Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
but the point of this thread is that george bush is asking for 200 billion for the next year of war while denying 35 billion over 5 years that would help kids be healthy.
That's nothing more than repeating your premise. It does nothing to explain why the health care program is a good thing or why Bush was wrong to not increase funding for it.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
i think that we should always aim for a good working government that helps the people. just because we have to suffer through the worst president ever currently doesn't mean we should just accept that the government will always be fucked up and give up. the government already looks out for our health by monitoring food, drugs, pollution and even police and fire and the FBI are all meant to protect lives. what exactly is the problem with them paying for healthcare as well? that way we all have health care. and if done right (which we should aim for) then it wouldn't be run like g-man suggests. it wouldn't measure whether or not to pay for treatment based on cost, but on medical opinion. because the government wouldn't run it like a business needing to make a profit like private insurance companies do.
I can accept that as a reason, though I cannot agree with it. It relies heavily on ideology more than practicality. An ideology that you are sometime unable to extend in other areas yourself. I think the facts of government disprove your assessments of the situation. I also, personally, find it hard to believe that you can put that amount of faith in the same government whose decisions you've been rallying against.
There's a big difference between maintaining the overall safety of the country and getting into a business (which healthcare is and always will be until doctors, nurses, technicians, lab workers, and drug companies all decide to stop taking paychecks and lawyers decide to stop suing). The FDA creates a level of quality as well as provides information about what people are consuming to protect the public and allow them to make their own decisions based on the facts. The FBI pursues those who have violated the laws of the federal government. That's a big difference than them making the decisions as to what form of medical treatment they will allow you to undergo.
Also, as I've said before, if you want socialism on a state and local level, that's up to you and the people in your area (after all, they are the ones who run the police and fire departments). But that doesn't mean that your form of government is going to suit me in my part of the country.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
If NO Government program works well because Bush fucked up the Defense Dept, FEMA, The State dept, The FDA and lord knows how many others, let's then dissolve the Post Office, the USDA, the Immigration agency, the Social Security Administration etc etc. Since they can't possibly do any good because we think Bush is an incompetent leader. SHIT, let's dissolve the entire Government!
Funny thing though, in Political Science I learned all about the bureaucrats and about political appointees. The bureaucrats tend to stay in their jobs thu many Administrations and are generally nonpartisan and good at their jobs while the political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and are usually gone when he's gone.
Now a lot of the problem with our current Government have to do with the fact that they're headed by political appointees with a strong ideological agenda. it's not a question of bad Government, it's a question of bad MANAGEMENT.
It's sort of a slap in the face to many fine people who actually know what they're doing to lay this trip of ineffective Government on them. Take FEM, before Bush, it actually did a pretty decent job. Just because Bush fucked it up doesn't man I'm suddenly going to think that FEMA is a waste of money and can't do anything right and thus the money shouldn't be spent on them anymore. My thought is going to be, FIRE BROWNIE!
Same with any kids insurance program. My thoughts are going to be hire a good manager, hopefully one WITHOUT an ideological agenda or party loyalties to oversee it.
I dunoo Doctor. I remember you being a pretty level headed person. This seems like the same kind of false partisan argument G-Man would make.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
but the point of this thread is that george bush is asking for 200 billion for the next year of war while denying 35 billion over 5 years that would help kids be healthy.
And we're discussing whether the bill to keep kids healthy would actually do that or is even necessary in this instance. It's more than your simple black and white statement to vilify someone you don't like and his policies. We've debated the war a good bit in this forum, so that's why I think a lot of people are concentrating on the health care aspect of it.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
If NO Government program works well because Bush fucked up the Defense Dept, FEMA, The State dept, The FDA and lord knows how many others, let's then dissolve the Post Office, the USDA, the Immigration agency, the Social Security Administration etc etc. Since they can't possibly do any good because we think Bush is an incompetent leader. SHIT, let's dissolve the entire Government!
Funny thing though, in Political Science I learned all about the bureaucrats and about political appointees. The bureaucrats tend to stay in their jobs thu many Administrations and are generally nonpartisan and good at their jobs while the political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and are usually gone when he's gone.
