DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on October 08, 2007, 07:37:54 PM
-
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-graeme-frost/
Right Wing Launches Baseless Smear Campaign Against 12 Year Old Recipient Of SCHIP
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:
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.
The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere. The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, and the Weekly Standard blog have all launched assaults on the Frost family. The story is slowly working its way into traditional media outlets as well.
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 Frost?s 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.
UPDATE: TP commenter Mr. Ed notes that 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.
-
The "Right Wing" wasn't attacking this boy, the Right Wing is attacking what' it's always attacked, the Left Wing placing someone in front of the cameras that dare not be criticized, otherwise you're by design attacking (insert- boy, or poor person, or homeless, or disabled person, or military veteren, or family member that lost a loved one to the war, etc., etc., etc)
::)
-
On October 3, 2007, President Bush vetoed H.R. 976, a bipartisan bill passed by Congress that would have expanded the program by $35 billion.[8] The veto was the fourth of his administration.[2] This proposal would have increased coverage to over 4 million more participants by 2012, and also would have phased out most state expansions in the program that include any adults other than pregnant women. It also would have increased the eligibility from couples earning up to 200% of the federal poverty level to couples earning 300% of the federal poverty level, approximately $62,000 for a family of four.[9] [10]. The expansion of the SCHIP program was to have been funded by an over one hundred percent increases in cigarette and cigar taxes, coming to an increase of 61 cents per pack of cigarettes nationwide. [11] While the original Democratic proposal has been already compromised by cutting the program originally proposed in order to get the Republican votes to pass it, Bush has asked for further compromise on the program. Senator Reid, the Senate majority leader, has indicated that there will be no further compromise. President Bush vetoed the bill because he believed the bill would "federalize health care", expanding the scope of SCHIP much farther than its original intent.[2][12] After his veto, Bush said he was open to a compromise that would entail more than the $5 billion he originally budgeted, but would not drastically expand the number of children eligible for coverage.[13] Democratic leaders have delayed a vote to override the veto until October 18, in hopes that grassroots, television, and radio publicity will persuade fifteen Republicans to cross party lines to override the veto.[2]
Bush was corrrect to veto this bill. The program was designed to cover kids over the medicaid threshhold, a family of four earning 37500.00 which is 200% of the poverty level was covered . States can raise that to 250 or 300% if they wish.
If Maryland wants to raise eligibility levels they are free to do so. If the Frosts have a beef they should take it up with the state of MD.
-
The attack on the boy consisted of publishing lies or half-truths that made him look like a fraud.
As usual sirs mischaracterizes the issue. Of course the boy can be criticized, but criticism is not what is happening here. The right wing is publishing lies or half-truths about him, to create an impression that he is receiving something to which he is not entitled. That qualifies as an attack, and a very sleazy and dishonest one too.
Examples:
<<Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) . . . claimed Graeme was being used as a human shield.>>
LIE. He was being used as a simple example taken from real life of how the program helps kids like him.
<<the Freeper icwhatudo asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost nearly $40,000 per year for tuition.>>
LIE - - Graeme is a scholarship student paying only $500 per year - - less than 2% of what these lying bastards would have you believe he or his family is paying.
LIE - - Graeme's sister Gemma pays nothing for her schooling, the State picks up the full cost.
<<the Freeper . . . [claims Graeme and Gemma] <<live in a well-off home.>>
LIE - - they live in a home purchased in a bad neighbourhood 16 years ago for $55K.
Hilarious - - the bastards just can't stop lying, but each time they lower their sights. Now they attack children personally in order to smash programs which aid children generally. There's no bottom that these scum won't break through in their efforts to plumb new depths. And of course their ever-loyal defender sirs is always ready to come to their aid - - an attack is not an attack, it's criticism. Even when it's based on lies and fabrications, it's still criticism.
-
And as ususal, Tee's versions of "lies" are complete misrepresentations of the facts and pure rabid left opinion on his part.
-
LIE - - they live in a home purchased in a bad neighbourhood 16 years ago for $55K.
The neighborhood has changed:
Multiple Listed Homes for Sale/Rent in Butchers Hill as of August 7, 2007
Address List Price BRs FBs HBs Lvls Fpls Bsmt Broker's Phone
105 CHAPEL ST S $159,900 0 0 0 2 0 No 410-252-1800
2229 LAMLEY ST $184,900 2 1 0 2 0 Yes 410-675-7653
114 COLLINGTON AVE N $192,000 2 1 0 2 0 Yes 443-573-9200
23 CHAPEL ST S $249,900 2 2 0 2 0 No 410-814-2400
39 PATTERSON PARK AVE N $249,900 2 2 0 2 0 Yes 410-327-2200
130 CASTLE ST S $259,900 2 2 0 3 0 Yes 410-675-1550
2110 FAIRMOUNT AVE E $265,000 4 1 1 3 0 Yes 410-814-2400
27 CASTLE ST S $289,900 2 2 0 2 0 Yes 410-327-2200
10 WASHINGTON ST S $299,900 2 2 1 3 0 Yes 410-675-1244
26 WASHINGTON ST $299,900 3 2 1 3 0 Yes 410-243-7520
20 COLLINGTON AVE S $299,999 2 1 1 2 0 Yes 410-327-2200
132 COLLINGTON AVE N $300,000 2 2 1 2 1 Yes 410-675-1550
116 CASTLE ST S $309,900 2 2 0 2 0 Yes 410-675-1550
10 CASTLE ST S $315,000 2 2 1 2 0 Yes 410-814-2400
107 CHESTER ST N $319,000 3 2 0 4 0 Yes 410-721-1500
111 CHESTER ST $325,000 2 2 1 3 1 No 443-627-2900
2212 BOYER ST $329,900 2 2 0 2 0 No 410-814-2400
15 WASHINGTON ST N $340,000 3 2 1 4 0 Yes 301-474-2400
23 DUNCAN S $359,900 2 2 0 2 0 No 410-889-9800
12 DUNCAN ST $365,000 2 2 0 2 1 No 410-889-9800
17 WASHINGTON ST N $365,000 3 2 1 3 0 Yes 410-576-8522
2007 LOMBARD ST $374,900 3 3 1 3 0 Yes 410-766-9000
2204 LOMBARD ST E $384,900 3 2 1 4 0 Yes 410-821-1700
2201 LOMBARD ST $389,900 3 2 1 4 0 Yes 410-814-2400
2220 LOMBARD ST E $419,980 3 2 1 3 3 Yes 410-515-0100
106 WASHINGTON ST S $469,900 5 3 1 4 0 Yes 410-433-7800
13 DUNCAN ST S $499,900 3 2 1 2 1 No 410-889-9800
2033 PRATT ST E $499,900 4 3 0 4 2 Yes 410-730-6100
2003 LOMBARD ST $579,900 4 3 2 4 0 Yes 410-814-2400
2010 PRATT ST E $599,900 3 3 1 2 4 Yes 410-327-2200
2223 GOUGH $619,900 3 2 1 4 0 Yes 410-814-2400
29 PATTERSON PARK AVE $675,000 3 4 1 4 1 Yes 410-721-9600
2203 PRATT ST E $799,000 3 2 1 4 5 Yes 800-974-6657
1919 PRATT ST $999,999 6 5 1 4 0 Yes 800-225-5947
2223 PRATT ST E $1,150,000 4 3 3 4 7 Yes 410-675-5500
(http://www.butchershill.org/images/home/collage2.jpg)
BTW MD covers famililies up to 60k in annual income. The Frosts are safe. Remember Bush vetoed an increase, not a cut.
-
One of thes principle of federal government is that it strives to provide a level playing field for all of its children.
