Class Warfare

More dispatches from the continuing conservative war on adorable children (as depicted above) as Glenn Reynolds joins with other rightwingers to sputter with rage at the idea of middle class children having health insurance. We're supposed to believe, I suppose, that whenever Instapundit isn't apologizing for torture or pimping for destructive wars that he's a dedicated activist on behalf of working class Americans and that he speaks up against the outrage of a small business owner's family getting coverage only to further his tireless crusade for the underclass. Or something.

Kevin Drum, meanwhile, thinks we should take Bush seriously when he says he wants poor children to go without health insurance because he fears that Democratic efforts to provide medicine to sick kids will push us down a slippery slope to the dystopian nightmare in which everyone enjoys a universal guarantee of access to health care. I don't really buy it, though; we started slipping down that slope decades ago with Medicare and Medicaid.

Photo by Flickr user Wurzle used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I tend to agree with Kevin that one of the simpler ways of understanding someone's motives is to take their word when they tell you their motives. Certainly not an infallible guide, particularly when it comes to politicians, but it works better than people often suppose.

Out of curiosity, what's your proposed alternative in this case? I'm assuming that Bush does not, in actual fact, hate children.

Posted by Adam | October 7, 2007 4:39 PM

This reminds me of Dick Morris' book about his time at the Clinton white house. Having been an aide to Trent Lott, he made the point that the strategy of the right in this country is to make sure that the middle class doesn't get access to any of the welfare state programs, so that they will side with the upper classes to eliminate them altogether. The theory being that the programs lose support if they're seen as a hand out to certain people, rather than a common bond of all people in society.

He's an odd duck, Morris.

Posted by mad6798j | October 7, 2007 5:13 PM

We started down that slippery slope years ago, but Bush is working hard to reverse it. His SCHIP proposal would substantially reduce the size of the program, and the assumption has to be that he regards a gradual elimination of this program as more politically realistic that just terminating it at once. Very similar to his approach on social security.

Posted by peter | October 7, 2007 5:22 PM

"...we started slipping down that slope decades ago with Medicare and Medicaid."

The slippery slope needs grease, apparently, because progress stalled for the next four decades. Kevin likely has it right.

Posted by Brian | October 7, 2007 5:35 PM

You are being increasingly disingenuous on this issue Matt. It's a perfectly defensible position to oppose government insurance for people who can clearly afford it, especially when it's funded by taxing smokers, who are disproportionately poor. I know you think you are being cute, but opposition to a new middle class subsidy is not a war on children.

Posted by Homer | October 7, 2007 5:45 PM

mad6798j is onto something. Maybe Bush and other anti-S-CHIP people are engaging in some rationing of their own. Perhaps they fear that if health care ever does become universally avaiable, people like Bush and Cheney won't have immediate access to the very best doctors, because the lines to good doctors will be clogged with the hoi polloi. I hate to attribute that kind of malevolent cynicism to anyone, but it's easy to think the worst of people who oppose a working program because it might benefit the poor and parts of the middle class.

Posted by Unreal Veal | October 7, 2007 5:47 PM

Except, you don't actually address the substance. The family chosen by the Democrats as an example of a "struggling" family that can't afford health insurance:

-- owns a 3000 square foot home
-- has sent 2 children to private schools that have $20k annual tuition rates.

Pardon me while I snicker at the idea that the Frosts can't afford health insurance - insurance which can easily be priced well under what they claim. Liberals may not have the time or interest to do minimal fact checking - and gosh knows, Matt certainly can't be bothered.

Posted by James Robertson | October 7, 2007 6:03 PM

has sent 2 children to private schools that have $20k annual tuition rates.

Ever hear of "financial aid" or "scholarships"? The school in question, Park School, gives financial aid. As far as the house: mortgage payments can be as little rent, so I'm not sure what the fuss is. It's not like he paid for the house upfront. Alternately, if this is really an issue, the GOP is basically saying: "A house or health insurance. Choose one." Not a political winner.

Posted by jpe | October 7, 2007 6:18 PM

Given Bush's "performance" to date and his willingness to use adorable children as props in his own "principled stands", "It's a perfectly defensible position" that Georgie-boy has declared "war on children", "the poor and parts of the middle class" and those suggesting that "Liberals may not have the time or interest to do minimal fact checking" are being "increasingly disingenuous".

This is one of the rare occasions where the importance of doing the right thing coincides with politically popular actions. Conservatives and Republicans can just suck on it.

As to the Frost family, personally I don't really care whether they would qualify since I've always known that anecdotes are not the same as evidence (and reading Glenn Reynolds is hardly what I call research).

And since I actually believe in the societal importance of non-profit universal health care, I would have to assume that the Frosts would be eligible at some point. Then perhaps the vast sums of money we've been spending on healthcare (to make sure that old rich farts like Rush Limbaugh have their share of Oxycontin and viagra) can be put to better use.

Posted by Rihilism | October 7, 2007 6:27 PM

Seems to me that Bush *thinks* he's making yet another principled, tough-minded decision, when really he's just being perversely stubborn -- blowing off steam by giving Congress Republicans included) the finger. He'll cling ferociously to the idea that he's a bold and principled leader until the bitter end because that's the only thing keeping him from facing up to what a f--k-up he is.

End of dimestore analysis.

Posted by mary | October 7, 2007 6:33 PM

I don't know why we let the neocons frame the debate. It is not about health "insurance," it is about health "care."

Furthermore, the Veteran's Administration predates both Medicare and Medicaid and not only provides excellent health care but has lower overhead than any of the "insurance" coverages.

Posted by Bruce in California Norte | October 7, 2007 6:40 PM

MattY's just p**ed because a FreeRepublic poster did almost as much reporting in one post as MattY's done in his whole blogging career. More links at the Corner: tinyurl.com/3yaasd

I note also that, despite a recent post complaining about the MSM, MattY isn't complaining about yet another example of the MSM simply regurgitating a flack-told tale rather than looking into the truth of the matter.