Now a lot of the problem with our current Government have to do with the fact that they're headed by political appointees with a strong ideological agenda. it's not a question of bad Government, it's a question of bad MANAGEMENT.
It's sort of a slap in the face to many fine people who actually know what they're doing to lay this trip of ineffective Government on them. Take FEM, before Bush, it actually did a pretty decent job. Just because Bush fucked it up doesn't man I'm suddenly going to think that FEMA is a waste of money and can't do anything right and thus the money shouldn't be spent on them anymore. My thought is going to be, FIRE BROWNIE!
Same with any kids insurance program. My thoughts are going to be hire a good manager, hopefully one WITHOUT an ideological agenda or party loyalties to oversee it.
I dunoo Doctor. I remember you being a pretty level headed person. This seems like the same kind of false partisan argument G-Man would make.
I don't believe in big government at the federal level. I've always made that clear. And Presidents do affect the running of government. Bad management leads to bad government. Clinton fucked the CIA and our military, as far as I'm concerned, which led to shitty intelligence and pisspoor training of our military, which is part of our problems in Iraq. Bush fucked FEMA, according to you. What's gonna get fucked by the next president? I just don't like that much power in the hands of the federal government. It should be done closer to home where the people can better keep track of it. Like I just said, if you want to socialize healthcare, do it at the local and state level.
Also, you guys need to stop using the USPS as an example here. Though it is a government agency, it's not actually run by the government in the same way as a healthcare agency would be. It's its own entity. It receives no money from your taxes. It's totally sustained by the services that you pay for when you use them.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I used the USPS precisely because, even though it is a "separate entity," it has existed largely as a bureaucratic monopoly, with a workforce consisting of federal employees. All of which would seem to make it a good indicator of how a federal "single payer" health care program would work.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
but the point of this thread is that george bush is asking for 200 billion for the next year of war while denying 35 billion over 5 years that would help kids be healthy.
And we're discussing whether the bill to keep kids healthy would actually do that or is even necessary in this instance. It's more than your simple black and white statement to vilify someone you don't like and his policies. We've debated the war a good bit in this forum, so that's why I think a lot of people are concentrating on the health care aspect of it.
That's the same point I was making earlier:
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
I think this is just a case of Democrats once again falsely demonizing Republicans, for something that is reasonable and logical.
The child care program would help families making up to $80,000 a year, who not only can afford health insurance, but already have health insurance. So if this bill passed, all these upper-income families would cancel their private insurance policies, and just take advantage of government freebies.
What would happen if Bush successfully vetoes this bill, is it would come back and the Republicans would change it from an 80,000-dollar-cap to a 60,000 dollar one (i.e., limiting it to families who really need the benefits).
This is just another political manipulation to emotionally charge the debate on a false issue.
1) If people want to smoke let smoke. Raising taxes to manipulate them into quitting reeks of an arrogant messiah complex.
2) If the govt. doesn't want to pay for universal health care then fine. But, then they should stop trying to regulate people's health by making seatbelts and helmets mandatory and monitoring drug use. It's downright hypocritical.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" -Matthew 25:41-45
You don't mind if I copy and paste this over to the Philosophy thread, right?
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
I don't think he owns rights to quotes from the Bible or President Eisenhower.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
What he said.
We're commanded to spread the Gospel. So spread it fer Christ's sake.
Literally.
that's implied oral consent written down by a third party, not express written consent signed and notarized. sorry, but the copyright is still in place.
I don't think he owns rights to quotes from the Bible or President Eisenhower.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
True. I just wanted to be polite.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
We've been having a back and forth here for days already about how the "LIBERALS" are the ones who supposedly don't debate the issues and instead go for the cheap attack. Even when we are debating the issues and we get sidetracked about how "liberals" are this and liberals are that.
if you're going to be doing character assassination and personal attack, then it's understandable why the right wing punditry would take offense to these people coming up to say their piece. Because frankly, choosing to go the route of personal attack on these people, as is par for course, leaves the attacker looking like a complete asshole.
Now if these people were going to be debated on the issues themselves and not attacked personally, then this wouldn't even be an issue. So in a way it proves my point.
