Conservatives target 12-year-old boy and his family in S-CHIP debate

[sj5 4]

Sorry...Pasted twice

Edited October 10, 2007 by SJ

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They opened themselves up to the criticism by a poor choice.

Exactly. As they say: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

maybe i need to apply for that program, i owe more than double what they paid for their house on my house and you need to get into line too, et

But that's what I am saying, Chuck. It just wouldn't occur to me to ask for help - even if I could - when I know that I am able make the choices that allow me to take care of my family myself. Those programs ought to be for people that - through no fault of their own - cannot support themselves.

right ... how will this happen ... that the system is NOT abused ??

Well we need to face up to reality and realise that nothing is fool-proof. In and of itself that doesn't make it a bad idea.

As compared too ... now. Where nothing is abused ...

How does this differ from what is available today ?

Are you for real ? Have you ever needed assistance ... and been denied ?

As I say - with any program (public or private) you have to expect at least some level of abuse. Its inevitable - I just don't see why that obvious observation is somehow shocking to you.

The idea seems to be that anything outside of the norm (say with regards to changing the status quo of how we buy healthcare insurance for example) somehow implies that it is headed for disaster. In the absence of specific proposals on the table, I think that is simply fear-mongering.

I see you ignored my question .... I rest my case ... thank you.

What case? That you are surprised by a fact of life?

[sj5 4]

Read this:

who is lying???

Right now if you listen to a popular country radio station in south-central Michigan, you can hear advertisements spreading lies about my position on S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program).

The station selection for this ad seems appropriate for House Democrats, whose blatant twisting of the truth is fit for a remake of Garth Brooks’s classic song “Friends in Low Places.”

House Democrats continue to mischaracterize Republican support of the S-CHIP program, and would like you to believe that Republicans do not care about poor, needy kids.

Democrats are using this smear campaign against Republicans to gain support for their tax-and-spend economic policies. Sadly, they are taking the focus away from where this debate should be: meeting the needs of children of low-income families.

I support renewing S-CHIP to provide health care to children in low-income families, but I also believe we need to ensure that the children’s health program is available for children who need it, and not for adults, people who enter the country illegally, or families who already have private insurance.

The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants, while moving millions of children from private health insurance to government programs.

In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults.

The Wall Street Journal further described this problem in its August 9 editorial: “The bill goes so far as to offer increasing ‘bonus payments’ to states as they enroll more people in their SCHIP programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels children’ as anyone under 25, and ‘low income’ as up to… $82,600 for a family of four.”

It is unfathomable to think that Democrats want to expand a program that currently does not meet the full objective of covering poor children, and expand it to try to insure single adults. I’m not sure what part of “children’s health care” liberals in Congress do not understand.

And to pay for their huge expansion, House Democrats need 22 million new smokers to begin lighting up over the next ten years. Over two million kids will move from private health care to Washington-based, government run health care under the House leadership’s plan.

[natty bumppo 297]

They opened themselves up to the criticism by a poor choice.

Exactly. As they say: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

maybe i need to apply for that program, i owe more than double what they paid for their house on my house and you need to get into line too, et

But that's what I am saying, Chuck. It just wouldn't occur to me to ask for help - even if I could - when I know that I am able make the choices that allow me to take care of my family myself. Those programs ought to be for people that - through no fault of their own - cannot support themselves.

right ... how will this happen ... that the system is NOT abused ??

Well we need to face up to reality and realise that nothing is fool-proof. In and of itself that doesn't make it a bad idea.

As compared too ... now. Where nothing is abused ...

How does this differ from what is available today ?

Are you for real ? Have you ever needed assistance ... and been denied ?

As I say - with any program (public or private) you have to expect at least some level of abuse. Its inevitable - I just don't see why that obvious observation is somehow shocking to you.

The idea seems to be that anything outside of the norm (say with regards to changing the status quo of how we buy healthcare insurance for example) somehow implies that it is headed for disaster. In the absence of specific proposals on the table, I think that is simply fear-mongering.

I see you ignored my question .... I rest my case ... thank you.

What case? That you are surprised by a fact of life?

Shocking to me ?!?

Abuse will happen ... and honest people will suffer. Guess you've never been one of those honest people who have experienced being denied ... because of the dishonest .... so my question remains .... and case is still closed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shocking to me ?!?

Abuse will happen ... and honest people will suffer. Guess you've never been one of those honest people who have experienced being denied ... because of the dishonest .... so my question remains .... and case is still closed.

Sure - but abuse is happening now. Surely...? I just don't see that argument as a particularly convincing one to justify maintaining an already corrupt status quo.

