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
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Graeme Frost
Babalu Blog
» Physician, heal thyself
Hotline On Call
» Boos And Cheers For Palin Puck Drop In PhillyHotline On Call
» St. Louis PD, Toledo Blade, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette For ObamaThe Sundries Shack
» The Chicago Way is Obama’s Way TooThe Sundries Shack
» The Lies of HollywoodGateway Pundit
» Libs Threaten to Beat & Kill Sarah Palin... Media SilentPower Line
» Insane Rage? Look in the MirrorRight Wing Nut House
» MORE ON THOSE “ANGRY, RACIST GOP MOBS”NewsBusters.org
» NYT Pulls Misleading Account of Palin Puck Dropping CeremonyRedstate
» Palin on the Attack: Life Issuesprotein wisdom
» Andrew Sullivan on Peculiar and Creepy [Dan Collins]
And that Democrat legislator was at the forefront of the plan by the Democrat-controlled state Senate and Gov. Jim Milhous Doyleone to force single payer government run health care down our throats with a minimum $15 billion tax increase.
This is a plot which is stalled budget negotiations here. The Democrats and Don Doyleone knew they’d never get single payer government run health care as part of the state budget, so they pulled it out and demanded the Republican controlled Assembly accept $1.75 billion in new taxes and tax increases.
So far, there is no new budget and the state is operating under the 2005-07 biennial budget.
The political games played by the Democrats never cease to amaze me.
In the words of lawyer Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no shame?”
Well for one, providing vouchers would allow STATE governments (State governments pay for schooling, not the federal government) to cut their costs of providing students with education (Most all states have it in their state constitutions that they must provide education to those who live in their state) in half. Most every state in the U.S. pays double to send a student to public school for one year then it costs to send a student to private school for a year.
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.
No, you pay for the bad choices you make. All choices come with consequences. And contrary to the claims of the shameless demagogues, the Frosts would continue to receive assistance if the program were renewed at the current level and at the level proposed by President Bush.
The President’s proposal would not, however, cover families making $62,000 to $80,000 a year (as they shouldn’t) nor reclassify 18 to 25 year old adults as “children” in order to steal money from a program designed to help poor children.
Once again, have you people no shame???
I have seen left side sites claiming Bush was canceling the program which is pure spin.
Also I have seen others there who wrongly claim he was attempting to cut the funding of the program.
That logic fails in that he was proposing a 5 billion funding increase and the Dems were demanding 35 Billion over 5 years.
Reading comprehension 101 people.
I want to direct everyone to a comment I got on my own blog about this issue
Now, when someone says sacrifice for the common good, that is code for communism. Furthermore, they even reference Jesus even though Jesus expoused personal charity not forced charity when the government takes money away from you through taxes.
These positions are totally misguided however they are also powerful because they appeal to our own compassion. Our position appeals to reason and emotional arguement almost always work better than ones based on reason (even though they are almost always wrong).
That is why I believe the only way for the Reps to win is to hammer at CORRUPTION. Corruption elicits an emotional response.
Here is the entire debate and post.
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/schip-for-trust-fund-babies.html
The question of “who deserves subsidized health care” is actually subordinate to a larger issue: Is this country ready for socialized healthcare? For that is what underlies what the Democrats are after here.
It’s a model they’ve used successfully since The New Deal: come up with a big government program ostensibly aimed at alleviating the suffering of those least able to avoid or extricate themselves from it. Once it becomes law, Republicans are loath to oppose it, because they fear being called names.
Next, start mission-creeping onto the original progam. If Republicans balk, call them names. They’ll usually slink away when you do.
This is how the original concept of Social Security - which was meant at first as a retirement supplement only - expanded into not only something a lot of people expect to be able to live off of, but also into concepts like MediCare, MedicAid, and a $400+ billion prescription drug program (although in fairness it was Republican George W. Bush and a Republican Congress who added that last layer).
The “Expand the circle and call them names” methodology has worked so well for Democrats over the years - most of our trillions-of-dollars federal budget now consists of entitlement programs - that one can’t blame them for going back to the well for S-CHIP.
