"Anyway, it's really all about asset testing, isn't it?"

That's their fallback position, anyway, once their original argument blew up in their faces. Of course, even on asset testing, the story doesn't look much better. As I wrote on the other thread:

I think the logic goes like this: the family could easily raise money by selling their home and their newish SUV, switching to a smaller apartment and a cheaper, older car, and if they did this, they'd have money for health insurance. Thus, we have incontrovertible "proof" that the family "chose" to not have health insurance and the whole thing is a big fraud.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Think she'll take Ezra up on the debate offer?

Why do conservatives hate Americans with big houses they bought for $55,000? Why do they hate SUVs for families of six?

Uh, I hate Michelle Malkin, and she is usually unhinged, and I'm for national health care--but--the attacks on her are way off base. She didn't stalk anyone. She asked legitimate questions about the assets held by this family. The facts she uncovered are ones the MSM should have gotten. If we don't have national health care (which we should, and fast), and instead have a program designed to help those who cannot afford it, then we should not be giving it to this family, who manifestly can afford health coverage, but choose not to.

One point that Malkin gets wrong though is that "typical" rate of $642 for a family of six. With pre-existing medical conditions of such a severe nature that the car accident produced, I think that the real figure would be closer to the $1400 or so the family was talking about. But given their assets, they could afford that, although with sacrifice.

We should have national health care. But we should get there with honest debate and honest figures. And it is puzzing that this was the best family that the Dems could find to make their case. Do they not know how to do basic research on capitol hill any more? They should have had a bulletproof family who could not be questioned, even by the Freepers.

Wow, is that a mea culpa?

Ha.

JD: They make $45K per year and own a house and a small business. Their medical bills for the kids are astronomical due to a car accident a couple of years ago. If they don't qualify for government assistance, who does?

"Uh, I hate Michelle Malkin, and she is usually unhinged, and I'm for national health care--but--the attacks on her are way off base."

Not really. She went after this family with a predetermined agenda and perpetrated a sliming that was based on misinformation and innuendo. She even stated that a neighbor of the Frosts was basically a liar because of his personal views!

"She didn't stalk anyone. She asked legitimate questions about the assets held by this family. The facts she uncovered are ones the MSM should have gotten."

Why? The "facts" she uncovered were anything but. She doesn't know the value of their home or commercial property, even though these can be retrieved without harassing the family; she doesn't know the background of the family, how much they actually pay for their children's schooling, how much insurance would cost them -- nothing. She basically slimed the family falsely and maliciously and she deserves every bit of the condemnation that she is getting.

Not one "fact" revealed about this family provides even one iota of a rebuttal to the radio address that Graeme Frost gave.

"If we don't have national health care (which we should, and fast), and instead have a program designed to help those who cannot afford it, then we should not be giving it to this family, who manifestly can afford health coverage, but choose not to."

Bullshit. This famly manifestly cannot afford health coverage.

"We should have national health care. But we should get there with honest debate and honest figures."

Yes, we should, which is why Malkin and her ilk fully deserve the backlash they are seeing. Their figures and their debate are manifestly not honest.

"They should have had a bulletproof family who could not be questioned, even by the Freepers."

No such family exists. There is quite literally no one that the Freepers will not go after. No one.

KD: They make $45K per year and own a house and a small business. Their medical bills for the kids are astronomical due to a car accident a couple of years ago. If they don't qualify for government assistance, who does?

Several problems with what you said.
1. The recent expansion of SCHIP offered by the Democrats would allow illegal aliens to join in also. That's just indefensible.
2. $45K per year is a lot of money. And that doesn't include other assets like their house, car, and small business. They could use or sell some of those assets to pay for their bills if they wanted to. People living in $250,000 houses certainly don't need welfare payments.

So, let's see, $1400x12=$16800 for insurance
food 12000
utilities 2400
clothing 4000
oops, we already passed $35K a year....and we haven't factored in self-employment taxes:$6075, misc sales taxes, car insurance, fuel for the car, savings account (well, to be honest, poor people should not have a savings account, if they do they're crooks, right?) savings for retirement, ...

JD, you're full of hooey.

One of the right wing idiots suggested that the Frosts should have sacrificed by taking up a lower paying job that provided health insurance as a benefit.

But of course the wingnuts do want to do away with employer based health insurance.

I don't think it is possible to have any rational argument with these people.

and so is compassionate conservative Al

why should poor people have no home, no car and no assets? why do the conservatives hate the poor so much, don't they know poor people make it possible for rich people to be rich?

Nothing scares me more than when I agree with Michelle Malkin but I have to grudgingly sit on her bench with this one. Since when is $45k a year "working poor?" Get real. That's a solid middle class income in America. Our problem is that we WANT things and don't want to pay for them. We want to have 2500 sq ft houses but don't want to pay the property taxes or the energy bills on them. We want huge cars but we don't want to pay higher prices for the gas to operate them. Our sense of entitlement is just astronomical. Michelle is right on this one, the Frost family did make choices, just like I make the choice to pay for my private health insurance every month when I could sure use that extra cash to get myself a Lexus instead of a mid-range sedan.

PaulB almost said it all, but I would add that the Frosts are more representative of the kinds of voters we need to reach--members of the shrinking middle class who still think this could never happen to them--than an even poorer family would be.

It is true that the Freepers would go after every single family in this case; an even worse-off family would simply be castigated for not "making the choices" that would have allowed them to bring in more money. As it is, the Frosts are an excellent example of what can and does happen when things go wrong for an "average" family. It's people like that who need to be convinced of the value of S-CHIP and similar programs, not the impervious-to-any-argument wingers.

Sorry if this constitutes feeding the trolls but...

No, the SCHIP expansion would not cover illegal aliens.

When you hear discussions about the "banality of evil," (and it certainly applies to fair Michelle), just remember that you can't spell banal without anal.

"Since when is $45k a year 'working poor?' Get real. That's a solid middle class income in America."

Garbage. It depends entirely on the size of your family and where you live. With a family of six where the Frost's live, that's emphatically not "a solid middle class income."

JD makes the common mistake of having no idea what he/she is talking about. Happens a lot on the internet. If JD had a clue, he/she would know that they are exactly the type of family SCHIP was designed to help: Not poor enough for Medicaid, but not financially able to afford private health care, which really says more about private health care than it does about their financial condition.

But given their assets, they could afford that, although with sacrifice.

And you know this how, exactly?

I chafed at the Malkin quote in the NY Times article: "Maryland's SCHIP program doesn't means test."

OF COURSE it means tests, it has income limits like every other state. She goes on to talk only about an asset test, but by conflating the two, who knows how many uninformed folks out there buy her argument that SCHIP a big government expansion because the Democrats don't want any income limits on it.

... I hate Michelle Malkin, and she is usually unhinged, and I'm for national healthcare -- but... I'm going to make her argument for her, anyway.

