Question for grown-ups: Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?
This question is for grown-ups only: Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?
What if I told you I drove these three cars (photos are showroom models):
A Volvo SUV…
A GMC Suburban…
And a nice, big Ford F250 Pickup work truck…
And what if I told you, further, that I owned a large home and commercial property worth at least $400,000 in total–property for which I paid a total of $215,000?
And what if I told you, in addition, that I was resourceful enough to cobble together financing (through scholarships and other means) for private school education for four children?
And what if I told you that neither I nor my spouse were employed full-time–one of us working “intermittently” and the other “part-time”?
Would you consider my family “exactly the kind” and “precisely the type” of family that should benefit from S-CHIP, the government-subsidized health insurance program intended for the “working poor?”
I received an unsolicited e-mail this week from a neighbor of the Frost family, the family held up by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the entitlement expansionist Democrats. He wrote:
They’re good people. Terribly misguided, pathetically leftist buffoons, but still good people. It was a terrible accident and Bonnie is quite beat up with guilt over the events. Lots of neighbors pitched in to cook meals and help out… Bonnie works half time doing freelance editorial work and Halsey, an incredibly disorganized lovable goofball, just can’t seem to hold down a proper job or, when he’s tried, to run a proper company. He’s a millwork carpenter and does great work installing custom interior and exterior trimwork and cabinetry. He should be making great money but can’t get out of his way…
…Still, we make choices, right? They have three vehicles - a nice new volvo SUV, a Suburban, and his F250 Ford Pickup work truck, a nice house, and all four kids go to private school. Not sure where the money comes from, but they don’t make all that much. Should they be the poster child for S-CHIP? Heck no….
In the infantilized world of liberals, it is “sliming a child” to ask a “meanie” question that cuts to the core of the supposed differences between the two major political parties:
Who deserves government-subsidized health insurance?
Are Democrats capable of putting down the human shields and answering the question?
And what about Republicans?
Who represents the truly needy?
Who represents the taxpayers, the future generations, who would be forced to send their hard-earned money to fund a massive, middle-class entitlement expansion?
I’ll repeat what I said three days ago:
If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.
***
More:
- The House veto override vote is scheduled for Oct. 18. Democrats are looking for 15 GOP ship-jumpers. The pressure is on. Is your voice getting heard?
- Contrary to the liars in the left-wing blogosphere, you will not find one negative, ad hominem word about the Frost children written by me on this blog. Try and find one. Quote it. Show me. It has never been about “sliming” the children. By contrast, Jon Henke exposes the disgusting filth leveled at a 9-year-old boy who lobbied for Social Security reform:
I also note with some amusement that Lefties defend their initial use of the kid by pointing out that Republicans brought out a kid to help sell the Social Security in 2005. Joan Walsh claims “Atrios notes that nobody went after nine-year-old Noah McCullough when Bush made him a poster boy for privatizing Social Security.”
Well, funny you bring that up, because that’s not the way I recall it. There was…
* Jesus’ General and TBogg, who made sexual references to the kid…
* Kewpie, who called him “a budding young fascist” and “dumb”…
* DadaHead, who said the kid was “in desperate need of a good ass-kicking…”
* Democratic Underground, where commenters wrote quite a lot of things that I don’t care to reprint…
* Salon’s What Would Dick Think, Daily Kos and Atrios, who called the kid “Cousin Oliver”
* And, at Ezra Klein’s own blog, Melissa McEwan said his appearance was “indicative of a desperation reserved for policy proposals that are ready for the graveyard”…But other than that, they didn’t go after him at all.
- Paul Krugman’s hysterical op-ed today is rife with errors and distortions, but this is the most blatant:
The parents have a combined income of about $45,000, and don’t receive health insurance from employers. When they looked into buying insurance on their own before the accident, they found that it would cost $1,200 a month — a prohibitive sum given their income. After the accident, when their children needed expensive care, they couldn’t get insurance at any price.
Where did Krugman get his information?
In fact, the $1,200 figure that the Frosts cited is the purported cost Bonnie Frost says she found after the accident. That’s what she told the Baltimore Sun. Did she tell Krugman otherwise?
FYI, Golden Rule Insurance currently offers a plan for a healthy Baltimore family of 6 for $190 to $423 per month depending on the plan. Once again, of course, the Left will decry the high cost of insurance for consumers trying to get it after a catastrophic event.
Once again, they will ignore the fundamental
concept of how insurance is supposed to work. I repeat again:
If you don’t buy it before you need it, you shouldn’t be shocked if it’s difficult to impossible to get after you need it.
It’s elementary.
- Grown-up Paul Mirengoff responds to E.J. Dionne’s childish column.
***
Update 12:15am Eastern 10/13: The Wall Street Journal editorial board, last seen attacking conservatives who opposed shamnesty, now sneers at “conservative bloggers” and “the Internet mob” for questioning the Democrats’ S-CHIP poster family’s financial status:
After the Schip veto, Democrats chose a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost to deliver a two-minute rebuttal. While that was a political stunt, the Washington habit of employing “poster children” is hardly new. But the Internet mob leapt to some dubious conclusions and claimed the Frost kids shouldn’t have been on Schip in the first place. As it turns out, they belonged to just the sort of family that a modest Schip is supposed to help.
“Just the sort of family,” eh? Yes, the WSJ’s animosity towards the blogosphere runs so deep it would rather recycle Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s talking points than concede anything to the “Internet mob.”
To review quickly: We are now “meanies,” “hypocrites,” “slimers,” and “mobsters” for challenging the wisdom of taking money away from taxpayers of lesser means who are responsible enough to buy insurance before a catastrophic event in order to subsidize two-property, three-car families with four children in private schools and two parents who work “intermittently” and “part-time” who didn’t have the foresight or priorities to purchase insurance before a tragic auto accident.
And they call our conclusions “dubious?”