Behavior which is rewarded, gets repeated.
But sooner or later, as Michelle has indicated at the beginning of this post, we’ll have to make some “adult” decisions. Not even the USA can afford to endlessly expand the horizons of government entitlement spending before we end up going broke.
But until Republicans can muster the fortitude to say, “So what?” when the Democrats start calling them names and casting doubts on their humanity, and stick to the real issues, this pattern will continue until one day the whole crumbling entitlement edifice collapses (along with the Federal government itself).
At which time, no doubt, we can expect Democrats to blame Republicans for it all.
They keep jackin em up with these special ballot initiatives and “parcel taxes”. Of course the cash is ripped out of our pockets by voters WHO DONT OWN PROPERTY in the name of, yes, THE CHILDREN!
The taxes are steep, but the view we have (from the port of oakland, the City skyline, the Golden Gate, Tiburon, and Mt Tam)is worth it. I feel like I am living on a planet. We are about 1/2 mile from Tilden Park and Grizzly Peak.
I’ll pay for that. No prob. No brag. Just fact.
Have a great weekend in case your lappie goes ni-nite.
Let’s not forget — the easy way to pay $1200 per month for health insurance is to get rid of the extra vehicles. We must do what we must do. And if a person isn’t willing … that’s their choice. Sad, but it’s not a government problem.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Regulus- you always nail it. We need to keep the “debate” squarely named under “socialized medicine”- the code names for it such as “single payer” health insurance, and “universal healthcare” is slimier than the tactics used to sell this “bridge” to the masses.
I don’t think Hillary or Communist health care is a done deal. “Let the people know the truth and the nation will be saved.”
graysonret
Today these folks would repeat JFK’s remarks in reverse as “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you”
I am neither a naysayer nor a whiner. So let’s discontinue that kind of lazy talk.
Then, let me disabuse you of the notion that “This is not big government.”
Are you joking?
Do you have any idea the complexity, size and scope of the current private healthcare industry in this country? The total dollar value of gross revenues it generates to the national economy? The total number of people it employs?
And by putting government bean counters into claims, government compliance officials, government facilities management overseers, child welfare overseers, medical standards overseers, etc etc etc, you don’t see this as big government?
The wage and benefit costs of this monstrosity will wreck the citizenry for the sake of what? People too dim to provide medical coverage for themselves?
This is not providing for the general welfare of anybody. It is substituting an ill-conceived, short-sighted, patronage creating Dhimmicrat voting racket for the general welfare.
Cut taxes, put people to work creating value under free market incentives, generate more tax revenue (Dhimmis don’t understand private enterprise and taxes yet!) to keep our defense strong, secure our borders, the water clean, and the infrastructure from falling down.
Period. Let us do the rest on our own.
end of story.
Jesus cursed the fig tree that did not yield. Remember that one?
The Frosts deserved to be smeared, in fact they should be put away.
The kid may be a genuine victim, but the parents, NOT REPUBLICANS are to blame for his misfortune.
Bullseye!
Jesus didn’t condone “legalized stealing” which is what the gov’t does every payday, as it reaches into your pocket and takes money out, whether you like it or not. He didn’t condone the forced taking of money from one person in order to give it to another either. And “to promote the general welfare” clause of the Preamble of the Constitution does not allow the gov’t to do anything it wants. Read the rest of it!
Relax. The minute that Liberals fall back on their nuclear option (i.e., calling you “meanies and hypocrites”) it’s an automatic concession that you won the logical argument. That’s it. They have no way of refuting the facts that have been uncovered by the diligent and certainly courageous work of Michelle and the other bloggers who “did the investigative work that real journalists just won’t do.”
Two equity properties. Three cars. Two adults. Busted. Game over.
Game over indeed!!!!!!!!!!! Nice nail.
A number of years ago I was selling small group insurance. A prospect called me up and set an appointment. After the presentation he told me that his wife had leukemia and wanted to know how much of the costs would be treated. When I told him none, he went ballistic and through me out of his office. He just could not understand why she could not be covered. The bad part is this guy had been in continous business for over 35 years at the same location so money wasn’t the problem. Also, don’t these type of folks have homeowners and car insurance?