When a child is errant, a parent does not give that child equal anything--to do so would negate the process of maturation. It is the duty of the parent to instruct the child, and not to ignore its wrongful behavior.
New York is not Mississippi.
When Mississippi is New York, and much farther along in its Cromagnon evolution than it currently is, then we can give the states the right and wherewithall to conduct business responsibly, especially if that responsibility refers to the health of its citizens. You don't put that kind of power in a cracker Caligula's hands.
When you see, in the same week, George W. twist left while Hillary twists right, you have a clue to follow the money numbers--what will rule but be invisible is the pharmeceutical and AMA tweaking of both nipples to put the biggest possible profits in their bag. Part of Hillary's major success in blowing away real Democrat promise has been through the influence of pharmeceuticals and their money. John Edwards speaks of reforming the system, but Hillary does not. So Hillary smiles but has to say nothing derogatory about John, while paid spin mills are covering the tube 24/7 talking ONLY about his haircuts, thereby convincing America that there is nothing more to be said about John. We have been conditioned by the spinnsters to put John and people like John up on the fool shelf, along Nader and numerous untold crucified whistle blowers. Before Joe Lieberman was taking pharm money, he was taking it from the mob. Every Democrat in Washington is a buddy of Joe Lieberman. dot to dot to dot to do
I will admit, though, that "waiting for those l5 votes . . ." is consistent victim stance mo for the Democrats. They still are assuming that standing mute under critical barrages is the only idea they can come with that suggests victory. The newly elected Democrats were the only sliver of light they had, and now they all look like slapped-down head-hanging beat cops in Chicago under Capone.
The Democrats in Washington have learned that to get any money at all, they are going to have to throw the fight convincingly.
I feel not the slightest sorrow for the Dems, though Bush's chutzpah in vetoing healthcare for chillen sets a new standard for eltist crass. No escaping that.
-
Bush's chutzpah in vetoing healthcare for chillen
Except Bush didn't veto healthcare for chillen.
I know it and any honest member of this forum knows it.
-
<<And as ususal, Tee's versions of "lies" are complete misrepresentations of the facts and pure rabid left opinion on his part.>>
The facts remain as I posted them: the so-called lavish home cost $55K and the up-scale schools are attended at a TOTAL annual cost of $500 to the family for BOTH children.
Watch the right-wing nuts run around like chickens without heads, squawking complete misrepresentations and pure rabid left opinion but offering absolutely nothing of substance when their lies are exposed for what they are.
It's low comedy, alright, but we could all be entertained by it, were it not for the tragedy.
The tragedy is how these lying buffoons are sapping the health of poor children, leaving them to suffer and die from otherwise treatable conditions for the benefit of their wealthy campaign donors.
-
<<And as ususal, Tee's versions of "lies" are complete misrepresentations of the facts and pure rabid left opinion on his part.>>
The facts remain as I posted them
Yes, a distortion of the facts, as Bt has demonstrated, and pure unadulterated Tee opinion of what constitutes a lie. Let's also add on top of that the current LIE that Bush vetoed healthcare for chidren He vetoed an increase in current spending, which wasn't even a cut. Another SOP disotortion of the left
-
The "Right Wing" wasn't attacking this boy, the Right Wing is attacking what' it's always attacked, the Left Wing placing someone in front of the cameras that dare not be criticized, otherwise you're by design attacking (insert- boy, or poor person, or homeless, or disabled person, or military veteren, or family member that lost a loved one to the war, etc., etc., etc)
::)
In the end, you're attacking a kid and attacking giving poor kids health care while whining like crybaby bitches because some of us don't want to poor another $200 billion into Bush's Iraqi money pit.
You're morally corrupt and reprehensible, live with it. WWJD, dumbass?
-
<<Yes, a distortion of the facts, as Bt has demonstrated>>
BT demonstrated no such thing. He pointed out that house prices have risen over sixteen years in Graeme's neighbourhood. The basic lie of the right-wing nutjobs, that the family must have had big bucks to afford an expensive home remains a big lie. BT did not even touch the other lies related to the cost of private schooling for the kids - - the story implied they were paying $80K annually for the two kids and in fact $500 annually covered it all. Those lies remain totally uncontradicted.
<< and pure unadulterated Tee opinion of what constitutes a lie. >>
A lie is basically painting a family of very modest means as a wealthy family which spends $40K annually on its education when in fact it spends only $500 and lives in an expensive home when in fact it bought the place for $55K at a time when the neigbbourhood was unsafe. That is basically my pure unadulterated Tee opinion of what constitutes a lie.
<<Let's also add on top of that the current LIE that Bush vetoed healthcare for chidren He vetoed an increase in current spending, which wasn't even a cut. Another SOP disotortion of the left>>
Whatever Bush vetoed, it would have given more money for more kids for health care than they are going to be receiving after the veto. So the net effect was to cut benefits for somebody, and that somebody was a whole lotta kids.
-
The "Right Wing" wasn't attacking this boy, the Right Wing is attacking what' it's always attacked, the Left Wing placing someone in front of the cameras that dare not be criticized, otherwise you're by design attacking (insert- boy, or poor person, or homeless, or disabled person, or military veteren, or family member that lost a loved one to the war, etc., etc., etc)
::)
In the end, you're attacking a kid and attacking giving poor kids health care while whining like crybaby bitches because some of us don't want to poor another $200 billion into Bush's Iraqi money pit.
No, in the end, the effort is to continually try and shield any criticism of leftist POV's with emotional trump cards, when postulated by a vietnam veteren, a mother of a fallen soldier in combat, or a 10yr old boy
You're morally corrupt and reprehensible, live with it. WWJD, dumbass?
Well, he wouldn't cuss at me & call me names, that's for sure. Boy, you sure do have a twisted vision of the 1st amendment
-
The "Right Wing" wasn't attacking this boy, the Right Wing is attacking what' it's always attacked, the Left Wing placing someone in front of the cameras that dare not be criticized, otherwise you're by design attacking (insert- boy, or poor person, or homeless, or disabled person, or military veteren, or family member that lost a loved one to the war, etc., etc., etc)
::)
In the end, you're attacking a kid and attacking giving poor kids health care while whining like crybaby bitches because some of us don't want to poor another $200 billion into Bush's Iraqi money pit.
No, in the end, the effort is to continually try and shield any criticism of leftist POV's with emotional trump cards, when postulated by a vietnam veteren, a mother of a fallen soldier in combat, or a 10yr old boy
You're morally corrupt and reprehensible, live with it. WWJD, dumbass?
Well, he wouldn't cuss at me & call me names, that's for sure. Boy, you sure do have a twisted vision of the 1st amendment
Yeah, they're called trump cards because they trump all other arguments. They win because of what they are. Health care for poor kids is health care for poor kids. Health care for poor kids wins over billions to cronies and death and destruction? Right? What kind of a human being are you? Right is right, wrong is wrong. Surely, even in your demented twisted leanings healing the poor and sick is right and kill the innocent in their home is wrong.
I would be willing to bet that Jesus was not the altogether benevolent and chaste and cartoonishly polite type of person your myths have made him out to be. I'd be willing to bet that Jesus had to do some cussing and name-calling in order to get to the ripe old age of 30 and his wisdom.
Besides anyone who is against poor people getting a little help in order to keep their kids alive and anyone who is for trying to smear the kid who got that assistance DESERVES to, at the very fucking least, be called names.
-
<<Yes, a distortion of the facts, as Bt has demonstrated>>
BT demonstrated no such thing.
Then you're not paying attention
Those lies remain totally uncontradicted.
