Now to piss off everyone I haven't already: I think the battle against Graeme Frost is incredibly ill-chosen, and also, as I've said, I can't really get particularly energized about the idea that some kid, somewhere, is sucking my tax dollars illegitimately. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, and his parents are irresponsible clods who could and should have gotten him health insurance: well, they didn't. That's not his fault. The decent thing to do is to take care of him anyway.
However, I am also not prepared to get all huffy and indignant because conservatives dared to question whether Graeme Frost needed S-Chip. Obviously, nut jobs harassing the Frosts, or calling employers, or performing all of the other nutty invasions of privacy that I have read about, are vile creatures who have gone far, far beyond the bounds of human decency, with less reason than is generally offered by the perpatrator of the latest road rage indignity. But a number of people seem to believe that the very act of questioning whether Graeme Frost really needed the state to pay for his health care is somehow tantamount to accusing him of mopery while simultaneously suggesting that he be chopped up into small pieces and served flambeed to a party of laughing Republicans along with their Bébé Irakien en Croute.
The reason that Democrats put him up on the radio in the first place is that they thought Graeme Frost's need was a better argument for S-Chip than any boring old policy discussion. Well, if you make Graeme Frost's needs the measure of the program's success, then you can expect the program's opponents to question Graeme Frost's needs.
Democrats put him on the radio, of course, precisely because they expected him to be some sort of trump card whose need could not successfully be challenged. And in fact, I think they succeeded. But children should not be played like trump cards.
Right, only Pat Tillmans and Terri Schiavos and so forth should be played like trump cards. Sheesh.
At least no one is lying about the Frost kid.
I'm glad Democrats are finally playing offense against the (banned f-word) Repiglican dingbats. I hope they keep it up and increase the intensity. By all means necessary, the Repiglicans must be plowed under like the rotten crops they are in 2008.
Yea these Democraps want to keep handing everything over to the government untill the government is dictating our lives completly. Don't the morons realize it's been tried before and didn't work, it was called communist USSR. The only reason China is still afloat is because they have allowed free interprise to take hold. Yea lets hand our health care over to the government so it will work as efficiantly as imigration and social security.
Maybe we can combine the zoning discussion and the Schip discussion. One reason for allowing government benefits to go to "the rich" is that it's unfair to penalize people for hard work and saving. So ... maybe we should only disqualify people who are rich because of rent seeking.
That's not his fault.
may i gently point out that it's not my fault either, so why should i have to pay for it?
Obviously, nut jobs harassing the Frosts, or calling employers, or performing all of the other nutty invasions of privacy that I have read about, are vile creatures who have gone far, far beyond the bounds of human decency, with less reason than is generally offered by the perpatrator of the latest road rage indignity.
the Frosts are public figures based on their decision to enter the political arena. public figures can (or should) expect to be taken at less than face value. if the Frosts didn't want to be 'harassed' or investigated, they shouldn't have chosen to enter the public eye.
children should not be played like trump cards
truth. it's exceedingly lame when any political party hides behind a child in order to both tug at heartstrings and to attempt to insulate their argument from rebuttal.
I am also not prepared to get all huffy and indignant because conservatives dared to question whether Graeme Frost needed S-Chip.
Oh, of course, there were perfectly legitimate reasons to raise the issue. I mean, I'm not one of those crazies who actually alleges that John Kerry is a Communist-sympathizing traitor who faked his war wounds, but certainly given that he himself made his Vietnam service an issue in the campaign, "it's legitimate to raise questions about"...
Do you really not recognize what's going on here? It doesn't take much interpretive competence to understand. Certainly not more than is required to understand an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm".
As for the "legitimate questions": how many times do we need to repeat this? The Frosts earn $45,000 a year. Median income for a family of 4 in Maryland is $94,000 (and they're a family of 6). They priced private health insurance and found it would cost $1200 a month -- a third of their annual income. Graeme attends private school on scholarship. His sister attends private school with a separate state grant due to her disabilities. There is no way for the Frosts to cash in these benefits in exchange for private health insurance. Finally, they got SCHIP under the old rules -- the rules the Bush Administration approved!
Graeme Frost is not in the news because Republicans raised legitimate questions about whether someone like him should be eligible for SCHIP. He's in the news because Republicans have embraced the politics of personal destruction, and have no scruples about employing it against 12-year-old kids. That is the story here. Period.
Incidentally, I really don't understand why, in the realm of politics, the desire of most people to do nice things for kids is somehow illegitimate. The reason an initiative like SCHIP succeeds politically is that it's for kids, and PEOPLE LIKE KIDS. Where is the political sin in that? Americans like national parks, so we fund them; we like to explore outer space, so we fund that. Also, we like kids, and would like to take care of their health insurance costs. But this is somehow deeply misguided, ignorant, and illegitimate? WTF?
Brooksfoe, it's illegitimate because you keep bringing up this hypothetical, arbitrary "we" - so stop trying to steal from "us"!. If you like him so much, there's plenty of charity to be done.
And there we go, back into the eternal dull libertarian sludge. Is it really necessary for me to bring up the ever-ready defense-budget retort? Yes, I suppose it is: I want to spend no more than $100 billion a year on defense; if we need a deepwater navy at all I think one or two carriers would suffice. So please give me my share of $400 billion a year back. Also, I find it morally objectionable to have to subsidize immoral people who don't like kids, so please start your own police department and travel on your own roads; I don't want to share mine with you. And on, and on, and on.
the u.s.a is at the bottom of the list as far as health in the advanced nations of the western world and yet you all argue about providing more insurance? and comunism?! get serious!
Brooksfoe, I'm afraid I agree with the libertarians that a desire to "do nice things for people" ceases to be a moral virtue when you want to do those nice things with money you take from a third party. It may be necessary, but the desire does not make you a better person than those who do not want to take money from the third party to do nice things.
Is it really necessary for me to bring up the ever-ready "public goods" retort? I see that it is. Public goods are not "things that it would be nice if the public provided"; they are "things where there is massive public good for all citizens, but where the temptation to free ride makes financing the effort likely impossible." Charity is not a public good in that sense. We are not providing S-Chip to Graeme Wood because of any broad public benefit; we're providing it because it benefits Graeme Wood.
As it happens, I am willing to use the power of the state to provide welfare to children anyway--but your retort doesn't rebut a more classical libertarian position; it just affirms it.
As for Kerry's Vietnam service, of course it's legitimate to raise questions about it. Possibly politically unwise, possibly inaccurate, but you can't make your service in Vietnam the centerpiece of your campaign, and then get indignant when people question your service in Vietnam. It's fine to get indignant if they're wrong, but the act of questioning is perfectly legitimate. This constant search for a trump card that can magically render your political opponents speechless and powerless, from control of the supreme court to Kerry's Vietnam service, is neither admirable, nor likely to serve the Democrats any better in the future than it has in the past.