I need to find a part time job like these folks have. My wife and I both work full time, and we couldn’t affored that many car payments, much less commercial property and send the kids to private school.
Do their employers have a branch office in Wyoming?
That was my first question when I heard this story. Then I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was caused by an “undocumented” alien without a drivers license much less insurance.
My last comment on this logic-nailed topic. If the Democrats and MSM do in fact succced in intimidating the spineless Republicans into passing this stealth-mission-creep bill (and I believe they will), I recommend it be renamed from S-CHIP to “The Grasshopper Tax of 2007″ in honor of the fable of the grasshopper and the ant.
All us meanie ants who have been toiling and scrimping and saving to take care of our own families will just have to now start taking care of all those unfortunate grasshopper families that didn’t scrimp and save like we did…but hey, the world owes them a livin’…even if they only have three cars for two of them to cruise around in.
I can’t answer this, I read the terms of use, and to get my point across, how I feel about socialized medicine, would take adult language SMILE…how bout this, Hillary would like to see us all dependent on the government, she hopes to be running soon. Oh Lord if she wins, I hope we all have time to pack up those big SUVS.
Unfortunately for us, the “grownups” have proven themselves to be a gaggle of perverts, maniacal spendthrifts, colossal bunglers of disaster relief and foreign crusades.
It will be a long time before the American public trusts the grownups again. And let’s hope we prove ourselves better next time.
All strawman
Via RedState
We are less than one week from the scheduled Congressional vote to override President Bush’s veto of the massive 121% expansion in SCHIP spending, and we want to provide you with a key figure on what will happen in five years in terms of spending, according to the Democrats’ bill.
Under their plan for SCHIP, spending will drop from $13.9 billion in 2012 to only $7.8 billion in 2013.
So, as drafted, the Democrats’ proposal will lead to either billions of dollars in higher taxes in 2013 or millions of children losing their health care coverage. This is deceptive at best and malicious at worst.
President Bush supports a reasonable expansion of SCHIP in line with its original intent, putting poor children first. The bill the President vetoed in some cases covered families earning $83,000 a year, adults, and was the first step on the path toward an inefficient system of government-run healthcare.
This seems childish, even by the lefts low standards. Nobody is saying that they can’t own a home. All people are saying is that if they can find the money for the three gas guzzlers, the various large pieces of property, the expensive schools, and all the rest, maybe they could have found the money for health insurance as well.
Geez, spend the day doing schoolwork, and look what you miss…
I won’t criticize the Frost’s for the simple fact of putting their children in private school, but I will question their priorities. That’s what I think life comes down to~ priorities and personal responsibility. I could pull all my savings out and buy a Camero. However (in addition to The Man divorcing me), I wouldn’t have down payment for a house. Responsible people have priorities. It’s a shame many people do not.
The Washington Post rant is more than ridiculous. But I’ll answer one of their questions:
First, public schools in the US are just that - public. Your property taxes pay for that. And each school district spends a certain amount per pupil. Some parents favor sending their children to private schools, in which case they make the financial decision to do so. Since that is one less child the public will educate and thus will not spend money on, the concept is to take that per child portion and use it to partially offset the cost of a private school.
Second, public schools in the US are a national disgrace. It is proof that (1) a government run enterprise panders to the least common denominator and (2) when combined with a unionized workforce, it is an utter disaster. When something is that broken, it makes sense to look at privatization alternatives.
Third, comparing a public program such as the school system to a private program such as health insurance is fatally flawed logic. Apples and oranges. Most people in the US of working age participate in private insurance programs, whereas most children in the US attend public schools.
A parent in the US makes many choices when it comes to their children. But MOST parents in the US would rank health insurance for their children as a more important need than a private school. If your child is not healthy, there is not much sense in a private education. It is something every responsible parent budgets for.
I will not get into the various cost differences in the type of private schools, except to say tuition of $20,000 per child for a primary education competes dollar-wise with the cost of a college education.