Update 7:45pm Eastern. BitsBlog wonders:
I’d like to know how in the wide wide world of sports they’re managing to pay for all of this on $45k of income. There are only three possible answers: They’re not paying it on that income because they’re getting a good deal of unreported income which allows them to support this lifestyle…. else/and they are hyper-extended, credit-wise, and thereby essentially unprepared for ANY emergency. In any of these cases, there is very serious question about using these people as a poster for government takeover of health care.
If in fact the Frosts are emblematic of the type of family the Democrats think are deserving of healthcare paid for with MY money, we as a nation have bigger problems than we’re going to be able to solve by throwing your money and mine at it. We have a problem centering on honesty and responsibility.
Grown-up meanie Mark Steyn boils it down: “…a two-property three-car family does not demonstrate the need for entitlement expansion.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Ants and Grasshoppers « Bookworm Room
- Riehl World View
- The Mahablog » Good SCHIP
- Michelle is 100% right, and that’s why we need to move to a universal regime « Cowardly political musings…
- Pile of Krug [Dan Collins]
- Riehl World View
- and more on SCHIP | Blog and News Tidbets
- Wake up America-Numbers-tell Reps to Uphold Veto
- Phone Numbers toTell Your Reps to Uphold The President’s Veto on SCHIP at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.
- Wizbang
- Flopping Aces
- Lost In A Sea Of Hate « his vorpal sword
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » The Krug report
- How much unreported income? | BitsBlog
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » Frosty the SCHIPman
- Blue Crab Boulevard » Where Do You Draw The Line?
- race42008.com » Blog Archive » Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads
- Deserving Welfare « The Van Der Galiën Gazette
- Black Shards, In Your Eyes, Blinding » Deserving Welfare
- The Baltimore Reporter
- Right Wing News
- Hard Starboard
- BizzyBlog » WSJ Takes Yet Another Uncalled for, and Unsupported, Swipe at Conservative Blogosphere
- Riehl World View
- The John Galt Line
- Grizzly Groundswell » Blog Archive » Phone Numbers to Tell Your Reps to Uphold The President’s Veto on SCHIP
- Ed Driscoll.com
- Let’s talk SCHIP « catscratchins
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Leftwing bloggers’ “ethical boundaries”
- enormous iNCoNgrUiTieS » Blog Archive » If anyone deserves anything, I do!
- Michelle Malkin » Joy-less Behar’s health care analysis
- InsureBlog
- Caught Abusing A Crippled Child, Explains “He DESERVED IT!” « his vorpal sword
- The City Square
- Michelle Malkin » S-CHIP and the Democrats’ human shield campaign
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Politico misreports the Frost fracas
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » “Question for Grown-Ups: Who Deserves Government-Subsidized Health Insurance?” by Michelle Malkin
- JABbering Stooge :: S-CHIP veto stands - Dems to fold like lawn chairs :: October :: 2007
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Quote Of The Day: ‘McCain Was on Wrong Side of Vietnam War’
- Michelle Malkin » Car wars
- Swift-Boating Tumulty « Bilby’s
- Michelle Malkin » Meet a left-wing housing entitlement thug
- Michelle Malkin » It depends on the meaning of “working poor”
- Michelle Malkin » Document drop: The “Accountable America” warning letter targeting GOP donors
- Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Months Because Families Were Dropping Private Coverage So Their Children Would Be Eligible For The Subsidized Plan | Right Voices
- Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Months Because Families Were Dropping Private Coverage So Their Children Would Be Eligible For The Subsidized Plan | Right Voices
sounds like some kind of threat or punishment…
The dishonesty, hypocrisy and sheer nastiness on the left is just beyond comprehension. Democrats should be proud. It’s your Party, boys and girls, and to sit quietly while this kind of behavior occurs (or worse, defend it), and vote for pols who pander to it, makes you complicit.
Wow.
Our combined income is a third less than the Frost’s reported $45k/year, we drive one car - a 2002 Kia Rio - because it’s what I had when got married, it’s paid off, and it’s what we can afford. It’s a cramped ride, especially with a stroller and car seat and other necessary items (groceries, etc.).
We don’t own a home because we can’t afford it.
My son probably won’t be going to private school unless we can get scholarships.
We both work full time.
I could increase my income significantly - by $800/month - if I chose to drop my insurance.
But I keep it. Because it’s the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. It was the first thing I signed up for when I got this job and these benefits.
I won’t give it up until we have another plan in place. And I’m currently shopping around for lower rates and decent coverage.
My points are this:
1. Democrats, if you’re going to hold up a child as an example, take a good hard look at the WHOLE family and its finances before bestowing the title of Absolute Moral Authority on the kid. We have every right to know where our tax dollars are going and if you’re spending them on families for whom SCHIP was not intended.
2. How difficult is it for people to understand the simple concepts of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and CHOICE? See the CHOICES the family’s made. They have three cars - sell one or two and they’d probably get enough to get at least some insurance coverage.
3. SCHIP should come with strict financial guidelines, and proof of income needs to be investigated before a family is approved for coverage. Period. I would accept this to include financial counseling/education for families who don’t know how to manage their money.
This is great work, MM. Keep it up.
Where is a list of the weak kneed Republicans?
I’m so tired of hearing about the 50 million people who don’t have health insurance. You’ll notice that you never hear the left say ‘The 50 million people who can’t AFFORD health insurance.’
If you subtract the people who CHOOSE not to purchase insurance, the illegal immigrants, and those who could afford it if they sold the SUV and bought a Geo, I’m sure that number would be significantly less.
I’m tired of people who’ve never done anything for their country expecting their country to do everything for them! (While the rest of us pay for it.)
so I have the right to choose whether or not to kill my unborn child but I don’t have the right to choose which health insurance plan will cover the abortion?
We had a similar incident here in Wisconsin. A democratic legislator spent tons of cash getting elected but did not have her family covered by insurance. Her son then came down with appendicitis and they got hit with large medical bills.