So what does this have to do with this topic? Well it turns out that for the past week, the right wing blogosphere, Michelle Malkin, The National Review, and many "unnamed" sources from the office of Mitch McConnel have been feasting on a 12 year old boy because he dared speak up for the program Bush vetoed. He made a point on radio about how it helped him and in turn the righties did a smear job on him in order to try to discredit him.
Graeme Frost, 12, with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, on Capitol Hill last month.
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN Published: October 10, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — There have been moments when the fight between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program seemed to devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.
So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush’s weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.
Then, they wasted little time in going after him to score their own.
In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats’ plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family’s income and assets — even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite — and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.
But what on the surface appears to be yet another partisan feud, all the nastier because a child is at the center of it, actually cuts to the most substantive debate around S-chip. Democrats say it is crucially needed to help the working poor — Medicaid already helps the impoverished — but many Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means to help themselves.
The feud also illustrates what can happen when politicians showcase real people to make a point, a popular but often perilous technique. And in this case, the discourse has been anything but polite.
The critics accused Graeme’s father, Halsey, a self-employed woodworker, of choosing not to provide insurance for his family of six, even though he owned his own business. They pointed out that Graeme attends an expensive private school. And they asserted that the family’s home had undergone extensive remodeling, and that its market value could exceed $400,000.
One critic, in an e-mail message to Graeme’s mother, Bonnie, warned: “Lie down with dogs, and expect to get fleas.” As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.
Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.
Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify. The program does not require applicants to list their assets, which do not affect eligibility.
In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions. “We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families,” Mrs. Frost said.
“We work hard, we’re honest, we pay our taxes,” Mr. Frost said, adding, “There are hard-working families that really need affordable health insurance.”
Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have risen to the Frosts’ defense, saying they earn about $45,000 a year and are precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help.
Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday said, “I think it’s really a sad statement about how bankrupt some of these people are in their arguments against S-chip that they would attack a 12-year-old boy.”
The House and Senate approved legislation to expand the child health program by $35 billion over five years. President Bush, who proposed a lower increase, vetoed the bill last week. Mr. Bush said the Democrats’ plan was fiscally unsound and would raise taxes; the Democrats say he is willing to spend billions on the Iraq war but not on health care for American children.
Mr. Bush’s plan could force states to tighten eligibility limits, but it seemed likely that the Frost children would still be covered.
Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off.
An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.
But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.
“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”
As for accusations that bloggers were unfairly attacking a 12-year-old, Ms. Malkin wrote on her blog, “If you don’t want questions, don’t foist these children onto the public stage.”
Mr. and Mrs. Frost said they were bothered by the assertion that they lacked health coverage by their own choice.
“That is not true at all,” Mrs. Frost said. “Basically all these naysayers need to lay the facts out on the page, and say, ‘How could a family be able to do this?’ S-chip is a stopgap.”
Two weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme told his story of being involved in a severe car accident three years ago, and having received access to medical care because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He said:
Quote:
If it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today. … We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. … I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me.
The right-wing immediately condemned Democrats for daring to put a human face on the SCHIP program at a time when Bush was proposing a “diminishment of the number of children covered.” Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) — who has posed with children to advance his own political agenda — claimed Graeme was being used “as a human shield.”
Conservatives have more recently turned their targets on young Graeme Frost himself. A poster at the Free Republic propagated information alleging that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Among other bits of information, the post by the Freeper “icwhatudo” asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost “nearly $40,000 per year for tuition” and live in a well-off home.
Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme:
1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.
2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.
3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.
5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.
Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.
Right wing bloggers have been harassing the Frosts, calling their home numerous times to get information about their private lives. Compassionate conservatism indeed.
Malkin visited the Frost’s home and business today. A coworker of Mr. Frost tells Malkin that the family is “struggling,” but she refuses to believe it.
These days, anyone who is in the way of an agenda has to be discredited so that no one listens to them anymore. Yet, once upon a time, American society would pull out all stops not to go after a kid. The bar has been lowered yet again. This time it has been lowered so far, it has struck oil amid the sleaze.
excellent post, whomod. you know it's a shame that the Republicans will do anything to support Bush even in the face of these disgusting actions. It'll only hurt them in the long run, as it's already hurt them in present.
What do you expect from a bunch of fascists? To help the sick and disabled?