As to the remaining strawmen thrown up by the Post, they are really too outrageous to spend any time on. Not a surprise that WAPO can’t stay on topic or hold a linear thought.
In general for most public schools their funding levels for that school budget is calculated on a multiple of the number of students attending that school.
If the school looses students due to a voucher program that school looses per capita reimbursement for each student lost.
Some suggest that is why schools , school boards and teachers unions fight vouchers so much and may also be part of the reason non performing students are hung onto by the system until they finally drop out just to add to the warm body count.
Take a look at some rough numbers vis-à-vis the Frosts’.
And for purposes of the analysis, we’ll use some very conservative numbers.
Let’s assume that the $45,000 per year figure is net income. And further that the private school tuition is free.
Let us also assume that their $1200 monthly mortgage on their residence includes property taxes.
Yearly mortgage payments on the residence come to $14,400. Let’s call it $14,000. Subtracting the mortgage payments from their annual net income leaves $31,000.
Let’s assume that the property taxes due on the commercial property are $500 per month (probably on the low side for that area). The annual property taxes for the commercial property would come to $6000 per year. Subtracting the property taxes on the commercial property of $6000 from the remaining net income leaves $25,000.
Next,, let’s further assume that the utilities on both the commercial property and the residence (all utilities including phone) comes to $600 per month for the residence (3000 square feet) and $200 per month for the business property. That is $9,600 a year. Call it $9000. Taking $9000 off the remaining net income now leaves $14,000.
The Frosts have 3 relatively new vehicles. For insurance purposes. we will assume that their rates were not seriously impacted by the accident. Insuring those vehicles in that area would run, say, $3000 per year. So after factoring in car insurance, there is $11,000 of net income left.
Let’s assume that the Frosts own one of those vehicles, and lease or finance the two others. And we will assume the leases or loans are long term, and further assume a down payment of about 10% of the vehicle costs was made at the time of purchase or lease. So we will figure that the combined car financing/lease expense is in the neighborhood of $350 per month per vehicle. So annual car finance expenses run at $8400 per year. Call it $8000. When applied against the remaining $11,000 of net income, the Frosts have $3000.
Let’s also assume they drive those cars, and that they put gas in them. But we’ll assume they do not drive much, and only spend $100 per month on gas, and since they take great care of their cars, their monthly car maintenance expenses for all 3 cars are $50 per month. That is another $1800 in annual expense, that we’ll call $1500, just to be conservative. Well, that now leaves the Frost’s $1500 - annually.
$1500 a year breaks out to $125 per month. Or a little over $30 per week for clothing, food and other essentials for a family of 4 ($8.00 per person).
And the left does not understand why people have a problem with this?
The left are a bunch of dirty liars, seeking only to swell their ranks of sycophantic minions owing their allegiance to the sugar-daddies of welfare-based socialism and sloth.
Looks like I missed the fact the fact that there are 4 children. So it is a family of 6 sharing $30 per week.
Perhaps someone at the WSJ should put pen to paper before they criticize others for using “dubious facts”.
The only dubious facts I see are coming out of the democrats. And when those facts are subjected to an analysis using some very conservative assumptions and projections, they turn into smoke.
To those asking about the insurance on the vehicles:
State requirements don’t mean much to the irresponsible.
My car was recently totaled by a person who is, likely, an illegal immigrant. It was a 1995 Ford Escort. My wife and I are both law school students who don’t have much money. We carried liability only on the vehicle, but we were insured. We bought a vehicle within our price range - and we bought it in cash.
The vehicle that struck us was a 2006 Ford Freestyle with all the trimmings. Probably leased up the yin yang. It was driven by someone who was, in all likelihood, an illegal alien married to a U.S. Citizen. Was it insured? Not at all.
Luckily we both walked away from the accident with only minor injuries (and a trip to the emergency room two days later when we both experienced neck problems which, again, turned out to be nothing). Further proving our responsibility, after I made sure that my wife was OK, I ran to the other vehicle and made sure its driver was alright and even translated for the driver that hit us when the EMTs arrived (I speak Spanish).