Nothing scares me more than when I agree with Michelle Malkin, but I have to grudgingly sit on her bench with this one...oh, nevermind, I'm not going to sit on her bench, I'm going to get out front & make her argument for her, too.

These aren't your garden-variety concern trolls, folks. This is the comments section from Malkin's website taking a field trip.

""Since when is $45k a year 'working poor?' Get real. That's a solid middle class income in America."

You're knowledge of what it costs to raise a family -- especially one with four kids -- is obviously non-existent.

As Carol pointed out, there ain't no way in holy hell this family could pay for insurance. Hell, my family makes twice that and can't afford private insurance.

Those who posit otherwise have an obvious lack of understanding of what it takes to raise a family -- even one that scrimps and saves every penny they can. Trust me ...

junebug -- Malkin's site doesn't have a comments section.

$45000 a year in any East Coast city for a family of 6 with 1 severely debilitated child is not nothing, but it is close. I make $56000 (gross), have a wife who physically cannot work, a 1300 sq. ft house with $100000 mortgage outstanding, and a 1993 Honda. Between doctor's visits and pharmacy bills, we spent $5600 in co-pays alone last year. Food, utilities, taxes, insurance (house-car-medical-flood), clothes--not a vacation or luxury in sight. I wish I could be like Al and live in mom's basement and get by on what my paper route brings in, but mom had to move to assisted living.

Actually, it does, Mark D, but you have to be part of her "community of registered readers" in order to participate. For the true believers only. Gotta love the ditto heads & echo chambers.

Boy, concern trolls out in force today. arteclectic, it's all about you and what you can afford, isn't it? That sums up the rightwing perspective in a nutshell.
Also you don't live in the Washington-Baltimore area, do you? Because $45,000 is mostly definitely not solid middle class in this area.
The median income is something like $77,000.
And IIRC correctly the American median income is $55,000 but I'm not positive about that.
And how many kids do you have, anyway?

junebug took the words out of my fingers.

I concede that no family would have been free from freeper assaults.

I also appreciate that they were not living on 45K in Iowa or some low cost area.

I did in fact know what SCHIP was for, families too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid.

How did I know they could afford it? I was going on the estimated value of their home--that they bought for 55K and is now worth estimates ranging from 300K to 450K. That's a lot of equity. The assets the father owns through his business are something I know very little about assessing. But I know something about home ownership. You can find a smaller home off the profits of that home's sales. Some of my relatives live with 8 kids in a much smaller house in the DC area and don't have government provided health care.

But for the record, I'll say it again--this family should have free national health care, just like the rest of us. My only point was--this was not the family to use to make the case for SCHIP. And also, for once, I don't think Malkin was out of line, to ask questions, drive by the house, and visit the business assets. That is not stalking, it's reporting. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Malkin is right today, although deeply wrong on just about everything else, including the need for national health care.

jd, the family can't get insurance at any price. They've been trying and have been turned down by three separate insurance companies. Their bills are of such magnitude that they would quickly run through the equity in their home in order to pay them. Their best bet for obtaining insurance would be to set up a small employer group (mom = 30 hour per week employee) and be able to obtain HIPAA guaranteed availability of something in the group market (what exactly is another matter). But then mom would have to give up her current job and extra income and their overall income would probably drop by 25-33%, and they'd have to pay in the neighborhood of 1200 per month at least for the policy -- that's pretty expensive insurance, if you ask me. So let's redo the math: If mom is bringing in 12K per year out of that 45, their income would drop to 33K, and out of that they would pay 1200 per month, or more than 40% of their income for insurance. And so bye bye retirement, college, music lessons and anything else that we usually associate with a middle class existence. They're poor. Most of us are medically indigent -- two or even just one medical mishap away from extreme poverty. That's what freepers can't possibly admit to themselves.

All this from the conservatives about a family who supposedly made enough for health care and not a peep out of them about the millionaire who now, thanks to the Supremes, will get reimbursed for his son's private schooling from public school funds in NY. Now who really had the funds to care for their family needs? From their mute voices, it appears that only those who do not support thier viewpoint/agenda.

1. The recent expansion of SCHIP offered by the Democrats would allow illegal aliens to join in also. That's just indefensible.

Bullshit. What is indefensible is assholes like you (even if you are a troll) knowiungly misrepresenting facts. Illegals cannot recieve CHIP funding and the new bill does not change that.

2. $45K per year is a lot of money.

In what universe??? For a family of 6? This from the same guy deriding dems for wanting to raise tax rates for families making over $200,000/year. Only in a wingnut world is $45,000 rich, but $200,000 is not.

And that doesn't include other assets like their house, car, and small business. They could use or sell some of those assets to pay for their bills if they wanted to. People living in $250,000 houses certainly don't need welfare payments.

And they sell their assets and do what? They sell their house and...well, they still need somewhere to live. That is going to cost something, right, Alhole? Or I guess they should live on the street. They sell their SUV, and what...walk to work? Sell their business (which they dissolved in 1999, by the way, but don't let facts get in your way, you never do) and what? Starve?

Guess what, genius, they pay taxes, ergo, they "pay" for SCHIP. SCHIP, get this, Alhole, buys insurance through private insurance companies! How is that "socialized medicine?

Uh, I hate Michelle Malkin, and she is usually unhinged, and I'm for national health care--but--the attacks on her are way off base. She didn't stalk anyone. She asked legitimate questions about the assets held by this family. The facts she uncovered are ones the MSM should have gotten. If we don't have national health care (which we should, and fast), and instead have a program designed to help those who cannot afford it, then we should not be giving it to this family, who manifestly can afford health coverage, but choose not to.

First, an asset-test isn't an appropriate test here, an income test is. Depletion of assets is not sustainable, and so it just kicks the ball down the road a little bit, and magnifies the degree of difficulty the family will face when they do qualify for assistance. Second, S-CHIP isn't supposed to cover those that can't afford health insurance, it is supposed to cover those who can't afford health care despite being above the criteria for medicaid; insurance, ideally, makes health care more affordable, but being able to afford some insurance is not the same as being able to afford adequate health care. And, anyhow, this family could not, as others have mentioned, get insurance for any price, so even were ability to get insurance is the relevant criteria, it wouldn't matter.

arteclectic

The United States Trustee's office publishes a chart showing the median family income by family size for each state. The chart is necessary to calculate whether a bankrupt is presumed to be defrauding his creditors when he files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. According to the latest report, a report that doesn't go into effect until the 15th of October, the medium family income for a family of 6 in the State of Maryland is (drum roll) $107,817. Sorry, the Frost's $45,000 income is below the median income for a single Maryland wage earner ($51,141.) Based on the median income and cost of living figures in Maryland, the Frosts are barely eking out a living.

One particularly disengenous aspect of the President's anti-SCHIP argument is the notion that a $84,000 income in New Jersey is a genuinely upper middle class income. The median income for a family of four in New Jersey is $94,441.

America might be one country, but it is really two economies--red and blue. In a state with a blue state economy the cost of living and the median income are much higher than in a state with a red state economy.