When their messed up priorities were noted the reaction was the same. Oh you meanies!
As a family of ONE, I make more than they do and live in a less expensive state.
I only have 1 car. I want a motorcycle.
Maybe these good people could make more money by telling others how to get things that they can’t afford! They could spin-off from “Ask Lesko!” who sells a book on where to get government loans.
Trouble is - the left wants actions with no consequences. Those on the right understand this concept. The left somehow thinks they are smart enough to overcome this basic life “fact”. Actions DO have consequences - and for what it’s worth, it applies just as well in the sciences as in morals. In fact, I’m kinda hard pressed to think of a case where it doesn’t apply.
Nobody, and I’m far poorer than the S-CHIP of fools family. Then again, I don’t care much if I get sick (and the Paul-nuts now wish I would keel over).
I am astounded by the left’s use of lies and distortions to promote their agenda. Time and again I see these stories. I wonder if America believes them, or, if we really are smarter than “that”. I guess we’ll see when the election comes around.
But, I sure get flustered over the lack of response by our so-called “conservative leaders”.
Very deflating at times.
At the risk of starting a flame war, which is not the intent here I need to invoke the image a certain blonde lawyer with a rapier style wit who in a previous book pointed out this exact tactic favored by the liberals. Trot out somebody who can play the victim card, arm them with the shield of some sort of victimhood. You know like mother of slain soldier, veteran status, yes liberals view vets as victims not heroes, and then instead of assaulting the message do a bunch of hand wringing and teeth gnashing while out the other side of their mouth attempt to smear viciously anybody who dares raise a question.
I feel for the family, simply because they could not have known what a firestorm this would cause but to quote somebody smarter then me “Actions have consequences”. Once the far left gets a hold of you to use as a stage prop you are no more then a disposable lighter to them. Something to be used up and thrown away.
Funny though - I bet they have insurance on the cars and house. In many states, you can’t even register the vehicles w/o insurance.
Also - last I checked, two adults -> two drivers. Three vehicles is one extra depreciating, costing insurance etc which isn’t even being used.
Back when I was temp and didn’t get benefits, I was on Golden Rule for three years. It was actually pretty decent insurance and quite inexpensive.
Just a Grunt: Gotta agree - however a small point. I think they could have and should have known what a firestorm would ensue. It’s not like it’s the first time somebody has been trotted out and then wish they had remained invisible. Your first paragraph details it exactly.
As usual, when the left gets caught in a whopper, they spin and twist the truth to attempt to demonize the messenger.
The only “attack” I have seen was the vehement objection to using a child to pander for their cause. Let’s face it, what they did with this child is no different than a parent sending a child out onto the street to panhandle for them. They exploited this child, and it is my belief that such exploitation falls into the category of child abuse.
The second line of “attack” was pointing out that the example the left chose as the flag bearer for their cause was not quite what they would have people believe. The family would not, by any measure, fit the definition of “working poor”. If you choose to limit your income and suppress your earning potential for whatever reason, you have put yourself in that situation. You have made a personal decision.
I find it ironic that in divorce and custody cases, the left has managed to wedge a concept in there known as “suppression of income”. Your payments to your ex or your child support payments are based not on what you earn, but on what the court thinks you should earn. If you lose a high paying job and can only find another paying less than your former position, your obligations will be based on the higher income, since that is your earning potential.
Why are there different standards for determination levels in redistribution of wealth schemes? Especially when both schemes use the mantra of “what is best for the children” as their primary goal?
One difference is that one method is a backdoor to socialized care, which for some reason the left just can’t seem to get through the front door. Let’s be realistic here - the goal on the health care issue has nothing to do with the best interests of children. That is merely the heart-tugging cover for government control of medical care.
I have a feeling there must be a fairly large insurance settlement or lawsuit of some kind providing this family money, because I can’t believe they could make ends meet based on their income and lifestyle. If you really think about it, $45,000 income, 4 kids, 3 vehicles, house payment plus that other building they own,
insurance and taxes on the vehicles and properties, and then the normal groceries, etc. Doesn’t add up in Kansas and I know that part of the country is more expensive.
The left is like people with ADD. They get all hysterical about something but when their lies and mistruths are pointed out to them they don’t care because they have already moved on to something else. I’m sure that with Gore’s win global warming will be back on the menu
Until these politicians start enforcing the current laws on the books they hold no water with me. Who for the love of pete would keep this in any kind of order and not have any fraud? answer no-one it would be a disaster.
Does anyone know how they get that $45k figure? Is that their after tax take home?Is that their total gross income? Or an AGI after they deduct the business expenses, which at least includes one if not two of those car payments, etc. etc. I would bet it is the adjusted. There is just no way you can have that level of material possessions and have gross earnings of $45k.
The only way to win this debate politically is to scream at the top of our lungs, CORRUPTION, because that is what an expansion of SCHIP will bring. We need to be cut throat and hold the Frost’s up for the frauds that they are. Michelle is doing a wonderful job, however it is going to do little if all the noise is from the right blogosphere. Boehner, Cantor, et al, need to show some cajones and get cut throat about this themselves. Don’t be afraid to be labeled as mean by the MSM. This family is the poster child for the waste and curruption that bloated government programs ultimately lead to but our Reps need to make this case. They can’t let Michelle make it for them. Here is how I saw the situation…
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/schip-for-trust-fund-babies.html
steveguy…thank you. NOBODY
Yup,
- I own no home (which is not uncommon here in the bay area with the ave price of a home in the $600K’s and a needed combined mean income to afford that at $165K)
- I drive a used honda
-Financee drives a used beat up toyota pick up (which oddly enough we were looking to replace with one of these new cars but now we are looking for ones a couple of years older…).
The kicker is we COULD afford a new car, but it would be a little tight. What if one of us lost our jobs???