Assuming the worst case scenario is true, and his parents are irresponsible clods who could and should have gotten him health insurance: well, they didn't. That's not his fault. The decent thing to do is to take care of him anyway.-MM
This is how we slouch toward the welfare state. When even self-styled libertarians make excuses for big new middle class entitlements, the prospects of cutting back on government start to look pretty grim. The real problem is not committed socialists like Mrs. Clinton, but vacillating believers in free enterprise who accept ever-expanding government because it's "for the children."
The best thing we could do "for the children" is to encourage long run economic growth by restraining the growth of government. Increased goverment spending requires higher taxes, which distort incentives, or more borrowing, which crowds out private investment. So the liberals who want to expand S-chip (and the conservative and libertarian dupes who are going along with them) are the ones who are truly damaging the prospects of the young.
The redoubtable Gary Becker gets to what's really going on with Schip (though his post was addressing faith in government in general, not Schip in particular):
Brooksfoe:
First of all, I suspect most libertarians would be just fine with a huge cut in the defense budget. For me, the scariest moment of last night's debate was actually when Brownback was bragging that the USA has 5% of the world's population, 20% of the world's wealth, and ONE-THIRD of the world's defense spending. I could not for the life of me see how this last point was a good thing.
Second of all, Megan's distinction between public goods and nonpublic goods is right on point.
Third of all, and most importantly, there are hundreds of millions, even billions, of truly needy people in the world and in the USA. Why should you or government get to decide which of those people I should be charitable to? Why is forced funding of Graeme Frost and SCHIP inherently more moral than my being able to voluntarily give money to a third world micro-loan program, or to research for AIDS in Africa, or to UNICEF, etc., etc.? Or, if you insist I spend my charity in the USA, why is SCHIP more worthy of forced taxation than funding for soup kitchens or programs like Bread for the City, etc.? Fact is there are too many worthy causes in the world for government to adequately fund them all, so why let government decide which causes are more worthy than others? Isn't that kind of arbitrary?
That you, of all people, succumb to an idiotic and half-assed "but it's for the children" argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for eliminating women's suffrage. I do like how your mom has unbeatable insight into this issue as well.
For the pro-socialists - you really need better arguments. All you're doing is saying that someone else paying the bill is wonderful and why doesn't everyone prefer this? It would be wonderful if we could assume away all consequences, but, er, we can't. One of those things is that the government is horrible, programs only create jobs for bureaucrats and lobbyists rather than doing anything worthwile, and some poor sod, who frequently isn't the guy behind the tree, has to pay for the debacle.
The Frosts earn $45,000 a year. Median income for a family of 4 in Maryland is $94,000 (and they're a family of 6). -brooksfoe
US Census Bureau puts the median income in Maryland at $56,763 (there is a mean household size as well, but this isn't factored into household earnings). While $11,000 is less than the regional median, it isn't $38000 below. The Frosts aren't the closet-millionaires that the right wing is painting them as, but they're not Maryland's poorest either.
Brooksfoe,
I have two questions about your arguement. First, is $94,000 really the median income for a family of 4 in Maryland (seems a little high), or is that a typo which should read $49,000?
Second, the Frosts are precisely the sort of family that might cause reasonable people to disagree about whether they should be covered under a needs based health program like S-CHIP. They are solidly middle class, a little bit irresponsible, and have suffered a terrible misfortune. It sounds as though they might (barely) be able to cover their medical bills without government assistance, but it would place them on the brink of poverty, and certainly reduce their standard of living considerably.
Under the current system, they receive coverage. To me, that seems to indicate that the system is working pretty well. How is that an argument for expanding the program?
heedless, that's probably about right. But it's not about right in Baltimore, where the Frosts live, and median household income is about half the state average.
But a number of people seem to believe that the very act of questioning whether Graeme Frost really needed the state to pay for his health care is somehow tantamount to accusing him of mopery while simultaneously suggesting that he be chopped up into small pieces and served flambeed to a party of laughing Republicans along with their Bébé Irakien en Croute.
Megan:
This is a ridiculous portrayal of the current debate.
Bloggers such as Sadly, No! aren't complaining that people are arguing whether the Frosts are entitled to Schip.
They are complaining because:
- Their address and places of work were posted on the internet.
- They have received threatening phone calls.
- Bloggers have visited their work and talked to their co-workers, as well as visiting their house.
- Dan Riehl somehow linked an assumption of the Frosts having "liberal views on abortion" to the argument, suggesting that they should have aborted rather than have children on the off chance they may be unable to afford medical insurance at some point.
- They have been accused of being poor parents, in being irresponsible in being self-employed, and of fraudulently claiming benefits when no such evidence exists.
The blogstorm isn't over them being civilly suggested as not being the ideal recipients of healthcare benefits. The blogstorm is over them being harrassed, stalked, and accused of being frauds and bad parents. To pin this the oversensitivity of liberal bloggers speaks of a terrible ignorance of the debate.
brooksfoe writes: "And there we go, back into the eternal dull libertarian sludge. Is it really necessary for me to bring up the ever-ready defense-budget retort? Yes, I suppose it is: I want to spend no more than $100 billion a year on defense; if we need a deepwater navy at all I think one or two carriers would suffice. So please give me my share of $400 billion a year back. Also, I find it morally objectionable to have to subsidize immoral people who don't like kids, so please start your own police department and travel on your own roads; I don't want to share mine with you. And on, and on, and on."
Repiglicans think military spending is their divine right - and no, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest. Sick kids, on the other hand, get to go live with Jeezus if they die, so they're in a win-win situation.
Only atheists and socialists question the fact that Jeezus wants the US to be the rootinest, tootinest kick-ass nation of killers on the planet.
Yee-hah!
From what I've read, the Frost kids go to a $20,000/year private school. Even if they have scholarships, they are still paying something more than public school would cost.
Mr. Frost owns his woodworking business and the building it is in. He also leases out part of the building to another business.
People who own their own business often have odd finances and it's hard to compare them directly to someone who is working for a salary. He may have assets in his company that aren't reported as his personal income.
Their house is apparently worth quite a bit, as well. This is an asset that could be sold and they could move to a less expensive house. While I understand why they might not want to, I'm not sure why they should get a government subsidy to continue to live in an expensive house.
I've also read where others have done some research and found health insurance in the area for less than $1,200/month.