Posted by TLB | October 7, 2007 6:43 PM

Friday they had Ed Gillespie on NPR explaining the admin's side of the veto -- the case Mr. G. was making sounded mighty reasonable about why the admin vetoed the bill. It seemed like the Dems. got caught trying to play politics, and when all was said and done, the Dems. would suffer for not getting to the Pres. a good enough bill (as has happened before).

Except ... it turned out Ed Gillespie was lying through his teeth about what the Dem bill said and the President's "concerns" were fully addressed (also, if Ed Gillespie doesn't realize how much it costs to live in NYC, he must be hella stupid ...).

I wonder though -- maybe only "the liberal NPR" is gonna actually, um, ask questions. How well do you think the admin is going to be able to lie about the bill and make it seem like the Dems. are playing a dirty political trick with all those cute kids. Maybe they can get admin people to say some of these claims about the bill under oath?

Posted by DAS | October 7, 2007 6:43 PM

If one family we think doesn't deserve benefits gets benefits, that is much, much worse than poor children getting sick without healthcare!

Posted by Rob | October 7, 2007 7:28 PM

MattY's just p**ed because a FreeRepublic poster did almost as much reporting in one post as MattY's done in his whole blogging career.

It should go without saying that the freeper poster is full of crap.

Posted by Thers | October 7, 2007 7:44 PM

Very simply:

1. Many middle-class families can't actually afford health insurance for their children, and don't have it provided (or adequately provided) by their employers.

2. Some middle-class families can afford health insurance for their children, but only through very expensive individual policies that cut sharply into their discretionary income.

3. Some middle-class families have health insurance for their children, but only through very inadequate HMO's which make it very difficult to obtain medical services.

Now, can any defenders of the Bush position tell me why it is so immoral to offer the people in these three groups the option (which they are not required to avail themselves of) of government health care?

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 7, 2007 8:09 PM

Horseshit, Matt. The sputtering is not at "the idea of middle class children having health insurance." The sputtering is at the idea of the government paying for health insurance for middle class children whose parents can afford to pay for their health insurance. There's nothing difficult about this, and you're not stupid, so just cut the crap.

Posted by ostap | October 7, 2007 8:09 PM

The sputtering is at the idea of the government paying for health insurance for middle class children whose parents can afford to pay for their health insurance.

Indeed. And they could save even further by pulling their children out of school and sending them out to work in the coal mines. Think of the savings!

Posted by Thers | October 7, 2007 8:16 PM

The $500.000 quoted by Reynolds sure won't get you very far in London: you'll get a very humble semi in a working class district on the outskirts. I'm sure people face a similar market in several US cities.

Posted by novakant | October 7, 2007 8:33 PM

Matt, Can you site an instance of Instapundit "apologizing for torture"? You know that you cannot, but you included this phrase because you FEEL that Glenn Reynolds must have that attitude, because he does not wax sanctimonious about the topic in the manner of Andrew Sullivan.

But your feelings are uninteresting, and you're emotional rant, ostensibly about health care, is worthless.

You rant is worthless, because it is merely an expression of emotion, without argument. Thus you merely reinforce your righteousness and that of those who already agree with you, but convince no one.

And you know it. So what's the point?

Posted by Brian | October 7, 2007 8:53 PM

convince no one. ... So what's the point?

I think the point, Brian, is to get right-wing partisans to publicly express outrage at the thought of children getting health care. That way, the 72% of Americans who are already convinced this bill is a good idea can see what hateful people those folks are. Thanks for playing.

Posted by Bo | October 7, 2007 9:40 PM

Glenn Reynolds:

Boot notes that quite a few people are playing fast-and-loose with definitions on torture, and I think that's right. There's true torture -- involving, as Boot says, "fingernails pulled, electric shocks applied, sharp objects put where they don't belong" -- and then there's other stuff. Complaints about U.S. forces basically involve "other stuff."

There's lots of well documented cases of the U.S. torturing prisoners, sometimes to death -- start here -- and Reynolds is saying that complaints about this are basically complaints about "other stuff." That's apologizing for torture.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 7, 2007 10:00 PM

It's because of Thers/Whiskey Fire type crap that I stopped using the word "blog" to describe my site. I really don't want to be associated with that type of stuff.

For those who haven't clicked the link, the FReeper offered real reporting, albeit of the agenda-driven kind. The Whiskey Fire link is just knee-jerk, agenda-driven speculation without any substance.

Maybe MattY could lead the way by helping point out the difference, as well as correcting his various apparent errors about Reynolds and the rest.

Posted by TLB | October 7, 2007 10:12 PM

What errors has he made about Reynolds? Did you just accept what Brian said on face value? Matt Weiner already debunked that.

Posted by mad6798j | October 7, 2007 10:22 PM

Brian does the all-caps FEEL thing, exposing himself as a Rush Limbaugh listener. Shouldn't someone be banned from the Atlantic Monthly site for life for that?

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 7, 2007 10:28 PM

For those who haven't clicked the link, the FReeper offered real reporting, albeit of the agenda-driven kind. The Whiskey Fire link is just knee-jerk, agenda-driven speculation without any substance.

How substantive, your post. You have nothing.

The Freeper used Google and lied. Suggesting that the Frosts spend $40,000 a year on private school admission when they make $45,000 a year! It says on the very page the Freeper links to that the school offers financial assistance for families with income up to $160,000.

The Freeper stuff is a joke. It's a contemptible smear.

Posted by Thers | October 7, 2007 10:54 PM

I was unaware that Glenn was still blogging after getting just about everything wrong for so many years. He was an interesting phenomenon, and in some ways it ie even more interesting to see what he does after his moment is up. Kind of like a time-capsulesque view into the lunacy that this country fell into after 9-11. That he was ever taken seriously is sad, although I guess it is more reasonable than den Beste being taken seriously.

Posted by theCoach | October 7, 2007 11:05 PM

although I guess it is more reasonable than den Beste being taken seriously

People are still trying to read to the end of all his posts from back then. It's estimated this task will take until at least 2013.