But;
we have renters insurance
car insurance
health insurance
HECK we even have pet insurance on our dog because I could never forgive myself if I could not give her the best treatment if an accident happend.
MY DOG. I had enough forsight to buy insurnace on my DOG….and they were buying new cars while their kids were without health insurance….!!!!
#%$^%$%$ I am sorry, this makes me mad. THESE ARE THEIR CHILDREN!!!!
Being somewhat of a cynic I tend to think this is a family who has figured out exactly what income they can stay at and still receive the benefits from the nanny state. If they made anymore some of those “scholarships” for the private schools and whatever financing deals they have on the cars and the home and business might fall through. I don’t mean to have every aspect of their finances looked at but something tells me he gets a break on repaying the loan for the building his business occupies and in turn uses the business on his income taxes to claim a loss. The vehicles are probably leased, using both the business and his personal names.
All of that is pure conjecture but I can see some creative financing going on.
On the other hand maybe they have just figured out how to make 45K go further then the rest of us and I wish they would share that knowledge.
I wonder cRus. With a serious accident you’d think insurance would have paid a bundle for the kids’ injuries. Maybe that’s how they make ends meet, though Michelle pointed out yesterday the Grandparents are not poor. Since they don’t have to show assets, if insurance did pay them, they wouldn’t have to disclose it.
The lies (not thr Frost’s, the Left’s) really stick. The talking points are that the right is attacking the kids which is false.
Oops, reall stink not stick. they would like them to stick…
Of course they figured out how to have 45k go further - Have you pay for some of the consumption. And to think, (quoting Walter Williams), I bet you never got a thank you note from them for paying their health insurance.
Slightly OT - I mentioned “talking points”. Some of you may not know that they schedule giant conference calls, where politicians’ aides hammer out the details of how they will attack their opponents. I once witnessed one such call by a Democratic staffer which lasted hours - he burned through two cell phones. So when every lib publication and politician says the right is attacking a 12 year old, it’s no accident, they have chosen to make this false claim.
I’m getting tired of Congress telling me I have to pay for other people’s mistakes, missteps and corruption. My husband makes a good enough living so that I can stay home with our 4 kids but he and I both worked extremely hard to get to where we are today and we have the school loans to prove it! Why should I be subsidizing someone who decided they didn’t want to put forth that effort and who don’t want to take responsibility for themselves and their actions (or lack thereof). A favorite saying of mine that seems to fit this situation very well is this…”Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an automatic emergency on mine”. That’s what this all boils down to…lack of personal responsibility for the situation people find themselves in…
I just checked, Maryland does require auto insurance. Further, if they are leased vehicles, they would have to be insured there too (at least I don’t know of any lease companies that would allow the vehicle to be uninsured)
Krugman also said this-
“I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.”
Anyone disagree?
It’s called living within your means. Something the Democrats don’t know anything about. They live off everyone elses means! Twerps! Krugman need a lobodomy, oh sorry, seems he’s already had one.
Just a quick observation, especially if they are leased (or not bought outright) the lessor or lender usually requires low deductible options on the physical damage insurance to protect their assets. Especially high premiums on new cars for this coverage.
Samiam -
Very good point. Many people who are “well-off” made sacrifices and plans to get there. My wife and I both work, but the plan is for her to stay home when we have children. That is possible because I am an attorney and can make a high enough salary to support that. However, I am only able to do so because I have student loan debt equal to mortgage. But people don’t see that.
Let’s face it, this whole SCHIP incident is just another step that the Democrats are trying to get us towards socialized medicine. And while I feel really bad for the Frost family in regards to their accident, how exactly are they affording 3 relatively expensive cars? For 2 people? Michelle hits the head directly on the nail: is this the type of family that SCHIP was designed for?
I’ll answer that question: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!
Life is about choices, and quite obviously the Frost family made the choice not to get medical insurance. So let them live with that choice! I choose to work at a job where I’m offered decent medical insurance. Sure, I could probably work as a contractor and then have to get insurance on my own, but I CHOOSE not to do that.
Maryland auto insurance laws
Maryland auto insurance laws require that every driver carry auto liability insurance. This coverage helps insure you against the cost of injury and damage you cause to someone else in an auto accident.
Maryland auto insurance laws require liability coverage of 20/40/15. (That’s $20,000 per person for injuries you cause to the other party, up to $40,000 total, and $15,000 for any damage that you cause to the other driver’s car and/or property.)
Maryland auto insurance laws also require that you purchase uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages, which help cover your expenses should you be in an accident with a driver with inadequate liability coverage. The required minimum on this coverage is also 20/40/15 ($20,000 for injuries per person, up to $40,000 total, and $15,000 for property damage).
Finally, Maryland auto insurance laws require that all drivers purchase a minimum of $2,500 in personal injury protection (or PIP). This coverage will help reimburse you for medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who was at fault in an accident.
Drivers with good health insurance policies may wish to waive this coverage to earn a lower premium. However, most health plans will not cover loss of wages or the cost of any passenger injuries.
Maryland auto insurance companies will also offer optional coverages such as collision and comprehensive.
Now the 2500 for medical probably went in the emergency room costs alone , but usually jumping that up to 20k or even 100k per injury only adds a small percentage to the combined insurance bill.
Michelle, you have to pay extra for Krugman on line - cut it out will ya?
cRus, very interesting. Maybe I’ll Google and see if there is any news about the accident.
Some good stuff from the Washington Post- anyone want to take these points on?
“Most conservatives favor government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school, but here they turn around and criticize him for . . . attending a private school. Federal money for private schools but not for health insurance? What’s the logic here?
Conservatives endlessly praise risk-taking by entrepreneurs and would give big tax cuts to those who are most successful. But if a small-business person is struggling, he shouldn’t even think about applying for SCHIP.
Conservatives who want to repeal the estate tax on large fortunes have cited stories — most of them don’t check out — about farmers having to sell their farms to pay inheritance taxes. But the implication of these attacks on the Frosts is that they are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?