But, of course, this driver is unwilling to accept responsibility for her actions, which is funny since the police found her responsible. So now we’re off to court, all because some idiot had to lease a vehicle entirely beyond the means of his family and “forgot” (likely intentionally) to pay the insurance on it. We’re out nearly $3,000 so far - it wiped out our savings right before the semester began. Thank goodness for student loans or we couldn’t survive.
Our new car is, of course, insured beyond all belief for a $1,600 car.
But, if they do own these vehicles, I’d bet good money that they aren’t insured either. These people seem to have problems preparing for a rainy day.
The Frost family situation is the perfect example of what is wrong with liberal policies.
Reading comments here and at the lib blogs it surprises me that socialist concepts have sunken so deeply into the American psyche.Consider the comments of watershed #39:he actually believes he made some valid points-I suppose he is trying to show conservatives as hypocrits,but he doesn’t even understand the what conservatives are saying.The Libs really don’t have a clue as to what this country is all about.
folks…we only need to remember one thing. The socialist model for society has NEVER worked. anywhere, no matter how “smart” the planners were. This entire discussion of “need” is just a diversion from the real issue: Do we want socialism. I Don’t. It doesn’t work, it never has.
Actually I think most conservatives would support no government support of education. However as long as there is, the conservatives feel they at least should get their portion of the money directed to the education which they want for their children.
another related but not directly on topic comment:
This week Hillary said something to the effect she has millions of ideas but America can’t afford them. Doesn’t that all by itself say they are bad ideas. Aren’t good ideas good precisely because they do more good than bad (ie, their benefits outweigh their costs)
From BitsBlog, quoted above already:
As many have said already, I believe, much of the problem with society boils down to this.
The left whines, moans and seethes over rights - rights for this, rights for that, our rights, our rights, our rights. Yet, they never seem to talk about the responsibilities that go along with those rights.
On virtually every issue - from health care to entitlements to abortion to religion to taxes to you-name-it - all we hear about is rights. We never hear about responsibilities.
It’s unfortunate, but I think the Founding Fathers overlooked something in drafting our nation’s founding documents - that with rights come responsibilities to exercise those rights responsibly. I think they took the responsibility part for granted, and never foresaw the kind of irresponsible society we’re being driven toward. Thus, they’re not mentioned (or at least, not in any great detail), making it all the easier for the left to destroy our society.
Coming back to the issue at hand, it’s quite obvious, as many have pointed out, that the Frosts have abdicated their responsibility to provide properly / adequately for their family. Their press for the taxpayer to pick up their health care bill is just another case of an attempt to force the masses to turn over responsibility for their lives to the Nanny State.
}8-
Simple, No one deserves government-subsidized health insurance.
It should only be a condition of work like any other employer provided benefit.
The government is not GOD endowed with divined powers. It is a man made construct and has all the faults that we find in ourselves. The hand of government reaching out to help is in truth the hand of another person reaching into your life. The abstract hand of government become too real when that hand creates something like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Some will decry that such things will never happen again but that is said every time on such occurs. I believe our founders understood that given the power vile men or men believing it is for the conman good will use government to perfrom the most unspeakable acts.
Last year I stopped consulting and started working for a company I had been consulting for (at a much reduced rate) because I was have problems getting proper affordable coverage for my family. I was a adult decision based on taking care of my family. Perhaps these people in Maryland should have considered it. But they made the assumption all is well and the government should subsidize thier very nice lifestyle….BS
I think it’s pretty cool to be called “the internet mob”. The voices of blobs such as MM, Hotair, etc. are apparently loud enough where it disrupts the political agenda of the Times and radical left. Keep up the good work.
I still can’t see the original problem. The Frosts were covered under the S-CHIP program, and President Bush is all for expanding the program to cover more poor children. Are the Democrats using this family to create the new definition of the “working poor” family? If that’s what this is all about I’d like to see a chart that breaks down where the definitions of poor, working poor, middle class, upper middle class, and upper class fall relative to income, number of children, personal property, savings, school choice, and other expenses that could be factored into the equation.