Posted by Thers | October 7, 2007 11:08 PM

Why not just cover all kids health care the way we cover their educations (well, hopefully, the quality would be better)? Healthy kids are a social good, it feeds into the equality of opportunity for everyone which has broad support across political views, and it isn't that expensive.

There would still be a big debate over what to do about adults. Those opposed to universal care may even find their position strengthened if all children are covered. In any case, I think this would be a change for the good.

Posted by David | October 7, 2007 11:19 PM

Why not just cover all kids health care the way we cover their educations (well, hopefully, the quality would be better)? Healthy kids are a social good, it feeds into the equality of opportunity for everyone which has broad support across political views, and it isn't that expensive.

I agree entirely.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 7, 2007 11:32 PM

Yes, and what a bully good job we're doing with "covering" education!

Posted by Ron Coleman | October 8, 2007 12:04 AM

mad6798j: The other comment was posted while I was still laboriously crafting my comment, so it wasn't the last comment when I was writing mine. Nevertheless, that comment doesn't mean that Reynolds - someone I've criticized even more strongly than MattY - is a torture supporter, only that he supports what some think is torture, which isn't the same thing.

As for the last Thers/Whiskey Fire comment, er, no. Real reporting means you call the parents or the school and find out what the real situation is.

Posted by TLB | October 8, 2007 12:16 AM

As for the last Thers/Whiskey Fire comment, er, no. Real reporting means you call the parents or the school and find out what the real situation is.

Considering that you said in this very thread -- right here "the FReeper offered real reporting, albeit of the agenda-driven kind" -- and the Freeper did not do that himself -- I have to tell you that you are intensely, shamefully, depressingly, lamentably stupid even by the abysmally low standards of wingnut trolls in liberal blog comments sections.

My actual point is this. The Freeper said that a couple making $45K was paying $40K for school tuition for two of their four children. My contention, and I believe this is reasonable, is that this is a mind-numbingly idiotic thing to even suggest.

Posted by Thers | October 8, 2007 12:45 AM

Real reporting means you call the parents or the school and find out what the real situation is.

Oh, and, dear God!

Are you insane, insane people going to decide it is Good and Right to harass these people with phone calls, etc.?

Please, don't. Just... don't.

Posted by Thers | October 8, 2007 12:52 AM

TLB is two steps away from requesting a full audit. It's the only way to be sure that the Democrats aren't throwing money-laundering tax cheats out with their sob stories about things not working exactly like AEI press releases predict.

Seriously, the Democrats have a gold mine here. Party conservatives are no longer allowed apparently to comprehend every day economic reality. The Dems should be putting on TV every week a hundred white kids with self-employed family incomes at 40k just so they can be sneered at by conservatives as a welfare mother.

Posted by Thomas | October 8, 2007 1:28 AM

Oh, and TLB--your dick getting hard about an Afghan shepherd getting waterboarded and hung naked means you're into torture. It's kind of universal. Sorry to rain on your human rights parade.

Posted by Thomas | October 8, 2007 1:34 AM

Real reporting means you call the parents or the school and find out what the real situation is.

Gosh, as if Chris Kelly is in a position to speak of such things.

TLB is two steps away from requesting a full audit.

Actually, Kelly is just one step away from asking whether the family has ever eaten a taco, and thus contributed to the ScaryBrownMexicanEconomy. What an obsessive blogwhoring twat he is.

It's because of Thers/Whiskey Fire type crap that I stopped using the word "blog" to describe my site.

So you're no longer a blogwhore? Let's call it a 'crack', then.

Still, this whole episode of StalkRepublic trash proves one thing: the brownshi(r)ts have nothing. Nada. If that's what conservatives have left -- shitting out the remnants of their dignity on a pathetic online stalking exercise -- then conservatism is rotting in the rain.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 8, 2007 1:37 AM

I just revisited this thread after many hours, so maybe everyone is gone.

But Bo, in case you're still around, is that your actual belief, that Republicans oppose the Democratic majority version of S-CHIP simply because they hate...children, or non-rich parents, or somebody?

I'm not being sarcastic. Maybe it was a less than serious remark, just meant to provoke some response. Or maybe it was serious, which would reveal an even more complete lack of thought.

Somehow, I expected a higher level of argumentation here in the dignified pages of The Atlantic. If this is typical, then I might just have to go back to listening to Limbaugh, watching NASCAR, and buying over-sized pickle jars from Walmart.

But in any case, what we have here in your post and in many others on this thread - including Matt's original rant - is not really an attempt as argument, but simply a self-affirmation of your own supposed virtue.

Posted by Brian | October 8, 2007 3:44 AM

MrBrian and I are equally dismayed at the low point this thread descended to. The old Atlantic site had to be closed and the building fumigated; hopefully this incarnation will have a happier life.

I was once a conservative. I was not more stupid then nor more evil. (Maybe...gullible, naive?)

Enough with the nagging!!!

The S-CHIP issue is loaded with mythic, archetypical differences between liberals and conservatives. On the right, the American ideal of sturdy, self-sufficient individualism over-rides the transient utility of financing more medical visits by children. It can be thought of as theft (the cardinal sin in AynRand's world) to expect families to subsidize children not their own. With sufficient market discipline more and more parents can probably be encouraged (or forced) to accept their responsibility and--by God--take care of their own damn kids!!

From the left it seems amazing that anyone could seriously deny health insurance to children. The stake that we all have in the next cohort of kids has nothing to do with the civic virtue of their parents. It's as reasonable as teaching every kid to read even if their Moms & Dads don't care to teach 'em.

Now, let's take it to the voters. If after decades of AM TalkRadio the Dems can win on this issue we can assume that we do not live in a 'conservative' nation.

Seems fair enough to me. Voice of the people equals the voice of God. (I can't recall the latin for that.)

Posted by JohnMcC | October 8, 2007 7:35 AM

Hey, I know that photographer. You're freaking me out, man!

Posted by neil | October 8, 2007 7:37 AM

Nevertheless, that comment doesn't mean that Reynolds - someone I've criticized even more strongly than MattY - is a torture supporter, only that he supports what some think is torture, which isn't the same thing.

