Some thoughts on the Graeme Frost issue

I'm on deadline, so I haven't been following the ephemera of S-Chip as closely as I might. Apparently the Democrats paraded some kid name Graeme Frost in front of a camera in support of S-Chip. Now conservatives are claiming that the kid is actually affluent, and therefore shouldn't be getting gummint money for health insurance. My thoughts:

1) I told y'all this was going to happen. Maybe next time you'll listen, hmmm?

2) Anecdotes, no matter how photogenic, are terrible ways to make policy. It doesn't matter how crappy your public policy is; I guarantee I can find one very telegenic person who is better of under your godawful boondoggle of a system than under almost any other potential system. But argument by anecdote is what we seem to be stuck with, particularly in the realm of social policy affecting children. Isn't democracy marvelous?

3) If Think Progress's account of the case is basically accurate--the family owns its own business, has a lowerish-middle class income, but lives in a basically nice neighbourhood--this actually raises important issues about benefits that no one is asking. To wit: should we expect families to sell assets in order to qualify for benefits? On the one hand, Medicaid's ludicrous rules keep disabled people in crippling poverty. On the other hand many people, including me, don't want to pay for the health care of someone so that they can stay in their Park Avenue mansion. At some point, it is reasonable to expect people to liquidate assets in order to pay for expenses, rather than expecting society to pick up the tab. But I'm not sure what point is reasonable.

I don't think this is particularly interesting as it applies to S-Chip; frankly, I doubt there are enough low-income families with children and sizeable assets to make it even worth debating the issue. But it is a very important question regarding Medicaid, because of all the elderly people who shelter significant assets in order to get Medicaid to pay for their nursing home care.

In the case of a spouse, this seems (usually) legitimate, again with the Park Avenue mansion exception: I don't care how long you've lived there, if you're squatting on five or ten million worth of real estate, you should sell it and pay for your spouse's nursing home, rather than asking the payroll clerks and bank tellers of the world to lend a helping hand. But normally, I don't think it's reasonable to demand that anyone make themselves homeless in order to qualify their spouse for a nursing home.

But that isn't the only reason people shelter assets; often they're doing it so that they can leave something to their children. This doesn't strike me as at all reasonable. You have a right to have society pay for your nursing home care if you are destitute and will otherwise suffer and die. You do not have a right to have society pay for your nursing home care so that you can leave the house and some financial assets to the kids. Aside from its rather repulsive moral logic, it's regressive; the people who benefit are upper-middle-class kids who have already benefitted quite a lot from their fortuitous choice of parents.

We need a better, more granular system than we have for deciding who qualifies for public assistance: one that doesn't force families of modest means out of their homes, but also doesn't allow wealthy families to gain the system as they currently do.

4) That said, even if Graeme Frost is basically middle-class-ish, that wouldn't be a stunning indictment of S-Chip. No system is without error; all will let through some people who don't deserve benefits, and miss some people who do. That there has been one error, in either direction, is not necessarily an indictment of the system, but merely an indication that we live in an imperfect world. Moreover, in the case of children, I'm perfectly content to bias the system towards including too many undeserving children, rather than take the chance of missing too many deserving ones. I find S-Chip's practice of covering adults problematic, but frankly, the prospect that Graeme Frost might have gotten some undeserved healthcare ranks, on my list of things to worry about, somewhere between pandemic toe fungus, and finalizing the guest list for my Chicago Cubs World Series Victory Party.

5) Reading the comments on this, I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you think we should die on? I do understand your objections to the program, but an informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother, indicates that this is killing you with the moderates. Save it for national health care next year, is what I'm saying. This debate is framing the issue in a way that is going to make things harder, not easier, when Hilarycare is on the table again.

Comments

In regards to your question addressed to conservatives and libertarians, I think they're answer is 'yes'. cf. :http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/08/7267

Posted by Rickm | October 9, 2007 5:56 PM

We need a better, more granular system than we have for deciding who qualifies for public assistance: one that doesn't force families of modest means out of their homes, but also doesn't allow wealthy families to gain the system as they currently do.

What about providing the same health care for everyone, and funding it with a progressive tax structure? Asset tests are a brute to administer.

Posted by LizardBreath | October 9, 2007 6:02 PM

Given the generous exemptions in the inheritance tax, this would not solve the particular problem I am discussing.

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 9, 2007 6:03 PM

Apparently the Democrats paraded some kid

Not the most even-handed use of terminology there, Megan. "Paraded?"

Anecdotes, no matter how photogenic, are terrible ways to make policy...But argument by anecdote is what we seem to be stuck with, particularly in the realm of social policy affecting children. Isn't democracy marvelous?

Well, compared to philosopher-kings, yes, I'd have to say so. Argument by anecdote is a tried and true method of illustrating features or failures of a proposal or policy. Assuming the anecdote is something that actually occurred, of course, and is related accurately.

At some point, it is reasonable to expect people to liquidate assets in order to pay for expenses, rather than expecting society to pick up the tab. But I'm not sure what point is reasonable.

Or you can avoid negotiating where to draw that line at all, by simply making health care a benefit of citizenship and financing it through progressive taxes, which fall more heavily on the wealthy than the poor. But OH NOES TEH SOCIALIZM!!!!1one!

But it is a very important question regarding Medicaid, because of all the elderly people who shelter significant assets in order to get Medicaid to pay for their nursing home care.

Yes, I'm very concerned that Warren Buffett not be subsidized for his nursing home care. I'd much rather set up a system that denies Medicaid to everyone, because I simply can't abide that possibility.

But wait a minute...how'd we get onto nursing home care of the wealthy elderly? The S-CHIP debate is about health care for POOR KIDS.

...frankly, the prospect that Graeme Frost might have gotten some undeserved healthcare ranks, on my list of things to worry about,

...pretty darn low. So why all the agita, one of the longest posts you've made recently? You could have said this much more succinctly. Just your point 5 alone would have sufficed.

Posted by liberalrob | October 9, 2007 6:07 PM

Well, so far I have tended to be in favor of single payer systems even when they have worked against me (which, in Canada, is more often than you might think). But I think the question of "deserving" health care is deadly to the debate. The issue is not whether Graeme Frost deserved health care -- I'd not want to see an injured child go untreated if there was any other option.

Instead I think that the question is how to best allocate the limited resources available. So far, I think that a socialized medicine system does many things very well. What it does poorly is to drive medical innovation and that is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.

But I begin to like hybrid systems like the UK more and more with time. Functional, low-cost basic emergency care at state expense probably solves most of the moral issues on both sides of the argument for a very small overall impact on innovation (as those that could afford it would go with better care).

I also am unconvinced that free market medicine is the current state of affairs in the United States either. We tightly regulate much of the medical market and subsidize some of the most expensive parts (care after age 65). There is a huge amount of paperwork even for a routine visit and a lot of gatekeepers.