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
Rachel Maddow: “Twelve year old Graeme Frost, meet Cindy Sheehan, meet 9/11 widows, meet Staff Sgt. Brian McGough, meet Michael J. Fox, meet the kids who were targeted by Mark Foley, meet Jack Murtha. I mean, Graeme Frost as a twelve year old now joins an esteemed list of Americans who have been personally attacked, personally slimed, called liars and cowards and frauds, and threatened for daring to publicly espouse a view that the right disagrees with. I mean, just when you think you’ve found the person who they can’t possibly slime, I don’t know, say a twelve year old kid just out of a coma, turns out yeah, the bar does actually go that low, it’s just astonishing.”
I'm waiting for Wonderboy to tell me once again how it's the LEFT who engages in personal attack while all the right wingers do is try to debate the issues thru the left's sea of bile..
How is questioning whether the father is underreporting his income the same as attacking the kid?
is there any proof or reasonable cause for such questioning? or did that happen when the little kid told the story about the program Bush opposes helping him and his sister? because then it is just attacking the kid indirectly. it's disgusting and it's the kind of shit your party does. even to each other.
here's a real shocker for you. This disgusting smear campaign isn't just being flogged by the rightwing blogosphere or talk radio.
Originally Posted By: From ABC news
According to Senate Democratic aides, some bloggers have made repeated phone calls to the home of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, demanding information about this family's private life. On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused GOP leadership aides of "pushing falsehood" in an effort to distract from the political battle over S-CHIP.
"This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, D-Nev. "Instead of debating the merits of providing health care to children, some in GOP leadership and their right-wing friends would rather attack a 12-year-old boy and his sister who were in a horrific car accident."
Manley cited an e-mail sent to reporters by a Senate Republican leadership aide, summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Manley's charge that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about Frosts.
The disgusting purpose of this is to have news organizations digging into every aspect of the Frost's lives to determine whether the Woodward and Bernsteins of wingnuttia, (Freeper posters and stalker Michele Malkin) are "right." And then the sanctimonious right wing vultures will determine whether they "deserve" to eat at Applebees once a month with their four kids or whether they are "cheating" the benevolent tax payers by having a television set or a cell phone since their catastrophically injured kids need help from the government. They will say that Mom and Dad should work two jobs or maybe they shouldn't have had kids in the first place or started their own business. There will be no sense of "there but for the grace of God go I" or no recognition that sometimes life throws you a curve ball and that you need the help of others to get you through.
The Frosts can now expect that they will be bombarded with judgment from smug jackasses who will poke around in their private lives and tell them they are at fault, even though they both work, because their family couldn't afford to pay the huge premiums for a family of six or the catastrophic costs associated with major injuries and the ongoing care necessary for a special needs child. And when these critics say this about these people they will also be saying it about millions of working poor and middle class families who are crumbling under the burden of the runaway health care costs that are breaking the American economy and the American family. They will all be told they are bad parents, bad citizens, bad people.
Yet it is Americans like the Frosts, who make 45,000 dollars a year trying to run a small business and raise a family who are the backbone of this country. They don't deserve to be swift-boated or smeared or stalked just because they need some help when their kids are hurt and the costs for caring for them runs into the millions of dollars --- or for speaking out about it. This sickening smear campaign against these people is unamerican, unchristian and inhuman, which actually isn't all that surprising considering the people it's coming from.
How is questioning whether the father is underreporting his income the same as attacking the kid?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
is there any proof or reasonable cause for such questioning? or did that happen when the little kid told the story about the program Bush opposes helping him and his sister?
Wait a minute. The kid was put on the air, with information given to him by his parents and the Democrats for the specific purpose of being represented as a representative receipient of the program. When the whole debate is NOT over "should the program exist at all," but "at what income level should it apply".
Given the above, that is going to make people wonder "is this kid really a typical 'poor' kid who should be in the program."
As a result, a blogger who lives near them pointed out that the father owned his own business, the kids attend public school, they own nearly HALF A MILLION in real estate, etc.
That led others to begin questioning the father's veracity, not the kid's.
Quote:
it is just attacking the kid indirectly.