[natty bumppo 297]

Shocking to me ?!?

Abuse will happen ... and honest people will suffer. Guess you've never been one of those honest people who have experienced being denied ... because of the dishonest .... so my question remains .... and case is still closed.

Sure - but abuse is happening now. Surely...? I just don't see that argument as a particularly convincing one to justify maintaining an already corrupt status quo.

to replace it with another corrupt ... status quo ??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Shocking to me ?!?

Abuse will happen ... and honest people will suffer. Guess you've never been one of those honest people who have experienced being denied ... because of the dishonest .... so my question remains .... and case is still closed.

Sure - but abuse is happening now. Surely...? I just don't see that argument as a particularly convincing one to justify maintaining an already corrupt status quo.

to replace it with another corrupt ... status quo ??

Well as we're talking in generalities - there's nothing that can really be said. But I don't understand the view that any (and not necessarily radical) change should be opposed merely because it isn't 'perfect'.

[Caladan 19]

At least this shows whether conservative bloggers can take on a twelve-year-old.

[natty bumppo 297]

At least this shows whether conservative bloggers can take on a twelve-year-old.

the twelve year old being exploited by others ....

[Caladan 19]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I disagree. A lack of health insurance IS a middle-class problem. That's why it's an issue. Had they picked a stereotypical poor family, people'd be going on about welfare queens and Lexuses and don't we just know that it's their culture. People might even have a few pictures to post.

Instead, they pick a guy who's doing everything right. A hard worker, an entrepreneur, practically right at the middle line of the country... are we really denigrating this guy for starting his own business? For not irresponsibly taking out a second mortgage to pay for health insurance? Heck, if he hadn't had CHIP, his kids' medical bills likely would have eaten the equity, the home, and we'd all get to call them lazy and irresponsible. It is *very*, *very* hard to get affordable health insurance as an entrepreneur, especially since being self-employed probably meant a couple years with no income to speak of.

He didn't abuse CHIP, and they didn't misrepresent themselves in the 5-minute radio address. While I think it's fine to fact-check a 12-year-old, conservative wannabe-journalist bloggers calling the kids' house day and night is amounting to bullying.

(Also, I think the $45K is combined income with the mom and dad, so I'm not sure health insurance was available at the hypothetical other job.)

[natty bumppo 297]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I disagree. A lack of health insurance IS a middle-class problem. That's why it's an issue. Had they picked a stereotypical poor family, people'd be going on about welfare queens and Lexuses and don't we just know that it's their culture. People might even have a few pictures to post.

Instead, they pick a guy who's doing everything right. A hard worker, an entrepreneur, practically right at the middle line of the country... are we really denigrating this guy for starting his own business? For not irresponsibly taking out a second mortgage to pay for health insurance? Heck, if he hadn't had CHIP, his kids' medical bills likely would have eaten the equity, the home, and we'd all get to call them lazy and irresponsible. It is *very*, *very* hard to get affordable health insurance as an entrepreneur, especially since being self-employed probably meant a couple years with no income to speak of.

He didn't abuse CHIP, and they didn't misrepresent themselves in the 5-minute radio address. While I think it's fine to fact-check a 12-year-old, conservative wannabe-journalist bloggers calling the kids' house day and night is amounting to bullying.

(Also, I think the $45K is combined income with the mom and dad, so I'm not sure health insurance was available at the hypothetical other job.)

middle class ... no insurance ... the choice to pay for COBRA ... or paying the rent/ house payment .... for many people ... I think they would wish to have the assets these "poor" people had ... give me a break.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem I have with this thing is two-fold:

1) As has been said, to utilize a 12-year old to push a political issue is wrong. It's just wrong.

2) The family they picked is not exactly "poor". The facts that have been presented from the other side largely stand unrefuted. The facts have merely been put into perspective. But they still stand as far I can see. So, the family paid 55K for the home that now has a worth in the range of 400K-500K. Nice build-up of equity there. The father made a choice to become self-employed, no? Presumably, he could hold down a job that pays said 45K and offers insurance for his family. Such job shouldn't be that hard to come by in the Baltimore area. And then there's the business property that has been acquired. I mean, I really feel like asking why the taxpayer should fund the entrepreneurial desires of the father of this family. Personally, if I wanted to sever my ties to Corporate America, I'd feel that I have to factor the cost of health insurance for my family into the equation. I don't think it would be reasonable for me to expect you to pay for that just because I am tired of my 9-5 job.