You mean the OPINION you have (in the same vane as those that has concluded Bush as a moronic version of Hitler, our troops are a bunch of low hanging raping fruit, it's all for the oil, stolen election, imminent threat) of what was supposedly lied about. Yea, I got that the 1st time around as well
<<Let's also add on top of that the current LIE that Bush vetoed healthcare for chidren He vetoed an increase in current spending, which wasn't even a cut. Another SOP disotortion of the left>>
Whatever Bush vetoed, it would have given more money for more kids for health care than they are going to be receiving after the veto. So the net effect was to cut benefits for somebody, and that somebody was a whole lotta kids.
And has Bt has demonstrated, was appropriately vetoed, despite your effort to paint distortion & emotion all over the issue
-
Whatever Bush vetoed, it would have given more money for more kids for health care than they are going to be receiving after the veto. So the net effect was to cut benefits for somebody, and that somebody was a whole lotta kids.
Not true for the Frosts. The law Bush vetoed would raise the fed guidelines to 300% of the federal poverty level.
MD currently is at that level.
What seems to be downplayed is that in many states adults are also covered and the new laws takes that coverage away from them . So a single mom might have healthy kids but she might not be healthy herself. Way to go dems. And then they want to fund this with a tobacco tax, get this, as a way to discourage smokers, so how do they plan to fund it if their discouragement program succeeds.
This is a half ass attempt to backdoor national health and it is build on funding designed to fail.
What the hell are these people thinking.
Do it right or don't do it at all.
-
And has Bt has demonstrated, was appropriately vetoed, despite your effort to paint distortion & emotion all over the issue
Please don't even ATTEMPT to imply that somehow the veto of this bill is somehow logical. Bush's veto is purely ideological.
-
The "Right Wing" wasn't attacking this boy, the Right Wing is attacking what' it's always attacked, the Left Wing placing someone in front of the cameras that dare not be criticized, otherwise you're by design attacking (insert- boy, or poor person, or homeless, or disabled person, or military veteren, or family member that lost a loved one to the war, etc., etc., etc)
::)
In the end, you're attacking a kid and attacking giving poor kids health care while whining like crybaby bitches because some of us don't want to poor another $200 billion into Bush's Iraqi money pit.
No, in the end, the effort is to continually try and shield any criticism of leftist POV's with emotional trump cards, when postulated by a vietnam veteren, a mother of a fallen soldier in combat, or a 10yr old boy
You're morally corrupt and reprehensible, live with it. WWJD, dumbass?
Well, he wouldn't cuss at me & call me names, that's for sure. Boy, you sure do have a twisted vision of the 1st amendment
Yeah, they're called trump cards because they trump all other arguments.
Well, there you go....emotion trumps reason. And use of emotion by the left is their twisted way of trying to deflect substantive & reasonable criticism aimed at completely irresponsible and fiscally wreckless proposals/plans, be it condeming someone from daring to criticize a military veteren's anti-war position, or a 10yr old boy's pro healthcare spending position
I would be willing to bet that Jesus was not the altogether benevolent and chaste and cartoonishly polite type of person your myths have made him out to be. I'd be willing to bet that Jesus had to do some cussing and name-calling in order to get to the ripe old age of 30 and his wisdom.
Hey, you can think anything you want. You just demonstrated that train of thought with the repetation of how 911 was an inside job ::) I'll stick with how he's actually portrayed in the Bible, if you don't mind
Besides anyone who is against poor people getting a little help in order to keep their kids alive and anyone who is for trying to smear the kid who got that assistance DESERVES to, at the very fucking least, be called names.
And of course, the last beacon of leftest desperation is to claim that anyone who's not supportive of their POV must be against children, their health, the poor, mankind in general. And throw in some cuss words to boot, to really accentuate the desperation
-
BT, the reality is that no smoker is going to give up smoking if it costs another 61 cents or 61 dollars. No, price is too high to pay for their fix.
Wouldn't you agree?
The "discourage smokers" angle is a pure talking point. What else did Trent Lott say Sunday?
-
<<Then you're not paying attention>>
Oh, I paid close attention to BT and he never even bothered to address the Big Fat Fucking Lie that Graeme and his sister Gemma were costing the family $40K annually in education when in fact the actual figure was $500. BT never mentioned it. So if you were paying closer attention than I was to BT, why don't you just show me? Show me where BT demonstrated my "distortion" in calling that lie.
<<You mean the OPINION you have (in the same vane as those that has concluded Bush as a moronic version of Hitler, our troops are a bunch of low hanging raping fruit, it's all for the oil, stolen election, imminent threat) of what was supposedly lied about. Yea, I got that the 1st time around as well>>
No, lunatic, I mean the FACT that a humongous lie was told about the cost of Graeme's and Gemma's education. The FACT that $40K is NOT the equal of $500 and is not even close. The FACT that a family which spends $40K on education for its kids is generally considered to be pretty well off and the further FACT that spendind $500 annually to educate two kids is not generally considered to indicate great wealth.
And BTW, BT demonstrated absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the veto, other than that it deprived a hell of a lot of kids of a hell of a lot of health care. But OTOH, I guess that in Republican eyes, that IS appropriate. Very appropriate.
-
Oh, I paid close attention to BT and he never even bothered to address the Big Fat Fucking Lie that Graeme and his sister Gemma were costing the family $40K annually in education when in fact the actual figure was $500. BT never mentioned it. So if you were paying closer attention than I was to BT, why don't you just show me? Show me where BT demonstrated my "distortion" in calling that lie.
I didn't address that point. This is true. Saw no need to. Would be simple to clear up though. The school can release financial records and perhaps we will see state or family assistance also plays a large part.
And BTW, BT demonstrated absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the veto, other than that it deprived a hell of a lot of kids of a hell of a lot of health care. But OTOH, I guess that in Republican eyes, that IS appropriate. Very appropriate.
What i did demonstrate was the big lie from the noise machine that Bush vetoed health care for children. We both know that is untrue.
-
And BTW, BT demonstrated absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of the veto, other than that it deprived a hell of a lot of kids of a hell of a lot of health care. But OTOH, I guess that in Republican eyes, that IS appropriate. Very appropriate.
And we thank you for that rank far left opinion, as well ::)
-
BT, the reality is that no smoker is going to give up smoking if it costs another 61 cents or 61 dollars. No, price is too high to pay for their fix.
Sure they will.
The "discourage smokers" angle is a pure talking point. What else did Trent Lott say Sunday?
No idea what Lott said. Don't watch the Sunday talking heads shows.
Studies show that the poor smoke more than the more wealthy. So in a perverse way the funding for the additional 35bil is not far off from my sales tax funding plan. At least the poor pay their fair share this way , especially since they are eligible and more wealthy non smokers aren't.
-
you're forgetting second hand smoke which causes as much illness as regular smoking.
The secondhanders pay NO cigarette taxes and still have to have health care. ESPECIALLY KIDS!
-
Which is greater long term danger to kids?
Second hand smoke or happy meals?
Seems to me a sedentary obese lifestyle would be.
-
Which is greater long term danger to kids?
Second hand smoke or happy meals?
Seems to me a sedentary obese lifestyle would be.
You see how pathetic the argument is? Which is worse dying of lung cancer or diabetes?
Why not do away with both? One way to do it is to have health care for all be readily available for free that way when the signs stop popping up like asthma and obesity, a regular doctor visit might give the person some time to make a change and not have to spend weeks in the hospital when nothing else is possible and costs EVERYONE lots more.
I would think the savings of the almighty dollar might be a plus for the right. The cost comparison of regular checkups and doctor visits in a single payer universal health care world is radically less than the emergency care and extended stays in a free market society that will treat anyone in desperate need.
Either way, those of us with insurance or the ability to pay wind up absorbing the cost. I'd think you'd at least won't to spend LESS MONEY on the poor.