I'll repost this link. Follow the links therein and you'll find accounts of Habbibullah beaten until he can't bend his legs, and found dead tethered to the ceiling. Dilawar was beaten until his legs were pulpified; the (U.S. Armed Forces) pathologists said "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus." Abed Hamed Mowhoush was suffocated in a sleeping bag. Benyam Mohammed was (by his own account) punched until he vomited and cut on the genitals. David Passaro was convicted of assault for beating Abdul Wali to death with a flashlight. All these things were done by US forces, not by our allies or the countries to which we rendition people.

The people who think this is torture are RIGHT.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 8, 2007 8:47 AM

Well TLB, Matt considers it torture, so it's fair of him to say that he thinks Reynolds is an apologist for torture. What part of this aren't you getting?

Posted by mad6798j | October 8, 2007 8:55 AM

Whew! I used to be conservative too, but even then I never thought that bringing up Ayn Rand elevated the level of discourse. I, too, used to be naive enough to believe that the leadership of Republican Party actually cared about people despite their "principled" positions.

But if you actually believe the people who currently control the Republican Party actually believe "the American ideal of sturdy, self-sufficient individualism over-rides the transient utility of financing more medical visits by children." rather than "it's our due", then perhaps you've not completely escaped your youthful naivety.

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 8:56 AM

Ironically, the kids in that photo already have health insurance, since they are Canadian.

Posted by neil | October 8, 2007 8:59 AM

I find it amusing that even if we accept the premise of this wingnut tirade, that the family in question does not "deserve" state-subsidized health insurance, the freepers are achieving this grand victory against liberalism via a vulgar-Marxist critique of a the apparently excessive wealth of a hard-working small business owner and his family.

I mean, my God, these are people from humble backgrounds who own business property and own their own townhouse! They send their children to a private school! These folks are the very model of the school voucher-utilizing ownership society. How dare anyone suggest that we re-orient our health care spending in America to make it easier for people to live this way?

Portable, guaranteed health insurance for everyone who wants it would be a godsend to entrepreneurs, families who want a parent to stay home with the kids, anyone struggling to make mortgage payments so they can own a home instead of renting... everyone the Republicans claim to be looking out for. I really can't imagine how it's in their interest to mock the concerns of these people in order to score political points with the much smaller number of wealthy taxophobes who comprise the actual Republican Party base.

But if they want to play that game, I say bring it on.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 8, 2007 12:08 PM

For once and forever, President Bush is in favor of expanding the SCHIP program, just not as much as the Democrats want. If this legislation had been passed, families with incomes up to 82K and "kids" up to 25 years old would have been covered! Since when is that "poor children?"

Bottom line, the Democrats want socialized medicine, and this was a stepping stone to just that. President was right with his veto.

Posted by Mike | October 8, 2007 12:40 PM

Hopefully the IRS will be able to clear up the questions about the family income with a full and thorough audit. What the heck, Bill and Shrillery never failed to use them when they felt the need. The thing that makes me laugh about this is the fact that to most of the Dem leadership this is indeed a poor family. At least as poor as they want to forced to be around for any length of time.

Posted by bogtrotter | October 8, 2007 12:42 PM

families with incomes up to 82K ... would have been covered!

I note that no one can ever provide documentation of this assertion outside of the talking points of a Republican hack on talk shows. We're all too well informed here and thus know that you're spouting BS. Save the mindless talking points for the Thanksgiving table.

Posted by Tyro | October 8, 2007 12:50 PM

A point that is being missed here is that the Frosts (plural, Ms. Frost recently changed jobs) denied themselves healthcare. At the time of the accident, both Mr. and Mrs. Frost worked for "Frostworks"; a woodworking firm owned by the Frosts. While working for Frostworks, they did not have healthcare because Frostworks did not offer it.
Life is full of choices. They chose to own their business. Good on them. They chose to not offer healthcare. Maybe if they took less salary they could have offered healthcare. Maybe if their expansion plans were reduced they could have offered healthcare.
They made a choice and they must live with it now. Don't expect me to subsidize their lifestyle choices with my tax dollars.

Posted by rudytbone | October 8, 2007 12:54 PM

rudy, actually, I'm perfectly willing to say that one of the benefits of things like SCHIP and, government health care in general, is that it allows people to have more freedom to start small businesses without forcing their children to be punished by the consequences of rising health care costs.

Let's say the child of Mr. Frost grows up. And one day, Mr. Frost dies. Now, even though there's no way this would happen, let's say that, for the sake of argument, the "death tax[sic]" forces Mr. Frost's child to sell the house, and close the business to pay the taxes. The sad consequence of this is that I'd have to listen to your incessant, assinine whining about how this is some huge tragedy.

Now, by contrast, assume SCHIP did not exist precisely for these sorts of middle-income families, and Mr. Frost's child got into an accident, and without SCHIP the family had to sell the house and close the business to pay for all those expenses. Would you be celebrating this as some sort of success of entrepeneurial opportunity in America?

When right wingers want to drive entrepeneurs out of business by preventing them from avoiding crippling health care costs, but are quick to leap to the defense of heirs and heiresses, I really need to stop taking them seriously.

(on the other hand, if i proposed giving the frosts a huge education voucher and a larger tax credit for his kids, you'd be singing this idea's praises. But health coverage? The right wingers throw a tantrum)

Posted by Tyro | October 8, 2007 1:02 PM

One thing I love: it's clear that the government can't handle the tasks it's already doing:

-- intelligence - regardless of your politics, it should be clear that the CIA (and much of the rest of the intelligence infrastructure) just sucks

-- education - we spend more per capita than just about anyone else, and we get utter crap as a result

-- immigration - regardless of your position, the way we handle immigration just sucks. The legal system is just stupid, and the illegal side is "anyone can walk in".

So now you guys think the feds can handle health care? You see what a bang up job they do with Medicare and veteran's care - let's just go ahead and make it suck for everyone else, too.

