there are things kids have to have whether they are sick or not. what did this family do about well checks for their kids? vaccinations? what about when they got sick? how can you have kids and opt not to have health insurance, but go ahead and purchase a third vehicle? who cares if little tommy breaks his finger in football practice, we’ve got a third car… that is irresponsible parenting.

the kids should not have to suffer, true enough, but at this point they are not suffering! they have the schip program and it obviously does work for a family in this situation, while i am taking about a 200.00 a month deduction in my pay so that i can have health insurance for my children.

because of my sitation i see blaring hypocrisy as far as who is eligible for what and who is considered the working poor. i work full time, my kids are in pubic schools, i qualify for nothing and i manage to make it. no one opposes this program if it is going to people who actually need it but to give it to people who CHOSE not to take responsibility on their own, and who CHOSE to have an extra vehicle but didn’t feel their kids needed health insurance is a bit of a slap in the face to people who pay for their insurance even if it does set them back some.

You think the income limit should be lower? Fine, make a case, but stop pretending the Frosts were something they’re not.

Conservatives will do anything to avoid actually having an argument on the merits. They’d rather screech about a newspaper ad than face the mess in Iraq and will harrass and slander a hardworking family rather than defend their desire to deny health coverage to kids. It’s cowardly and sad.

Shorter Gaius (robbing my grandmother at gunpoint): I wholeheartedly decry what you did to this poor woman by bringing her down this street.

Shorter Gaius (standing by my smashed up car with baseball bat): I wholeheartedly decry what you put this poor car through by parking it in your driveway.

http://statecoverage.net/profiles/maryland.htm

And Gaius, I know you’ve been told this repeatedly, but Maryland DOES have a means test for S-CHIP and the Frosts passed. If you think the income threshold for the test should be lower make a case for it, but don’t pretend this family is somehow loaded. Even people with steady incomes who own businesses and homes can be wiped out by helth care expenses, as the Frosts would have been w/o S-CHIP. All of you hardhearts crowing about choices need to remember that no one is immune to misfortune. You or someone you love could be in an accident, through no fault of your own, and wind up wounded and financially destroyed. Even if you have insurance, your policy might not hold up when you need it. Think about that before you take health care away from kids.

How much of the Frost $45,000 income is from investments, I wonder? It might be all of it and the rent he gets from renting part of his commercial building pays expenses on the building.
We just don’t know but theres no reason to think that Frost is putting in a 40 hour week at his business.

They are making choices that leave then unable to afford health insurance and that’s _my job_ to pay for it?

BULL!

The Democrats made an unwise choice picking the Frosts. I’m sure their were other people who truly need help. But none so evocative as the image of Tiny Graeme, eh?

New York had a means test, at least when my mother was dying. She was only allowed a few thousand in assets to qualify for aid. She worked her whole life as a secretary or in that level of job. When she died everything she owned fit into a couple of boxes.

How do 2 college graduates manage to keep their income at $45,000 in a big metropolitan area?

Several of the blogs linked to a wedding announcement in the NY Times in the early 90’s. That was before the Times changed its policy and accepted paid wedding announcements. http://weddings.about.com/b/a/142007.htm
To get their wedding announcement in the NY Times in 1992 they had to be from prominent families, or at least one of them was. Makes you wonder if Mr. Frost’s business isn’t more of a hobby and his parents are gifting them tens of thousands a year that doesn’t even have to be reported for SCHIP elegibiity.

By “choices”, what do you mean, exactly? For a family of 6 earning an income of $45K a year, what “choices” do they have? Your statement about “choices” ignores the reality of debilitatingly expensive health insurance. They couldn’t afford it before the accident, and they sure as heck can’t get insurance now.

By “choices” do you mean that the family should sell their $160K property, move into a cheaper (and most likely smaller) home…all so they can get just a little bit of health insurance? You honestly believe hocking yourself into debt for some health care is a viable “choice?” You were noticeably pointed in your criticism, but vague in your suggestions. Huh.

Or by “choices” do you mean that an adult that chooses to smoke leaves himself/herself open to consumption taxes, because that choice is unhealthy? No, no, that choice is ok, I guess.

Perhaps you really believe that “nobody is arguing against the children getting help if they really need it,” but it doesn’t look like that to me. Lies were spread about this family. If those lies weren’t spread in an effort to discredit the SCHIP program and its supporters, then to what end were the lies spread? Was it just for sport?

People are arguing against getting the children help if they need it- that’s exactly what the veto did, and that’s exactly what supporting the veto does. It’s all well and good to take a “high-minded” approach to governance theory, but at the end of the day, programs (and vetos of programs) affect real people on the ground.

Some people just don’t want to admit that. When confronted with the harsh, up-close, personal reality of their beliefs, some people would rather not accept responsibility for the impact of their beliefs on other people. Some people would rather live in the fantasyland that ‘the Frosts didn’t really need the help and shame on them blah blah blah.’

I don’t think those people should be in charge of our government ever again.

But it is not about them. It is about expanding a program using a regressive tax that impacts those least able to afford it.

The rest is diversionary. Nobody is arguing against the children getting help if they really need it, despite the howls. Bush offered an increase – just not the huge one.

In some states close to half the money already goes to adults – not children. See Captain’s Quarters.

These children and these families are real. I know it would be easier for you to insist that anyone who uses this program is “gaming” the system, but that’s simply not true. Some people are too poor to afford private insurance, yet are too rich for Medicaid. And we’re only talking about helping their children. Just because you and your family might not benefit from it does not make it useless or wasteful. Not everyone is just like you.

I don’t know what to say about people who condone lying in order to criticize/attack kids that are recovering from a serious accident. I really just don’t know how to reach out to people like you.

Both sides have trotted out children to make a point. A couple of examples are Bush flying a 9 year old around the country who wanted to abolish Social Security and in a particularly disgusting example NRCC head Tom Reynolds holding a press conference last fall surrounded by a bunch of little kids and using them as an excuse to not answer any questions about Mark Foley.

I’d say you should be ashamed of yourself Gaius but you’ve done such a good job of making yourself of caricature of the right
why bother?