Oh, yes, and conservatives tell us how much they love homeownership, and then assail the Frosts for having the nerve to own a home. I suppose they should have to sell that, too.”
This all makes a great case for Asset testing to qualify for Gov’t programs, but I can hear the ‘Loophole Lawyers’ Brains working overtime when we do.
This video pretty much sums it up:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt0c6_snldontbuystuff
Heartland
Just a slight correction based on the interviews given by the Frost family to the Baltimore Sun.
The refinanced the house in 2005 to modify the house for the injured children.
The still are paying a mortgage on the commercial building.
So two mortgages and three vehicles with insurance and car loans / lease fees to pay also.
That is unless they popped for the vehicles from the proceeds of the refinance.
The SUV was likely partially funded by the insurance settlement for the vehicle presumed totaled in the accident that injured the children.
When you look at that plus likely house insurance and that would seem to eat up nearly all their income to start with.
Also according to them the business Frost ran was shut down the same year they bought the building, so the idea of making a lot of this through deductible business expenses makes that out the window.
Any way you cut it now , they are trapped in the system, since if they increase their income they get thrown off the system and would really put them in a deeper bind and harm the welfare of the children.
The bottom line here is that only 3 states have asset tests included in their program implementation.
The rewrite of the bill if the veto is not overwritten should address that aspect of requirements for program implementation.
Leave the Frosts alone!!!
Seriously though, I am not an ATM.
My husband and I make a decent living. As soon as we have kids and if we can afford it, I will be a stay-at-home mom.
This is what we are planning to do. If things don’t work out that way, well, we’ll go back to the drawing board.
Government bailout, where have I heard that before… irresponsible pricks.
Michelle’s research is once again flawless and very well documented. Perhaps it would be a good idea for people to read her analysis before attacking her for swiftboating a 12 year old. Michelle has effectively addressed the real issue here but so few people want to do that and even fewer want to put the effort into doing the research because they are too intellectually and ethically lazy(Hillary, et al). It is easier for them to fly off of the handle letting their emotions take them on a trip slinging false accusations and libel along the way. Michelle, please do not be sidetracked by the nay-sayers and mud-slingers. Keep going!
Michelle, it’s a little unclear to me what you’re saying when you say “if you don’t buy it before you need it, you shouldn’t be shocked if it’s difficult to impossible to get after you need it.”
Does this mean that when kids of parents who mess up and don’t buy insurance shouldn’t get any help after something catastrophic happens, as sort of a way to punish the parents by forcing them to watch their kids suffer? How do you want this important lesson about insurance to be taught in real life?
Without assets being taken into account the system is a joke.
For me this year is a perfect example.
I am a registered profession day trader.
However I have not traded all year on advice from my doctors after having heart issues last year and being recommended to stay away from the stress.
My income this year will be in the above seven figures before the decimal point because of my investments in all tax free instruments. A mix of Tbills and municipal bonds.
I own three houses and a couple of condos all for personal use with no rental income.
I own a 40 foot sailboat and two airplanes and have a lot of money in the bank and CD’s.
Yet because all of this year I will be reporting zero earned income for tax purposes I would be eligible for my son to be insured under SCHIP.
Something definitely is wrong with that picture.
I’m a low-income single mother living in Michigan, late 40’s, alone for the first time in my adult life with a family to support.
I have not been able to find work due to the practical limitations of poverty, lack of public transportation, and the high unemployment rate where I live.
Last year I earned just over $17,000 total (child and spousal support included). I managed to pay my mortgage every month and keep the utilities on… but thats’ about it.
I receive no financial assistance from the state because I receive child support payments, but I do receive $30.00 in food stamps every week to feed a family of three, and Medicaid so that I can maintain my high blood pressure.
I was attacked on a local forum a couple of weeks ago by a group of self-described “working poor” folks, who made it clear that if they had their way they would deny my children and I any kind of temporary public assistance whatsoever because I am (in their words) lazy, good-for-nothing “non-working poor”. They were using words like “freeloader”, “welfare whore”, and “breeder” to make their point.
One of these attackers was a woman who makes over $40,000 per year. She was crying about being “working poor” and having to go without healthcare benefits so that she could “pay for mine”.
It’s really amazing, how some ignorant and self-entitled people define the word “poor”.
A person who makes over $40,000 annually is not wealthy, but he is not “poor” by any stretch of the imagination. There are far too many people in this income bracket and even higher, who would deny truly poor and needy folks in their community their temporary benefits for a chance to to suck off the government teat. And they are furious, because they can’t have a crack at it.
The arguement over a middle-class entitlement expansion is nothing but an excercise in class warfare.
I suggested to those posters with a hint of sarcasm, that perhaps the government should consider killing off the truly poor - the disabled, the displaced, the homeless and the chronically ill (starve them, and cut off their heat and water supply) to save money and be able to finance this expansion.
Two people immediately agreed with this idea and suggested that it would be an intelligent way to start to the process.
I asked them if they were serious, and they both stated that they were.
#45
Agreed. Should the children then NOT have been taken care of? There should be NO outlet for them?
Rush brought up a very clarifying point today -
The Dems hoisted this 12 year old boy who read his pre-written lines about how the President doesn’t want to cover, through S-Chip, kids like him.
BUT - the S-Chip program, as it currently stands - DOES cover kids like him - it’s how he got his bills paid!
The President doesn’t want to EXPAND S-Chip - but only wants to cover more lower-income children by a 4 billion expansion as opposed to the greater amount of $$ being proposed by the Dems.
As Rush said - the Politicians should be making these kids poster children of how the S-Chip program works - INSTEAD - they seize the opportunity to falsely portray the President’s proposal.