Posted by James Robertson | October 8, 2007 1:09 PM

"It's a perfectly defensible position to oppose government insurance for people who can clearly afford it"

Well, sure, it would be, if that were actually happening.

How do you explain the fact that in the past two years, more than a million kids have lost their private health insurance and ended up with nothing? Almost half of them from families earning between $40-$80k? Did their parents start hating them? Did they wake up one day two years ago and suddenly decide, en masse, they didn't love their kids enough to insure them anymore?

Or, gosh, could it be because health insurance at an average of $12,000 a year simply isn't affordable for working families anymore? That now, it's not just dirt poor kids who need help, but working families?

Posted by anonymous | October 8, 2007 1:10 PM

"Don't expect me to subsidize their lifestyle choices with my tax dollars."

Don't expect me to subsidize the paint you're huffing with my tax dollars.

Seriously, I don't know where to begin with all of the "information" the Ayn Randians are providing us. So,..., why bother except to say the Republicans and conservatives are going to bite the big one on this.

I'm not naive enough to believe in the demise of the Republican Party (there's far too much money involved) but I'm looking forward to a brief respite as Republican cement their current minority status. Before you ask for added clarity, I refer to a respite of influence rather than volume.

Keep up the good work, boys and girls, Ayn would be so proud....

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 1:14 PM

Also, if you can figure out how a $45k income affords a 3000 sq foot house, you let the rest of us know.

Posted by James Robertson | October 8, 2007 1:23 PM

Tyro,
Some of your assumptions about my views are correct. Some are not. Lets start here.

Education is a government mandate. Children MUST go to school. I see vouchers as a way to improve the school system in the same way a free market works. If the school needs to fight for your childs attendence and voucher money because it is a failing school; then so be it. They fight by improving that school. Everyone wins. I think we all want good public schools. We differ on how to get there.

Health Coverage is not a right. You don't automatically get health coverage just because you were born. This is one of the choices I made. I was / am a pretty good amateur musician. I could have made a living at it but I chose not to. One of the factors in that decision was lack of health coverage. The musicians union did not provide healthcare. (At least when I was looking at this career)

Yes, I abhor the Death Tax. I see no reason whatsoever to tax the same money, property, or investments that have already been taxed just because someone died. And yes, I have seen family farms sold off because of this. (I used to live in Lancaster, PA).

As owners of their own business, they have access to enroll in group healthcare plans. These plans are designed to make use of economies of scale to reduce expenses for all in the group plan. The Frost's chose not to do this.

I certainly hope the scenario you provide above where the business is lost because of health issues does not occur. But in this day and age, small business owners need to consider scenarios such as the one you give when considering healthcare for their company and employees.

Posted by rudytbone | October 8, 2007 1:23 PM

But the Frosts could have gotten health insurance at less than $12,000 a year. Many small businesses have such plans. Also, Mrs. Frost might have found a job with health insurance, rather than working at the family business.

And let's ponder the short-sightedness of a wood-worker without health insurance. Hard to carve hardwood with missing digits--he might investigate disability insurance as well.

The Frosts made a choice, and then thought someone else could bail them out when their choice turned out to be a poor one. There might be a family whose situation would have better illustrated the need for this legislation, but no body found them. Why is that?

Posted by Rachel Cohen | October 8, 2007 1:29 PM

mad6798j says: Well TLB, Matt considers it torture, so it's fair of him to say that he thinks Reynolds is an apologist for torture.

The correct thing for MattY to say in that case is "I think Reynolds is an apologist for what I consider torture".

Matt Weiner: When Reynolds says some things are not torture, that automatically implies that he thinks some things are torture. So, if the Habbibullah/Dilawar cases are clearly torture - and I haven't done research into them - and Reynolds says they aren't, then you've made your case.

However, you haven't made your case because you haven't presented any evidence of Reynolds commenting on those cases or otherwise claiming that something that's clearly torture is not.

Posted by TLB | October 8, 2007 1:33 PM

Judging what the Frosts deserve is beside the point, it's about policy not charity. When you're handing out spare change to a panhandler, you get to decide if his sneakers look a bit too new. Public policy is made for the general benefit of society.

That means the angry conservatives on this thread can continue to cash the social security checks they neither believe in nor need. Because as a society, we the people agree that there is value in preserving this mandatory pension fund.

The anger toward the uppity Frosts who lack sufficient humbleness seem disproportionate when there are so many more deeply egregious examples of taxpayer money going to the undeserving. Where is the anger toward the billionare hedge fund managers who get a 50% tax break on a technicality?

Posted by spoon | October 8, 2007 1:44 PM

Judging what the Frosts deserve is beside the point, it's about policy not charity. When you're handing out spare change to a panhandler, you get to decide if his sneakers look a bit too new. Public policy is made for the general benefit of society.

That means the angry conservatives on this thread can continue to cash the social security checks they neither believe in nor need. Because as a society, we the people agree that there is value in preserving this mandatory pension fund.

The anger toward the uppity Frosts who lack sufficient humbleness seem disproportionate when there are so many more deeply egregious examples of taxpayer money going to the undeserving. Where is the anger toward the billionare hedge fund managers who get a 50% tax break on a technicality?

Posted by spoon | October 8, 2007 1:44 PM

James Robertson's unsupported assertion that the government "can't handle the tasks it's already doing" is more than good enough for me. Let's abolish the federal government plus all the state and local governments as well. James Robertson, Ayn Rand, and Karl Marx are all correct. Government is coercion. Anarchy is the only way to go.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 8, 2007 1:45 PM

Well, I for one support the expansion of the SCHIP program. So do 7 in 10 Americans, with only 25% opposed. It heartens me that Americans are big-hearted about this.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 8, 2007 1:53 PM

rudytbone and all you other wingnut *ssholes who think that private insurance is more efficient than government insurance, hear this: Private insurance companies are in business to make a profit. This has implications for the percentage of the premium that goes into paying for health care.

Profits have to be distributed to shareholders. Giant CEO salaries have to be paid. Huge infrastructures of people whose only job is to deny care or get someone else to pay for it have to be hired. This means that it is impossible for even the most efficient private insurer to operate as efficiently as the government.