This debate illustrates exactly what Ann Coulter has pointed out before . The DEms or Dimwits always put forward , a cripple, a child , or someone they feel is above reproach…someone that cannot be criticized. Yet, what responsible adult will put up a child to fight for an adult. This is something these clowns always do and then pounce on anyone who criticizes their shameful actions…..Sick of these games by these people who assume all Americans are imbeciles.
I am all for giving. However, people who waste their money on unimportant things like the vehicles Michelle described are being selfish. Yes, they, the purported “victims” are being selfish. Just think of all the people who really NEED that money.
If the left thinks that I won’t criticize a child, they are dead wrong. I criticize children all the time, because I babysit and I want them to grow up into responsible adults. I criticize when my tax money is also spent on GBLT rights groups, more unnecessary school buildings and affirmative action. You name it, they pull out the race, child-hater, homophobe cards. So what. Let them whine. If not wanting to waste money makes me a racist, gay hater or anti-child person, so be it.
Folks, don’t listen to what people like Alan Colmes have to say about this. This is YOUR money, and you have a say where it goes. Don’t let some false sob story screen out your rights.
Like Rush said, many miss the point. The Frosts used their child as an example of why SCHIP must be expanded but under the current SCHIP plan they were able to get insurance. It doesn’t need to be expanded if people like the Frosts are already able to recieve help through SCHIP.
If you want an adult discussion of SCHIP, great.
Instead, you focus on the Frost family and the cars one of their supposed neighbors says they drive.
Can’t you have the discipline to focus on the actual issue rather than the political theater surrounding it? Debate Ezra Klein or be the chickenhawk of health care policy.
Socialism: bad. Personal responsibility: good. We don’t need another screwed-up government program.
Our country needs to have an open, honest, candid, frank (did I forget any adjectives?), national discussion and debate about what the obligations, duties, and powers of government & the “public sector” should be vs the rights, powers, obligations, duties, and responsibilities of the private sector and private individuals…now.
Repeat-now.
Why should entitlements exist at all?
Why should confiscatory taxation even be considered, let alone debated and legislated?
Why should such a considerable percentage of individuals’ income and assets be taken away by Government?
Sometimes it seems to be an extortion racket:
“Give us so much, or we’ll put you in jail.”
“Give certain groups a certain number and amount of entitlements, or the streets will erupt in crime and violence.”
It needs to be stressed and explained publically, nationally, loudly, over and over and over again:
Government produces no wealth-none.
It merely takes wealth individuals have produced, takes a very hefty amount for itself, and gives the rest away to other individuals, regardless of whether those “entitled”, recipient individuals are recognized members of a particular “entitled” group or not.
We need to take care of each other-absolutely.
But, help should be given only to those who absolutely require it.
As Michelle has indicated, there is a difference between needs and wants.
People who need something should definitely be helped.
People who want, or who would really, really like something…well, sorry.
The roles of government are as a referee, to make sure rules are followed; as the organizer of our common national defense (and then fulfill obligations that have been made to veterans, dammit); and, together with private organizations, as a provider of assistance (dare the word charity be used?) to those in need (again, not to those really, really want something).
Hope this post doesn’t get too much flack.
Er…”flak”, rather.
Sorry….
I found this letter to the editor in yesterday’s edition of the Chicago Tribune. I think it say is it all about the elitist policies of the liberals,
Notice this person is never going to get SCHIP and frankly no one they know would, and yet, we must do something because it is for the children.
This is the sort of ridiculous, emotional and yet ultimately effective arguements coming from the other side.
Here is how I analyzed it.
http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/schip-middle-class-guilt.html
#148-
Well put.
Regarding the polls: should not people be asked why they feel the present healthcare system needs fixing?
Why they think socialized medicine would be a good idea?
As I’ve said - governement does not produce a thing.
Leftists/liberals/socialists act as if whatever good and abundance that exists in our society/culture is just “there”: that it always has been “there”; and always will be “there”.
