic expansion of a program for poor kids into a much huger program that effects people who would not be considered poor, using a scheme that is highly dubious (cigarette taxes) to pay for the boondoggle, and again they had to lie about what the intent of the president was and is vis a vis S-CHIP. Namely they insinuated that the program was in jeapordy beucase of the evil conservative and the only solution was to expand it along the lines of what the dems envisioned. Do you not see how fundamentally dishonest that is? So when the dems resort to this trickery you can bet that the other side will attack the dems and call them on it. If the dems are so outraged about the family getting hurt, they shouldn't have tried using them as a political tool.
Now the second issue is, S-CHIP is a program meant for poor kids, so what constitutes poor, and to what degree are people responsible for their own situation and to what degree does the government have to step in and cover for peoples misfortunes and/or mistakes who may or may not be poor. Now, since the dems used this particular family as its test case, and this particular family for example owns not one but two buildings which are assets not normally possessed by poor people, people naturally have questions. Sorry if that sounds scroogeish. How are govt agencies determining who is and who is not eligible for these programs except by asking these exact same questions. Do they qualify? Is that scroogeish to ask when someone is trying to join a program? THen by the same token when someone is determining whether to expand a program and someone brings out a test case to justify the expnsion of a program people will naturally ask questions.
And yes, the family suffered hardship and yes, the family seems to be working (though how hard I'm not sure). But so what? how is that different than everyone else who also has a family and responsibilities.If someone buys a house, they have to then pay the bills or go into foreclosure. Its not the govts job to bail them out if they suddenly lose their job or decide that they'd rather be an artist as opposed to working a full time job.Depending on what you choose it will impact on your life. People are pointing out, in regards to this family, that despite the low salary, things may not be as dire as thought, but in any case, the family needs to prioritize to make sure that they meet their fundamental needs. So when people say, they should sell their house if need to, they don't HAVE to sell their house, but its an option that they can use to get money. Most "poor" people don't have the luxury of owning a 3000 foot home as well as a separate building that they can rent. But families need to find ways to make ends meet. Sometimes that means that one or more parents needs to take second jobs or sell off assets, or not take a vacation. They are responsible for their lives. And when someone is only working intermittently at the very least you can say that that could very well be the cause of the families money woes. If he were to get a second part time job, he wouldn't be the first family member to do so.
If he sold off one of the properties he woudln't be the first to do so. This is commonplace. You pay your bills, if you can't pay your bills you either find a way to pay them, by say working more hours, or a second job, or selling off assets to cover yourself. And I'm sorry, you can't talk about a family on one hand only making 45,000 grand a yaer without brinigng up the fact that both parents are only working part time or intermittenntly.Because the amount of hours worked will directly impact on the amount of money being brough home. if one or more parents doens't want to work full time, then that will be reflected in their bottom line.

What if someone decided to never work and then complained that he was making under 45,000 a year. Should society then bail him out because he's undergoing hardship, which is self induced? (not to say that this family is the same). His being taken care of will come at the cost (through taxes) of people who are working, and who might want to keep more of the money that they earn to take care of their own families needs, and might wonder why, with all the opportunities out there a person feels justified in living their life exactly as they see fit, but then making others pay for their lack of responsible choices.
Would you suggest for example that someone who doesn't work at all should get fulll benefits? After all, whether they refuse to work, or whether they work but aren't making enough money they still will face hardship. If you deny the person not working benefits are you then not acting like the scroogeish, heartless republiacns. if though you say that no matter waht we're going to step in and save you, then we're essentially ceding personal responsibilty to other people and to govt.

Olaf Anderson,

Did I, at any time, advocate for the expansion of the SCHIP program? I don't think so. What I was criticizing was the treatment given to a family. Are you saying that such unsupported attacks are okay? And do you really think that if the Democrats had presented someone who was not presently covered by the program and needed the expansion, that the results would have been any different? Do you think the attack dogs would have backed off? I doubt it very much, and if you are honest with yourself, you will doubt it too. It is my opinion that the right wing attack dogs attack because it garners them an audience, not because they care greatly about the issues.

Loren and unclesmrgol,

Mr. Frost no longer owns his own business(see the article from the Baltimore Sun). He still owns the building valued at $160,000 and has a tenant who pays rent. Do you know how much that rent is? Neither do I. Do you know how much equity he has in the building? Neither do I. Do you know for certain that he did not have insurance at the time of the auto accident 3 years ago? Neither do I. If he did not have insurance 3 years ago, do you know how much he was earning 3 years ago? Neither do I. Until and unless I have the answers to these things that I do not know, I will refrain from viciously attacking the Frosts. Too bad the Malkins and Limbaughs of the world don't do likewise.

One thing is certain about the Frost family. They do, under CURRENT law, qualify for the Maryland version of S-CHIP. There is NO asset test, whether the assets are personal bank accounts, trust accounts, real estate, artwork, jewels or gold bullion. The Frosts had to produce copies of their tax returns to qualify, and the fact that they are in the program is proof enough that they qualify. Having said that, there is a pile of mysterious circumstances in the case. The local taxing authority's summary of the residential property shows two interesting facts. The purchase price they paid for the row home was far less than market price, and was apparently some sort of deal for family or friends. Also, the record showed that the row house was not the family's principal residence. The only easy explanation for that fact is that there is another residence of sufficiently higher valuation somewhere that is the principal (although not actual) residence for tax purposes. Given the location, this might be a country estate or a nice beach house on either Chesapeake Bay or the ocean. Even the ownership of such a property would not make a tap of difference in the family's qualification for S-CHIP, since there is no asset test. But ownership of another residence might significantly affect the public debate, since it would demolish the specter of this young family being forced to live in a hovel or on the streets in order to pay for insurance.

Okay, as far as the business and the commercial building are concerned, much has been made of the claim that Halsey Frost's business was dissolved in 1999. Why then is someone still paying for it to be listed in the Yellow Pages? Perhaps the full incorporation was dropped, but the business not really ended? How much of the commercial building is rented? Is there a possibility that space and zoning considerations would allow a truly desperate family to reside there? And why did Halsey buy a commercial building in the same year that he dissolved his business.

The remodel of the kitchen has been attacked as an extravagance. Technically, there was nothing wrong with it, even with an expensive countertop and glass cabinet doors. The family defended itself by saying that the countertops were concrete, rather than granite. That is specious. The concrete countertops are still much more expensive than the Formica ones I'm surviving with. The family claims that that kitchen work was done as part of an effort to modify the row house for their disabled children. Again, what they did was legal, but the facts won't garner much sympathy. I fail to see how pricey countertops and cabinets assist disabled people. I have relatives who have had to modify their homes for disabled family members, both children and seniors, and the Frost remodel still puzzles me.

Anyone who has had to deal with the aftermath of a family disaster knows that it can be difficult to maintain full work schedules, especially when that disaster leaves family members needing more care. So I can be sympathetic with the Frosts on that score. But there is a nagging suspicion that the family may not have been extraordinarily ambitious before the accident.

I wish the Frost family peace and healing, but Halsey and Bonnie, activist Democrats, made the decision to put forth their son as a spokesman (with a speech scripted by Democratic senate staffers) in an effort to greatly expand a social welfare program that has serious implications for the future of this country. Despite the howling, I see very little nasty attacking of the family. Most of what has been written was fair investigation and speculation that was to be expected.

And, of course, attacking the Frosts proves, uncontrovertably, that the SCHIP program is a bad piece of legislation. Captain Ed, I don't think anyone got the point of your post.