Couldn't the Democrats have found a clear-cut case for S-CHIP to use? And regardless, do we really want public policy decisions based on appeals to emotion? Should we automatically support any program that can be plausibly (or even implausibly) framed as being "for the children?"
The current S-CHIP bill considers anyone under age 25 as a "child." It also considers anyone making up to $84,000/year as being "poor". Pretty soon we'll have a program for poor children that provides insurance to everyone in the country. What's next? Let's provide transportation subsidies to poor handcapped people where "poor" = anyone who makes under $100,000/year and "handicapped" means anyone who can't fly.
EI
Isocrates sputters: "When even self-styled libertarians make excuses for big new middle class entitlements, the prospects of cutting back on government start to look pretty grim."
Isocrates is a big cheerleader for the people who have been "cutting back on government" over the past 6 years by shredding the Constitution, of course. So let's not be silly here - he's an authoritarian statist, not any sort of "conservative" in the traditional sense.
He wants the strongest central government possible - he just doesn't want it to provide any benefits to the citizenry. This is what you get when you mix an autocrat with a cheapskate.
Perhaps if Association Health Plans hadn't been defeated in Congress for the past several Congresses, small businesses would be allowed to band together and self-insure under ERISA and thereby have access to affordable health insurance just like medium and large sized businesses.
Of course, the same folks pushing greater government involvement in health insurance have been the same folks defeating solutions like AHPs, which could bring affordable insurance to millions of the uninsured.
A lot of times, the idea that you can't get cheaper health insurance on your own is a myth. A few weeks ago, Coyote Blog had a post on this in which he showed that health care can become much more affordable if you actually try to shop for insurance on your own, and are just willing to deal with a higher deductible. The difference between the deductible amounts is not even close to the amount of savings on the premium. Plus, there will be plenty of years where you don't even reach your deductible, so you wind up saving even more. So, I have no doubt that the Frosts could have gotten insurance for less than $1200 a month (which is about the going rate for no-deductible insurance for a family of four under a small group plan).
I think if the brave bloggers of the right have questions about the Frosts' eligibility for SCHIP, they should call the proper agency in Maryland and ask about how this could be investigated. Anything else is at best baseless speculation and, at worse, harassment. Indeed, some of the worst statements about them should be investigated as criminal threats.
Except for Malkin and Riehl, both of whom are clearly nuts, most of these people are doing it anonymously. How courageous! How truly American!
Shame on them.
As to Megan's whine about using children as trump cards, please. Your party does it all the time. Bush when he vetoed the stem cell bill for starters. Once again, you are coming up with some lame justification after the fact. Your fellow neocons are behaving abominably. End of story.
Mark, you have no idea how much insurance would cost for them because you have no idea of their status, pre-existing conditions, specific needs for specific care, and on and on and on.
More baseless speculation.
The nation we share and live in is better for each of us when all children get to see doctors regularly (while well) and have prompt care for illness and injury.
It would be better also to live in a nation of sturdy, self-sufficient libertarians who provide for their children that way. But we don't. The fact is that we cannot coerce 100% of Americans to 'do the right thing' by being successful and virtuous.
In that case the ethical person still would find some way to provide access to medical care to every child if for no other reason than the un-insured child who sits next to my grandson and your daughter.
Defining ethics or morality by starting with theft as the cardinal sin results in the kind of poor thinking that vetoes S-CHIP. Real ethics begins with the necessity of relieving suffering.
Conservatives have alternatives; the American 'Public Health' infrastructure (to which we would turn if terrorists use another biological agent) is woefully inadequately funded. Where, oh where, is their concern for that? No their only concern is their miserable pay envelope with it's deductions that feel like theft. Neither their hearts nor brains can see past it.
US Census Bureau puts the median income in Maryland at $56,763 (there is a mean household size as well, but this isn't factored into household earnings).
And the US Census Bureau puts the median household income FOR A HOUSEHOLD OF 4 in Maryland at $94,000. If you looked up the first stat, you can look up the second. It's at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html. The overall median income includes lots of households of 1 person. Obviously, these households have lower income than households with spouses and kids, and also lower expenses.
For a family of 4 in Maryland, the Frosts are among the working poor. That's why they qualified for SCHIP.
Addendum: the median income for a family of 6 in Maryland is actually slightly lower: $91,000. The explanation is pretty easy to imagine. It still puts the Frosts way down on the left side of the curve.
From what I've read, the Frost kids go to a $20,000/year private school. Even if they have scholarships, they are still paying something more than public school would cost.
The $20,000/year is a strawman. What matters is how much they pay. Five hundred dollars. They are paying that because they, um, care about their kid. Last I checked, Baltimore public schools (like most urban public schools) are not very good. Isn't private education sort of, like, important for Republicans? The fact that this kid got an amazing scholarship to attend a quality private school should be applauded.
Their house is apparently worth quite a bit, as well. This is an asset that could be sold and they could move to a less expensive house. While I understand why they might not want to, I'm not sure why they should get a government subsidy to continue to live in an expensive house.
Less expensive house? Where? In the middle of that ghetto in The Wire? In case you didn't realize it, housing prices are really fucking expensive right now. The median for a house in Baltimore is $300,000 and their property is within that 50th-75th percentile range. In other words, not out of the ordinary. Certainly not lavish. They bought the house when it was cheap, in an unsafe neighborhood, and have ridden it out. Why aren't Republicans praising them for their solid investment? Why are Republicans asking them to become homeless to pay for medical bills? Why do Republicans want to punish them for living in a house which is merely average for the area?
So, I have no doubt that the Frosts could have gotten insurance for less than $1200 a month (which is about the going rate for no-deductible insurance for a family of four under a small group plan).
I am so sick of idiots saying this. ONE OF THE KIDS IS FUCKING BRAIN DAMAGED! ANOTHER KID HAS SERIOUS INJURIES! What is the chance a company will insure them? I'll tell you, about 0%. And if they did, it would be at least $1200 a month and anything related to the brain damage or serious injury will NOT be covered. Nor will anything that could conceivably have a 1% chance of being tied to those problems (which, by the company's viewpoint, it all will).
This smearing of a hardworking, taxpaying, business-owning family is just beyond disgusting. Unless there is clear evidence they defrauded the state of Maryland then STFU.
People who own their own firms are VERY capable of structuring their incomes to their advantage. This is one of the reasons to work for yourself.
The people at the Ivies are well aware of this and thus ask for personal AND business tax returns and balance sheets when applying for financial aid. I could have qualified for full support if they hadn't asked for business statements and balance sheets - just have my parents take as little as possible in dividends and cut their salaries. Sadly Havahd's financial aid office understands how this works and won't simply accept what you file with the IRS.