Not by coincidence, the U.S. spends between 30 and 50 percent more per capita on health care than any other developed country. At the same time, it ranks near the bottom in every single measure of health from infant mortality to life expectancy.

So let's see. Live in Europe, pay less for health care, live longer and have babies that are less likely to die? Or listen to wingnut Ayn Rand acolytes spew economic balderdash on why private health care is better?

Country after country has proven that national health insurance works better. Only the U.S., with its high percentage of wingnut dead-enders, continues to live in the Dark Ages.

Posted by expatjourno | October 8, 2007 1:58 PM

"Health Coverage is not a right."

Why? Education, but not healthcare, why? There's no logic or reason to your distinction.

"Yes, I abhor the Death Tax."

The tax is not on the dead person, the tax is on the income realized by the beneficiaries. Why should someone be excluded from taxation simply because they were lucky enough to be born into the right family? I always laugh whenever I ever hear some make this specious claim and then move on to talk about the importance of a "meritocracy".

Then there's always the stupid observation that the income is being "taxed twice". Even if I conceded this is what is happening (which, since it's a different person's income involved, it is not), who the hell cares! Goods and services and incomes are triple, quadruple, and perhaps quintuple taxed so who gives a shit about the trust fund whiners having to give up some of their "well-earned salaries"

As to the family farms, how many, where, and maybe you can provide some names? Afraid I don't believe you.

"However, you haven't made your case because you haven't presented any evidence of Reynolds commenting on those cases or otherwise claiming that something that's clearly torture is not."

Oh, give it a rest! Reynolds is a tool, regardless of whatever linguistic pretzels you wish to twist.

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 2:00 PM

Why not just cover all kids health care the way we cover their educations

Here's a novel approach: how about all you smart guys (you must be, you keep telling us how smart you are) start acting like grown ups and take care of yourselves and your kids?

Posted by RW | October 8, 2007 2:21 PM

you haven't presented any evidence of Reynolds commenting on those cases

Actually in the Reynolds post I linked, he attacks an Andrew Sullivan post in which Sullivan mentions the people that the US tortured to death. So there you go.

Also, when the US tortures people, and Reynolds says that what US forces do is basically something besides torture, he's defending the torture by US troops; just as Turks who say that the mass murder of Armenians wasn't genocide are defending that very genocide. This is pretty basic logic, which makes me wonder why I'm bothering to address it to you.

Posted by Matt Weiner | October 8, 2007 2:46 PM

"Here's a novel approach: how about all you smart guys (you must be, you keep telling us how smart you are) start acting like grown ups and take care of yourselves and your kids?"

By choice, I have nor do I desire to have children. I also have excellent health coverage. So I have no other reason to support SCHIP, other than the fact that I give a shit, know that no man is an island, and was taught that "whatever you do to the least of His brothers, that you do unto Him.".

So stick a sock in it, Mr. Growed-Up.

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 2:54 PM

RW, I've said this elsewhere, about another clueless jerk:

It's not an accident that every wingnut 'critique' of non-all-private health care tends to be an extended, spittle-flecked exercise in missing (avoiding) the point, if not thirty or forty of them at once. All of them usually in the service of avoiding the *other* point; the one about how bloody-minded their basic assumptions are.

Bottom line: I *don't give a flying [turd]* if Bill freaking Gates gets government-sponsored health care, if *everyone* gets it. To the wingnuts, however, it is right and just to make sure that this schlub woodworker gets it up the ass, good and hard, just so they can spout their self-satisfied bullshit, over and over and over again. They are a stain on humanity. And yes, RW, I mean *you*. Eff off and die (or, better yet, eff off and lose your job and insurance, and *then* get a debilitating disease. Screw you.).

Posted by Captain Goto | October 8, 2007 2:59 PM

So, when are you guys going to contact the family in question & offer to pay for their medical bills? Remember, you "care" and you "give a damn". So, what's stopping you? Other than the fact that you really want the gov't to force everyone else to do it for you, that is....

Send the Frosts the money to cover the health care charges or STFU about how much you 'care' because what you care most about is the political implications and getting your a$$es on another gimme program.
Oh, but you felt so much better about yourselves when you typed your labia-laden screeds, didn't you?

Eff off and die

Oh, another tough leftie who gains testosterone from sitting at a keyboard. Wow, you have "CEO" written all over you, pal. No wonder you want another gov't gimme program...it's not like you're going to see middle-class anytime soon, so why not get those who CAN to take care of those who CAN'T (read: you).

How's the bottom?

Posted by RW | October 8, 2007 4:01 PM

But, Matt, don't you find it the least bit curious that the guy lives in a half-million dollar home, sends two kids to private school at $20K apiece, has a $160K building for his business, etc....and still demands that smokers -- many of whom are poor, BTW -- pay for his kids' health insurance?

These sorts of things should be saved for people who need it. Not people who decide to have other priorities for their money. Why doesn't he send his kids to public school and use a fraction of that $40K he's spending in tuition to buy them health insurance?

Posted by Scott | October 8, 2007 4:13 PM

A double sawbuck says "RW" makes a dollar over minimum wage.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 8, 2007 4:15 PM

I love how conservatives would rather eliminate the government than have it keep middle class kids healthy. Personally, I don't see why we're spending all these tax dollars on Iraq when so many conservatives could afford a rifle, flak jacket and one way plane ticket to Baghdad.

PS Scott, private schools have this thing called financial aid. Perhaps you've heard of it; perhap you haven't. But if you haven't, you should probably stick to posting on the short blog.

Posted by Bo | October 8, 2007 4:26 PM

I have heard of financial aid. But it doesn't finally change the point, does it? Why should somebody who can afford a half-million dollar house -- not to mention another $160K in commercial real estate -- expect smokers of any financial wherewithal to pay for his kids' health insurance?

I can't afford a half-million dollar house -- nowhere near it. And I wouldn't dream of making a public plea to have somebody else pay for my kids' health insurance.