Wow, Barbara, that's a powerful and persuasive case. And a great phrase--medically indigent. I was taking on faith that coverage was available to them. I should have known that the pre-existing stuff was creating vast barriers. Thanks for explaining it so fully and carefully. I wish you were running message for the Dems on the hill...of course, I don't know how to encapsulate all you said in a sentence and that is what messaging is about...

Our problem is that we WANT things and don't want to pay for them.

And you know that...how?

We want to have 2500 sq ft houses but don't want to pay the property taxes or the energy bills on them.

Mybe, just maybe, the Frosts wanted a 2500sqf house because they have four fucking kids you moron!

We want huge cars but we don't want to pay higher prices for the gas to operate them.

See the above. Family of six, $45,000, and wingnut dickheads like you want to make that sound like a lot of money. When I made $45,000 as a single renter, I was far from living high off the hog.

But I forgot, entitlements are only for the very poor, and the very rich.

$45,000/year isn't a lot of money, and they refinanced their home in 2005 to accomodate the house for their severely injured children. So there's not much equity there.

Selling a house to get some cash isn't going to permanently fix a situation with expenses that are virtually perpetual. Jeez, how stupid can you people be? It is just a short term band-aid, and leaves the people much poorer and without a house.

I wish I could be like Al and live in mom's basement and get by on what my paper route brings in, but mom had to move to assisted living.

The line of the thread, and you made me laugh out loud. Thanks for sharing Dano, and best of luck to you.

The recent expansion of SCHIP offered by the Democrats would allow illegal aliens to join in also.

Please cite the provision that allows this. The usual right-wing attack I've seen is that the S-CHIP expansion would, in some unspecified ways, make it "easier" for illegal aliens to fraudulently gain access to the program, even most winger attacks haven't claimed that it actually allows illegal aliens to join.

$45K per year is a lot of money.

No, its not.

And that doesn't include other assets like their house, car, and small business.

Assets are not income. Requiring depletion of those kinds of assets to qualify for aid would encourage potentially transitory income deficiency to become durable asset poverty, exacerbating cyclical poverty, the exact problem public aid programs are made to avoid and counter.

They could use or sell some of those assets to pay for their bills if they wanted to.

They could probably have sold all of those assets and paid a small portion of the medical bills that S-CHIP has covered and greatly reduced their income potential and ability to provide a decent environment for their children. Then they would be dead broke, still uninsured and uninsurable in the private system, and still facing a pile of medical bills reaching to the stratosphere.

Of course, they'd then probably qualify (because of their reduced income) for more public assistance than they do through S-CHIP.

$45k might be a decent middle class income if the job that pays you $45k attaches things like 401k matching and the big one, HEALTH INSURANCE, with it. Without the employer-paid health insurance, $45k is not a decent middle class income, especially in an actual city.

Michelle Malkin knows perfectly well what she and her ilk are doing. They are giving this family the Plame, Swift Boat, Phony Soldier treatment. They are trying to intimidate the next Democrat who might have something to say.

It's the politics of personal destruction, taken to a new, disgusting low.

Republicans fear the people and they fear democracy. They want you to STFU, keep your head down and do as you're told. Anyone who dares participate in democracy must be destroyed.

jd -- I appreciate where you're coming from, but I still think you're off base and here's why:

You claim that the government should provide health insurance for everyone.

But you then turn around and say that these people should sell the few things they have of any worth to pay for insurance, ignoring the fact that these people qualified -- legally and legitimately -- for government-funded health care.

I don't get it, so I'm really interested in some clarification to some questions your position brings up:

1. How much do you think their medical bills are?

I've had two back surgeries, and the last one was charged (by the doc, hospital, etc.) at more $150K+. While I have no documented proof, I'd be any amount of money that these kids' bills were much, much higher than that.

2. What should they do with the proceeds from their home sale?

Following your plan, these people should cash out the equity on a house they bought for $55K. Let's assume (for argument) that they owe about $15K and the thing is worth the $400K figure that's been flying around.

That leaves them with around $385K IF they pay no taxes, brokers fees, etc., and can get the house sold in an incredibly weak housing market.

If they used that just to pay medical bills, it wouldn't cover all of them since the non-insured don't get some nifty "negotiated rate" that insurance companies do. Thus, any and all costs would be at 100%.

If they used that to pay for private insurance, they'd be lucky to be approved for anything less than $1500 a month, if at all. And that'd only be for the two kids, not the family, and would also not include the incredibly high co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums that private plans have. (Note: I used to work for an insurance company, so I have a great deal of knowledge about plans and provisions.)

If they used that money for either of those two reasons, how would they buy a new house?

3. What do you think the odds are that they'll be able to get a decent house for the same or less than what their mortgage payment is now? Again, these folks bought that house cheap and probably have a mortgage payment in the range of $400 - 600 depending on APR, taxes, insurance, etc., based on the cost of my first house (which was $82K). So by selling it to pay either for the bills or insurance, they'd be in even more financial difficulty due to a much, much higher mortgage payment.

4. Do you think it's right for a family to have to sell their stuff when there's a program out there that works, is efficient, enjoys huge support on both political sides, and could help them?

Again, I am NOT trying to start a fight here. I just don't understand why you think these people should sell what they've spent a lifetime trying to obtain in order to pay for their childrens' health care. It's just so damned .... soulless, and you seem better than that.

"Since when is $45k a year 'working poor?'

When you have a family and when the job that pays you 45k doesn't have health insurance.

If you were poor, you'd qualify for Medicaid. The large swatch of people who don't have health insurance fall just into this "sweet spot" between medicare qualification and a job with benefits. SCHIP rectifies that problem for the children.

What is truly, truly insulting about this kerfluffle is that this family did everything republicans said they should do. everything, that is, except support GW Bush, which instantly made them targets of the right-wing hate squad.

Our problem is that we WANT things and don't want to pay for them.

Like perpetual wars and tax cuts?

Even when proven to be wrong or lying, as they almost always are, the wingnuts have done their job because this is just the kind of shit that "dead-enders" latch upon as proof of whatever it is they know is wrong with the left.

Look at the mythical "welfare queens." They never existed. On the face of it, the concept is just laughable. Or consider the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry. The problem is that this kind of thing gains traction with the uniformed, which, unfortunately, defines most of the electorate in the country, and then it helps fuck up elections.

Amazingly, once you dig through the volumes of vitriol here, there has been an interesting evolution of the debate thanks to this "controversy."

The initial conservative reaction to the Frost's appearance was, I think, irritation that the S-CHIP issue was presented as a "why does the president want to take health insurance away for poor, sick children" issue. However, this discussion (at times) has gotten down to the real issue that Kevin alluded to earlier - who exactly should qualify for this assistance. Should a family with modest income but moderate assets qualify? And should the ceiling for who qualifies be increased? The discussion may not be civil, but at least it is not addressing the right questions.