There are so many pluses for universal health care but you guys hold your ideological tenets up and decide that your face needs to be rid of your noses. There's a real intractability there. And the Dems/libs run around trying to find ways to work with you and have discussions and come to compromises never acknowledging that you guys will never budge and it would just behoove everyone if we just mowed you down (metaphorically speaking, of course) and did it anyway.
-
I would think the savings of the almighty dollar might be a plus for the right. The cost comparison of regular checkups and doctor visits in a single payer universal health care world is radically less than the emergency care and extended stays in a free market society that will treat anyone in desperate need.
I'm all for UHC at the state level funded by a sales tax. No one seems to want to jump on that bandwagon. Seems they would rather have someone else pay the freight, whether it be the rich or smokers or drinkers or whatever group is a minority.
-
I would think the savings of the almighty dollar might be a plus for the right. The cost comparison of regular checkups and doctor visits in a single payer universal health care world is radically less than the emergency care and extended stays in a free market society that will treat anyone in desperate need.
I'm all for UHC at the state level funded by a sales tax. No one seems to want to jump on that bandwagon. Seems they would rather have someone else pay the freight, whether it be the rich or smokers or drinkers or whatever group is a minority.
If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality. But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.
-
If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality. But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.
You could under my plan.
Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.
-
D'OH ;)
-
Don't give up the SCHIP
A fight for kids' health is worth having
October 9, 2007
The surest sign that President George W. Bush is losing the war of words over government-funded health insurance for children is that he's now talking compromise. Bipartisan supporters of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program should hold firm. Their plan to cover millions of additional children is the right thing to do.
SCHIP currently funds insurance for 4 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to buy private insurance. Still, there are another 9 million children nationally - including 400,000 in New York and 68,000 on Long Island - without medical insurance. Congress voted an additional $35 billion over five years to extend SCHIP coverage to millions of those children.
Bush has vetoed the bill, but his opposition is ideological and partisan. He insists that expanding SCHIP would be a step toward socialized medicine, shift the focus from the poor and cost too much. He has proposed a miserly $5-billion increase that wouldn't even cover the rising cost of continuing to cover the children currently enrolled.
SCHIP is not socialized medicine. It is government-paid health insurance, but most states use the money to buy coverage from private insurance companies. And though SCHIP was originally limited to children from families under 200 percent of the poverty line - about $41,000 a year for a family of four - times have changed. More employers have dropped medical coverage for their employees, leaving many middle-income families out in the cold, particularly in high-cost areas such as Long Island, where yearly incomes well above $41,000 just won't stretch to cover the $12,000-plus yearly cost of private insurance
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpschp095406820oct09,0,4458735.story
From Florida Today:
Grassley rightly pointed out that Bush's plan to increase the program by only $5 billion over five years wouldn't even cover the number of children already in the program.
The expansion is desperately needed in Florida, where 658,000 children are uninsured. As many as 47 percent of those kids could gain health coverage under the new SCHIP. That includes an estimated 7,500 uninsured children in Brevard.
But while the Senate has the votes to override Bush's veto, that's not the case in the House, where some lawmakers-- including Space Coast GOP Reps. Dave Weldon and Tom Feeney -- continue to spin shameless lies about SCHIP.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/OPINION/710090321/1004
-
You do realize that CHIPS is a state fed program.
Which means that if the states want to offer greater benefits they make up the difference.
Bush didn't veto health care for children. He did not kill the CHIPS program. He vetoed a badly thought out increase to the program. So let's put to bed that lie from the left.
-
The surest sign that President George W. Bush is losing the war of words over government-funded health insurance for children is that he's now talking compromise.
I seem to remember him discussing a compromise long before he vetoed the bill - and the Dems rejected it outright.
-
If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality. But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.
You could under my plan.
Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.
How much more sales tax would be required under your plan? Would it cover everyone? Will fraud be an issue? If so how will you oversee the program? Why sales tax, noted as both a regressive tax, but more importantly a tax most susceptible to economic recession? If the economy goes into recession do you believe fewer people will be ill?
-
Why can't the Federal government offer a basic level of coverage and then, if the states want a HIGHER level, they can pay add'l? Oops, That is what is already done!
-
If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality. But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.
You could under my plan. Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.
How much more sales tax would be required under your plan? Would it cover everyone? Will fraud be an issue?
You've got to be kidding?? Will Fraud be an issue? As rampant as abuse & fraud is currently in just the Medicare and Medical systems alone, you're worried about fraud at just the state level?? Js, such fraud will not only be an issue at the state level, but will be exponentially worse at the fed level, given the size and scope such a beheameth monopoly it would be, while you're apparently focused that folks like Limbaugh, Soros, and Gates are covered :-\
-
If I had my druthers, we'd be able to walk into any hospital in America (North America or the world) and be treated for a sinus infection or pulmonary infarction without concern for paperwork, money or quality. But no one seems to want to get on that bandwagon.
You could under my plan. Too bad the cheap bastards who want it all using other peoples money don't want to compromise.
Guess they don't care about the children.
How much more sales tax would be required under your plan? Would it cover everyone? Will fraud be an issue?
You've got to be kidding?? Will Fraud be an issue? As rampant as abuse & fraud is currently in just the Medicare and Medical systems alone, you're worried about fraud at just the state level?? Js, such fraud will not only be an issue at the state level, but will be exponentially worse at the fed level, given the size and scope such a beheameth monopoly it would be, while you're apparently focused that folks like Limbaugh, Soros, and Gates are covered :-\
Why would fraud be more of an issue if the hospitals are publically run, the medical staff public employees, and all Americans covered equally?
Who would be defrauding whom?
-
How much more sales tax would be required under your plan?
5-7%
Would it cover everyone?
Yes, that is by definition what UHC means
Will fraud be an issue? If so how will you oversee the program?
Fraud is always an issue. There is fraud in Social Security.
Why sales tax, noted as both a regressive tax, but more importantly a tax most susceptible to economic recession? If the economy goes into recession do you believe fewer people will be ill?
Because everybody pays. And it is a pay as you go system.
Federal tax based systems would also be subject to reduced revenues during a recession.
As far as the tax being regressive, too bad, so sad.
A 12 pack of coke costs the same to rich or poor, i don't see why a commodity like health care should be any different.
-
Because everybody pays. And it is a pay as you go system.
Federal tax based systems would also be subject to reduced revenues during a recession.
As far as the tax being regressive, too bad, so sad.
A 12 pack of coke costs the same to rich or poor, i don't see why a commodity like health care should be any different.
So basically you just don't give a damn about people on low incomes. And yes, the income tax is susceptible to poor economic cycles, but not nearly as much as a sales tax. Sales taxes perform very poorly in recessions, yet healthcare costs have not decreased during these economic downturns.
So you want Tennessee to have a sales tax of 13% plus the 4% local option would make our sales taxes 17%! I'm guessing that your plan isn't going to happen and honestly I wouldn't support it. It will destroy states during recessions and also loses the clout of the Federal Government's collective power as a broker on behalf of the people. Insurance is simply collective risk management. There is no sense limiting that to state boundaries.
-
So basically you just don't give a damn about people on low incomes
To be quite honest, i don't see why they should be treated any differently than any other class of people. It's that whole equality thing i hear so much about. Strangely enough, i bought into that, and take serious exception when i see some people treated more equally than others.
And the reason i am going with a sales tax is because the mechanism is in place to collect it. And the sales tax increase would be offset when medicare taxes are no longer deducted from your paycheck and a whole bunch more people are covered.
This peicemeal patchwork system is for the birds.
BTW does TN have an income tax?