It is pretty much guaranteed that Mr. Frost is pushing as many expenses to his business as possible and taking as little as possible in compensation so as to qualify for this government program. From his family history, he's also able to pursue his interest in woodworking with little concern to its viability thanks to family backing. The family could easily get help for health insurance as they get help for the 20k/ child private school.
Further, it is likely that the Frost's assets are earning a great deal of money. Tap that asset to fund current expenses while the business grows, rather than making people who are much less well off than them supplement their income. The government should not be encouraging people to structure their income downwards to get free stuff. It is just as idiotic as favoring certain types of energy or certain ways of creating dietary sugar.
Tax policy is really screwed up. The more programs and benefits that are run off of the tax assessment system, the more perverse it gets. S-Chip is but one of many programs that do or will create more complications to the tax code, just like inheritance taxes, the attempt to tax carried interest, the various targeted tax credits, tax carve-outs for certain industries, etc. Simplify taxes, speed economic growth, and you have less need for government programs. It will satisfy everyone but the lawyers, accountants, lobbysists, and journalists. Having those four groups unhappy is an absolute good and should be the aim of all decent people.
PS. Megan, you need to get out of DC and stop associating with these journalists. They're rotting your brain!
Hey writes: "It is pretty much guaranteed that Mr. Frost is pushing as many expenses to his business as possible and taking as little as possible in compensation so as to qualify for this government program."
Uh huh. Is "Hey" short for, "Hey, why not just make crap up in a sorry effort to support a failed argument"?
I've previously commented about the problems of having someone who is not an economics expert play one on a blog.
But this is absurd:
"Public goods are not "things that it would be nice if the public provided"; they are "things where there is massive public good for all citizens, but where the temptation to free ride makes financing the effort likely impossible."
WHAT???????
A public good is something that has beneficial externalities. In its most narrow form, it is a good that has a MC approaching zero for each particpant - and so that each individual's consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other indvidual's consumption of that good. Thus, the problem isn't that financing the effort is impossible, but that private market incentives often lead to underproduction and/or underconsumption. Your dystopian definition of public goods is the stuff of pure fantasy.
Is anyone here aware that the family was turned down 3 times for private health insurance because of preexisting conditions? What are they supposed to do at that point? People are so effin' quick to jump on the bandwagon they cherry pick info that supports their cause. Now, because of this and that stalker Malkin who has posted the family's personal info on her site and has yet to take it down, the family is being harrassed for not being poor enough in eyes of those who would condemn them. I really hope they sue her.
Is it really necessary for me to bring up the ever-ready "public goods" retort?
You can bring it up, and that will send us shooting right back into the argument that health insurance is a public good. It is a public good for exactly the same reason that national defense is a public good: when the government doesn't pay for it, it doesn't work. There are millions of uninsured kids in the US. Perhaps their parents "should" be paying for health insurance for them, but they're not; and frankly, any explanation that rests on the assumption that huge numbers of parents don't care about the health of their kids seems to me to be based on a faulty understanding of human nature. In any case, as you say, it's not the kids' fault that their parents haven't insured them; not guaranteeing them health insurance is unfair to kids whose parents are too poor or negligent to provide it to them. Do you have some way of arguing that a guarantee of health insurance for all kids, something only the government can provide, is not a "public good"?
But look, this whole thing is just another dodge. We weren't talking about whether health insurance was a public good; we were talking about whether or not it was okay for the Democrats to focus their programs on serving kids. The accusation was that it's somehow a "cheap shot" to target a program at kids, because it makes it hard to oppose. It makes it hard to oppose because there's general agreement that we should do good things for our kids! When I point this out, you say, "Oh, but it's not a public good." Fine then; argue that it's not a public good. (You'll lose, but go ahead and argue it.) But don't try to tell me that there's something sleazy about doing things for kids! We do things for kids because we like kids. Not to mention that little thing about how we're supposed to be responsible for their welfare.
There is a direct parallel to this case and those 'compassionate' Bush Conservatives not wanting to see coffins of those we have lost in Iraq.
As long as they don't have to put on a face on it, or personalize the pain and suffering caused by wrong-headed policies, they can pretend that the suffering does not exoist, or matter.
The Dems, for a change, did the right thing.
The GOP has just committed political suicide. Billions for war profiteers, with no oversight, but nickel-and-dime those who want health care for their children.
Supporters of this inane policy have blood on their hands, if just one child denied coverage dies because of it.
Of course, the whole issue with the Frost kids is a distraction. The problem with the bill is not that it covers kids who can't afford insurance, it's that the new version covers kids who currently have health insurance, covers more adults, and lies about the costs.
The whole issue of the Frost kids is probably good for the Democrats because it distracts from the actual bill and gets everyone all worked up over one family who may or may not deserver to be in the program. They really don't matter to the big picture.
EI
Can someone explain something to me?
As I understand it, Bush is saying that the program should be limited to families that earn 200% of the poverty line, correct? Which would be $55,200. So wouldn't the Frosts be covered by SCHIP even under the Bush plan? What am I missing?
Incidentally, I find this sentence unintentionally revealing:
It may be necessary, but the desire does not make you a better person than those who do not want to take money from the third party to do nice things.
It's not actually about who's "a better person"; no one had raised that issue. There may be some anxiety over that question, but it might be worth thinking about where that anxiety is coming from.
I'm a liberal dem, who supports the concept of what brought about the original CHIP program, but am upset at the ability for those who do not need the program to be able to so easily hijack it to avoid their own responsibility.
Frankly, considering how difficult it is for poor American citizens to prove their own need for safety net programs, including medicaid. Even an old car is treated as a luxury. A friend's family attempted to get medicaid as a supplemental coverage as the public hospital in her state wouldn't allow her critically ill husband to see the specialist he needed, because medicare is no longer enough these days. They were turned down because they had an old junker of a car, that the state agency claimed had to be worth at least 4,000. That they should sell it first. He died last year from a cancer that went undiagnosed.
The same democratic party that hand picked Graeme Frost has abandoned poor American citizens who are finding their wages dropping, being terminated and replaced by cheap foreign labor. Accused of being racist or xenophobic because they expect to be heard by their elected representatives and senators when they call to talk about how they are facing homelessness and other privations. When some of us call to share our concerns on the fact that poor American women are being diagnosed with anemia at numbers not seen since the great depression because incomes are no longer enough to provide adequate supplies of produce, like dark leafy green vegetables, or even a bag of apples if you're poor enough, not to mention protein sources. Yet you're treated as though you're discussing the weather. The realities of the American poor are dismissed cavalierly.
Let's face it, something stinks in the rhetoric we are being treated to, and it's not just the right wing attempting to evade the need to be accountable.