No. It's not. But "right wing attacks little kid" is a better talking point for your side than "right wing attacks possible deadbeat dad" or "right wing attacks Democrats for exploiting a kid." So the facts, or even legitimate questions, get ignored in terms of hyperbole.
Given the above, that is going to make people wonder "is this kid really a typical 'poor' kid who should be in the program."
As a result, a blogger who lives near them pointed out that the father owned his own business, the kids attend public school, they own nearly HALF A MILLION in real estate, etc.
That led others to begin questioning the father's veracity, not the kid's.
I don’t know what mortgage load the Frost’s are carrying, but we can guess they have about $200,000 in equity in their home. So, in order to qualify for aid, Michelle Malkin wants them to sell their home and everything else they can liquify, move into a cardboard box, and then apply for aid once the $200,000 is gone, which these days would take about six months. We’ll destroy any chance they had of clinging to middle-class status, make sure they are permanently destitute, and then help them. OK.
Does anyone on the Right ever, you know, think?
The idea behind “safety-net” type programs is supposed to be to help people enough so that they don’t slide into destitution, but get back on their own feet. But in Rightie America, people who have had a run of misfortune must be utterly crushed.
IMO this episode gets right to the heart of what kind of nation we want to be, and what kind of nation we are becoming.
Do we want to live in a nation in which ordinary citizens must live in fear of saying the “wrong” thing? Of drawing the attention of powerful people who will publicly crucify them?
Do we want to live in a nation in which most of us are one accident or illness away from losing our homes and everything we’ve ever worked for?
of Mr. and Mrs. Frost sitting on the stoop of their lavish “$400,000″ home — an estimate quoted by one rightie blogger after another as gospel — and which the New York Times says is actually worth $260,000. In some parts of the country $260,000 can still buy a pretty nice place, of course. In Manhattan it might get you a new, generously sized corrugated cardboard box in a prime location under an overpass.
Anyway, the Baltimore Sun article, by Matthew Hay Brown, talks about the accident that injured the children.
Quote:
Bonnie Frost was driving children Zeke, Graeme and Gemma in Baltimore County in December 2004 when the family SUV hit a patch of black ice and slammed into a tree. Graeme sustained a brain stem injury; Gemma suffered a cranial fracture.
The family relied on SCHIP during the more than five months that the children were hospitalized. Graeme had to learn again to walk and talk, his parents say; he remains weak on his left side and speaks with a lisp. Gemma is blind in her left eye; she has difficulty with memory, learning and speech, and sees a behavioral psychologist to help her deal with her frustration.
“Her personality has changed,” Bonnie Frost said yesterday. “She’s not the same girl.”
Then Graeme recorded the Dems’ radio address – that set off the far right blogo- sphere. A pseudonymous contributor to Free Republic cataloged the $20,000 cost of tuition at the Park School, the $160,000 Halsey Frost paid for his warehouse in 1999 and the $485,000 for which a neighbor sold his home in March. Links were provided to photos of the Park School’s 44,000-square- foot Wyman Arts Center and the Frosts’ 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times.
Soon strangers were posting accusatory messages describing Halsey Frost as a business owner who lived on a street of half-million-dollar homes, a charge that G-Man repeated just now, worked out of his own commercial property and paid to send his children to private school, yet still took advantage of government-funded health care.
“Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices,” Mark Steyn wrote on the National Review Online. “But, if this is the face of the ‘needy’ in America, then no-one is not needy.”
The Redstate contributor was less civil.
“Hang ‘em. Publically,” the contributor wrote. “Let ‘em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice.”
It's "hate' and misinformation to boot, all in the name of ideology... It's pure and simple to see, no matter how many ways you try to rationalize it G-Man.
So much for comassiponate conservatism. And THIS is why the right is ging to LOSE on the issue of health care in this country. Because it's not about compassion or doing the right thing. It's all about faceless ideology and loaded scare phrases like "socialized medicine" that do NOTHING to adress the real suffering by real Americans.