In some ways insurance systems replicate the worst part of the single payer system in that they require rationing (HMOs) and create issues of "commons dilemmas" (once I pay for the plan, either through taxes or payroll deduction, why not maximize what I extract from it).

Posted by JD | October 9, 2007 6:14 PM

Given the generous exemptions in the inheritance tax, this would not solve the particular problem I am discussing.

Sure it does. The point is not to have poorer people driven out of their homes while wealthier people get undeserved government benefits. The injustice you see is that determining who gets Medicaid is done by looking at their assets, and sophisticated people are good at sheltering assets, so you get situations where the poor but honest suffer, while the sophisticated get nursing home care and to keep their houses.

Income, while not impossible to shelter, is much harder to hide than assets. If we fund nursing home care for everyone who needs to be in a nursing home out of a progressive income tax, no one in the middle class has to impoverish themselves to get aid for a spouse, and high income people end up accumulating, and passing on to their children, less wealth over the course of a lifetime. Everyone's happy, nobody loses.

Posted by LizardBreath | October 9, 2007 6:18 PM

Everyone's happy, nobody loses.

Except the poor, unloved "high income people." And what about Warren Buffett who has no "income," and what about taxation being theft, and rugged individualism, and personal responsibility, and the Protestant work ethic, and...

Posted by liberalrob | October 9, 2007 6:24 PM

Megan, #4 seems a bit besides the point given the relevant argument. Of course any system is almost certainly going to be both over- under-inclusive. The issue being raised isn't, however, that such an arguably well-off child happens to be covered under S-CHIP expansion, its that he's the expansion supporters' own poster-child for its benefits. That suggests that, notwithstanding arguments made at other times by those supporters, the expansion is not actually targeted at currently uncovered poor children; if it were, presumably one could be found for use on C-SPAN.

I don't know enough about the proposal to say whether this critique is accurate or not, but its no answer to say that the program is always going to be over-inclusive.

Posted by Alex | October 9, 2007 6:26 PM

Not the most even-handed use of terminology there, Megan. "Paraded?"

How is "paraded" not an appropriate word?

The consensus argument at highclearing seems to be that the president's radio address and response is some stupid thing that no one cares about and performing it shouldn't disqualify one from the privacy accorded to non-public figures. It is probably the case that no one listens (radio still exists?) but it's still an Important Event. At least Important enough that I'd vaguely heard about a 12-year-old involved in it somehow.

Anyway, what strikes me as interesting about this story is the class sensibility involved. When Howard Dean wants a poor child, he doesn't mean, y'know, a poor poor child!

Posted by JSinger | October 9, 2007 6:52 PM

expansion is not actually targeted at currently uncovered poor children;

When Howard Dean wants a poor child, he doesn't mean, y'know, a poor poor child!

Have you guys not been following the story? The expansion is based on the idea that there are families with children not below the poverty line, but still unable to afford adequate health care. You could look at the family finances and claim that they could afford adequate health care if you wanted to carp, but complaining that this kid isn't the poorest of the poor is missing the point. In the context of the expansion of SCHIP, he's not supposed to be.

Posted by LizardBreath | October 9, 2007 7:00 PM

Megan,

Two quick points:

1) You may prefer to rig the system such that it is too inclusive, but your argument seems to ignore the tremendous affect such a system would have on the private insurance market. Suppose you are a small employer who's been doing the right thing by providing medical coverage for your employees. Now, your employees will have coverage via S-CHIP if you drop your coverage. What do you do? Or, say you are an employee at a business that provides you with a "cafeteria benefit plan" that lets you choose the level of benefits you want to pay for via payroll deduction. Via payroll deduction, you can get coverage for your family for $1,000/month. Or, you can get coverage via S-CHIP and keep the $1,000/month. Again, what do you do? The problem with the S-CHIP expansion is that it's going to "force" many people who CURRENTLY HAVE INSURANCE onto the government program. The fear is that this expansion is a step toward universal coverage. (Early in the Clinton administration, Hillary's staff wrote a memo recommending creating a child health insurance program as a step towards universal coverage, so this fear is NOT unwarranted. Sorry, no link to the memo.) You may still rather cover too many rather than too few kids, but it'd help if you addressed this issue.

2) The Frosts are in a tough situation and I emphasize with them. However, my empathy does generate sufficient sympathy for me to be willing to cover their expenses out of my pocket. (I've got members of my own extended family that I'm helping, thank you.) Mr. and Mrs. Frost claim to be making $45,000. Yet they own a home worth close to $500,000, rental property worth $200,000, and their children attend private schools that cost $20,000 each. (Some reports say the kids get partial tuition waivers. Others say the grandparents are paying for the school.) My point is NOT that the Frosts should have to sell assets. My point is that both parents CHOOSE to work at jobs that did not provide health coverage (or they choose not to obtain coverage). They CLEARLY could have gotten coverage by making different choices. Now that they are in a bad situation, why am I expected to share the burden of their poor decisions? I don't get to work in the woodworking arena (something I'd dearly love to do). I'm a wage slave in large part because I've always felt it necessary to have a job that provided health insurance for my family. It would have galled me to turn that responsibility over to someone else. At least when someone in my family screws up, they may come to me and say, "David, I did something stupid, but I need your help." The Frosts don't admit they did anything wrong and don't want to ask for help. They demand it. That galls me, too.

Posted by David Walser | October 9, 2007 7:08 PM

MMcA writes:

[T]his actually raises important issues about benefits that no one is asking. To wit: should we expect families to sell assets in order to qualify for benefits?

It's not clear to me that this family has any assets from which they could access equity. If you have a $100K house and a $90K mortgage, you cannot as a practical matter access the remaining equity. Similarly, a profitable owner-operated small business could be treated as an asset for some purposes but may well be unsaleable. The critical claims about this family are awfully hand-wavy over these basic issues (and I have no desire to actually dig in to find out what the answer is; whether the anecdote is right or wrong, at this point it is clear that the discussion has overreached the bounds of propriety with respect to this particular family).

That said, even if Graeme Frost is basically middle-class-ish, that wouldn't be a stunning indictment of S-Chip.

Indeed, given that the whole point of the S-CHIP program -- as distinguished from Medicaid -- is to cover children who are not so poor as to be covered by Medicaid but whose families are nevertheless financially unable to afford insurance. I have no idea what insurance costs for for a family of 6 with two partially disabled children who require ongoing therapy, but even if community rating is applicable (meaning that the insurer cannot take those preexisting health conditions into account) it may well be beyond the reach of a family of 6 earning $50,000/yr.

Posted by alkali | October 9, 2007 7:18 PM

Maybe we should "Just March Out" of Iraq and kill two birds with one stone. Stop increasing demand for Medical Services that care for our troops, and allow our medically-trained troops provide Health-Care services for Americans that could benefit from them.