The actions of the Frost's as negligent parents is a viable issue. They are not struggling middle class. I have to wonder why anyone who hides their business property away as an LLC is allowed to sneak through the documentation process for Maryland's SCHIP program? He hides his financial holdings to avoid reportation and taxation. It's no more palatable when he does it, than a right winger.. so why is this hypocrisy ignored? What does that tell you about those who defend him? It tells me their type of government would be as hypocritical and corrupt as what we have under Bush.
The parents of F. Halsey Frost are multimillionaires. They can afford to underwrite Princeton University programs, and on luxury items like classic cars and junkets, yet do you expect me to believe that they don't subsidize their son? That there isn't some blind trust established to grease his way through life, but not be taxable or open to public scrutiny?
A poor man who died because his old clunker car (worth a total of 100. when it was sold after his death) was held against him when applying for medicaid, yet a man who has secret, protected income is allowed to get free health care insurance for himself and his family free of charge isn't subjected to the same documentation process? Why wasn't he told to sell his half million dollar home and move to a less expensive place to pay his fair share as those out there who are truly poor are told to do?
Or is it that undocumented trust fundies and millionaires are the new protected class? I remember when welfare recipients were ridiculed as welfare queens, yet the Frosts are the welfare queen made real.
Just ignore those who truly are in need.. just like Bush and his contractor pals, who benefit from the public purse, there are desperate undocumented trust fundies and millionaires out there who are given carte blanche and unfettered access to siphon away limited resources that were intended for those who have no other choice.
If you can turn a blind eye to hypocrisies like this, then you're no better an advocate for those in need than any neo-con. The Frosts make a mockery and actually demean those who truly suffer. They bring to life every false accusation against crucial social services that have been tossed at them by the right wing. They are the sort who insure that those services are funded less and less over time. Get a clue, people.
Jenny, if you want to prove you're actually a liberal and not some Freeper on a sophomoric black op, you're going to have to make at least one honest-to-God, well thought out, heartfelt anti-GOP argument in this thread. And then tell us what you would do to get health insurance to the 7? million kids in the US who currently lack it.
We provide SCHIP not just because it's a nice thing to do, but because it's a cost-effective safety net in a very broken health care system.
SCHIP costs, on average, $758 per child per year. This small expenditure by the government saved the Frosts hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because the government provides a group insurance pool, children who qualify financially cannot be turned away due to preexisting conditions, as they can in my state for such expensive and life-threatening conditions as ezcema.
Is it not the very best use of government to assist working families? Are we really saying that in America, it's OK with us if hard working people lose everything they've built to some black ice? This family will keep its livelihood and its status as taxpayers because of the government's small contribution - a contribution that will be repaid many times over.
And finally, as far as budgetary concerns go, the US taxpayer subsidizes most private health insurance far more through the tax deduction. If the self-employed Frosts had managed to purchase an average $12,000 per year health insurance policy, it would have been tax deductible, and the government would've paid 30% (15% income tax plus 15% social security/self employment tax), or $3600 per year. (The wealthier you are, the more the government will pay for your health insurance.) SCHIP is a good deal for the country all the way around.
djshay asks: "Is anyone here aware that the family was turned down 3 times for private health insurance because of preexisting conditions? What are they supposed to do at that point?"
In the Bush-loving minds of the wingnuts, they're supposed to pray for aid that never comes and praise Jeezus as their kids die.
Let's not pretend ever again that today's GOP is comprised of decent people. It's comprised of malignant narcissists who thrive - emotionally and often financially - on the suffering of others.
But there I go being shrill again.
Oh please, brooksfoe, that old game. Attack someone as being a troll so as to demean what they are saying because you can not honestly debate them.
Freeper, sophmoric? Let's deal with the plain facts. You, who dismiss the legitimate concerns of the poorest, who are the ones suffering, and make excuses for fraud and corruption. You, who is so sophmoric that you equate paying attention to nothing more than what lie directly beneath your own nose, as being liberal or progressive? Sorry, but no you don't.
I'm an old school liberal. You are the sort of sham liberal who berated the late senator Robert Kennedy when he traveled around the country a bit more than 41 years ago, exposing dire rural and urban poverty. Who took a stand against the corporate elite and the military industrial complex (a real stand) who rationalized open borders and challenged us to stand with those in poor countries to demand their governments do more for their citizens. To you, civil rights probably is limited to someone being able to have multiple piercings, or something idiotically similar, rather than the truly important rights, like being able to vote and work and not enslaved. The right to health care for all, not just the wealthy. The right to free speech and not to have that speech oppressed by willing fascists, whether from the far right or the far left.
Grow up, there is a reason why fools like you are ignored.
They were covered under the existing plan. Bush vetoed a plan that proposed boosting spending by $35 billion (to cover "children" through the age of 25) while he offered an alternative such as what you describe that boosted spending by $5 billion. Claiming "Bush wants to deny children health care" is simply a lie, and just adds to the demagoguery on this issue.
Examining the Frosts' situation also clearly explains what is talked about when we refer to "poor" people. I don't know how someone can be described as "working poor" and own rental property.
So basically* because the parents decided to wait until after their kids were in accident to try to purchase health insurance, they found it more difficult and expensive than if they had bought it before. Or if at least one parent had stayed at their job that had health benefits for the family instead of leaving to start a business without making sure they had health coverage for their family.
* Assuming for the sake of argument, what you said is true which I wouldn't otherwise assume.
Elfling, if it's so inexpensive, then the congress should be extending SCHIP to poor families and individuals who do not have minor children, instead of to those who are already ensured and/or already affluent enough to afford to pay for it. That would truly be in the cause of addressing the health care crisis.
Irregardless of the the fact that we are all glad that those two children are recovered and healthy now, the fact is that if we are talking priorities, and we should be, the Frosts could afford to provide for their own insurance. They had NO preexisting conditions prior to the accident, and they were covered by SCHIP prior to the accident. Poor Americans have to comply with ridiculous documentation requirements to get medicaid, to ensure they aren't defrauding the system, apparently the Frosts weren't required to comply with similar documentation standards. It's unjust and discriminatory.
Should poor Americans have to go out and get pregnant just to be covered, should students and poor workers who are trying to work and build opportunity for themselves get pregant just to provide themselves health insurance? It's insane to rationalize extending what is a welfare benefit to those who are financially able to afford it for themselves.
I've read everything available on the Frost story. They could have purcahsed health insurance for 700 per month, prior to the accident, not 1,200. which was the figure from Harry Reid's speech writer. It would be great if all were covered, but they aren't. Our priority should be covering those unable to afford it first, rather than those who can. What's more, Frost's father is a multimillionaire. They could afford to help pay for insurance. This is rank hypocrisy that will do more to poison the discussion and prevent real health care reform.