So this kid was covered under the current plan? Is this the very same plan that Bush isn't eliminating, cutting funding to, or in any way altering for the worse? Isn't this the same plan that he's wanting to prevent from being spread to families with higher incomes and accessibility to health care? I'm not going to bash this kid or his family, but I also don't see how trotting him out is proof that what Bush has done is evil. If that kid were to get sick today and not a year or so ago or whenever he was originally ill, he'd still be covered by the same plan.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
So this kid was covered under the current plan? Is this the very same plan that Bush isn't eliminating, cutting funding to, or in any way altering for the worse? Isn't this the same plan that he's wanting to prevent from being spread to families with higher incomes and accessibility to health care? I'm not going to bash this kid or his family, but I also don't see how trotting him out is proof that what Bush has done is evil. If that kid were to get sick today and not a year or so ago or whenever he was originally ill, he'd still be covered by the same plan.
Well, that's the point. So why was there an orchastrated effort by the right wing to try to discredit this kid and his family by alleging that they were taking advantage of this program?
To try to prove that that was the Democrats goal? To spread "socialized medicine" to those who clearly 'don't need it'? Or was it just designed to shut this family up and to try to make the messengers look bad?
Silence the Right — ooo, that’s rich. Here’s a woman with several national megaphones, including frequent gigs on Fox News, who has been leading a high tech lynch mob against some ordinary citizens who had the guts to speak up, and she’s screaming because she thinks someone is trying to silence her.
Actually, I don’t want to silence her. I want everyone in the nation to know about this little episode so they will realize what Michelle Malkin really is — scum.
People used to say, “pick on somebody your own size.” Malkin can hurl insults at politicians or other prominent media personalities all she likes, but when she tries to destroy an ordinary family just because they had the nerve to say something she doesn’t like, that’s something else entirely.
Quote:
But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.
“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”
If you can stand it, take a look at Malkin’s post and the above (previously posted) NY Times article quote and note that throughout she has “corrected” means-tested to asset-tested. Apparently Malkin had said the Maryland S-CHIP program does not have means-tested eligibility requirements, when in fact it does. So now she’s howling about asset testing, which I assume means that because the Frost’s have some home equity they shouldn’t be eligible for S-CHIP.
So this kid was covered under the current plan? Is this the very same plan that Bush isn't eliminating, cutting funding to, or in any way altering for the worse? Isn't this the same plan that he's wanting to prevent from being spread to families with higher incomes and accessibility to health care? I'm not going to bash this kid or his family, but I also don't see how trotting him out is proof that what Bush has done is evil. If that kid were to get sick today and not a year or so ago or whenever he was originally ill, he'd still be covered by the same plan.
Well, that's the point. So why was there an orchastrated effort by the right wing to try to discredit this kid and his family by alleging that they were taking advantage of this program?
Because politics are, today, influenced by mean, horrible people with no sense of morals and self righteous attitudes. That's on both sides. I don't think most Americans pay attention to them. It's the far fringes that they cater to and keep them in rotation on what passes as news shows in this country.
Originally Posted By: whomod
To try to prove that that was the Democrats goal? To spread "socialized medicine" to those who clearly 'don't need it'? Or was it just designed to shut this family up and to try to make the messengers look bad?
Silence the Right — ooo, that’s rich. Here’s a woman with several national megaphones, including frequent gigs on Fox News, who has been leading a high tech lynch mob against some ordinary citizens who had the guts to speak up, and she’s screaming because she thinks someone is trying to silence her.
Actually, I don’t want to silence her. I want everyone in the nation to know about this little episode so they will realize what Michelle Malkin really is — scum.
People used to say, “pick on somebody your own size.” Malkin can hurl insults at politicians or other prominent media personalities all she likes, but when she tries to destroy an ordinary family just because they had the nerve to say something she doesn’t like, that’s something else entirely.
Quote:
But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.
“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”
If you can stand it, take a look at Malkin’s post and the above (previously posted) NY Times article quote and note that throughout she has “corrected” means-tested to asset-tested. Apparently Malkin had said the Maryland S-CHIP program does not have means-tested eligibility requirements, when in fact it does. So now she’s howling about asset testing, which I assume means that because the Frost’s have some home equity they shouldn’t be eligible for S-CHIP.
I don't care (or even know) about her or Coulter or Pat Buchanan or the people from PETA and ELF. And, face it, G-man's not going to admit that her argument is sad and pathetic. Either way, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. All it is is yet another diversion from the real issue and a way to just try and lay blame and duck what's really supposed to be about.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
And, face it, G-man's not going to admit that her argument is sad and pathetic.