That we get wrapped around the axle of the use of "paraded", in an argument about further increasing the tax-load on our productive Economy, is only more proof of how far our gaze is misdirected from said "ball".

We should ask ourselves when it was that Health-Care costs began their exponential rise, and by which means was that genie let out of the bottle.

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | October 9, 2007 7:22 PM

The S-CHIP debate is about health care for POOR KIDS.

No, "POOR KIDS" are already covered. The current debate is whether to extend it to "LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS KIDS."

I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you think we should die on?

Megan, weren't you hugely objecting to the prescription drug bill? Wasn't that equally popular with swing voters? Doesn't having Medicare and other programs covering drugs make a lot of sense, considering that drugs can save money over other, already-covered treatments? Hasn't Tyler Cowen pointed to quite a few studies suggesting that the cost of the prescription bill is likely to be less in the long run than projected, simply because drug treatment is more efficient than other treatments? (Not sure how much I follow them, but still.)

Of course, inconsistency is an easy thing to accuse someone of, but I'm still struck by it.

Posted by John Thacker | October 9, 2007 7:23 PM

Anecdotes, no matter how photogenic, are terrible ways to make policy.

I do understand your objections to the program, but an informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother, indicates that this is killing you with the moderates.

Giggle. Anecdotes, no matter how much your mother, are terrible ways to argue policy too, Megan.

Posted by John Thacker | October 9, 2007 7:24 PM

David Walser,

In response to 2), you're right, not all careers provide health insurance. Isn't this a good argument for something like universal coverage via a single payer system? If the only thing preventing you fromn being a world class woodworker, or Megan from being a world class Soprano, is fear you'll be unable to get health insurance, then the current system is one which would seem to restrict freedom and liberty (of career choice and job movement), rather than provide freedom and liberty (of choosing one insurer over another). So, at the end of the day, isn't the story just "a lot of people are suffering with the current system and a lot fewer people would suffer under a French-style single payer system?"

Posted by Citizen (World) | October 9, 2007 7:40 PM

Also, the argument that the Frost's could just afford insurance if they would only sell their home and use up all their savings is not one I'd like to be making. Isn't the argument that a family making 40-50k a year should be able to insure their children WITHOUT mortgaging their future? If the right thinks that the solution for the Frost family is just to sell their home and use the money to pay for insurance I would love for them to make that explicitly.

Posted by citizen (World) | October 9, 2007 7:43 PM

I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you think we should die on?

What do you mean “we” Megan?

Posted by Thorley Winston | October 9, 2007 7:47 PM

Also, the argument that the Frost's could just afford insurance if they would only sell their home and use up all their savings is not one I'd like to be making. Isn't the argument that a family making 40-50k a year should be able to insure their children WITHOUT mortgaging their future? If the right thinks that the solution for the Frost family is just to sell their home and use the money to pay for insurance I would love for them to make that explicitly.

Okay: I think the Frost family should sell their home and use the money to pay for insurance.

There are an awful lot of people who can't afford their own homes, let alone homes as nice as that one. (You can see a picture of the inside of it in the Baltimore Sun.) Why are the Frosts entitled to that home and health care, when other, more responsible people, chose to pay for the health care by not buying such a big house?

Indeed, after the Frost family sells their home and uses the money to pay for insurance, the Frosts' parents should sell THEIR homes and use the money to pay for insurance. If they still don't have enough, then we can talk about the welfare the Frosts want. (If their own parents don't care enough about them to pay for their health care, then why should we?)

Posted by David Nieporent | October 9, 2007 8:07 PM

Jeebus Megan.
This ranks with the Jena 6 post in terms of looking before you leap.
Why do you do this?

Posted by brad | October 9, 2007 8:16 PM

Isn't the argument that a family making 40-50k a year should be able to insure their children WITHOUT mortgaging their future? If the right thinks that the solution for the Frost family is just to sell their home and use the money to pay for insurance I would love for them to make that explicitly.

I don't know about the right, but I'm not making that argument. They are making $40-50k a year and should've been able to afford insurance. What they would have had to have done differently, I don't know. I do know there was a time when I had to skip lunches because we didn't have enough money to pay for my lunch AND my bus fare to work -- yet we always found a way to pay for insurance. Insurance was always a high priority for us, right after rent and food, before new clothes, new car, or vacations.

Perhaps my feelings are colored by the following experience: In 1984, my wife and I were living in married student housing. Things were extremely tight financially. We made just over $500/month; rent was $275 (IIRC) and our medical insurance was $125. That left about $100 for everything else -- food, utilities, tuition, books -- for our family of three. Why did we spend over 20% of your monthly income on insurance? Because we knew it was possible we'd have some medical expenses we could not otherwise afford. When the unplanned for, but not entirely unexpected, event occurred and my wife became pregnant with our second child, we were glad we had insurance to cover the costs.

Even with insurance, the birth of our child was going to be an expensive event for our young family. Our policy was a major medical policy, meaning things like doctor's appointments were not covered. Our deductible was $500 and the policy covered 80% of the insured costs above that amount with a maximum out-of-pocket cost of $2,000. The delivery was more difficult than expected and the medical costs ran into the tens of thousands of dollars. Our share, was just over $2,800 (including the costs not covered by insurance). My entire student loan for that semester, $2,500, went to cover that debt. We had good doctors who allowed us to pay the rest over time at no interest.

Contrast our situation with another couple living in the same apartment complex. They, too, were expecting their second child. They, too, were struggling to make ends meet. They, too, had a difficult delivery. They didn't have any insurance. I'd spoken with the husband about this. (We played basketball together.) He told me I should cancel our policy and use our $125 for more important things. He pointed out that the hospital could not refuse to serve us just because we didn't have insurance. He also pointed out that they'd not have been able to afford their new car if they'd had to pay for insurance.

After their delivery, they owed thousands of dollars to the hospital and doctors. In church, the minister asked my wife and I to contribute to a special fund to help the other couple with their medical bills. I asked if anyone was going to be helping us with our $2,800 in bills. He pointed out that we were in a much better situation than the other couple. Our debts weren't nearly as great. I told the minister that, if the couple hadn't been driving a new car for the past year their debts wouldn't be as large, either. In the end, the couple's debts were forgiven by the hospital and doctors and they got to keep their car and baby. We got the moral satisfaction of knowing we'd paid our own way.

I'm not in favor of creating a system that relies even more on moral satisfaction to prevent people from shifting their burdens onto others. Moral satisfaction doesn't buy much at the store.

Posted by David Walser | October 9, 2007 8:29 PM

David Walser wrote:

I don't know about the right, but I'm not making that argument. They are making $40-50k a year and should've been able to afford insurance. What they would have had to have done differently, I don't know. I do know there was a time when I had to skip lunches because we didn't have enough money to pay for my lunch AND my bus fare to work -- yet we always found a way to pay for insurance. Insurance was always a high priority for us, right after rent and food, before new clothes, new car, or vacations.