Michelle, your message above is as clear as a bell. Even a caveman could grasp your point… I guess that doesn’t say much for “progressives and liberals”, does it?
freebiebabe,
Same situation as you (without the pets or fiance). Living in the Bay Area, no home (single and not making over $100K per year - can’t afford one), have renters, health, auto insurance, could get a new vehicle, but enjoy the fact that mine is paid off so I’m saving the extra money. And I choose to live with a roommate to save even more money though I could fire myself into a better apartment alone.
Choices - you live with the consequences.
First, englishqueen01, you should be taking advantage of any program the government offers. You are exactly the kind of person for whom those programs were designed. I mean, the government took our tax money to build roads; we might as well drive on them.
Second, be nice to Irish Rose. I get the impression that no one really understands wealth and class issues. From the Wall Street Journal:
The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service…The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income…
Most of us will never be wealthy. Most of us will only get by.
Go to the bus station and buy a ticket(s) for anywhere in the south. Most portions of the south are growing economically and not suffering from a lot of what is happening in other parts of the country. I know that is easier said then done but I am very sure your situation would change for the better.
And no I don’t work for the chamber of commerce.
Here is an example of what blog posters on the left are saying about Dems who voted against the SCHIP bill.
Captain Howdy: Yes that is exactly what it means. You get insurance BEFORE you need it.
The concept of insurance is called RISK SHARING. We all “pool” some money aside (ie. send it to the insurance company) so that if any of us has a “covered condition” there is money there to cover the expense. If you don’t like the insurance company in the middle, it’s simple. Get 100 (or 1000) of your friends, figure out how much on average you’ll spend in medical care. Each of you then put that amount in a fund. If any of you gets ill - there is money there. Now - how would you behave if somebody came in and said - oh I’m sick already. How much would you charge them to join your program?
Let’s not foget what drives a large share of the health care costs in this country - illegal immigrants.
Several hospitals in California have been forced to shut down because the cost of care they provide to illegals could not be recovered from other sources. In Dallas, TX, roughly 3 out of every 4 babies born in public hospitals are born to women here illegally.
Someone has to cover those expenses, and that “someone” is the US taxpayer.
#55
I just want to confirm your post by asking if you are going on record as saying that yes, the kids should NOT have been taken care of, due to the lack of insurance at the time of the accident. That, in your view, the punishment for a parent not getting insurance, for whatever reason, is to have your children manage after an accident without ANY medical care.
Is that indeed what you are saying?
#52 - you in insurance/risk?
this pool you are speaking of is certainly a possiblity. many companies participate in it (safeway, disney), but I would be careful about certain state regulations etc.
if your “captive” starts making money, etc…there are certain “tax” consequences that may apply. ALso, via the claims payments need to be addressed by an outside third party..etc.
It is a great idea, and it is used, but it usually (in California any way) is a little more complex to put together then just 1,2,3. But I am all for giving insurance companies a run for their money. Next in line would be the attornies….NO FAULT AUTO COVERAGE.
I can’t figure out how them family can afford to eat, pay two mortgages, have 3 vehicle payments with insurance (required by most state laws), pay for private school for 4 children, and pay utilities on only $45K a year. It does not add up.
I do feel terrible for the family’s tragedy, but they appear to already be covered by S-CHIP (unless I’m wrong, wouldn’t be the first time). How does expanding this program to folks that make 4 times the poverty rate, are over 18, or illegally in the country hurt this family? This also does not add up.
If this was an auto accident their auto insurance should take care of the medical bills—or don’t they have that either?
It doesn’t add up - Boomer - and that is the true point.
This family is already covered by S-Chip, therefore, as it relates to S-chip - this family is a success story - not one to hold out as a failure.
But the Dems have their poster children - even if it’s for the wrong reasons.
The proposed EXPANSION is the true story - and it has nothing to do with these folks. If they showed the people that WOULD be covered if they expand it - they’d be laughed at for their absurdity.
Also - just wondering - as Deadeye noted in regards to this being an auto-accident and having auto-insurance pay for it:
Does anyone know who was at fault in this accident - and if it was the other driver - why not sue them for any expenses if you’re not covered?
Not clear on the scenario of the accident but limits get exhausted in big accidents especially if you are carrying minimum liability. If it was another drivers fault, their insurance would pay…but again, if that driver was only carrying the minimum limits that would go quick.
Always best to do your part to buy the max liability limits, medical/pip. Also, if you have a homeowners policy (unfotunately, does not apply to renters) you can purchase an umbrella on top of the auto policy (and homeowners liability). also to be sure to have UNDERINSURED motorist coverage, so your policy will kick in if the other persons policy was inadequate to cover.
Bottom line, most people will only buy the state minimum. And state minumums, honestly, don’t give you that much protection.
The accident was a single vehicle accident.
The mother was driving and hit Black Ice and lost control of the vehicle and slammed into a tree.
The reports of the accident say that the daughter suffered her injuries from hitting a window and the son hit his head on the tree the mother ended up running into.
Makes you wonder if the kids had seat belts on to have this happen.
I think a parent that does not take the responsibility of carrying health insurance on thei children are guilty of child neglect. It means they more than likely are not getting regular check-ups for their children as well as using it as an excuse to not have them seen and treated until illnesses and injuries have progressed farther than they should causing needless suffering for the child. As a paramedic, I have seen first hand this exact thing in households with huge tv’s, video game consoles, expensive cars, expensive clothes and furniture etc.
People do have a choice, but people repeatedly make a choice for creature comforts rather than making responsible choices in concerns about their children. There are plenty of excuses such as, “Well, my kids have always been healthy, so I never thought we needed it”. never once thinking that feces happens.
Ever come home, park your car in the driveway and the car is working fine, then the next morning go out, get in the car and it is not working? Every day is a new day and anything can happen. Nobody thinks they will get cancer, pneumonia, a car wreck or a dibilitating injury. Lord knows I never wanted nor thought I would, but I still bought the insurance just in case and bang, it saved my butt.