-
This whole discussion started about a state run CHIP program. Did federal clout dissipate when Kennedy wrote that into the law?
Let the feds set minimum standards, negotiate GSA pricing and let the states administer the programs like they do Medicaid and Chips.
The fed model would be the VA and we see numerous posts from Lanya about how horrid that is.
-
So basically you just don't give a damn about people on low incomes
To be quite honest, i don't see why they should be treated any differently than any other class of people. It's that whole equality thing i hear so much about. Strangely enough, i bought into that, and take serious exception when i see some people treated more equally than others.
And the reason i am going with a sales tax is because the mechanism is in place to collect it. And the sales tax increase would be offset when medicare taxes are no longer deducted from your paycheck and a whole bunch more people are covered.
This peicemeal patchwork system is for the birds.
BTW does TN have an income tax?
It is simple really, those with lower income do not have the excess conspicuous income to spend. It is not a matter of being "more equal," it is a matter of having the opportunity to actually save money. An increase in the price of milk (and a sales tax is nothing more than an increase in price to the final consumer) is likely meaningless to those in the middle and upper class brackets, whereas it can be a very serious increase to those with low income.
Of course you know that.
You may not have considered that the addition of such a large sales tax increase within a short span of time, effectively a large price increase, may also lead to an increased inflation rate. It is something to consider.
Tennessee has no income tax, true. Well, in essence there is a small tax collected on a special kind of income, but very few Tennesseans fall under this tax.
-
>>One of thes principle of federal government is that it strives to provide a level playing field for all of its children.<<
LMFAO!! Find that one in the Constitution you moron.
Yellow streak wants the government to take care of his children because he's not up to the task.
Man, liberals are so fucked up it's frightening.
-
t is simple really, those with lower income do not have the excess conspicuous income to spend. It is not a matter of being "more equal," it is a matter of having the opportunity to actually save money. An increase in the price of milk (and a sales tax is nothing more than an increase in price to the final consumer) is likely meaningless to those in the middle and upper class brackets, whereas it can be a very serious increase to those with low income.
And?
UHC .....universal participation and universal contribution.
-
We see things differently Bt.
I don't see any equality in building anything else on the backs of the poor. Enough of our society is built on the necessity of an underclass and the neglect thereof as it is.
I'm just not Nietzschean enough to buy into your conecpt.
-
I don't see any equality in building anything else on the backs of the poor.
And yet you don't have a problem funding CHIPS on the backs of poor smokers?
You do realize the smoker demographic skews towards low income folks.
How do you rationalize that?
-
I don't see any equality in building anything else on the backs of the poor.
And yet you don't have a problem funding CHIPS on the backs of poor smokers?
You do realize the smoker demographic skews towards low income folks.
How do you rationalize that?
Who said that I don't have a problem with that?
-
In fact, I don't even like that states and local governments add "sin taxes" to beer and cigarettes.
Are you talking about SCHIP?
-
Are you talking about SCHIP?
You betcha.The $35billion increase over 5 years to be funded by a buck a pack tax on Kools. Oh and it disallows adults from participating anymore in the program. Some states had expanded the rpogram to allow for healthy moms along with the healthy kids.
-
Are you talking about SCHIP?
You betcha.The $35billion increase over 5 years to be funded by a buck a pack tax on Kools. Oh and it disallows adults from participating anymore in the program. Some states had expanded the rpogram to allow for healthy moms along with the healthy kids.
So what makes you think that I support added taxes on cigarettes?
The Governor here wanted a steep increase (and won a rather hefty one, only slightly lower than he wanted) on tobacco to fund his pre-K education programs. I was against that as well.
Again, I don't support building anything else on the backs of the poor.
-
Why would fraud be more of an issue if the hospitals are publically run, the medical staff public employees, and all Americans covered equally?
Because the amount of massive oversight currently required now, yet the waste and fraud within Medicare & Medicaid still remains, promps the accurate assumption of how exponentially worse it would become if made to cover everything and everyone. And obviouly you seem to have no problem that folks like me need to pay for the heathcare Soros & Gates. So long as everyone is covered equally, all is right as rain ::)
Who would be defrauding whom?
Those that take advantage of loopholes & bureacracy, not to mention the flip side of the bureaucracy completely hamstrining and inhibiting quality care by the overwhelming bureaucracy. It's is bad enough to have to fill out 14page forms and take nearly 2 hours out of a patient's day to teach them how to use a cane, when it should take no more than 15minutes. That's medicare's doing
-
Because the amount of massive oversight currently required now, yet the waste and fraud within Medicare & Medicaid still remains, promps the accurate assumption of how exponentially worse it would become if made to cover everything and everyone. And obviouly you seem to have no problem that folks like me need to pay for the heathcare Soros & Gates. So long as everyone is covered equally, all is right as rain ::)
Oversight is required primarily because of the partnerships with private healthcare providers. HCA, a private hospital corporation, is the one who defrauded Medicare out of billions of dollars. If there are no private hospitals and no private insurance providers, then pray tell who is going to be committing the said fraud?
Those that take advantage of loopholes & bureacracy, not to mention the flip side of the bureaucracy completely hamstrining and inhibiting quality care by the overwhelming bureaucracy. It's is bad enough to have to fill out 14page forms and take nearly 2 hours out of a patient's day to teach them how to use a cane, when it should take no more than 15minutes. That's medicare's doing
It is easy to blame bureacracy. It is a nameless, faceless entity which carries a very negative connotation in the United States. It is no different than "Big Tobacco." Yet, you provided no one who will defraud the public healthcare system. Just "those that take advantage of loopholes." But, loopholes can and should be closed. Plus, we have nearly fifty years of other nation's work to study and see where the major problem areas were and are.
One area I would be sure to make public along with physicians and medical treatment is dentistry. That was a huge error on the part of the development of the NHS and once you miss that step in first constructing a socialised system, it becomes exceptionally difficult to go back and do it again.
-
So what makes you think that I support added taxes on cigarettes?
So you would be against the SCHIPS program as presented to Bush?
-
October 10, 2007
Political Memo
Capitol Feud: A 12-Year-Old Is the Fodder
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
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.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10memo.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1191985241-ltRuxlzL2VEs82spWkZeIw&pagewanted=print
-
Because the amount of massive oversight currently required now, yet the waste and fraud within Medicare & Medicaid still remains, promps the accurate assumption of how exponentially worse it would become if made to cover everything and everyone. And obviouly you seem to have no problem that folks like me need to pay for the heathcare Soros & Gates. So long as everyone is covered equally, all is right as rain ::)
Oversight is required primarily because of the partnerships with private healthcare providers. HCA, a private hospital corporation, is the one who defrauded Medicare out of billions of dollars. If there are no private hospitals and no private insurance providers, then pray tell who is going to be committing the said fraud?
The same Doctors, Equipment providers, Health Care providers, etc., that were doing it before. The same ones overcharing services, repetatively charging for the same service, providing used equipment for a pateint, and charging new for it. News Flash Js, it's not principly the "big companies" defrauding medicare, it's largely the individuals, scattered across the country committing the fraud. and when your oversight is so large, and so labor intensive as the Fed, it makes it relatively easy to commit
Those that take advantage of loopholes & bureacracy, not to mention the flip side of the bureaucracy completely hamstrining and inhibiting quality care by the overwhelming bureaucracy. It's is bad enough to have to fill out 14page forms and take nearly 2 hours out of a patient's day to teach them how to use a cane, when it should take no more than 15minutes. That's medicare's doing
It is easy to blame bureacracy. It is a nameless, faceless entity which carries a very negative connotation in the United States.
It's also easy because it's true. I just provided you a perfect example. And yet you advocate making it worse, just so that we make sure to get Soros and Gates covered
It is no different than "Big Tobacco." Yet, you provided no one who will defraud the public healthcare system.