Does he ever? Which in itself is sad and pathetic. It excuses and in it's own way, condones this type of behavior and rhetoric.
And I have to disagree, but when the dialouge gets diverted to personal attack, as it ALWAYS does, (read my 1st posting on this subject), then it does become the issue. Whether we want it to be so or not.
Yeah, it's a distraction from more substantive arguments about the program itself and about American health care in general. But these repeated smear tactics against ideological foes of these people do not deserve to stand unchallenged and uncommeented on. Otherwise they'll just go on and on and it'll be like giving these people license to swiftboat and steamroll anyone they happen to disagree with.
And as was the case with John Kerry's infuriating high road silence, not responding to the right's attacks leaves the impression among the general public that there is actually merit and truth to the attack.
How is questioning whether the father is underreporting his income the same as attacking the kid?
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
is there any proof or reasonable cause for such questioning? or did that happen when the little kid told the story about the program Bush opposes helping him and his sister?
Wait a minute. The kid was put on the air, with information given to him by his parents and the Democrats for the specific purpose of being represented as a representative receipient of the program. When the whole debate is NOT over "should the program exist at all," but "at what income level should it apply".
Given the above, that is going to make people wonder "is this kid really a typical 'poor' kid who should be in the program."
As a result, a blogger who lives near them pointed out that the father owned his own business, the kids attend public school, they own nearly HALF A MILLION in real estate, etc.
That led others to begin questioning the father's veracity, not the kid's.
Quote:
it is just attacking the kid indirectly.
No. It's not. But "right wing attacks little kid" is a better talking point for your side than "right wing attacks possible deadbeat dad" or "right wing attacks Democrats for exploiting a kid." So the facts, or even legitimate questions, get ignored in terms of hyperbole.
That last point (bolded) is the one I've thought since this whole thing began. The Democrats bring out this sad little boy, in an emotionally exploitative bypass of the real issue: Should the maximum income to qualify for the governmentprovided S-CHIP healthcare be a maximum of 60,000 (as it's been) or 80,000 (as the Democrats are pushing for) ?
If this bill is successfully vetoed by Bush, the bill will go back to congress, to reach agreement on the lower income cap. Which will prevent families with very healthy finances from just cancelling the health insurance they already have, and can well afford, to take government freebies.
That last point (bolded) is the one I've thought since this whole thing began. The Democrats bring out this sad little boy, in an emotionally exploitative bypass of the real issue: Should the maximum income to qualify for the governmentprovided S-CHIP healthcare be a maximum of 60,000 (as it's been) or 80,000 (as the Democrats are pushing for) ?
WHAT??!!! This bill had bipartisan support!
Quote:
If this bill is successfully vetoed by Bush, the bill will go back to congress, to reach agreement on the lower income cap. Which will prevent families with very healthy finances from just cancelling the health insurance they already have, and can well afford, to take government freebies.
You really haven't been paying attention to this story. If you had, you'd have read that the family was DENIED care because of "pre-Existing conditions" meaning insurers generally only like you if you AERN'T sick.
And somewhere up there i made the point that social safety nets are there specifically so you won't have to lose everything and go into destitution in order to play for your child's health care.
let's just say the so far unproven accusations that the family makes 80,000 is true. does that really negate the hardship of paying for major medical costs for 2 children after a major accident?
And, face it, G-man's not going to admit that her argument is sad and pathetic.
Originally Posted By: whomod
Does he ever?
Wait just one minute.
There's a whole thread on Ann Coulter on this very board where I've said on more than one occasion that, while I agree with her on some issues, on others I've thought her arguments were, to use doc's terms, sad and pathetic.
In the case at hand, I've never said much about Malkin's column. I've only pointed out that questions arose about the kid's father's income and that it was not "attacking" the kid to ask those questions. I've also more or less echoed doc's point about how the family was not, perhaps, the best example of who the program should cover.
Apparently, however, no one here really wants to talk about the policies or consequences of socialized medicine. They'd just rather talk about whether it was "mean" to question a father who made a concious decision to inject himself and his kids into a debate about it.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
. “We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families,” Mrs. Frost said.