One point that Malkin gets wrong though is that "typical" rate of $642 for a family of six. With pre-existing medical conditions of such a severe nature that the car accident produced, I think that the real figure would be closer to the $1400 or so the family was talking about. But given their assets, they could afford that, although with sacrifice.

What a tool.

Let's do the math on this.

They earn, say, 45K a year. $1,400 a month turns into $16.8K a year. Let's suppose that they can deduct all that expense (I don't know if this is so). That leaves them with about $28K a year before taxes.

And what do they have to cover with the $28K before taxes? They have a family of six, with a significant mortgage to pay, no doubt, because they apparently refinanced their home to cover modifications in the house to accommodate their severely injured children.

Now this doesn't take into account the extraordinary expenses they must incur because of co-pays, prescription medicine, transportation to and from doctors, etc., that they must deal with because they have two severely injured children.

Yeah, I think we can say that paying $168K a year in insurance for them might well require a few "sacrifices".

It must feel great to be Michelle Malkin and the Wingnuts, and know that you've managed to go after a family with so many fine entitlements and so much good fortune going their way. Hell, who doesn't envy this family their two severely injured children, when it makes it possible to live a life on easy street?

Yeah, I think we can say that paying $168K a year in insurance for them might well require a few "sacrifices".

should be, obviously,

Yeah, I think we can say that paying $16.8K a year in insurance for them might well require a few "sacrifices".

The more I read about the Frost family the more I admire them. They are the model of a hard working modern American family. They have hung together through thick and thin. Mom stays home with the kids. Dad is trying hard to run a small business. Four kids, two of them terribly injured in an accident a few years ago.

Tell me again why we are supposed to deny the Frost children health care.

Why do the right wing wackos hate American children? Could any of them look either Frost kid in the eye and say "to bad, so sad, your dead?"

of course, I don't know how to encapsulate all you said in a sentence

How about, "Michelle Malkin and her shrieking mob are a bunch of liars?"

Better yet, how about "Michelle Malkin and her shrieking mob are a bunch of liars, and I was a fool for assuming for a moment they had any credibility left?"

You're welcome.

Amazingly, once you dig through the volumes of vitriol here, there has been an interesting evolution of the debate thanks to this "controversy."

Right, Hack -- dishonest right-wing hacks like you (but I repeat myself), knowing that Bush's position on SCHIP is a loser, are trying to change the subject, and don't care if they do so dishonestly.

How marvelous of you.

The problem is that this kind of thing gains traction with the uniformed

Leave bellboys, flight attendants, George in his cowboy suit and Rudy in drag out of this.

The reason that Rush, Malkin, Freepers, et. al., are going after this family so hard isn't because they're a poor example of who we should as a society consider aiding with their medical bills, but because they're such a good example.

- They're employed.
- They work hard to see that their kids get the best possible education. (Isn't it funny that the folks who recommend vouchers so vociferously go after a family that has managed to get state and other sponsored scholorships for their kids?)
- They have acheived the "American Dream" of home ownership, by buying a house when a neighborhood was down and being part of the revitalization of the house and, by extension, the neighborhood.

In short, they're regular folks, who are working hard and doing okay, but can be brought down by high health care costs. If the estimate of $1,400 a month for health care is accurate, it would constitute over a third of their gross income (and for family of 6 with pre-existing medical conditions, it's not crazy.) Of their income net of property taxes, sales taxes, social security, etc. it will be more than that. Note that even if their income is a bit higher - say $60K - it's still a huge burden on the family.

Now, the Rush/Malkin/Freeper axis will insist on "Asset Testing", which seems to mean they should sell their house or reverse mortgage it to get insurance. These are the same folks who would say they're unstable if they don't own a home or take on too much debt.

It's the kind of trap they like to set. Show them a reasonable family that is mostly doing okay in the struggle to get by, except for the high cost of medical care, and they'll say the family makes too much. Show them a family in true squalor, they'll say the family was too lazy.

The reason they have to attack this family isn't because they're atypically, exaggeratedly poor. It's because they're so much like a heck of a lot of families out there, or like a lot of families can imagine themselves to be. There's a lot of folks who are hard-working, have some assets (like a modest $260K home), but either don't have coverage or are one unfortunate circumstance away from losing it. One layoff, one employer bankruptcy, and a lot of families are in the same boat.

Sure, the Frosts could sell some of their assets and afford coverage this year - and move their kids into a smaller home, eat less, educate less, offer fewer opportunities. They could sacrifice any possibility of developing secure assets for retirement. They could make it more difficult for their children to go to college. They could make these choices. The question is, should we force them to?

In the end, it reminds me of Bush's comment "...people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

That's the difference. Republicans would like people to have to go to emergency rooms, Democrats would like to give the coverage so they don't have to. Republicans would like folks to go bankrupt if they want healthcare, Democrats would like middle class folks to be able to build their own wealth. Republicans expose people to the random vagaries of life, Democrats want to help people improve their lives.

you then turn around and say that these people should sell the few things they have of any worth to pay for insurance

Which is at least as much of a political loser for the Right as Bush's veto -- the Bush Cultist position is that a medical crisis should force families to sell everything they own before seeking help.

Of course, that's why this family's message resonated so strongly. As John Cole pointed out, apart from the unpardonable sin of opposiing Dear Leader, this family -- married, small busienss owners, homeowners, law abiding and tax payign -- are the American Dream in the flesh, and the GOP insists that whatever financial stability they enjoy be utterly destroyed rather than letting them enjoy a popular and effective program.

You're welcome to that position, you authoritarian jackasses. Shame on you.

What I said poorly at 12:20 Fides has said beautifully at 2:07. Well done, Fides.

If the estimate of $1,400 a month for health care is accurate

If it's accurate? I was paying for my own PPO healthcare (self-employed). It kept going up every 6 months until it hit $450/month about 4 yrs ago at which point I opted to drop the comprehensive coverage and now I'm paying for what is essentially catastrophic care ($5000 yrly deductible) for $200/month.

If a *healthy* family of 6 found comprehensive healthcare coverage for $1400/month, they got a huge bargain.

First of all, some of the estimates of the value of the Frost's home (I can't even believe we're going here) are way off base. According to the NYT, the fair market value of a home of their size in that neighborhood is $260,000, not $400,000 (never, I repeat, NEVER take a freeper's word about anything). And that is not even takaing into account whether they could sell the house in this weak market.

Secondly, they likely had to refinance the home to accommodate the severely injured children. How much? Who knows, but likely in the 10's of 1000's of dollars. So know the asset value drops from 205,000 to, let's say, $150,000. Take out capital gains, broker's fees, THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO BUY OR RENT A NEW HOUSE!, and you're not left with much.

Mouth breathers is too kind a term for these people.

This is just like the rightwing. An unhinged, unwarranted, unfounded, untrue swift boat attack to confound, confuse, and conflate. Sadly, works every time.

Leave bellboys, flight attendants, George in his cowboy suit and Rudy in drag out of this. Posted by: shortstop

Rather, that would be uninformed.