Yes, I did. And they'll do it in spades, which then results in the jacking up the cost of healthcare even more, & exponentially worsening the already out of control bureacracy, by way of requiring still more forms to fill out & longer lines to wait in. But as long as "everyone is covered", screw the consequences
-
The same Doctors, Equipment providers, Health Care providers, etc., that were doing it before. The same ones overcharing services, repetatively charging for the same service, providing used equipment for a pateint, and charging new for it. News Flash Js, it's not principly the "big companies" defrauding medicare, it's largely the individuals, scattered across the country committing the fraud. and when your oversight is so large, and so labor intensive as the Fed, it makes it relatively easy to commit
Why would they overcharge when they don't get to set the prices for services? Physicians would be salaried, so they'd have no fraud to commit. As for companies selling equipment at exhorbitant rates...simple economics. When there is only one major buyer, then that purchaser holds all the cards when negotiating the price between different suppliers.
It's also easy because it's true. I just provided you a perfect example. And yet you advocate making it worse, just so that we make sure to get Soros and Gates covered
Nonsensical statement backed up with no evidence. And you keep bringing up Soros and Gates. Why shouldn't they be covered like everyone else?
Yes, I did. And they'll do it in spades, which then results in the jacking up the cost of healthcare even more, & exponentially worsening the already out of control bureacracy, by way of requiring still more forms to fill out & longer lines to wait in. But as long as "everyone is covered", screw the consequences
No. As you know, every other country with national healthcare spends far less per GDP and per patient than we do. There won't be "more forms" as there certainly aren't in Canada or Britain. In fact, the bureaucracy is far less there than in the United States right now.
What you're doing is the usual Sirs setting up straw men. But you've come to the wrong debate without any evidence. You're simply slamming the current system (or an expansion thereof) and no one is proposing that. At least, I am not.
-
www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.frosts10oct10,0,4459992.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
baltimoresun.com
Frost family draws ire of conservatives
By Matthew Hay Brown
Sun Reporter
October 10, 2007
When Halsey and Bonnie Frost agreed to go public with how the State Children's Health Insurance Program helped them after a car crash left two of their children comatose, the Baltimore couple expected to hear from critics of government-funded health care.
But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:
"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."
So has begun the education of the Frosts, the young family of six who volunteered to advocate for the program for moderate-income families - the expansion has been approved by Congress but vetoed by President Bush - and now find themselves the focus of a nasty national debate.
The onslaught began over the weekend, a week after 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered the Democrats' weekly radio address with a plea to Bush to sign the bill. A contributor to the conservative Web site Free Republic noted Graeme's enrollment in the private Park School and the sale of a smaller rowhouse on the Frosts' block for $485,000 this year and questioned whether the family should be taking advantage of the state program.
That post was picked up by the National Review Online and other Web sites. By Monday, Rush Limbaugh was discussing the family's earnings and assets on the air, and the blogger Michelle Malkin was writing about her visit to Halsey Frost's East Baltimore warehouse and her drive past the family's Butchers Hill rowhouse. Liberal bloggers, meanwhile, were complaining that the Frosts were being "swift-boated."
"It's really frustrating," said Bonnie Frost, 41, who stated she is upset by the angry Internet posts, e-mails and telephone calls targeting the family. "The whole point of it for me was that this program helped my family, and I wanted it to help others. That's the message, and I can't believe the way the spotlight has been taken off of that."
"It's a distractive technique," said Halsey Frost, also 41. Speaking from their cluttered front room yesterday, the Frosts said they would continue to advocate for government-funded health care.
The Sun, which published articles about the Frosts when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced Bonnie and 9-year-old Gemma at a news conference last month and again when Graeme delivered the radio address, also has drawn criticism from posters on conservative Web sites for not reporting the details of the family's financial circumstances more fully.
At issue is the proposal to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program - also known as SCHIP - which provides coverage for 6.6 million children from families not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Democrats, joined by some Republicans, voted last month to expand coverage to 4 million more children at a cost of $35 billion over five years. Bush has vetoed the bill.
While the president has called for negotiations on the measure, Democrats and their allies have launched a campaign to pressure Republicans into helping to override the veto. The attempt is scheduled for next week.
The Frosts joined the debate through family acquaintance Vinnie DeMarco, the president of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative. DeMarco introduced them to the pro-SCHIP organization Families USA, which put them in touch with Pelosi's office.
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."
Bonnie and Gemma Frost joined Pelosi at the Capitol Hill news conference before the SCHIP vote. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked Graeme to record the radio address.
It was the news coverage of that broadcast that set off the 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, 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."
The Frosts say the description of their family's circumstances now circulating is misleading. Halsey, they say, is a self-employed woodworker - he has no employees - while Bonnie works part time for a medical publishing firm. Together, they say, they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year.
That would make the Frosts eligible for Maryland's Children's Health Program, which is open to families that earn no more than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $82,830 a year for a family of six.
The Frosts declined to show The Sun their 2006 income tax returns, and the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene would not confirm their enrollment in the program. But John G. Folkemer, the deputy secretary for health care financing, said yesterday that applicants must prove their income levels through Social Security numbers or tax returns to be accepted for coverage.
Folkemer said a family's assets are not considered in determining eligibility. Halsey Frost purchased the family home for $55,000 in 1990, according to city records, and refinanced in 2005, he says, to make improvements to accommodate the return of Graeme and Gemma from the hospital. The 1936 brick rowhouse, on a side street near Patterson Park, has an assessed value of $263,140.
Halsey Frost purchased a 1920 warehouse in East Baltimore for $160,000 in 1999, according to city records. It is assessed at $160,500. Frost says he is still paying off the mortgages on both properties.
The four Frost children depend on financial aid to attend private school, the Frosts say. In addition, they say, Gemma receives money from the city for special education made necessary by her injuries.
Halsey and Bonnie Frost say they still have no health insurance. Bonnie Frost said she priced coverage recently at $1,200 a month.
Malkin wrote that the Democrats' use of Graeme Frost to deliver the radio address was "poster child abuse"; Limbaugh told listeners that Democrats had "filled this kid's head with lies."
Pelosi fired back yesterday.
"I think that the attack on this family is just breaking new ground and stooping to new lows in terms of what happens in Washington, D.C.," she told reporters. "I think it's a sad statement about how bankrupt some of these people are in their arguments against SCHIP that they attack a 12-year-old."
The Frosts say they stand by their support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
"I'm just trying to understand this moment of nastiness," Bonnie Frost said. "The nastiness caught me by surprise."
matthew.brown@baltsun.com
Sun reporter Lynn Anderson contributed to this article.
Copyright ? 2007, The Baltimore Sun
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.frosts10oct10,0,5063837,print.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
-
The same Doctors, Equipment providers, Health Care providers, etc., that were doing it before. The same ones overcharing services, repetatively charging for the same service, providing used equipment for a pateint, and charging new for it. News Flash Js, it's not principly the "big companies" defrauding medicare, it's largely the individuals, scattered across the country committing the fraud. and when your oversight is so large, and so labor intensive as the Fed, it makes it relatively easy to commit
Why would they overcharge when they don't get to set the prices for services? Physicians would be salaried, so they'd have no fraud to commit.
Ahh, so in your system, not only does every Doctor get paid the same (perhaps some with expertise get payed a little more for their specialty), they won't be allowed to bill for their services. In other words, what other disencentive can we add to the already decreasing Physician pool and to those who might want to become one? ::) (damn those consequences, so long as Gates & Soros are covered)
As for companies selling equipment at exhorbitant rates...simple economics. When there is only one major buyer, then that purchaser holds all the cards when negotiating the price between different suppliers.