If you do not take it upon yourself to care for yourself, your spouse and your children ahead of time, do not come whinin and crying later when life comes knocking on your door. It is not my, nor anyone else’s problem that you were not smart enough or caring enough to take care of your and your family’s basic needs. Put off the Caddy, the Xbox and the plasma screen and get your kids covered. Be a man, (or woman) and do what you are supposed to do.
i
The government should, rather than force Americans to pay for health care of under-motivated liberals, sentence them to work at Wal-Mart where health benefits are about 30 bucks per month deducted from their pay.
There are Wal-Marts in Baltimore.
Since 92% of recipients in Michigan are adults they could expand the program tremendously without spending an extra dime, by limiting it to minors.
#64 - the Frosts’ insurance policy would have been the one to respond. With no insurance or minum limits its easy to see why they are having to heavily rely on their medical.
Really is quite a shame. People should really spend the extra money to protect themselves…even if that means not having a fancy car. Your family’s safety and well being should be the priority at all times….
PS. if they were NOT in their seatbelts, certain policies will not cover injuries or only a portion thereof. B
ut that is usually only where a seatbelt law is in place before the time of the accident.
If they were not wearing their seatbelts…this would be another issue.
#59 Yes, most people only carry state minimums and if the others involved were uninsured or underinsured, your limits can easily be maxed by medical bills. Additionally, ALL insurance is risk sharing and if you purchase a policy, regardless if it is medical or auto, you are agreeing to share the “risk” WITH all the other people who are contributing to the pool.
Now to address #43, YES if you wait until AFTER you are in an accident or become ill to finally invest in insurance you are going to pay more. Insurance companies employ people who merely crunch numbers all day long in correlation to risk factors…their job is to not only deduce risk factors to assist in scaling insurance premiums, but to also protect those already invested in the pool of risk. If someone is not responsible enough or does not have the foresight to prepare for the future, they ARE a greater risk to those who ARE responsible and have prepared for the future. Coming back full circle and to the point of this story…the Frost’s made THEIR choice; they are a greater risk to those who have planned and invested their hard-earned money to protect themselves and their families…so what, now the tax-payers should come to the rescue and bail them out so they can continue to drive three cars AND send their children to private school? If I chose not to insure my children, I could send them back to private school too, but oops what if they become ill? Oh well guess I will whine and cry to the government to bail me out too! Choices, consequences, and ultimately a little accountability for our choices that we make…WE are responsible for ourselves, not the government.
S-CHIP = Step 1 towards socialized healthcare
Well, to be fair, a pick-up is useful to haul wood and tools to a work site, while the other two are more family cars. While the Frosts can’t drive all three vehicles at the same time, I wouldn’t infer that any of them are unused.
Appeal to Emotion. And dishonest besides, since the kids are covered by S-CHIP
You know, we bought a Volvo XC 90 with the money my husband made while in Iraq last year and part of this year. They also had a great sale for the military last November when we ordered the car. We own two cars (one is the Sebring convertible he bought with the money from Kosovo in 1999), we are two adults with two cars. They are also two adults with three cars. We save our money so we can be able to buy a nice house when we move in December to Northern Virginia and we also pay additional for insurance for our daughter who is disabled so we can take her outside the military system which is a mess in of itself. We don’t expect the American public to pick up our bills.
No one at all has a problem with the original intent of SCHIP. Again I state that I don’t think the Frost family is in that original intent.
It’s a wet and rainy Friday here in BerzerkoLand where everything is supposed to be free and private property is renounced as a form of terrorism.
Go figure. “When yer strange…..faces come out in the rain….” Doo be doo be dooo.
Anyways, in-sherntz is there for people who want to pay for it. And if it “comes with the job” any working stiff knows, honey, you pay for it.
The more you pay, the better the plan- most of the time. My father is 78 and has kept up his health and a catastrophic health premium for the last 10 years (1500 per year average). So now, when he gets to the point where he cannot live alone, he will have in home daily nursing care, automatic burial benefits (i hope they call us first!) and complete catastrophic care coverage until he goes.
Ooooooh! That’s so expensive. Really? Try not paying the premium from age 63 on. We just handled my mom’s catastrophic illness through Medicare for 3 years until she passed last year.
Free government coverage, right? Not!
We kids paid alot of what the government REFUSED to pay.
Two different approaches and two different results. I trust the market. Yes, I fight tooth and nail with my insurance company- but I get results and I get treatment the simplest, most cost-effective and reliable way.
Dhimmicrats in Congress won’t get this passed the consumer. Just say the words “post office” and “your free health care” in the same sentence and people say “oh yeah.”
Only 8 million Americans need what Pelosi and Reid are peddling on behalf of the Queen Bolshevik herself, Hillary.
Thumbs down. The poster family deserve the pain they are getting from the Dhimmicrats- NEVER trust the government with your health. That is your business alone.
Sell the vehicles and cash out your equity, Frost Daddy. Consign a third of the equity to a knowledgeable fund manager to build your retirement and use the rest to pay 1/3 of what the hospital bill is saying you owe.
Tell the hospital “I can’t pay” the rest and they will write it off. They do this all the time. They will write off what they can and set up a payment plan for you to pay the difference.
I do this all the time. I did it to retire 95K worth of medical costs when I was hospitalized with a spider bite that nearly killed me. My sister works in medical records at a major hospital. She said here is what you need to do. I got out of 65,000 worth of costs. The insurance paid 25K and I paid off the remaining 5K.
I paid. And I got good care. But I paid what it was worth.
Is a 35 per cent income tax increase at the federal level going to be worth it to those screaming for “free” medical care?
What do they think the state level tax is going to be?
Economic illiteracy is killing those citizens who operate with their heads stuck in a tuna can.
Teach your kids and the young ones in your circles to learn the economics of survival just as much as they are learning about climate change. The economics are going to crush them moreso than Gore’s Gas Theories will.
/rant.
Terrig
Intent and implementation are vastly different.