You might find this post from Bob Vineyard at the Insureblog(1) rather interesting:

The Frost family has a combined annual income of about $45,000, said Bonnie Frost. She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month. Neither parent has health insurance through work.

$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?

A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays.

Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That's almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn't anyone bother to check the facts?

Apparently there are also small business organizations which you can join and receive insurance at a discount. But why bother paying anything if you can get it for “free”?

(1) http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/45000-and-no-insurance.html

Posted by Thorley Winston | October 9, 2007 8:35 PM

I second David's point from a couple posts earlier. Sell the house. Move into a cheaper bungalow and pay for the insurance yourselves.

A parent that buys an expensive house before securing their child's health is a bad parent.

Posted by Patrick | October 9, 2007 8:37 PM

1. This was a poorly chosen battle by Bush- choosing an incremental increase in a health insurance plan aimed at children as your first veto? Not a wise PR move when you've previously found a justification for expanding just about every other entitlement program.
2. As for conservatives and libertarians more generally, I don't think real libertarians (or the few real conservatives left) view this as a Last Stand type of issue; instead it's just one more fight in a laundry list of battles against entitlement programs over the years. If Bush hadn't vetoed it or if he had exercised fiscal restraint in the past, the conservative/libertarian coverage of this would be no more than any other entitlement bill.
3. I don't like the personal attacks on the Frost family- if anecdotal evidence is a bad basis for policy changes in the first place (and it is), then attacking that anecdotal evidence suffers from the same problem.
4. That said, "paraded" sounds like the right term for the use of a 12 year old kid to give a political speech. I always find things like this unseemly and exploitative- trying to find an emotional hook by using a kid who has no understanding (and, frankly, shouldn't have any understanding) whatsoever about the larger policy implications of the program at issue. Not to mention the theft of the child's innocence in the process. There is, after all, a pretty good reason why we don't let children vote, drink, smoke, etc. And for the record, I cringe just as much when Republicans use kids as props in the pro-life crusade and other political debates.

I would just like to propose we all come to an agreement that we won't exploit people for political purposes unless they're old enough to give legal consent to the exploitation.

Posted by Mark | October 9, 2007 8:55 PM

"But that isn't the only reason people shelter assets; often they're doing it so that they can leave something to their children. This doesn't strike me as at all reasonable. You have a right to have society pay for your nursing home care if you are destitute and will otherwise suffer and die. You do not have a right to have society pay for your nursing home care so that you can leave the house and some financial assets to the kids. Aside from its rather repulsive moral logic, it's regressive; the people who benefit are upper-middle-class kids who have already benefitted quite a lot from their fortuitous choice of parents."

Many people would rather kill themselves and leave something to their kids than spend all their money on nursing home care. Since society does not want them to do this you can argue that society should pick up the cost.

Posted by James B. Shearer | October 9, 2007 10:08 PM

"You do not have a right to have society pay for your nursing home care so that you can leave the house and some financial assets to the kids."

Clearly we need more reverse mortgages so old people can have money and their spoiled children get nothing with no government intervention needed.

Posted by Kyle | October 9, 2007 10:28 PM

1) I told y'all this was going to happen. Maybe next time you'll listen, hmmm?

You told us that conservatives would mount a scorched-earth smear campaign against any persuasive individual who appeared in public to testify for a Democratic program? After Joe Wilson, the Swift Boat thing, the Jamil Hussein thing, the TNR soldier's article thing, the Michael Fox thing, the Edwards big-house thing, and so forth, I didn't need you to tell me that. But thanks for the warning.

Let's put it this way: it's a given that the GOP will dig up some way to smear anybody who comes out in favor of a Democratic initiative. Given that fact, the best Democratic response is to pick spokespeople who are so sympathetic that the GOP smear effort exposes its own transparent hideousness. Which it does in this case.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 9, 2007 10:34 PM

No, "POOR KIDS" are already covered. The current debate is whether to extend it to "LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS KIDS."

Whatever. It's still not about Warren Buffett's nursing home expenses. Why did Megan go off on THAT tangent?

David Walser gives a relevant anecdote about his personal experience and how his family managed to afford insurance coverage. But I suspect that we're not getting the whole story; even in 1984, I find it doubtful that a student family of 3 could survive on $100/month after rent and insurance. I lived in student housing in 1984, BY MYSELF (in a residence hall with a roommate), and my tuition, fees and books alone were well over $2000 per semester when all was said and done (at the University of Kansas, not NYU).

I don't have all the details on the Frost's financial situation. But if we had single-payer universal health coverage, their kids' care would not be threatened by the Bush administration's actions regarding the S-CHIP program.

Posted by liberalrob | October 9, 2007 11:19 PM

This was a poorly chosen battle by Bush

Has there ever been a WELL-chosen battle by Bush?

Posted by liberalrob | October 9, 2007 11:22 PM

A parent that buys an expensive house before securing their child's health is a bad parent.

Apparently the house wasn't expensive when they bought it.

I second David's point from a couple posts earlier. Sell the house. Move into a cheaper bungalow and pay for the insurance yourselves.

With single-payer universal health care, they wouldn't have to sell the house and move into a cheaper bungalow (assuming that is even an option for them).

Keep trying...

Posted by liberalrob | October 9, 2007 11:29 PM

4) That said, even if Graeme Frost is basically middle-class-ish, that wouldn't be a stunning indictment of S-Chip.

Graeme Frost's parents earned $45,000 last year. Median income for a family of four in Maryland is $94,000.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 9, 2007 11:31 PM

I guess the question is: since when did a low middle to middle class family, even a family that makes up to say 100K per year, ever really shelter their assets? The only ones that have the savvy to shelter are those in the upper income brackets. They also lobby for and contribute to political campaigns that promote legislation that helps them shelter their assets. What this amounts to is a continued war on the average US citizen.

Blogs like this are illuminating since they expose the purposeful ignorance (rationalizing) of the upper class of our great society.

Reverse mortgages for the elderly to pay for their nursing home care? The one icon of the American dream that the individual worked for all their life! Who is really winning here? Is it the corporate financial centers that profit by buying a home for a fraction of its market value? Is it the wealthy individual or corporation that overcharges for an occasional visit by a nurse and a hot meal for the elderly? We all know the answer if we look deep enough and do the math. But some of us just want to continue to blame the poor. Shame.

Posted by jad | October 9, 2007 11:31 PM

"How is "paraded" not an appropriate word?"

Parades have an audience.

Nobody listens to the President's Saturday radio fart, let alone the Democratic response.