News flash Js, it's still done, and what you are advocating is simply one big massive monopoly, so where's the negotiation for the best product at the lowest price?? Precisely the identical complaint you had against in another thread, relating to bureacracies, and how you'd apparently choose the smaller ones vs the big nasty one.
It's also easy because it's true. I just provided you a perfect example. And yet you advocate making it worse, just so that we make sure to get Soros and Gates covered
Nonsensical statement backed up with no evidence.
Ahhh, so now I'm a liar. Great. I guess I can refer to any of your Civil Servant examples & experiences as complete fabrications as well. Gotcha.
And you keep bringing up Soros and Gates. Why shouldn't they be covered like everyone else?
You mean why should I, and every other middle class, not to mention the lower classes that pay income tax, pay for their healthcare, when they could, if they wanted pay for nearly everyone elses's out of their own pockets? I think that's pretty self explanatory ::)
Yes, I did. And they'll do it in spades, which then results in the jacking up the cost of healthcare even more, & exponentially worsening the already out of control bureacracy, by way of requiring still more forms to fill out & longer lines to wait in. But as long as "everyone is covered", screw the consequences
No. As you know, every other country with national healthcare spends far less per GDP and per patient than we do.
We are a MUCH bigger nation, than any other country with UHC, and the reasons we spend more per capita have already been referenced before. Fact remains that your prescious lower "per capita" costs are trumped by insidiously worse bureacracy, rising healthcare costs, waiting lines, decreased quality of care, and decreased incentive to even move into the healthcare field, all for the feel good intention of "at least everyone is covered"
What you're doing is the usual Sirs setting up straw men. But you've come to the wrong debate without any evidence. You're simply slamming the current system (or an expansion thereof) and no one is proposing that. At least, I am not.
No, what I'm "slamming" is trying to make what is already bad in both this country, and those many others who do have UHC, and exponentially make it worse, with examples already provided in so many other threads. I know your intentions are not to (make things worse), but the ramifications and consequences of such are pretty transparent in how they will
-
"I'm just trying to understand this moment of nastiness," Bonnie Frost said. "The nastiness caught me by surprise."
The Frost's are obviously not frequent visitors to oniline forums.
The debate should be about the effectiveness of the newly proposed increase and how it would be funded. Not victimhood politics and which side is more mean spirited. Fact is both sides have their moments. The debate shouldn't be about who cares more for poor people or conversely who cares less about them. It should be about whether this country is ready for universal coverage and what it would look like.
This whole SCHIPS controversy is a trojan horse and frankly a disservice to the american people.
-
Ahh, so in your system, not only does every Doctor get paid the same (perhaps some with expertise get payed a little more for their specialty), they won't be allowed to bill for their services. In other words, what other disencentive can we add to the already decreasing Physician pool and to those who might want to become one? ::) (damn those consequences, so long as Gates & Soros are covered)
*yawn*
Britain and Canada still have physicians and specialists. Keep trying.
News flash Js, it's still done, and what you are advocating is simply one big massive monopoly, so where's the negotiation for the best product at the lowest price?? Precisely the identical complaint you had against in another thread, relating to bureacracies, and how you'd apparently choose the smaller ones vs the big nasty one.
It isn't that difficult. You put out bids for special equipment and you take the best quality mixed with the best price. Simple cost/benefit analysis. Who says it has to be "the big nasty one?" This can be done on a hospital by hospital basis, or a regional trust basis. Oversight would not have to be that complicated. I'm sure that HCA doesn't pay more than they have to for equipment, why should the regional trusts?
Ahhh, so now I'm a liar. Great. I guess I can refer to any of your Civil Servant examples & experiences as complete fabrications as well. Gotcha.
I've never called you a liar Sirs, do not make this personal. Yet, you simply cannot say "I say so" and expect me to accept it as the Gospel with no evidence at all. I mean, if we were having a beer at a bar and swapping sports stories, then sure. But, a debate is a debate.
You mean why should I, and every other middle class, not to mention the lower classes that pay income tax, pay for their healthcare, when they could, if they wanted pay for nearly everyone elses's out of their own pockets? I think that's pretty self explanatory ::)
Then you need to bring up the other side of the story as well. Why does someone in Mott Haven who is dying of AIDS, spitting up blood every day and is a young single mother, not qualify for disability? In fact, she has failed three times?!? Why does she have to go to a terrible hospital and live in shitty, run down tenement housing, all so politicians can say things like, "people need to make it on their own" or "we all need to learn to sacrifice." All so you, and the rest of the "we pay too much taxes" middle class thumb suckers can live a little more comfortably.
Tell me why when she goes to the hospital, she has to remove the bloody linens of the person who died in the ER room before her, herself, because the hospital staff is too overburdened to do make the room properly sanitary for her.
Why?
Because assholes from the Middle Class, who have "made it" believe the God damned world begins and ends with them. "We pay too much taxes" they cry. Too many poor people are on benefits! DEPENDENCE! God Forbid!
Well fuck that!
Ms. Washington, who was unexpectedly given HIV by her then husband, who left her after she became pregnant, is dying of AIDS in a Mott Haven tenement that you wouldn't keep your pet in for a kenel. She's just one case of millions of Americans who cannot afford basic necessities, and get no help from their government (i.e. their fellow Americans). Yes, they get some paltry help from a few charities. Most of the churches that remain in the inner cities are equally poor. Many won't help homeless or AIDS patients, as some worry about infections or theft themselves.
But you know what Sirs, you keep bringing up your Middle Class needs and Bill Gates and George Soros, as if they are relevant to this conversation. You keep going home to your comfortable life and bitch and moan about your taxes.
We are a MUCH bigger nation, than any other country with UHC, and the reasons we spend more per capita have already been referenced before. Fact remains that your prescious lower "per capita" costs are trumped by insidiously worse bureacracy, rising healthcare costs, waiting lines, decreased quality of care, and decreased incentive to even move into the healthcare field, all for the feel good intention of "at least everyone is covered"
The bigger nation reference is moot because I'm not using "per capita" I am using per GDP and per patient. Learn metrics or stop debating this. I'm tired of explaining basic statistics every time this is argued.
Queues are simply not that bad. Ask Tee or a Brit how bad they really are. I think you'll find that it isn't the massive problem the right wing press of the United States claims it to be.
Health Care quality in Canada and Europe has led to statistical categories in which they have far superior results than we do, including the length of life and neonatal care. If our quality of care is so superior, why is that the case?
I'd suggest that for the lower income folks, the quality of care in Canada and Europe is far superior than the United States. But for your precious wealthy folks, they might see a drop in the quality of care, sure.
No, what I'm "slamming" is trying to make what is already bad in both this country, and those many others who do have UHC, and exponentially make it worse, with examples already provided in so many other threads. I know your intentions are not to (make things worse), but the ramifications and consequences of such are pretty transparent in how they will
Then prove it.
I've been to Europe and Canada. I know many Europeans and Canadians (in fact, my soon to be sister-in-law is a Canadian) and I've yet to hear all this testimony from real people from those countries. I've never met a Brit, even some of my most Tory friends, who wishes to install the U.S. system of private health insurance in Britain.
So let's see it.
-
This entire story is bogus. Another example of the lengths the leftists will go to gain control of the people of this country and put them in their nice little gulags.
The boy was covered by this government program and received every medical treatment he needed. The story is a lie. The fact that these scumbag leftists would trot out a 12 year-old boy, force him to lie, and then use their lie to slander the president should open peoples eyes to just how low these people are.