I meant to paste this in to my response to brooksfoe above, but forgot. It's a quote from the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. A true liberal, a true democrat (not the sham kind his brother is)
“Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”
Well, Jenny, I don't actually know what you're on about. I agree with you that it should be easy for poor people to get Medicaid and that benefits should be competitive with private plans. In fact, I think we should eliminate the private insurance industry entirely, and give everybody health insurance; but that's not in the political cards apparently.
In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with the government subsidizing private health insurance for working-class people. You seem to be involved in one of what Ezra Klein classifies as the "rather-than-x-we-should-y" false dichotomies. Failing to expand SCHIP will not reduce the paperwork required for poor people to get Medicaid. If we want to make it easier for the poor to get Medicaid, we should...drumroll please...make it easier for the poor to get Medicaid! Ta-da. And then we can also expand SCHIP.
I suggest that "Hey" read some actual facts of the Frosts' lives. They no longer own a business, so they can't be doing any of the things Hey speculates they are, except earning rent money from the commercial property.
The actual news coverage of the Frosts made it quite clear. They qualified under Maryland's guidelines. If you think they cheated, report them. If you don't think they cheated and you don't like the guidelines, talk to your elected representatives. If you don't like what I am saying, ask yourself why you are so incredibly angry at these people.
Where does this baseless speculation come from? Why do people invent facts in their head and then run with them, imagining the Frosts to be the worst kind of people? Why all this anger at this one family? What in God's name is wrong with you people?
Oh, and the moron who said that the Frosts "[hid] their business property away as an LLC" to "sneak through the documentation process for Maryland's SCHIP program" knows nothing about LLCs or about the Maryland state guidelines.
But that didn't stop this person from accusing the Frosts of something bad. If I were that mother and father, I would be hiring a lawyer and looking into whom I could sue here. Maybe the angry accusers. Maybe the Atlantic for helping to publish these baseless, ignorant accusations.
Again, have some facts at hand before you accuse someone of malfeasance. Otherwise, you are showing how dark your heart is--and how completely ignorant you are--and nothing else.
Again, have some facts at hand before you accuse someone of malfeasance
Who was it who said that partisans now demand their own partisan facts?
The simple truth is that I don't have the assets to go around buying random buildings, yet I can afford private health insurance (which is considerably less expensive).
If this guy has the assets to buy rental properties, then he has the assets to buy a lifetime of private coverage without taking money from someone with less means than him, such as myself.
Median income for a family of 4 in Maryland is $94,000
Median income is $94,000 in Maryland?
No way. No way in Hell.
Maybe median income in those parts of Maryland that are within 10 miles of D.C. is $94,000, but not when the vast majority of the state is accounted for.
Where did this number come from?
It's wrong wherever it came from.
Maryland contains Blatimore, D.C. aftershocks, and Annapolis.
The rest of Maryland has much, much more in common (wealth, lifestyle and culture) with Mississippi than New England or California.
Then there're the beach towns, where 2/3 of the population is made up of semi-verbal immigrants from Russia or Nepal--none of whom are being paid $94,000 to clean toilets and pick up garbage.
Steve responds to my plea for an end to baseless speculation with .... more baseless speculation.
What a freaking tool.
But at least he didn't ascribe evil intent to the Frosts.
First off, I would hope that Jenny's post shows that my original post about the availability of cheaper insurance was not "baseless," since I was obviously referring to insurance costs pre-accident, not post-accident. Second, I have posted elsewhere that while I find the use of a 12 year old kid as a political prop to be highly exploitive, I also have a problem with the intense investigation into the family's finances, and the personal attacks on them in general. That said, if you are going to make a claim about their finances yourself, then you should be prepared to have that claim questioned.
Finally, I am very interested in receiving a response to my original post responding to brooksfoe's attack on libertarianism more generally (which was actually directed at him). I will re-post the relevant portion below. This to me is an important question, and I am very interested in the response.
"[T]here are hundreds of millions, even billions, of truly needy people in the world and in the USA. Why should you or government get to decide which of those people I should be charitable to? Why is forced funding of Graeme Frost and SCHIP inherently more moral/appropriate than my being able to voluntarily give money to a third world micro-loan program, or to research for AIDS in Africa, or to UNICEF, etc., etc.? Or, if you insist I spend my charity in the USA, why is SCHIP more worthy of forced taxation than voluntary funding for soup kitchens or programs like Bread for the City, etc.? Fact is there are too many worthy causes in the world for government to adequately fund them all, so why let government decide which causes are more worthy than others? Isn't that kind of arbitrary?"
Steve comments: "Median income is $94,000 in Maryland? No way. No way in Hell. Maybe median income in those parts of Maryland that are within 10 miles of D.C. is $94,000, but not when the vast majority of the state is accounted for. Where did this number come from?"
Some quick basic Googling provides this
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html for median income statistics by state. The Census Bureau, which is actually pretty good at these things, estimates that the median household income in MD for a family of 6 is 91,061 with a margin of error of +/-5,523.
And this link http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi3.html
shows that for the 3 years from 2004 to 2006, only NJ had a higher average median household income.
Whether looking at the mean household income rather than the median makes a significant difference, I don't know.......
I think what the Republicans and libertarians are overlooking is that it is not a choice of us paying or not paying. If we don't pay for these kid's health insurance we will surely pay for their ER visits.
A reply to your totally not in response to anything I or other critics might have said can be found here, http://firemeganmcardle.blogspot.com/2007/10/megan-just-admit-it.html, Megan.
Mark, pre-accident, post-accident, in the middle of the accident, you still have no basis for saying how much the Frosts would pay for health insurance. As I already said, you have no idea how much insurance would cost for them because you have no idea of their status, pre-existing conditions (and I was not referring to the accident here), specific needs for specific care, and on and on and on. Everyone's mileage will vary on this if they have any kind of special circumstances at all (and again, nothing to do with the accident).
And, by the way, the Frosts are a family of 6, not of 4.
You want to question the Frosts' claim to SCHIP benefits? Call the right Maryland agency, identify yourself by name, and ask for an investigation. Have some guts, instead of this anonymous, cowardly, and baseless name calling.
Finally, it is to laugh you describing the "intense investigations" of the family's finances. Some freeper Googling mindlessly is an investigation? No, it is a moron Googling and coming to baseless conclusions, and then it is a swarm of morons taking up the cause and coming to more baseless conclusions again and again and again.
It's tiresome, mean-spirited, and stupid. I read on another blog there might be lawyers involved on behalf of the Frosts. I hope there are.