$45k might be a decent middle class income if . . . Posted by: James G

If you are single, you can walk to work and live in a house/apartment that you bought ten years ago. Otherwise, in 2007 $45K/year income for a family of four in not a "decent middle class income."

Gregory,

Conservatives didn't all of a sudden change the subject on this because they suddenly discovered the issue was a political loser for Bush, the criticism of the proposed expansion of S-CHIP has been the same all along - that a program intended to provide medical coverage for the working poor was being expanded to include families that could afford private insurance.

You might have noticed that I did not offer a take on the Frosts' situation. I simply do not know enough about them to state one way or the other what they could or could not afford. However, I do think that having such a conversation puts the focus of the debate squarely where it should be - discussing who should qualify for the program. With regard to the Frosts, they certainly appear to be on the cusp of qualifying and I think the bloggers who have criticized them have picked a losing fight.

That doesn't mean I need to sign onto a bill that would extend similar support to families making half-again what the Frosts make (and without the tragic handicapped children). And I think we can question the decisions the Frosts made, having such a large family while choosing not to take a job (or make sacrifices or reach out to their family) that would provide some coverage without being smeared as evil or heartless. As much as society has responsibilities to the needy, so too do people have responsibilities for their actions.

John Cole comes within a breath of the

The de facto wingnut position is to want people living in fear: fear of terrorism, fear of brown people, fear of tripping on the sidewalk and their lives changing forever. They want a cowed, compliant populace.

Add in the spirit of setting low-income families against one another while health industry executives cash their $45,000 checks for a day's work and divert a chunk to support their favorite candidates and propagandists, and you have the modern GOP.

Ugh. 'A breath of the dirty truth.'

Conservatives didn't all of a sudden change the subject on this because they suddenly discovered the issue was a political loser for Bush, the criticism of the proposed expansion of S-CHIP has been the same all along - that a program intended to provide medical coverage for the working poor was being expanded to include families that could afford private insurance. Posted by: Hacksaw

No, asshole. That's a lie. It was not going to be expanded to the point where it would have been attractive to middle-income families. End of discussion.

Just state the truth, which is that you, like most wingers, hate any form of socialized medicine. Just be honest, and let's hope you never need Medicare in your dotage.

But I know something about home ownership. You can find a smaller home off the profits of that home's sales.

Actually, if you think that in an area where their home went from being worth $55,000 to being worth $450,000 without major improvements that they would be able to sell that house and find another $55,000 house, you know approximately jack shit about the real estate market.

Hack:

Conservatives didn't all of a sudden change the subject on this because they suddenly discovered the issue was a political loser for Bush

Bullshit.

the criticism of the proposed expansion of S-CHIP has been the same all along - that a program intended to provide medical coverage for the working poor was being expanded to include families that could afford private insurance.

But the criticism of the Frosts on these grounds was, and remains, false, Hack -- with two severely injured children, they can't afford medical coverage, even if they could get private insurance, which they can't.

You might have noticed that I did not offer a take on the Frosts' situation.

You simply justified the right's attacks on the grounds that it shifted the subject ot grounds that you imagien to be more comfortable to you. Way to stay classy, Hack.

I simply do not know enough about them to state one way or the other what they could or could not afford.

And your pleading ignorance of the fact that they can't is supposed to impress us how?

For that matter, your crediting the right wing attack brigades with raising legitimate questions that they can afford it once again is a disgusting tacit approval of their false accusations.

However, I do think that having such a conversation puts the focus of the debate squarely where it should be - discussing who should qualify for the program. With regard to the Frosts, they certainly appear to be on the cusp of qualifying

You disingenous lout, they do qualify! The Frosts' position was not that they should be included in the program, but that other Americans should receive the benefits they currently enjoy.

and I think the bloggers who have criticized them have picked a losing fight.

The GOP has picked a losting fight across the board, Hack. It's just that the bloggers who have, to use your mealymouthed and disingenuously bloodless word, criticized them have also exposed, once again, the vile attack instincts of authoritarian Bush Cultists like you.

And I think we can question the decisions the Frosts made, having such a large family while choosing not to take a job (or make sacrifices or reach out to their family) that would provide some coverage without being smeared as evil or heartless.

Yes, you would think that, Hack.

As much as society has responsibilities to the needy, so too do people have responsibilities for their actions.

Oh, yeah? So your position is that the Frosts -- small-buisiness owning, married, homeowning, law abiding, taxpaying individuals that they are -- so irrespsonsible for not creating jobs with their small business, since doing so means they couldn't afford private insurance? Or is it just that Bush Cultists like you would inssit they sell their house and go bankrupt first? (And, of course, all this doesn't even touch cmdicely's apt pointing out how asinine that position is.)

That's the amazing thing about this smear that you so reflexively, if ineffectively, defend -- once again, movement conservatives are attackign middle class Americans. That's why your people need to change the subject, Hack -- you know full well that many middle class Ameircans are, like the Frosts, one car accident away from total financial ruin if not for successful programs like this one, and the very concept proves what a stinking pilt your loathsome ideology really is.

So who gives a dman what you would sign onto, Hack? A clear, solid majority of Americans are perfectly prepared to spread the risk in return for the benefits of not having their economic prosperity wiped out by a medical happenstance.

As I said, Hack, you're welcome to oppose that position, and tacitly defend the attack-dog tactics of the vicious Right, but that doesn't make it either poltically viable -- or respectable. Shame on you.

And I think we can question the decisions the Frosts made, having such a large family while choosing not to take a job (or make sacrifices or reach out to their family) that would provide some coverage without being smeared as evil or heartless.

You all are against abortion and inexpensive contraception, yet blast a family for having four kids.

You all are for hardworking, self-employed families until one of them disagrees with you politically.

And you all are against any form of government assistance, even when that assistance helped keep a family from living on the streets and even when you say nary a word when it comes to corporate handouts.

It's not a "smear" to call that "evil or heartless."

It's the truth.

"You can't win with the unhinged mob."

Said the squeaky hinge.

There is a simple truth with regard to the politics here. Malkin and fellow cretins could only hope to justify their smear of this family already burdened with a tragic situation if they could uncover absolutely terrible abuses of the system by that family.

Instead, they've come up with essentially zippo. A family of six with 2 severely injured children with an income of only 45K, essentially the median family income for a household of 2-3 people, hardly looks to the average American like they're gaming the system.

And what we have left after all the "investigative reporting" by Malkin and fellow wingnuts is a mob out to make miserable and smear a family already suffering through indisputably tragic circumstances.

If Malkin and crew had in their character any potential for feeling shame, they would just stop dead in their tracks, given what they've found out.

But we know they won't.

Language and temper JeffII, you've got no reason to lash into me.