-
EXCLUSIVE: E-mail Reveals That McConnell Staffer Propagated Smear Campaign Against Graeme Frost
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that there was mounting evidence that a staffer for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may have been involved in the right-wing campaign to smear Graeme Frost and his family.
ABC News reported earlier in the week that an e-mail sent to reporters by ?a Senate Republican leadership aide? in McConnell?s office suggested that ?GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about the Frosts.? A McConnell spokesman refused to deny the office?s involvement in the affair.
ThinkProgress has obtained an email that congressional sources tell us was sent to reporters by Sen. McConnell?s communications director Don Stewart.
On Monday morning, Don Stewart reportedly sent an email with the following text to reporters:
Seen the latest blogswarm? Apparently, there?s more to the story on the kid (Graeme Frost) that did the Dems? radio response on SCHIP. Bloggers have done a little digging and turned up that the Dad owns his own business (and the building it?s in), seems to have some commercial rental income and Graeme and a sister go to a private school that, according to its website, costs about $20k a year ?for each kid? despite the news profiles reporting a family income of only $45k for the Frosts. Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?
In the email, Stewart attacks Democrats for allegedly doing a bad job ?vetting this family.? That effort to blame Democrats for the smear campaign seems to have swayed some reporters, as CNN this morning claimed that the real story is that ?the Democrats didn?t do as much of a vetting as they could have done.?
The New York Times reported yesterday that ?an aide? to Sen. McConnell ?expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.? No, what the McConnell staffer did was worse ? he used the power and privilege of the Senate office to secretly propagate a baseless smear campaign against a 12-year old boy and his family simply because they disagreed on policy.
UPDATE: Yesterday, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin took us to task for suggesting McConnell?s office was involved:
Snort-worthy conspiracy theory of the day?The tinfoil hatters at ThinkProgress actually believes conservative bloggers were in cahoots with Mitch McConnell, whom I lambasted below. The unreality-based community really does live in a different galaxy.
We await her response.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/11/mcconnell-staffer-smear-graeme/
-
To the left, the truth is a smear campaign.
The Clinton legacy.
-
What, Me Worry?
by digby
Who's this:
After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland?s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that ?choice? wasn?t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.
We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland?s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage?a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.
With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.
That was in 2004, so you can imagine how much more expensive those plans in Maryland are today. Health care costs are rising in double digits each year.
Still wondering?
It's hard to believe, but it's none other than our lady of the internment camps herself: Michele Malkin.
As far as "choices" are concerned. Mark Steyn patiently explained once again today that parents of four children earning 45,000 dollars a year should just work harder and sell their house to pay for health insurance:
Mr Frost works "intermittently". The unemployment rate in the Baltimore metropolitan area is four-percent. Perhaps he chooses to work "intermittently," just as he chooses to send his children to private school, and chooses to live in a 3,000-square-foot home. That's what free-born citizens in democratic societies do: choose. Sometimes those choices work out, and sometimes they don't. And, when they don't and catastrophe ensues, it's appropriate that the state should provide a safety net. But it should be a safety net of last resort, and it's far from clear that it is in this case.
Setting aside the total dishonesty of that --- surely Steyn has been informed by now that the Frost kids go to private school on scholarship and the house was bought for 55,000 in 1990 --- what has become crystal clear in this debate is one that I think needs to be discussed. The Republicans believe that people should be completely destitute, living in a one room shack and working two jobs before they "deserve" subsidized health insurance. The middle class who are one car accident or one cancer diagnosis away from losing their jobs, being unable to afford either the cadillac COBRA plans from their employers (my last one here in California was $1700.00 a month and I'm healthy) must not be allowed to keep ANY assets.They must be, as Steyn's pal wrote, "dying on the streets with sores on their bodies" before they qualify for aid.
But, of course, neither will they necessarily even be able to buy private health insurance at any price even if they do live in a one room apartment with their four kids and work two jobs. (I was turned down recently because I had had gum surgery in 1996.)
This is the world in which we live. Insurance companies only want to cover young, healthy or rich people. And even if you manage to pay the expensive premiums with huge deductibles, they will try to find a way to avoid paying for your care anyway. That's the way it works. If you are lucky enough to have health insurance at your employer you'd better hope you never lose that job. More importantly, you'd better hope you never get sick.
One of the things these snotty critics fail to acknowledge is that even if the Frosts had had private health insurance, after their kids got sick they would very likely have had to go bankrupt. Those kids spent five months in the hospital. The bills came to the millions of dollars and no middle class person, no matter what good "choices" they make, can afford to pick up the 20% or so they'd have to pay under an "affordable" health care policy when something like that happens. Medical bankruptcy happens every day, although our fabulous new bankruptcy laws make it far more difficult to get a fresh start than it used to be, even if you have a special needs kid and can't work full time.
If the free-wheeling capitalists of the right wing believe that you can keep an economy dynamic, growing and flexible in a twisted system like this, they are even more blindly ideological than I thought. This is not just a moral crisis, it's an economic crisis and if these people are determined to continue down this path then I suggest the rest of us start buying land in Costa Rica because this country is going to fail. Hugely. The numbers do not add up.
As John Cole pointed out yesterday, the Frosts should be the Republican dream family. Mr Frost is a blue collar entrepreneur; Mrs Frost is a part time worker with four young children, two of whom have serious health problems. They live in a house they've fixed up themselves which is their only real asset aside from an "investment" that has gained $500 in value in ten years. (Like many Americans, I doubt these people have Roth IRA's and 401K plans and stock portfolios, don't you?) Despite the nosy uninformed discussion of their kitchen counter tops, these people are not living high off the hog. They have virtually no disposable income. They are just average, working Americans trying to do their best.
Apparently, that's not enough. Malkin and her husband are lucky enough to qualify for wingnut welfare and have healthy children. Bully for them. They got theirs and are now railing against the "choices" made by two working parents who make 45,000 a year. But I think she and her stalker squad are going to be surprised to find that most people don't see things their way --- this smug judgmentalism and rank callousness is not the American way. That's not what freedom is all about.
And I think they may be even more surprised to find that a lot of American businesses are going to get on board health care reform in a big way. They are beginning to see the writing on the wall if we don't get a grip on this crisis. Tax cuts will not rein in costs. They will not mitigate the kind of risk required to compete in the global marketplace. They will not ensure a healthy workforce. And without that, we've got serious, serious problems. At least some people who want to keep making money in America must see that even if the blind ideologues of the right don't.
Of course, many of them are Ayn Rand acolytes and consider sick kids to be "parasites," so I may be too optimistic on that. Hopefully, they can at least see it in terms of pure self-interest. All they have to do is run the numbers.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-me-worry-by-digby-after-my-husband.html
-
We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland?s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage?a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.
I just got a quote for an individual plan for Maryland for myself, Kaiser Permanente HMO, $20/30 co-pays for office visits and drugs, $3,500 out of pocket max per year, unlimited drug coverage (well, until you hit the plan max, something like 1.5 million) and it costs $271 per month.
-
I've got to say that I prefer BT's plan, for a state medical system financed by sales tax. I also like JS's inclusion of dentistry into the plan, a lot of people suffer health problems as a lack of poor oral hygeine. I do not support a plan funded on cigarette or any other kind of "sin taxes", the second hand smoke arguments are BS. Should I sue you because you drive a car and I have to breathe your exhaust? When I started smoking 11 years ago, cigarettes were $2.50 a pack. Now they're up around $6.50 - $7. And Brass is right, a smoker isn't going to quit because of cost, or health for that matter. Should I have to pay more because I'm a smoker with an otherwise healthy lifestyle, than an alcoholic non-smoker who eats at McDonald's four days a week? Who has the greater impact on the health care situation?
Level out the financing so that it's equal, then I'll play ball.