What's more, Frost's father is a multimillionaire.
Source, please? I Googled and found nothing. Except links to Limbaugh and Free Republic which are not credible sources.
Liberalrob, they meant to say he is a multigazillionaire and owns the entire state of Maryland.
I think they are using Dan Riehl, who among other things dug up the damning detail that the senior Frosts were among scores of donors who donated a grand total of $15,000 to send the Princeton band on a trip. That makes them as rich as Bill Gates!
An Army of Davids? More like an army of freaking Yahoos.
My browser keeps crashing and I'd get hit by the spam filter anyways.
For a very illuminating understanding for the Frosts, Google the following:
"Halsey Frost" the father of the family
"Bonnie Frost" the mother
"Corwin Frost" Halsey's dad
"Frederick G Frost" Halsey's grandfather
"James R Sebring" Bonnie's father
"Gwendolyn Belle Corwin" Halsey's grandmother
Quick recap - he comes from 3 generations of prominent NYC architects, his ancestors have been prominent in Bronxville for nearly a century, both he and his cousin had wedding announcements in the NYT when it was solely the purview of the most elite, he's a double Princeton legacy but it is unclear if he attended college. Halsey's dad has been involved with many large development projects and closed the family architecture firm in 1980 when Halsey's grandfather retired. Halsey's aunt and uncle hail from "Providence and Narragansett, R.I., and Eleuthera, Bahamas." Bonnie's father was an engineering exec for a number of defence contractors who consulted for the Navy for 15 years after retiring.
All of the above can be sourced from the NYT, Baltimore Sun, Princeton alumni magazine, and community papers.
These are children of generations of privilege who somehow can't afford healthcare. They are a joke, not the poster children for the working poor.
Here's the kids' school http://www.parkschool.net/slide_show/view.cfm?objectid=13
Charles:
At what point, exactly, did I question their eligibility for the program? I never made any claims about their income levels, the cost of their schooling, etc., and have repeatedly said that I find such inquiries to be entirely out of line.
The only question I raised was in regards to the statement made by a commenter in this thread that they could not have found insurance less than $1200 per month. Perhaps I erred in using the phrase "no doubt", but it was hardly pure speculation that less expensive health insurance was available, since I have a pretty good idea of what small group insurance usually costs without a deductible vs. with a deductible.
And the broader point in the statement I made was intended to be less about them specifically than it was about the general claim that reasonably affordable health insurance doesn't exist for individuals.
Charles:
At what point, exactly, did I question their eligibility for the program? I never made any claims about their income levels, the cost of their schooling, etc., and have repeatedly said that I find such inquiries to be entirely out of line.
The only question I raised was in regards to the statement made by a commenter in this thread that they could not have found insurance less than $1200 per month. Perhaps I erred in using the phrase "no doubt", but it was hardly pure speculation that less expensive health insurance was available, since I have a pretty good idea of what small group insurance usually costs without a deductible vs. with a deductible.
And the broader point in the statement I made was intended to be less about them specifically than it was about the general claim that reasonably affordable health insurance doesn't exist for individuals.
Hey (also known as Michelle Malkin's personal assistant) posts:
"Here's the kids' school (link deleted because I'm not a human tapeworm)."
How old were you when you strangled your first kitten, Hey?
MLAJ: there are private schools and there are private schools. Park is one heck of a school and I thought it interesting to see what the arts facility on campus looked like.
You're throwing ad hominems at me, but I was just trying to give substance to this topic as liberalrob was asking for sources that didn't offend his politics. When are you going to start with ping pong jokes? VERY CLASSY!
Is Hey's argument that Graeham shouldn't get health care because he has/had a rich grandfather?
Justin, it is Hey's argument that anyone with grandparents should not receive anything, ever.
It is also Hey's argument that he/she can hide in anonymity, say one random thing after another, and expect people to divine an argument from this.
It is my argument that people like Hey are pathetic losers and cowards. Once again, I insist that people who feel the Frosts acted illegally should call the state of Maryland, identify themselves by name, and demand an official investigation.
(By the way, Hey's reference to the Frosts having a rich uncle and aunt is priceless. How many people have an uncle or aunt who did well? Many. How many people get anything from them? Few or none. Really, you wonder how people like Hey are bright enough to even remember to feed and clothe themselves every morning. Maybe they don't...)
(Another by the way, can you imagine how pathetic this person Hey's life is to spend all this time researching meaningless details and imagining they have found some meaningful treasure trove? "O my god, they have a rich uncle and aunt!!1!!!1!!!)
Mark, you make some ok points in rebuttal, but your original statement was still baseless. You said, "So, I have no doubt that the Frosts could have gotten insurance for less than $1200 a month." Once again, you simply cannot say that, as you have no idea what their circumstances were or are. But if you want to imagine otherwise, go for it. This whole thing has tired me out.
Hey replies: "MLAJ: there are private schools and there are private schools. Park is one heck of a school and I thought it interesting to see what the arts facility on campus looked like.
You're throwing ad hominems at me, but I was just trying to give substance to this topic as liberalrob was asking for sources that didn't offend his politics. When are you going to start with ping pong jokes? VERY CLASSY!"
What you're doing, Hey, is beating up a couple of damaged kids in order to further your revolting political agenda. Like Michelle Malkin, you're the worst sort of bottom-feeding Bush-loving tool.
Well, if I were deciding who won this argument based on who tried to use insults and rude, personal attacks to win, I think I'd have to go with the opponents of the current SCHIP bill. The liberal representation in this thread is not making their side look good...
You must be struggling to come up with rational arguments if all you can do is throw insults. You're not really adding to the discussion or helping anyone understand the issue by doing so.
Personally, I'm happy with the SCHIP program. I'm just not happy with the massive expansion of it to cover children who already have insurance. I'd like to see the program continued as it was. But the Democrats in Congress want to replace private insurance with SCHIP.
EI
Earnest whines: "Well, if I were deciding who won this argument based on who tried to use insults and rude, personal attacks to win, I think I'd have to go with the opponents of the current SCHIP bill. The liberal representation in this thread is not making their side look good...
You must be struggling to come up with rational arguments if all you can do is throw insults. You're not really adding to the discussion or helping anyone understand the issue by doing so."
You're not helping by ignoring the many insults tossed by you and your fellow cons, chuckles.
The reality is that Repiglicans had total control for 6 years and did absolutely nothing of value with health care - as costs spiraled up in an absurd fashion. When universal health care is enacted I hope your heads all explode - you'll have no one to blame but yourselves and your collective decision to elect a cheap, stupid hustler like Dumbya Bush as president.
Steve responds to my plea for an end to baseless speculation with .... more baseless speculation.