Posted by Jon H | October 9, 2007 11:37 PM

"I second David's point from a couple posts earlier. Sell the house. Move into a cheaper bungalow and pay for the insurance yourselves."

Yeah, if only real life were so simple.

Given the size of the family, and what home prices have been doing over the last 3 years, it may not have been feasible to find a cheaper home that was big enough for the size of the family.

Apparently Mr. Frost has been doing renovations, and some of them are still incomplete. That wouldn't help the resale price, either.

Maybe the problem here is that Republicans aren't familiar with small businessmen who don't subsist on government pork and GOP corruption.

Posted by Jon H | October 9, 2007 11:45 PM

Not bad, Megan. Mostly sane and reasonable. Keep it up!

Posted by Not Prince Hamlet | October 9, 2007 11:48 PM

We should ask ourselves when it was that Health-Care costs began their exponential rise, and by which means was that genie let out of the bottle.

I'm game. According to the Department of Health & Human Services, health care spending as a percentage of GDP has risen almost every year since 1960, from 5.2% in 1960 to 16% in 2005. From the spreadsheet available from HHS the rate of increase seems linear, not exponential, though of course there are other factors such as GDP growth itself which would affect the total expenditure amount. Per-capita spending has also risen in a fairly linear way. The point is that it apparently has been consistently rising, never leveling off or falling, for the past 47 years.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp

Posted by liberalrob | October 9, 2007 11:55 PM

Challenge to the writers:

State your yearly income in dollars

State your assets worth in dollars (home, business,boat, car)

State your stance on on this SCHIPS (do you side with Bush veto of SCHIPS?)

I will start with my demographics:

Yearly income 120,000

Asset worth 100,000 (after selling three income properties and paying off loans/mortgages).

I do not side with Bush veto.

Posted by paul | October 9, 2007 11:57 PM

When the Frosts bought their home, they bought it for $55,000.

While their equity in the home has clearly skyrocketed as the neighborhood has gentrified (and Mr. Frost expended his effort - he is a carpenter after all - into improving the home), they likely couldn't afford the mortage payment anymore than they could afford the insurance bill (if they could even obtain insurance - another issue that seems to be ignored) if they tried to cash in on that equity.

For those claiming that independent insurance coverage can be found for a family of 5 in Maryland can be found for $450, they are delusional. I don't care what quote engine spit up, it doesn't exist in reality (i.e., a policy a typical family of 5 could actually get).

Posted by SKI | October 10, 2007 12:22 AM

David Walser gives a relevant anecdote about his personal experience and how his family managed to afford insurance coverage. But I suspect that we're not getting the whole story; even in 1984, I find it doubtful that a student family of 3 could survive on $100/month after rent and insurance. I lived in student housing in 1984, BY MYSELF (in a residence hall with a roommate), and my tuition, fees and books alone were well over $2000 per semester when all was said and done (at the University of Kansas, not NYU).

No, you weren't getting the whole story. I attended BYU, which was (and is) a relative educational bargain. Plus, I had a scholarship that covered 50% of tuition. In addition, my parents had a ranch/farm. We would drive a couple hours south once a month (or so) and they'd fill up a small cold chest with frozen beef and lamb. In season, mom would fill up our trunk with freshly bottled peaches, apricots, apple sauce, etc. That made our grocery money go farther. Besides, as I indicated, I'm not sure I'm remembering all the numbers accurately.

I do recall that upon graduation we thought we were rich! However, after allocating my paycheck against all our needs, I only had $25 a week with which to get me to work (bus fare $1.50 each way) and to eat lunch (the firm I worked for didn't allow professionals to bring a lunch). I skipped lunch most days -- you couldn't get much with $2, even back then. Still, we paid for medical insurance. (I could have declined coverage and my paycheck would have gone up by the amount of the insurance premiums, less taxes. I don't recall how much the insurance was, but I could have eaten lunch every day if we'd declined coverage.)

Posted by David Walser | October 10, 2007 12:32 AM

Look, I don't know the Frosts' situation any better than do the rest of you. However, I have served as a volunteer financial counselor to dozens of families facing financial difficulties. It's also what I do professionally. My experience is that almost always (almost is a very important word here), financial difficulties are more a product of poor management than poor resources. (I have a client with more than $20 million in net worth. The couple is quickly spending themselves into bankruptcy -- it'll take 15 years, but they'll get there if they don't change their spending habits.)

Yes, horrible things sometimes happen to good people. The sure thing investment didn't pan out as planned, or poor health prevents someone from working, or the house needs costly repairs, and "suddenly" a family is in desperate financial shape and may not be able extricate themselves without help. I've seen it up close and personal and it can be quite ugly. However, virtually all of these things can be prevented or insured against. Is the government going to be the guarantor of every investment and the insurer against all ills that might befall us?

Posted by David Walser | October 10, 2007 1:07 AM

In addition, my parents had a ranch/farm. We would drive a couple hours south once a month (or so) and they'd fill up a small cold chest with frozen beef and lamb. In season, mom would fill up our trunk with freshly bottled peaches, apricots, apple sauce, etc. That made our grocery money go farther.

Come on, David W. You can't expect people's own families to help them when the government is out there with all that money. It would be unfair to ask parents to help support their own children.

My experience is that almost always (almost is a very important word here), financial difficulties are more a product of poor management than poor resources.

I agree, from my own experience. My experience also is that "can't afford" is almost always -- again, "almost" is an important word -- a euphemism for "don't feel like making the sacrifices to afford." (See how many people think cell phones, cable, dining out, and of course cigarettes are "necessities.")

Any criminal defense lawyer can tell you how many clients come in and ask if they can pay you the rest of the money later because they just can't put together your whole fee now. They'll cry, they'll beg. If you say yes, good luck ever getting the money. There will always be another excuse. If you stand firm and say no, magically they'll scrape it together even though there was "just no way I could afford it."

Posted by David Nieporent | October 10, 2007 2:53 AM

I don't get to work in the woodworking arena (something I'd dearly love to do). I'm a wage slave in large part because I've always felt it necessary to have a job that provided health insurance for my family.

So then why don't you support universal health coverage? If you had it, you wouldn't be tethered to a job you (apparently) don't like just so your family will be covered in the case of a medical emergency.

Honestly, I've never understood this. "Oh, here's a change in health care policy that would help enable me to live my life the way I'd dearly love to live it . . . buuuuuuuuuut I'm against it, since it might benefit Warren Buffett too, or it somehow represents a Corrosion of Liberty or something."

Dude, you've got one life here. You should be able to live it the way you want.

Posted by Fishbone McGonigle | October 10, 2007 6:33 AM

A parent that buys an expensive house before securing their child's health is a bad parent.

You mean the house they bought for 55K (yes, that's 55K, and not 550K) several years before their kids were in that car accident?

But I'm sure that being informed of the facts won't actually change your opinion in any case.