It's one thing to spring for these things for people who can't afford it. It's another to do it for people who, for whatever reason, won't.

Posted by Scott | October 8, 2007 4:58 PM

"Health Coverage is not a right."
(rihilism says)
Why? Education, but not healthcare, why? There's no logic or reason to your distinction.

There is plenty of logic here. Your "Rights" are defined in the Constitution. You have heard of that, right? The document that explicitly defines what the Federal Government may and may not do? The Constitution does not define “Healthcare” as a right. So, it is not. Amend the Constitution to make it a Right and it will be.

I never said that Education was a Right. I said it was a mandate. It is mandated by law in every state. Try not sending your kids to school and see what happens. (At least in school districts that care about these things.)

"Yes, I abhor the Death Tax."

(rihilism says)
The tax is not on the dead person, the tax is on the income realized by the beneficiaries. Why should someone be excluded from taxation simply because they were lucky enough to be born intothe right family? I always laugh whenever I ever hear some make this specious claim and then move on to talk about the importance of a "meritocracy".

Well, laugh away. It’s called the Death Tax because it only comes into play when some dies.

(rihilism says)
Then there's always the stupid observation that the income is being "taxed twice". Even if I conceded this is what is happening (which, since it's a different person's income involved, it is not), who the hell cares! Goods and services and incomes are triple, quadruple, and perhaps quintuple taxed so who gives a shit about the trust fund whiners having to give up some of their "well-earned salaries"

I “give a shit”. Why should the government should get a second chance to bite from the same apple? As you yourself just said, these are “triple, quadruple, and perhaps quintuple taxed”. So because someone dies, tax it again?

(rihilism says)
As to the family farms, how many, where, and maybe you can provide some names? Afraid I don't believe you.

Tom Hochstetter, Manheim Township, PA. 1991. Father William died of heart attack. Knew Tom from school. He was in Animal Husbandry at Penn State, graduated 1988. Fairly large family farm for the area. (150 + acres) There are others I personally know. And I know you don’t believe me. Because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Posted by rudytbone | October 8, 2007 5:06 PM

Well, Scott, you're trusting the freeper's research and conclusions. We have no idea how much the house is actually worth, or how big their mortgage is, or whether they live there with extended family, and on and on. As to the commercial property, they could have formed a corporation with several investors and own only a portion of the building. In other words, the freeper "journalism" leaves open more questions than it answers.

Besides, the one anecdotal example of the Frosts is just that. On the larger question of the SCHIP expansion, most Americans want to see it done.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 8, 2007 5:07 PM

Since the best health care system in America is run by the government (the VA), why not give it a bigger piece?

Posted by American Citizen | October 8, 2007 5:09 PM

Well, they can't be that far off. Somebody's done a real estate survey of the area that would suggest a price tag in that range. Whether it's $500K or, heck, $300K, why won't you guys answer my question? And the $160K building for his business comes from public record. That's how much he bought it for.

Assuming this is true: Why should somebody who can afford that much real estate expect to have their kids' healthcare paid for by smokers of any and all financial situations?

I tend to think that this sort of aid should be there when people truly have no option. But it seems to me that he could move into a smaller house and afford health insurance for his kids for quite some time...at least until they're no longer kids.

Posted by Scott | October 8, 2007 5:16 PM

Well, how much did he actually pay for the house? Lots of houses around me are worth half a million, and have middle class people living in them who bought them at ~$100k. This is precisely why conservatives are going to get killed on this issue, because they're going to spend the whole argument trying to pass off ignorant and mean-spirited speculation as 'logic'.

For example, based on the fact you thought a family making $45k could possible be spending $40k of it on their private school, I can logically conclude (i.e speculate) that you're not a day over 16. After all, people learn about how personal budgeting works once they leave home and learn about financial aid once they reach college-applying age. How did I do?

Posted by Bo | October 8, 2007 5:25 PM

How much does the health insurance cost?

Posted by Barbar | October 8, 2007 5:30 PM

What are these people paying in taxes?

Posted by Barbar | October 8, 2007 5:34 PM

But the Frosts could have gotten health insurance at less than $12,000 a year.

12k/yr for a family of 6? First, that's a good deal. Second, that's expensive for someone who makes 45k/yr.

The people at the margins-- who make about 40-50k/yr but are scraping by trying to raise a family while self-employed -- are exactly the people whose children we want to ensure have health insurance. SCHIP is helping precisely whom it needs to help.

I'm sure that for all you kids making 20k/yr while living in your mothers basement, 45k seems like more money than you could possibly dream of, and for you middle managers at Conglomerated Defense Contractor, Inc., the idea of not being able to afford health insurance is inconceivable because you think that it only costs $100/month for family coverage (after all, that's what comes out of your paycheck), but the reality of the barely middle-class self-employed is very, very different.

Posted by Tyro | October 8, 2007 5:41 PM

How much does the health insurance cost?

The bill Bush vetoed costs about 1/10th of an Iraq War, while universal child health care would cost about 1/5 of an Iraq War.

Posted by Bo | October 8, 2007 5:44 PM

Does it matter how much they bought the house for? Look, I don't know how much it's worth. But I'm guessing it's not a $125K starter home. Whether they paid a lot for it or are just sitting on a nice capital gain, the question remains the same.

And nobody will answer it. You don't want to answer it -- and I don't blame you. Because it blows the lid off this PR stunt. And you know as well as I do that whoever recruited this family to serve as poster child is getting some stern looks now that this information is coming out.

There is no good reason that somebody with a valuable asset like this should be expecting other people to pay for their kids' health insurance. It's ridiculous...it's almost like something straight out of the Onion.

How do you think the average joe is going to react when he hears that somebody with a half-million dollar house is asking them to pay for their kids' healthcare?

Posted by Scott | October 8, 2007 5:45 PM

"Your "Rights" are defined in the Constitution. You have heard of that, right?"

I've heard about it but I've doubt you've read it and understood it.

The ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because you say it isn't a right and that it does not appear in the constitution does not mean it is, in fact, not a right.