What a freaking tool.
If Frost had the $200,000 needed to buy a building he does not use for work or residence (i.e. a luxury), then that means he could have foregone that building purchase and used the $200,000 to buy his own health insurance.
Even if that Health Insurance cost $10,000 per year (which is much higher than any private Health Insurance I've ever heard of), his family would be covered for twenty years.
Are logic and math "baseless" "tool" making processes in your world?
It's one thing for the government to step in and pick up the tab for someone who can't pay rent and health insurance.
But I don't find it a great tragedy when someone can't purchase nonessential buildings and still make his health insurance payments. The obvious answer is that he shouldn't be buying buildings, not that his neighbors should pick up his health insurance tab.
Let's not put the safety net above the trapeze here.
The Census Bureau, which is actually pretty good at these things, estimates that the median household income in MD for a family of 6 is 91,061 with a margin of error of +/-5,523.
Color me incredulous. I've been all over Maryland and most of what I remember are gangs and people that belong in Deliverance.
D.C. must move the numbers up a great deal.
Steve writes: "Color me incredulous. I've been all over Maryland and most of what I remember are gangs and people that belong in Deliverance.
D.C. must move the numbers up a great deal."
Steve is apparently a highly-accomplished moron. I've been "all over Maryland" and it's a state that ranks in the top half of America overall.
But I guess Steve prefers life in South Carolina or Mississippi or whatever Republican paradise he calls home.
Mark, on the off chance you're still reading, the short answer is that your "why should government decide which cause my tax money should be spent on" argument cannot be less than an argument for abolishing government entirely. There are indeed many things one might want to spend money on; there are many things the government does spend money on. Every single one of those things represents a choice to spend money on one thing and not on another. From the sewage plant that treats the crap that comes out of your toilet to the F-18 that launches from a carrier in the middle of the Pacific to supposedly do some vague thing related to "national security", I could object that none of these things is worth a penny of my money. But we live in a modern liberal-democratic society in which agreements about taxation and spending are reached via a democratic political process. If you don't like it, you can't get to the far side of that situation short of moving to a country like Somalia that lacks a government (and in which, invariably, your money will be extorted via much less democratic means).
In the particular case at hand, we are talking about the fact that 11% of America's children have no health insurance, and what can be done to ensure that every American child has health insurance, which most Americans agree ought to be part of the basic package of rights which American children get -- like the guarantee of a decent education, of protection from physically abusive parents, and of not starving to death.
Oh, and MoeLarry -- Steve is completely hopeless. Median income for a family of 4 is $60,000 IN ALABAMA. There's noplace in America where the Frosts are at median income.
There's noplace in America where the Frosts are at median income.-brooksfoe
I don't want to get into the trenches in this war over one particular family, but I would point out that you can't just look at income to see what people's means are. You have to look at assets as well. I don't pretend to know exactly wat the net assets of this family are. I've read some accounts about their house or the private school their kids attend, but it's hard to tell what the truth is about their financial situation.
The main point is, though, that a millionaire could have a very low income on any given year. That doesn't make him poor.
Steve comes back to compound his ignorance about the Frosts. If he read any of the real news coverage of the Frosts, he would have learned that the Frosts originally bought the commercial building for 160K to house his business. He no longer runs the business, so he uses the building for rental income.
But sure, Steve should speculate that Frost runs around buying 200K buildings for no reason at all, if that makes him feel better.
What a small man he must be to cling to lies and distortion in order to remain angry because Michelle Malkin and the freepers are telling him to remain angry.
Isocrates, if you read real news coverage of this, you would know the full story of the Frosts and you wouldn't remain in the land of idle speculation.
Why is the rightwing so averse to simple facts about this story? Why is it so important for them to remain willfully uninformed in order to stay angry? I think that is the real story here.
Oh, but I do love how Steve rejects census bureau figures in favor of his own anecdotal experience with Maryland. A wonderful example of the rightwing being allergic to logic and innumerate in one fell swoop!
I suggest Steve write a proposal to the editors of the Atlantic Monthly. He can write a long article about how poor Maryland actually is, based on his extensive research and travels in the state. He will make American readers forget all about de Tocqueville.
So, Charles:
Isocrates is in the land of idle speculation (and thus impugning the Frosts' integrity) because he doesn't particularly care about this particular debate over this particular family's income other than to make a broader point about the relevance of income to debates like this.
Similarly, I am in the land of idle speculation (and thus impugning the Frosts' integrity) because I don't particularly care about this particular debate over this particular family's income other than to make a broader point about the affordability of insurance more generally.
Yet you, in assuming that we are somehow attempting to impugn the Frosts' integrity and activiely choosing to ignore facts with no evidence in support of that assumption, are somehow not in the "land of idle speculation."
Mark, I explained my objection to your unsupported assumption three times. Like I said, if it makes you feel better, declare yourself the winner. It's not my job today to explain the fundamentals of argumentation and debate. You are tiresome.
Isocrates writes: "I don't want to get into the trenches in this war over one particular family, but I would point out that you can't just look at income to see what people's means are. You have to look at assets as well. I don't pretend to know exactly wat the net assets of this family are. I've read some accounts about their house or the private school their kids attend, but it's hard to tell what the truth is about their financial situation.
The main point is, though, that a millionaire could have a very low income on any given year. That doesn't make him poor."
So your "main point" is that you have no relevant point to make about this family, but you're still piling on because you're a loyal member of the Bush/Malkin/Limbaugh cult and that's what your reflex forces you to do.
And how exactly does the school the kids attend qualify as an "asset"? You can't possibly be that stupid, so apparently you're just tossing crap up in the air to distract.
The Frost father, Halsey, has the money quote in this whole affair:
"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write."
I really do hope this family takes legal action.
...Except your objection was itself an unsupported assumption (to wit: I was trying to impugn the Frosts' integrity and accuse them of fraud when I was accusing them of nothing whatsoever).
You know most people apologize when they are confronted with evidence that they have made a false accusation against somebody. Specifically, this accusation that I had engaged in "anonymous, cowardly, and baseless name calling," when in fact I had done nothing even remotely close to that.
You know, Mark, you are right. I read back through the thread. You did not name call, and I unfairly labeled you as doing such. You did make an unsupported assumption about what health insurance would cost them, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that for some reason. That frustrated the hell out of me.
But you are not like Hey and Earnest and the others, who seem intent on repeating the Malkin talking points anonymously.
So for that I apologize.
Thanks Megan- That last line says it all.
Apology accepted. As for the unsupported assumption about the health care costs, one of my earlier posts acknowledged that I erred in using the phrase "no doubt." I should have said "most likely."