Posted by Fishbone McGonigle | October 10, 2007 6:37 AM

I have no problem keep S-CHIP at the present levels.

Expanding it to cover "children" up to age 25 and "poor" families earning up to 300% or 400% of the poverty rate annually is outrageous.

Pelosi and the Democrats using a 12 year old boy whose family already qualified (Note to Republicans: they qualified, get over it...) in the past for benefits is disgusting and exploitative.

Keeping S-CHIP at present levels would have still covered Graeme Frost and his sister in their accident a few years ago.

Posted by Albert Gibson | October 10, 2007 8:54 AM

"gain the system" should be "game the system.

Posted by Mark | October 10, 2007 8:56 AM

SCHIP was meant as a first step to bringing about nationalized health care. Either you're for it or you're against it.

My employer is spending about $4,000 for my insurance, plus the over $1,000 I chip in. I want my $4,000 in income, which is mine, and I want to be able to buy a high deductible policy, as in at least over $1,000. I can't do that in Taxachusetts, especially after the Democrats passed their hellish plan, which Romney signed off on, which requires my insurance to include things such as hair loss.

The government screw up healthcare, then the Democrats say we need more government, which screws it up more and costs more money, and the cycle repeats until we get to socialism. For the children.

Posted by 8 | October 10, 2007 8:59 AM

I have to agree with you on the S-CHIP program, though in principle I'm against federal government programs that don't limit assistance to the truly needy.
The problem for conservatives and George Bush on the democrat expansion of the program is that Bush himself established a principle that middle income and well-to do seniors are 'entitled' to the Medicare Part D drug program that is likewise subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of about $25 billion (though originally projected to be $35 billion) per year.
Since Bush didn't means-test this program (which I'm involved in as a volunteer Medicare counselor), he gave the opening for the expansion of S-CHIP. It's inconsistent to denounce one but not the other. In fact at least the S-CHIP program has means testing, even if somewhat generous, while even Bill Gates will be eligible for Medicare Part D one day.
And make no mistake about it, Medicare Part D has become an entitlement for many well-to-do seniors with large drug costs to the tune of between $1,000 and $3,000 on average per year, from my experience, leaving many not-at-all poor seniors with a couple of grand each year more for cruises and gambling junkets.
Medicare Part D was predicated on the belief that ensuring seniors actually take the meds they should be taking (many, especially diabetics, in the past failed to take all their meds due to cost), Medicare as a whole would see a decrease in cost (prevention over expensive surgeries down the road). It'll take years to see if Part D works as planned.
Likewise S-CHIP is predicated on preventing very costly emergency room visits that end up now being paid by the taxpayer anyway. Whether it turns out to be cost-effective we'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by Leo DeAngelis | October 10, 2007 9:23 AM

Megan,

The tactic is one slice at a time.

Dan Rhiel is discussing the recent dust up about the socialized medicine poster children. I have some thoughts on the subject:

What happens when some government junk scientist discovers that eating carrots is bad for you? Carrot rationing.

Or suppose they decide pot is good for you? You will be forced to consume your daily ration in front of a government agent. To keep health care costs down.

And I f****n' hate pot prohibition.

We are on the edge of totalitarianism with this stupid government run medicine.

From:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/10/medical-totolitarianism.html

Power and Control

Posted by M. Simon | October 10, 2007 9:29 AM

You don't need to sell assets. You can mortgage them. That doesn't sound unreasonable or harsh, if the poster family in question has residential and commercial real property equity running into the hundreds of thousands.

It additionally doesn't harsh, when we remember that the proposed policy would tax those less financially well-off - in terms of salary + equity - to pay for the health insurance of the more well-off family.

Posted by Brian Sament | October 10, 2007 9:33 AM

David Nieporent | October 10, 2007 2:53 AM,

Tobacco is an anti-depressant favored by schizophrenics. I know a seriously schizophrenic person and tobacco is the only medicine his family can get him to take.

Of course they need to be punished with much higher taxes. Why? Because they are depriving the medical cartel of profits that are their due.

Posted by M. Simon | October 10, 2007 9:37 AM

Should we expect families to sell assets in order to qualify for benefits?

That's not the only choice available.

Responsible families make responsible decisions. When I worked packing trucks for UPS, the contract we had provided heath benefits. Many of the people that I worked with took that job to provide health benefits for their families, even though they could earn more money per hour working elsewhere. When my kid took a summer job with a certain beverage company, he discovered the same thing. Many of the guys were working the job for the health benefits. I have another friend who services copiers for a major office supply company. It's not what he wants to do, and the pay is pretty bad, but he does it because the family needs the health benefits.

Mr. Frost family appears to have made the decision to quit his previous job with benefits to form his own company and not get health benefits. His wife is working a job without benefits, too. That is their decision, but now they want the taxpayers to pay for their kids health insurance instead. Of course, I'll bet that they insure their business and they insure their car (or cars).

Is this really the hill you think we should die on? I do understand your objections to the program, but an informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother, indicates that this is killing you with the moderates.

To quote PM Churchill: "We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

I oppose expanding this program because it is the wrong thing to do. Period. And there is a simple way to show it: look at what the Dems are doing. They can't defend the program in a free and open debate, so that hide behind a twelve-year old and tug at everyone's heart-strings. And the MSM is perfectly willing to play along and not ask any interesting questions. They'll continue to print DMC propaganda without doing any research.

And that plays well to "moderate" voters these days? Yeah, it probably does. Will we loose? Yes, we probably will - for the same reason we are about to be defeated on immigration, the environment, and trade: because the American public have been sufficiently dumbed-down that they can't think anymore - they just feel or react to what is put in front of them.

We have reached a point in this country where 51% of the population receives some direct assistance from the State. The majority of the population has figured out that they can vote themselves rich. As the population gets older, this number will increase, and the older people will think less about consequences because they won't be around when the system fails.

If "immigration reform" is passed (and it will), massive illegal voting will make elections a joke. The Dems will win every election that counts through pure fraud.

But someone has to point out why this is a bad thing. Someone has to point out that stories like this are a fraud. Someone has to point out that people need to think and not just feel. Someone has to point out that government programs always cost more than they are supposed to. Someone has to point out that this is a way to get to universal health care. (Once costs start climbing out of control, the State will blame the health insurance industry for the high costs, and the solution will, of course, be a government take-over. Because everyone knows that the way to get provide good services cheap is to get the government involved.) Because someone has to point out that when government begins taking that much money out of the private sector and into the public sector, the economic "correction" will be huge.

Posted by kevino | October 10, 2007 9:41 AM

Anyone who thinks the Frosts live in an expensive half-million dollar home need only look at the photo gracing today's Baltimore Sun:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.frosts10oct10,0,4459992.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout

You might want to read the article.