Your assertion aside, and recognizing that much of the execution of S-CHIP has to do with how the state's determine eligibility, the expansion of S-CHIP certainly does run the risk (or have the advantage, if you are an advocate of nationalized health care) of pulling in families that might otherwise have elected to purchase private insurance. This has already occurred in states that have more generous eligibility standards (which a huge increase in SCHIP funding would further enable). In these states, "some parents who otherwise would have enrolled their children in private coverage may prefer instead to switch their coverage to SCHIP." Know who said that? Not some wingnut, heartless, apologist for the GOP but the non-partisan CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8092/05-10-SCHIP.pdf

They also found that "about 60 percent of the children who were eligible for the program were covered by private insurance in the year before the program was enacted." So I think your dismissal of conservative concerns is premature.

As for honesty, I think I and other conservatives have been quite honest when it comes to resisting socialized medicine where private options exist. Our honesty certainly holds up well to advocates of socialized medicine who claim this is all about poor children when they actually intend to use its expansion to squeeze this country into their preferred solution. At least Kevin was honest enough to recognize this the other day.

As for honesty, I think I and other conservatives have been quite honest when it comes to resisting socialized medicine where private options exist.

Oh, yes, Hack, claiming the Frosts weren't eligible for the program when they actually are -- even claiming that there's some legitimate question as to their eligibility -- is soooooo honest.

Thanks for the laugh.

Take a deep breath Gregory,

I didn't justify the right's 'attack' on the Frosts, in fact I characterized it as a losing position. On the other hand, I did say that that attack was no a shift in the argument, as you had claimed. Losing position though it may be, that attack was premised on the same criticism that concerned conservatives from the beginning - the expansion of SCHIP "to include families that could afford private insurance."

And, had you paid attention to what I wrote, you would see that I further believed that when it came to the Frosts, my sense was that they were not actually a clear example of what conservatives are concerned about. And yes, I know that they had qualified for SCHIP, the point was that this also appeared to me to be reasonable. They obviously aren't working poor but their circumstances were difficult enough to make their eligibility for SCHIP make sense (I said on the cusp, sorry if it wasn't clear). Either way, the rest of your diatribe is hardly justified.

Language and temper JeffII, you've got no reason to lash into me. Posted by: Hacksaw

Dick heads like you should count yourselves lucky that I can't crawl through my T1 connection, burst through your monitor and kick the shit out of you in a very unmetaphorical fashion. All decent people have a reason to lash out at scum like you. It's your ilk that's ruining this country.

Gregory,

The issue of the Frosts' eligibility is not whether or not they were - that's obvious enough since they were covered by it. The issue is whether that eligibility made sense in the first place - as an example of the expansion of SCHIP beyond its original aim of providing support to those too rish for Medicaid but too poor to afford health insurance.

As the CBO makes clear, that concern is a reasonable one. However, as I made clear in my comments, it is far from obvious that the Frosts are such an example.

Wow JeffII thanks for demonstrating the balance and reason of the reality-based community. Frankly, I'm shocked you were able to avoid any spelling mistakes as you vented all you impotent rage as your monitor. Walk away buddy, getting that worked up over a political disagreement is decidedly unhealthy. Even for a manly, T1-using web warrior as yourself.

I didn't justify the right's 'attack' on the Frosts

Yes, you did, jackass.

in fact I characterized it as a losing position.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, Hack. You said that the ginned-up controvery of Malkin's hate brigades was good in that it shifted the debate to one you think you'd like to have, despite the fact that there is no legitimate question as to whether the Frosts qualify for the program. So yes, you did justify the dishonest attacks, albeit in a particularly smarmy and milquetoast fashion.

Your meager disclaimers aside, you professed ignorance as to whether they qualify (if you know they qualified, as you now claim, then your earlier explicit claim of ignorance on the subject, which give the Malkin brigades' attack more credit than they deserve, are firther dishonest).

The honest answer, Hack is that of course they qualify, and the claims of the Malkin brigades are false. It doesn't matter if the attacks -- and we haven't gotten into the creepy nature of these attacks you defend -- were "premised on the same criticism that concerned conservatives from the beginning;" that premise was false.

No wonder you liked it.

But you'd rather whinge about "socialized medicine," and anyway we know better than to expect honesty from you, Hack.

What losers like you, with your utterly repugnant world view, are concerned about is exactly what prompted these attacks in the first place -- that the American middle class will see this system as obviously superior than the one you champion. And make no mistake about it, Hack, they will, and what you are willing to "sign on to" won't matter, no matter how many packs of rabid authoritarian thugs your side is able to muster.

We've tried it your way, Hack, and from the Guilded Age on, the American people have found that your way sucks. No wonder your side has to resort to the kind of dishonesty you routinely deploy.

After all the "investigative reporting" Malkin and Wingnuts have performed, all they've been able to "expose" is a family about whom any average American would say, with true sadness and sympathy, "There but for the grace of God go I."

The issue of the Frosts' eligibility is not whether or not they were - that's obvious enough since they were covered by it.

Au contraire, Hack, that's exactly what the unhinged Right's attack was about. It's utterly facinating that you choose to be this dishonest about the matter.

The issue is whether that eligibility made sense in the first place - as an example of the expansion of SCHIP beyond its original aim of providing support to those too rish for Medicaid but too poor to afford health insurance.

But that statement exactly describes the Frosts' situation, so there's no "issue" involved. Moreover, with the preexisting condition of the childrens' injuries, they couldn't get private insurance if they wanted to -- and yes, you mendacious toad, the public record indicates that they tried.

Muttering darlky about their "choices" doesn't transform your position into an honest one, although by all means keep on insisting that small buisness owners should be forced to sell their homes to pay for emergency medical bills under your worldview.

As the CBO makes clear, that concern is a reasonable one.

Perish forbid economic actors act rationally in their self interest. Oh, wait -- you're a Republican; you depend on voters not doing so.

However, as I made clear in my comments, it is far from obvious that the Frosts are such an example.

No, you did not make that clear; you professed ignorance about their situation, implying that the attack brigades may have a point. They doint. Moreover, you're still being dishonest -- it's clear that the Frosts aren't an example, which makes all your grumbling about "choices" the more ridiculously dishonest.

It's fascinating that you now need to lie not only about the nature of the attack brigades whose changing the subject you approve of, but also your own arguments upthread, when your own posts stand ready to refute you. Is dishonesty that essential to the conservative argument?

And Jeff, while I stand second to no one in my contempt for Hack and the reprehensible worldview and political movement he represents, let's leave the threats of voilence to his side, okay?

Hacksaw, the amount of money earned by a family is only the starting point for determining whether they can afford health insurance.