To paraphrase the way my father put it a number of years ago, there is no pipe coming down from the sky that is spewing money around;
no one owes you a living;
you need to be responsible, and work, and support yourself and yours;
and as he oh-so-correctly put it (he did, afer all, grow up in New York): if you let them, people will $#&t on you.
How right he was (and still is, I’m glad to say). Just look at Congress.
Again, time for a national conversation-for God’s sake, not in Congress-to stress to people that there is no money pipe from the sky;
that the healthcare system is not just “there”;
that a stable society is not just “there”;
that food, and security, and money, and success, and satisfaction are not just “there”, like sand on the beach, or leaves on the ground; but, that you must work - yes, work, labor - for those things.
Yes, we have to assist and take care of those folks among us who need help(again, not who would like to have a luxury).
But, we should NOT feel we owe anything to anyone who wants to abuse drugs, or alcohol, etc, despite repeated offers of, and attempts at, help;
who wants to buy things like huge flat TVs and the latest video game(s), but refuses to pay for food and clothes for their kids, or for insurance, or for a doctor’s visit;
who wants to sc#@w around indiscriminately, and then expects the taxpayer to pay for their medical expenses; and also expects the taxpayer to pay for raising the offspring they have produced;
who does not want to work, and does not want to live in a shelter for the homeless-yet expects society to take care of them.
Newt Gingrich alluded to orphanages about a decade ago, and was predictably vilified by the usual suspects.
However, why should “progenitor” rights absolutely trump society’s rights under any and all circumstances - even so far as to the detriment of the children in question themselves, and to the detriment of society (society here also including the children of others)?
When irresponsible “adults” (or almost adult adolescents) have shown themselves utterly incapable of raising children (rather than merely spending time with the kids as they grow), why should society not raise the kids properly in a closely overseen orphanage, with stability, and caring, and clean clothes, and no abuse?
Sorry to go on and on; but, I think it’s about time we discussed these issues seriously.
You know? Every few years when you go to register your car in CA you have to prove you have insurance. People who don’t want to buy insurance and take the risk upon themselves don’t have the option to do that unless they post some obscene bond (the amount of which I cannot recall at the moment). I choose to buy it regardless, because I am not willing to take that risk, altough that $200 a month sure could go to better use somewhere else.
Same with my health insurance. I purposefully have a job that provides it as part of my salary package because I am not willing to live with the risk of not having it. Disability insurance is the same.
Is it a gamble? Sure it is, but it has paid off for me, twice in the last two years of serious illnesses, surgery, and long-term health care down the road. Before that, aside from birthing three kids, I seldom even needed to go to see the doc. Maybe I wouldn’t have needed it then, I dunno (and sometimes I didn’t when my spouse flaked). But all it takes is one second, and anyone can go from perfectly healthy to dead. Insurance takes up what comes between those two possibilities, and that’s quite a lot to gamble in my book.
A woman stopped Ben Franklin after the Constitutional convention, asking, “Do we have a republic, sir, or a monarchy?” He replied, “A republic, maam, if you can keep it”. Come next year, do we have a republic of once 13 bickering colonies that made the US into a dream for people around the world, or do we have a Queen Hillary?
Late getting in the game here, but some poster quoted Krugman, and then asked:
Krugman: ““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.”
Poster: “Anyone disagree?”
The correct response here is not to agree with Krugman’s premise. There’s no sign the Frost children are being “punished”; they’re being cared for NOW under the SCHIP program. Further, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that because someone needs health care, an entire government program must be expanded to allow them to get it. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that parents’ bad decisions are to be forgiven and compensated for with other peoples’ money, else the idea of personal responsibility goes out the window.
The left is always plumping for political contributions to support their candidates, creating “defense funds” for Jumia-type criminals, and leftist causes of all sorts. If they think the Frosts deserve MORE “help” than SCHIP now provides them, then why don’t they pass the hat amongst themselves on an ad hoc basis? If the left is so filled with a spirit of forgiveness that they will overlook the parents’ “bad decisions” (and maybe their prevarications), then why don’t they pony up the extra money themselves?