No, they don't live in a cardboard box under a bridge, but they're not well-off.

Posted by Ken | October 10, 2007 10:19 AM

>is this really the hill you think we should die on?

Whether or not the Frosts should have provided their children with medical insurance rather than ask us (the taxpayers) to do it is hardly the point in any event.

Whether or not the Frosts should be the ones to accuse us (the taxpayers) of not doing enough for the children would be more to the point. The Frosts did receive the help they needed. Why do you suppose Harry Reid's staff didn't present a child who needed medical care and couldn't get it under the current system? THAT would have been the point.

Posted by B Jordan | October 10, 2007 10:45 AM

This IS national/socialized health care.

If the government can pay for child, adult and illegal immigrant health care for anyone who is upper-middle class and below, then we already have socialized medicine.

Maybe your mother is a socialist. Maybe she can be manipulated by socialists into doing their will. If all swing voters are the same as her, then the American experiment is over and our future is a European-style socialist future.

Posted by Ben | October 10, 2007 11:01 AM

Fishbone McGonigle says:

So then why don't you support universal health coverage? If you had it, you wouldn't be tethered to a job you (apparently) don't like just so your family will be covered in the case of a medical emergency.

Honestly, I've never understood this. "Oh, here's a change in health care policy that would help enable me to live my life the way I'd dearly love to live it . . . buuuuuuuuuut I'm against it, since it might benefit Warren Buffett too, or it somehow represents a Corrosion of Liberty or something."

Dude, you've got one life here. You should be able to live it the way you want.

It called morals. There's a saying that goes "thou shalt not steal".

He could quit providing for his family and get money from taxpayers -- money that is taken from people by force, against their will -- and then he could live on that money.

Or he could just go hold up a liquor store and cut out the middle-man.

But he's not a crook Mr. Fishbone. He's not a child either -- who naively thinks his wishes should be granted and he should be guaranteed to live "the way he wants". He's a man. He's a good, responsible man. Maybe you aren't familiar with people like that, but we're out here. We earn the money that you're trying to steal.

Posted by Ben | October 10, 2007 11:29 AM

I have to say that all of these comments are fascinating to read.

Ooops, sorry!

Family income: Approx. $95K
Assests (after paying all debts): Approx. $150K
Stance on S-CHIP: Against expansion

Now that's out of the way, let me state categorically that I would rather liquidate my assests and have some control over my health care decisions (and my family's as well) before allowing the government to tell me what to do.

That's what too many libs here have missed. They've all said "Take government health care and live the life you want to live, do the job you want to do." So, how about this, guys?

I don't want to work at all and neither does my wife, but I'd really like you (and all the other taxpayers out there) to give me $95K/year so that I can live in the style to which I have become accustomed and live the life I wish to live.

Now, I know that you're going to say that this is a "strawman" and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but surely you can see that this is the logical end to the "live how you wish to live and let the government take care of the rest" argument. No one wants to work. We do it because we must. Occassionally, we're fortunate enough to find a job we like that still pays the bills. Most of the time we don't, but what's wrong with that?

This entire debate (and indeed the larger social entitlement debate) is entirely about priorities and what we are willing to do for our families and for the future of our children. Do we really want government involved in every aspect of our lives? Health care is often intricately tied up with who we are and how we choose to live.

To answer your question Megan: I will die on this hill. I have planted my flag. On this hill, I suspect, two visions of how we should live will meet in one defining climatic battle. One of those visions shall die on this hill. If it must be my side, then I meet my enemies with my head held high, not cowering behind little children because I'm not adult enough to fight my own battles.

Posted by Voice of the Resistance | October 10, 2007 11:45 AM

If conservatives needed to question the Frost's eligibility they could have always contacted the state authorities with evidence - instead they chose to stalk and terrorize a 12 year old and his family.

Many times Republicans have used children in their campaigns ("Ashley's Story" commercial) or events (That little kid promoting privatizing Soc Security & the snowflake babies) and I've never seen left wing bloggers and/or Dems attack the credibility of a kid, much less actively try to destroy their lives. There is something profoundly disturbing with the terror tactics of the right wing that cannot be found anywhere on the left.

This situation perfectly exemplifies that difference.

Posted by Anne B | October 10, 2007 12:03 PM

If we want to become the Tory Party in the UK, then by all means, support the bill, "it's for the children, after all". Then we can go back to being the "Tax collectors for the welfare state" as a party. Worked out great for Republicans all those years, didn't it? I think a better approach than surrender might be a media campaign to point out how far reaching this program really is.

Posted by yorick | October 10, 2007 12:06 PM

I can't do that in Taxachusetts, especially after the Democrats passed their hellish plan, which Romney signed off on, which requires my insurance to include things such as hair loss.

IIRC Romney vetoed that portion of the health care bill (as he did the employer mandate) because he thought people should be able to buy high deductible policies that covered catastrophic illnesses but it was overridden by the Legislature.

The problem for conservatives and George Bush on the democrat expansion of the program is that Bush himself established a principle that middle income and well-to do seniors are 'entitled' to the Medicare Part D drug program that is likewise subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of about $25 billion (though originally projected to be $35 billion) per year.

Not quite, the original Medical Part D proposal that Republicans put up was limited to low-income seniors but Democrats threatened a filibuster which Republicans caved on. They did manage to get a provision in which seniors are charged premiums in part based on their ability to pay which Democrats opposed (and have tried to repeal since they got back in power) because they thought it would pave the way for means-testing.

Perhaps if Republicans had been willing to fight harder on the hill of Medicare Part D*, we wouldn’t be talking about expanding SCHIP to adults and people making 300%-400% of the poverty line. The fact that they didn’t fight as hard as they shouldn’t doesn’t mean that we have to compound the problem further.

* For the record, I was against the creation of SCHIP in 1997 (another product of “divided government”) and while I was opposed to Medicare Part D, I think Tyler Cowen’s point that the cost will turn out to be less than projected is probably right because drug treatments will probably end up being cheaper in the long-run than procedures that were already covered by Medicare. That doesn’t mean I favor forcing taxpayers to pay for health care for the wealthy and middle class like Democrats, but it makes more sense to cover the cheaper and more effective procedures than the more expensive and less effective ones IMO.

Posted by Thorley Winston | October 10, 2007 12:11 PM

Why is it that there doesn't seem to be much discussion on how schip will be financed? A tax on tobacco right?

So this bill would tax smokers and give the money to a middle-class-ish family whose need appears to be somewhat questionable. Yet among smokers, the poor, uneducated and minorities are over represented. So schip would essentially take money from these groups to assist the Frosts. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Also, how is this program supposed to be sustainable? You have an ever increasing pool of children being funded by an ever decreasing pool of smokers. Unless of course, we begin a campaign to encourage smoking thus filling their depleting ranks. And, as mentioned, the poor are over reprersented among smokers. Also, it is most often children who become smokers.