If they are not in the group market (covered through employer group, even if it's one they own) then availability is totally an issue of medical underwriting -- and this family did not qualify for any insurance in that market. If your employer is offering insurance then there are two differences: the contributions on your behalf are additional income (but not taxed as such), so you're really making more than 45K, really, a lot more, and a small group is guaranteed coverage in a market that is to some extent price regulated (it's not really, but there are limited ways in which healthy small groups cross-subsidize less healthy small groups). If it's a large group, they have many more options for negotiating prices. In any case, the individual insured is paying a much higher price if they have any health issues at all, and in some cases they can get coverage only by excluding coverage for those conditions that they already have. In other words, it's almost impossible for you as an individual to get insurance if you are sick to cover those expenses for which you need assistance. They could make two or three times what they currently make and it wouldn't make a difference. Their only recourse is to stop being entrepreneurial and start collecting a w-2, which brings them into a taxpayer and employer subsidized world. Does that sound like a good Republican talking point?

As much as society has responsibilities to the needy, so too do people have responsibilities for their actions.

Except, of course, when their name is Scooter Libby and they betray national security secrets in A Time of War. Then, well, suddenly making people responsible for their actions doesn't seem so attractive after all....

Oh, and to complete the twisted health care market lingo: In addition to "medically indigent" there is the term "job lock," which signifies the status of a person who cannot under any circumstances leave their current employment situation because of the need to maintain insurance coverage for them or their family.

What country do you live in? How can you be that clueless about how insurance markets work? (Oh, I know, you must work for a government agency -- they offer great insurance coverage because they typically insure a large diversified population.)

In addition to "medically indigent" there is the term "job lock," which signifies the status of a person who cannot under any circumstances leave their current employment situation because of the need to maintain insurance coverage for them or their family.

Gee, I wonder who would benefit under such a situation?

And I think we can question the decisions the Frosts made, having such a large family while choosing not to take a job (or make sacrifices or reach out to their family) that would provide some coverage without being smeared as evil or heartless.

Four kids is now "a large family"?

I'm still trying to figure out how you can think that essentially telling the Frosts, "Hey, tough shit that your two small children were in a devastating car accident -- you should have known that would happen and planned ahead for it" is anything other than evil and heartless.

Gregory,

Maybe we're just using the same term differently. The Frosts were obviously eligible for SCHIP since they were on it. The 'unhinged Right's attack' was not disputing this reality, but questioned whether the Frosts should have been eligible in the first place. In other words, did they represent one of those cases where they received SCHIP support even though they could have paid for private insurance.

As for my view on the Frosts' situation, I am quite sure I have consistently stated that I thought they made a poor example of what conservatives are concerned about regarding SCHIP. Which is why attacking them is a losing proposition for right-wing bloggers. Now you have stated that it is a certainty that the Frosts are not an example of what conservatives are concerned about. Frankly I'm not sure we know enough to state that categorically, but my comments above should be clear that I think it seems to be the case.

I would like to know your opinion on the broader question of expanding SCHIP eligibility. After all, the intent is to expand coverage well beyond a family of six earning 45-50K with 2 handicapped children. Do you think there should be any limits at all to who should be covered under SCHIP?

The 'unhinged Right's attack' was not disputing this reality

Yes, it was, Hack, and your continued dissembling on this point does you no credit.

Even a cursory investigation would have shown -- and did show -- that they did not represent one of those cases where they received SCHIP support even though they could have paid for private insurance. Which makes the virulence and dishonesty of the frothing right's attack, and your tacit condoning of same, the more reprehensible.

The reason they have to attack this family isn't because they're atypically, exaggeratedly poor. It's because they're so much like a heck of a lot of families out there, or like a lot of families can imagine themselves to be. There's a lot of folks who are hard-working, have some assets (like a modest $260K home), but either don't have coverage or are one unfortunate circumstance away from losing it. One layoff, one employer bankruptcy, and a lot of families are in the same boat.

Bingo!
This is why the Bushies are going to lose on this issue. Everyone in middle America can see the same thing happening to them. And this is why their stupid bleating and harping on the Frosts is going to backfire, a la Schiavo.

And Jeff, while I stand second to no one in my contempt for Hack and the reprehensible worldview and political movement he represents, let's leave the threats of voilence to his side, okay?
Posted by: Gregory

All I'm asking is that you hold my coat so I don't get any of his blood or tears on it.

Barbara,

I agree that "job lock" and the difficulty of getting insurance coverage with a pre-existing condition represent huge issues with our current health insurance system. Since you are clearly familiar with the insurance market, then you also know that entrepreneurs are often able to buy into group insurance plans that offer some of the advantages large employers have. The Frosts would likely not be able to do this after the accident, but it may have been an option earlier. In other words, there are more options than simply (1) work for a huge employer or (2) go without insurance.

Count me out, Jeff. Hack's ideas are richly deserving of attack, but again, let's leave the Internet threats to the freepers, please?

Hacksaw wrote: "Which is why attacking them is a losing proposition for right-wing bloggers."

Only if you think that Malkin and her ilk are are truly interested in arguing the issue of SCHIP elgibility (HA, HA!). They only care to muddy the waters, to intimidate anyone who objects to the Bush junta, to stifle dissent in a way that ensures that everyone just shut the fuck up or next time, you'll be the one having some freak driving by house and interviewing your neighbors. Malkin doesn't do policy - she does fascism.

Wow JeffII thanks for demonstrating the balance and reason of the reality-based community. Frankly, I'm shocked you were able to avoid any spelling mistakes as you vented all you impotent rage as (sic) your monitor. Walk away buddy, getting that worked up over a political disagreement is decidedly unhealthy. Posted by: Hacksaw

In just the last four years, your "decidedly unhealthy" politics has helped kill nearly 4,000 American service personnel and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqs and Afghanis. While going all "extraordinary rendition" on your ass out won't bring any of them back, I would enjoy it nonetheless, and consider it several (dozen) blows struck for truth and freedom.

The Frosts would likely not be able to do this after the accident, but it may have been an option earlier.

I love how Hack won't allow his admitted ignorance of the Frosts' situation -- or a complete failure to address the issue of cost -- to stop him using them to advance his talking points. Stay classy, Hack.

Gregory,

If I understand you then, the right-wing bloggers are saying that the Frosts got SCHIP support even though they, under existing policies, should not have? In other words, it was wrong from a legal or administrative perspective, that they got this aid?

Because I have not read it that way. My sense was that the right-wing bloggers accepted that, under the current rules, the Frosts were able to get this support and that they therefore represented what was the problem with those rules. I think you and I are in general agreement that this was probable not the case (i.e. the Frosts did need the aid). But I have not seen a blogger suggest that the actual awarding of aid to the Frosts represented any breaking of the rules or guidelines for SCHIP. Their issues have been with the rules and guidelines themselves.

How can you be that clueless about how insurance markets work? (Oh, I know, you must work for a government agency -- they offer great insurance coverage because they typically insure a large diversified population.)

He works for the DOD. Pretty good coverage for the pencil pushers. For the guys coming back from Iraq minus limbs and epidermises (is that the plural?), not so much.

Because I have not read it that way.

Hack, you constantly prove yourself to be a dishonest GOP apologist. Who gives a damn how you claim to read it in order to justify your tacit support of their attacks?