But then, as I posted the other day, the Democrats seem hell-bent to find a way to screw this up...

I disagree. A lack of health insurance IS a middle-class problem. That's why it's an issue. Had they picked a stereotypical poor family, people'd be going on about welfare queens and Lexuses and don't we just know that it's their culture. People might even have a few pictures to post.

Instead, they pick a guy who's doing everything right. A hard worker, an entrepreneur, practically right at the middle line of the country... are we really denigrating this guy for starting his own business? For not irresponsibly taking out a second mortgage to pay for health insurance? Heck, if he hadn't had CHIP, his kids' medical bills likely would have eaten the equity, the home, and we'd all get to call them lazy and irresponsible. It is *very*, *very* hard to get affordable health insurance as an entrepreneur, especially since being self-employed probably meant a couple years with no income to speak of.

He didn't abuse CHIP, and they didn't misrepresent themselves in the 5-minute radio address. While I think it's fine to fact-check a 12-year-old, conservative wannabe-journalist bloggers calling the kids' house day and night is amounting to bullying.

(Also, I think the $45K is combined income with the mom and dad, so I'm not sure health insurance was available at the hypothetical other job.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from USA Today...

Bloggers showed a photo of the couple's glass-front cabinets and 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times. Democrats "filled this kid's head with lies," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show.

The blogs were "pretty insulting stuff, and really just low," Halsey Frost, Graeme's father, said Tuesday.

Bloggers said the house was worth more than $400,000. It turns out it was bought for $55,000 in 1991 in a Baltimore neighborhood where "there were drug dealers and prostitutes on our street," Bonnie Frost said. Halsey Frost, a woodworker, did most of the renovations, which are "still not done," Bonnie said.

Bloggers said Graeme and Gemma go to private Park School, where tuition costs about $20,000. Graeme gets a scholarship, while Gemma's brain injuries were so severe that the city pays to educate her at a school for children with disabilities, the couple say.

The commercial property, which bloggers noted was bought for $160,000 in 1999, was intended to house Frostworks, Halsey's business. It folded soon after, he said — partly because of the cost of health insurance.

He has worked for small companies and is trying to restart his own business. She works part time for a consulting firm. The couple — who have four children in all —earned about $45,000 last year, well below the $55,220 limit for a family of six set under the original SCHIP program. Maryland's program goes higher, to nearly $83,000 for a family of six. "We are struggling," Bonnie Frost said. "We live paycheck to paycheck. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-09-schip_N.htm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No surprise that that c*nt of a dog f*cker Limbaugh would get in on the action. Anything he says should automatically be taken with a truckload of salt.

[GaryC 7]

from USA Today...

Bloggers showed a photo of the couple's glass-front cabinets and 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times. Democrats "filled this kid's head with lies," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show.

The blogs were "pretty insulting stuff, and really just low," Halsey Frost, Graeme's father, said Tuesday.

Bloggers said the house was worth more than $400,000. It turns out it was bought for $55,000 in 1991 in a Baltimore neighborhood where "there were drug dealers and prostitutes on our street," Bonnie Frost said. Halsey Frost, a woodworker, did most of the renovations, which are "still not done," Bonnie said.

Bloggers said Graeme and Gemma go to private Park School, where tuition costs about $20,000. Graeme gets a scholarship, while Gemma's brain injuries were so severe that the city pays to educate her at a school for children with disabilities, the couple say.

The commercial property, which bloggers noted was bought for $160,000 in 1999, was intended to house Frostworks, Halsey's business. It folded soon after, he said — partly because of the cost of health insurance.

He has worked for small companies and is trying to restart his own business. She works part time for a consulting firm. The couple — who have four children in all —earned about $45,000 last year, well below the $55,220 limit for a family of six set under the original SCHIP program. Maryland's program goes higher, to nearly $83,000 for a family of six. "We are struggling," Bonnie Frost said. "We live paycheck to paycheck. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-09-schip_N.htm

It sounds like these people are already taking from the public till quite a bit already. And their combined income isn't $45000. That is his income. His wife had an "undisclosed" income. Even from the posts you have made Steven we are getting a different story from each. While I feel for these people they hardly qualify for poor. I guess this just illustrates that the lefts goal all along was to put ALL children under this program regardless of the parents income. If that is what they want they should just come out and say it from the start.

But to reiterate, the left is using emotion and subterfuge to play the American people. That isn't right. They are also using this kid and his family. That really stinks. They knew from the start the sh!t storm that would start when they chose this kid. I think they did it on purpose just to keep it on the front page as long as possible at this kids families expense.