So we'd have to encourage the very people we are trying to help to pick up a habit that will end up costing them their lives.

This makes no sense.

Posted by A smoker | October 10, 2007 12:14 PM

If conservatives needed to question the Frost's eligibility they could have always contacted the state authorities with evidence - instead they chose to stalk and terrorize a 12 year old and his family.

I call B.S. on this. If the Frost really were being “terrorized” by phone calls, then it’s up to their apologists to provide proof including an actual police report. Unless and until they do, it’s lie just like every time John Kerry accusing anyone who dares to disagree with him of “questioning his patriotism.”

And no, having a blogger ask the tough questions that the MSM should have been asking when the parents decided to exploit their own children to push their political agenda, isn’t “terrorizing” by any means.

Posted by Thorley Winston | October 10, 2007 12:26 PM

If conservatives needed to question the Frost's eligibility they could have always contacted the state authorities with evidence - instead they chose to stalk and terrorize a 12 year old and his family.

"Stalk"? "Terrorize"?

If you honestly believe that, please call the police. If not, kindly refrain from hyperbole.

Many times Republicans have used children in their campaigns ("Ashley's Story" commercial) or events (That little kid promoting privatizing Soc Security & the snowflake babies)

It's irksome when the GOP does it. They shouldn't. I'm opposed to using kids for political gain. "Won't Somebody Think of the Children." is the first refuge of those with no arguments. I am consistently anti-moppet-exploitation.

and I've never seen left wing bloggers and/or Dems attack the credibility of a kid, much less actively try to destroy their lives.

Not a word has been said about Graeme's credibility. I don't think he was insincere. I don't even know what he said. All I care about is whether the taxpayers should be footing the bill for his healthcare, given his family's financial situation.

There is something profoundly disturbing with the terror tactics of the right wing that cannot be found anywhere on the left.

Oh, stop. "More arsenic please!" - the left paints the right as child murderers all the time.

Posted by AK | October 10, 2007 12:27 PM

Megan, you have no idea how government medical care programs work or how they effect private health care costs. I'm not talking just about the increased direct taxes to the citizens. I'm talking about how government regulations and contracting with private entities force these entities to abide by that pricing, effectively eliminates the ability to negotiate pricing outside of these entities as well as enforces procedures and other tests that are not always necessary but do raise the cost of health care.

all of this is directly passed to private citizens who either do have their own health insurance or try to pay for these services out of pocket. Every time we add a Graeme Foster to the mix, we are making it that much harder for every other private consumer to have "affordable" health care. We are killing private health care and average citizen's abilities to effect their own care and financial well being.

For a feeling.

the expansion of government programs continues to erode the ability of private citizens to actually afford their own health care.

Also, you are making serious assumptions about the processes used to establish long term in facility care for the elderly and disabled.

There is a division of assets. It is set to insure that the spouse is not left homeless. However, it is assumed and through processes of government liens, that these homes cannot be simply inherited by the family once the other spouse dies. It must be sold to pay any outstanding debts or care for the remaining spouse in the facility or even if that spouse passes, the government still gets their chunk.

Further, if the property is that valuable (10 mil), the government would not deem it causing someone to be destitute by insisting that an immediate division of assets occur and the spouse live in something less expensive in order for the spouse requiring in facility care to have those services provided and paid for.

Finally, on the "hidden assets" realm, most states have laws that search for sales or transfers of assets within the last three years. Anything done within that time requires explanation and for the recipients to produce those funds. Otherwise, any payment is reduced by those expected funds and any other income that the spouse in the facility would realize through a division of financial assets such as income from rental property, pensions or social security.

And, just a reminder, government assistance IS supposed to be for the destitute, not for every one who chooses to spend their money on luxuries (yes, cable TV, huge stereo systems and big houses in nice neighborhoods is a "luxury") and hopes that the government will pick up the tab for health care.

I distinctly recall the reasons that we instituted this government. That is that each citizen could live by and enjoy the fruits of their own labors. They never said it guaranteed everyone would have equitable income or equitable health care, just that we could work to improve our status as individuals without government interference. Every time we institute a new government program, we take that away and replace it with "don't worry if you don't make good choices, the government will fix it".

That is inherently wrong.

Posted by kat-missouri | October 10, 2007 12:38 PM

State your yearly income in dollars

$60k

State your assets worth in dollars (home, business,boat, car)

Home: no idea (122k tax valuation, paid 78k in 1998, still owe 66k on the mortgage and 25k in a home equity loan). Business: none. Boat: ROFL. Car: 1997 F-150 3k blue book value, 1929 Model A approx. value 10k. Minus 8k credit card debt. So that nets out to what, around 36k or so? I suppose I could throw in about 75k retirement savings in a 401(k) and IRAs but that wasn't part of the question.

State your stance on on this SCHIPS (do you side with Bush veto of SCHIPS?)

Uh, no.

Posted by liberalrob | October 10, 2007 12:48 PM

So we'd have to encourage the very people we are trying to help to pick up a habit that will end up costing them their lives.

This makes no sense.

That's because it's a silly argument you constructed yourself in order to maximize its silliness, then went to great lengths to explain to us how silly it was. Mission accomplished.

Posted by liberalrob | October 10, 2007 12:52 PM

I will die on this hill. I have planted my flag. On this hill, I suspect, two visions of how we should live will meet in one defining climatic battle. One of those visions shall die on this hill. If it must be my side, then I meet my enemies with my head held high, not cowering behind little children because I'm not adult enough to fight my own battles.

That's how I feel, too. I'm making a stand here.

Why? Because this debate isn't about a disabled kid, or helping needy children. It's about whether we're going to further allow the government to subsidize unproductive lifestyle choices.

Mr. Frost is a college-educated man, living in an affluent state, who comes from an affluent family, who has at least fifteen years in the labor market. There is absolutely no way that he's confined to making $45,000 per year. He can't claim racism. He can't claim lack of education. The only reason he's making $45k is because he's not putting forth the effort to make more. He's indulging his Homer-Simpson-in-the-bowling-alley "dream job in paradise," which I'm sure brings him a lot of joy and satisfaction. He could be doing almost anything else and make more money doing it, but instead he freely chose this woodworking job. Oh, and it's not just him working, it's his wife, too. Two college educated people in Maryland making $45k together? You have to try to make that little money! I live in Md, and my wife and I both made around $27k in our first year out of college (2001-02) doing extremely low-level office drone work. There's no way that the Frosts couldn't make much more than $45k if they tried. Oh, and who forced the Frosts to have four kids?

But they don't want to try. Mr. Frost wants his woodworking business. That's swell - I wish him all the best. And I never look down on the person who chooses leisure over work. There's nothing in my moral code that says working 10 hours a week and making $10k p