But unless something happens, with the increase in caps without consideration of assets will make a perfect opportunity for even more situations like the Dems chosen example to slip through into the system.
I can’t wait for the coming legislation they have on their agenda to subsidize people to pay their sub prime loans off.
Any bets if it passes that the Frost’s might have another chance of lessening their financial burden?
Of course, they have some of the nicest houses i’ve ever seen in MY LIFE!
OT: Song now stuck in my head….thx bear.
EXCELLENT POST. I will never look at a tuna can the same again!
I only criticized him if the money for private school was coming out of his parents’ pockets when they simultaneously claim they can’t afford insurance.
I have problems with the voucher system as it currently stands because it opens the door for allowing government interference in private (read: parochial) school curriculum that may not be politically correct, tolerant, or “diverse” enough.
The paragraph answers it’s own question: Choosing to go into business is a RISK. You could succeed, you could fail. But no one is forcing you to choose to work on your own, sans health insurance. It’s a CHOICE you make, and if your business is successful that’s great.
According to the testimony of the neighbor, Mr. Frost’s own worst enemy is himself…
I would love to open my own bakery, but I know it would be irresponsible of me to do so unless I purchase health insurance independent of my current employer.
But where in the world does it say you have the right to own a house that’s too far beyond your means to pay for?
I’m all for home ownership…if you can afford it. All these recent foreclosures, etc. are an indication that instant gratification, foolish spending, and selfishness are overriding the first rule of good financial health = don’t spend more than you make.
I don’t know enough about the estate tax to make an argument one way or the other on that point.
Someone said above I should use government services available to me. Absolutely not. First I would forgo cable television, internet access, my cell phone, etc. and make sure all unnecessary expenses were cut out before I even considered getting assistance.
And even then, I’d prefer to get a part-time job waiting tables or something.
The government is supposed to govern, not bail out people who haven’t exhausted all their options.
Someone like Irishrose above has - the Frosts haven’t.
No family should own three cars for two adults and only four children. A minivan would suffice.
As I said above - if the Democrats are going to paint the Frosts poster children, they had better expect us who would be paying the medical bills to look at them with a critical eye.
With socialized medicine, he who pays the bills makes the calls. You see it in Canada and the UK in regards to quotas and limits on services. If the government pays, they get to decide what treatment you receive when.
Likewise, taxpayers who would be funding SCHIP have a right to decide what constitutes needy.
watershed - all I’m saying is expecting ME to pay for it is unfair. I know it’s “draconian” - but the libs seem to like evolution so much (survival of the fittest) so why not be honest and let the fittest survive (those who take care of themselves and their families).
Yes, I disagree, because it is a flawed argument, which isn’t surprising coming from Krugman. One, he assumes the children would go without insurance if the program were dropped. Doubtful. If that were to happen, their parents would be forced to get full-time jobs, jobs that might even come WITH health insurance as a benefit. If they chose not to do this, THEY would be the ones punishing their children, not me.
But, since they can get it free from the government, they have no motivation to get decent jobs so they can pay for it themselves. They have figured out a way to game the system, and as long as they don’t have to change, they aren’t going to.
Second,it’s funny how Krugman has no problem punishing millions of Americans who do things the right way by stealing more and more of their liberty and money in order to support those who choose to ignore their responsibilities. There is nothing honorable about theft.
It’s one thing to help people who are truly unable to help themselves. It’s another thing to have our money stolen from us to help those who CHOOSE not to help themselves.
If the Frost kids are being punished, it’s coming from their parents, not me. And Krugman, naturally, is okay with this. In typical liberal style, it’s always someone else’s fault, and someone else’s responsibility.
And they aren’t being punished, they qualify.
xblade: very well said
Watershed, why bother with insurance at all if it’s the public’s responsibility to pay? No one is saying the kids shouldn’t be treated, they are saying it’s the family’s responsibility to pay for it. How? They own three cars, investment property, their parents aren’t poor, and yes, tyhey could have bought health insurance. The key word above is responsibility.
I think by definition after the event isn’t insurance - it’s having somebody else pay.
I seem to remember when my gradmother was hit as a pedestrian a few months back that the settlement…once it came in was portioned out not only to the attorney’s but also to reimburse her health insurance company as well as her supplemental insurance back for the actual hospital bills, medical costs etc. incurred by the party that hit her. They were not able to touch her “pain and suffering” rightfully so.
But it was correct to reimburse the health plan (as it would benefit all plan holders) for their out of pocket costs.
I can’t help but wonder if any of the money they got back was reimbursed to SCHIP as it would in any other auto accident for injuries? Is it a requirement by SCHIP and if so, did it happen?
I don’t mean to pour salt on their wounds here..but normally, that is how things work. You shouldn’t be making money off an accident…am I right?
#55 conservativeRus,
I understand yours and Michelle’s point that it’s really important to get insurance before you need it.
My question for Michelle is what does she think should happen to children who are badly injured in car accidents, whose parents didnt buy insurance beforehand and now can’t get insurance because of the pre-existing condition?
When she says “If you don’t buy it before you need it, you shouldn’t be shocked if it’s difficult to impossible to get after you need it,” are we to conclude that Michelle thinks these kids should then suffer as a way to teach the irresponsible parents a lesson? Maybe I haven’t read her posts closely enough, but I haven’t seen Michelle explicitly say what she thinks the Frosts should do instead of getting help from the govt - that would be an interesting post btw Michelle (if you’re reading) - let’s hear exactly what you think they should be doing.
Anyway, I’m in agreement with you (and Michelle) that it’s very important that people should get insurance before they need it. In fact, I think it’s so important that people be insured that I think buying health insurance should be mandatory kind of like how in some states you can’t get a drivers license without insurance, or how everyone has to pay into social security.
If it health insurance were mandatory, then everyone would be paying in, everyone would be covered, and the risk would be spread around in most efficient possible way.