And again: What the Frosts represent is a reminder that small-business-owning, middle class, homeowning, married, taxpaying middle-class families are one car accident or chronic illness away from financial ruin under the idiotic and -- yes! -- evil and heartless system you defend, Hack, and so they needed to be attacked.

And as you admit, even though dishonest -- well, no, you still don't admit they were dishonest, do you, jackass? -- those attacks shifted the terms of the debate, and thus you approve.

Shame on you.

"Do you think there should be any limits at all to who should be covered under SCHIP?"

What a moronic question. Tell me, hacky, have you stopped beating your spouse?

Personally, I'm reasonably satisfied with the bipartisan compromise bill passed by both the House and the Senate.

This was remarkably educational, and I think I was being a tool, sad to say. Thanks, Barbara, FranklyO, and Dano for the responses to my ignorance. Obviously, I need to read up on health care before I comment! The point about asset depletion is quite a good one that I hadn't thought through, obviously. I did not know about the second mortgage, which makes the case even stronger for SCHIP for this family.
In the end, though, this all points to one further reason for national health care. So long as we do NOT have it, we will spend billions of dollars in red tape costs and bureaucracy, trying to figure out who is eligible, if someone is cheating, etc, and the uncounted costs of hours of eligible families continually proving they remain eligible.
A universal health care system would save money in that way, among many others.

Obviously, I need to read up on health care before I comment!

You might also avoid the error of assuming that Malkin, et al, comment in good faith.

This was remarkably educational, and I think I was being a tool, sad to say.

Well, you can't really be a tool if you admit to it.

Good to see you reconsidering your views.

This was remarkably educational, and I think I was being a tool, sad to say.

What makes you a tool is leaving me out of your thanks list, since I had a rather nice, educated reply.

;-)

Seriously, though, no problem. You came in with a good faith position and were willing to read other thoughts/opinions/facts on the issue. That clears you from Tooldom in my book!

Do you think there should be any limits at all to who should be covered under SCHIP?

And Hacksaw drives completely off the cliff.

Actually, it does, Mark D, but you have to be part of her "community of registered readers" in order to participate. For the true believers only. Gotta love the ditto heads & echo chambers.[referring to Malkin comments section]
Posted by: junebug on October 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM |

Her commenters (of which I am one) were enrolled by virtue of first come, first served. I post anti-war comments there, though it's a little lonely at times.

Class act, jd.

[Content deleted. IP check verifies handle hijack by a banned commenter.]

I agree with shortstop, franklyO and Mark D - jd, you are no tool. You are not merely a class act - you are a mensch. That's about as high a compliment as I ever pay anyone.

Hacksaw, some people have access to "alternative coverage vehicles." These vehicles are not necessarily open to everyone and they are not necessarily free from medical underwriting. They also tend to be priced closer to individual than true group insurance. They also are not eligible for tax and employer subsidies. So when I really want to get my panties in twist, I remind myself how it is that uninsured working people like the Frosts are subsidizing the benefits of many Americans through their own taxes -- Medicaid, Medicare, government plans, and taxpayer subsidized employee insurance, plus whatever real payments and tax benefits that go to the providers that provide services. The fact is, if you look at studies, the proportion of health care costs that are paid directly or indirectly by the government is upwards of 60%. The Frosts ARE PAYING. We all are. The difference is, without SCHIP they won't get any benefits. It's raw deal anyway you look at it.

I have been otherwise occupied the last few days, and have not done any research, but before I got insanely busy, I represented the blogosphere at a Hillary press conference, and I do have the notes I took there. She cited that premiums have gone up by 87% since her initial foray into healthcare policy.

As I said, I have not done any thorough research on it, but I can see a need for expansion. The children who would be added, it seems to me, are the children of the parents who are losing their grip, and at risk of losing their homes as the mortgage crisis mushrooms.

Just one final point: Very frequently, if you scratch below the surface, you will find that entrepreneurs often have a spouse with employer provided insurance. That's how people do it until their business is big and profitable enough to justify the provision of insurance.

Barbara, loving your comments. I do hope the email works, because I just sent you one.

[Content deleted. IP check verifies handle hijack by a banned commenter.]

Hate site? How is Watching Those We Chose a hate site? (Or my blog for that fact. But then, how dare I read the white papers and call 'em as I see 'em?)

"Hate site"--oh, boo hoo. Jesus, you're a drama queen, Hacksaw. You always lapse into victim mode when your arguments go downhill. It's like clockwork.

I also am very impressed with Barbara's highly informed comments. Thanks, Barbara.

[Content deleted. IP check verifies handle hijack by a banned commenter.]

I love how someone who a short while ago was quoting from the drug-addled felon Rush Limbaugh know calls Watching Those We Chose a "hate site." Seems there's simply no end to his vileness and mendacity.

Mmmhmmm, never a comma before the "though." We don't acknowledge him here, though, except to point out that his getting fired from yet another firm cracked everyone up.

Stefan: I love how someone who a short while ago was quoting from the drug-addled felon Rush Limbaugh know calls Watching Those We Chose a "hate site." Seems there's simply no end to his vileness and mendacity.

Not to mention the Frosts never said they wouldn't qualify unless the program were expanded; this is a total winger strawman. But I doubt a single one of them has read the transcript.

The right has completely flopped on this one, yet they keep desperately moving the goalposts looking for something to hold on to. It ain't happenin'. Give it up.

Looks like I owe you an apology, Hack. You're exempted from the drama queen charge for the moment. Sorry about that.

What Barbara said.

If there's a group plan I could sign up for, you can betcha I would. But there ain't.

God, Hacksaw, get some real world experience where even something as routine as minor surgery (with unexpected complications) can really set you back on your ass. You do everything "right" and still you're fucked.

Thanks site admin for cleaning up what I gather was someone posting under my name.

Barbara, I'd again thank you for your comments. I think you described better than I could my point that I thought the Frosts may have had other options, albeit difficult ones, when it came to their ability to secure health insurance (i.e. you don't have to either work for a huge firm or go without insurance). I'd also stress that I'm not trying to say the fact that other options may have been out there means that all is well with our system. And clearly, if nothing else, the Frosts are an unfortunate example of how screwed middle class families can get if they have a medical crisis and no insurance. We may disagree on proposed solutions, but we agree on the basic problem.

Hacksaw, my apologies to you for the "vileness and mendacity" comment, and please consider it withdrawn. It seems someone else was posting under your name.

Why should a family have to liquidate essential assets just to pay for live-saving medical care? That's exactly how to drive people out of the middle class. I feel the same way about job training and education. In the early 90s under, the Reagan/Bush era, I was required to liquidate all assets - or in my case prove that I had none - before qualifying for student loans for a college education. That's okay I suppose for a 20 year old, but what if I had been 40 with a family to raise. Should I have had to sell my family's home and use the equity to pay for college, just in order to pay the banks another 3-4% more in interest on a rather unextravant loan? Again, Malkin and her ilk would prefre to drive families out of the middle class and create a culture of "the happy few" and the rest of us debtors.