"Well, laugh away. It’s called the Death Tax because it only comes into play when some dies."

Whew! There's some brilliant logic. Since the tax is on the survivors, by definition, someone has to be alive to have their income taxed. It's called the Death Tax because a Republican marketing group decided that the Inheritance Tax just didn't have enough zing. They are well practiced at the Orwellian language required to fool some of the people some of the time.

"Why should the government should get a second chance to bite from the same apple?"

Since it's not the same apple your point is irrelevant.

Lastly, I'm genuinely sorry to hear about Mr. Hochstetter and the others you know. I am a resident of Iowa I know and understand the loss of a family farms and the devastating effect it has on the community. But considering the number of actual family farms that would be involved (very low) I'd be happy to exclude those "businesses" where the apparent "value" of the assets involved is actually offset by such mitigating circumstances.

Deferring or removing a bankruptcy causing inheretance tax is not the same as or morally equivalent to making sure Paris Hilton has enough bail money to get out of jail on the next go round should mumsy and dadsy decide enough is enough and chose to leave this world. Assuming that you have to choose all or none is a false choice, not worth considering.

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 5:45 PM

The bill Bush vetoed costs about 1/10th of an Iraq War, while universal child health care would cost about 1/5 of an Iraq War.

LOL...and you're lecturing others about basic economic things?

The Iraq War, good or bad, is a temporary thing. It may be over next year or the year after or whenever. But it will not still be going on in 8 or 10 years.

You're talking about something that would exist in perpetuity. So I suppose that Medicare was cheaper than Vietnam the first year it was on the books. But would you like to compare their relative pricetags now?

Posted by Scott | October 8, 2007 5:50 PM

RW, "testosterone" has nothing to do with it.

Stupid people pissing me off does. Just because you're so goddamned sure that no one deserves anything besides you, does not make your opinions worth a damn.

Eff off.

Posted by Captain Goto | October 8, 2007 5:52 PM

Oh, another tough leftie who gains testosterone from sitting at a keyboard. Wow, you have "CEO" written all over you, pal. No wonder you want another gov't gimme program...it's not like you're going to see middle-class anytime soon, so why not get those who CAN to take care of those who CAN'T (read: you).

Gee, RW, I must've missed the memo on this. I thought liberals were limousine driving, caviar-eating elitists who wanted to expand government so that it would actually hurt the poor and satisfy their power-hungry Lenin-worshiping madness. When did liberals turn into economically disadvantaged malcontents seeking free goodies for themselves from Uncle Sam? I really wish you guys would keep me informed of these changes.

Well, laugh away. It’s called the Death Tax because it only comes into play when some dies.

Probably not worth pointing out that it's actually called the estate tax, rudytbone. Only Rush and your Freeper buddies commonly refer to the estate tax as the "Death Tax."

I “give a shit”. Why should the government should get a second chance to bite from the same apple? As you yourself just said, these are “triple, quadruple, and perhaps quintuple taxed”. So because someone dies, tax it again?

If the government is not allowed to "double tax" the same income then the income tax would have had to expire shortly after it was implemented. All of your income was someone else's income before it was yours.

Why should somebody who can afford a half-million dollar house -- not to mention another $160K in commercial real estate -- expect smokers of any financial wherewithal to pay for his kids' health insurance?

I like this. Freepers are now fighting against America's small business owners. Keep on truckin', dudes.

I agree, however, that using a tax on cigarettes to pay for this is pretty cheap and does hurt the poor. This provision was added to bring Republicans on board, because all new social programs must have a self-funding mechanism, apparently. Though why we don't get to ask where the next $190 billion for the wars is going to come from (how about a limousine and caviar tax?) I don't know. Hopefully the Democrats will re-pass this bill without the cigarette tax to spare us at least that one small bit of Freeper sanctimony, because everyone knows that every soft-hearted Freeper in the land stays up night weeping over how America's long-suffering poor are going to afford their cigarettes.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 8, 2007 6:00 PM

Don't forget the benefits of the Iraq war.

Can someone explain why the Frosts even need health insurance? It's not like their kids' health problems are unforeseen or unexpected, they already exist. Rachel Cohen above suggests that they could latch on to some company health plan, but wouldn't that still involve other people subsidizing their kids' health care? Fuck that noise.

Posted by Barbar | October 8, 2007 6:06 PM

Whether they paid a lot for it or are just sitting on a nice capital gain, the question remains the same.

That's funny, since if you had a home and kids, I suspect you'd realize that the second question sounds a lot more like, 'Should parents have to lose the home where they raised their kids in order to buy them health insurance?' But do keep on; any second now, I suspect you'll crack the Parents-Not-Wanting-To-Lose-The-Family-Home scandal wide open.

The Iraq War, good or bad, is a temporary thing. It may be over next year or the year after or whenever. But it will not still be going on in 8 or 10 years.

Look kid, go read about 'opportunity cost' so you can understand how 'temporary' expenses really aren't. Even the interest on the money we've borrowed to pay for the Iraq War so far costs more than S-CHIP. OTOH, I'll be happy to argue about the relative importance (and thus spending priority) we should place on having a healthy populace vs. killing either Vietnamese or Iraqis.

Posted by Bo | October 8, 2007 6:50 PM

"The Iraq War, good or bad, is a temporary thing. It may be over next year or the year after or whenever. But it will not still be going on in 8 or 10 years."

As I said earlier, this is truly a pointless discussion, since those arguing so vociferously are capable of such grand self-delusions.

Apparently, ideological purity is more important than simple reasoning (one of the many I've vowed to never vote for a Republican again). Adherence to "basic" principles (i.e., the private sector is ALWAYS more efficient) trump the realities of a well functioning program supported by such noted Marxists as Orin Hatch and Chuck Grassley.

Yes, yes, the Frost's actions deserve collective punishment. Why should we pay for the family's health insurance when we're clearly not subsidizing it now? Why should I be subject to the "death tax" since writing comments on a blog is a clear indication that "someday" I will be subject to this tax? Why should I prefer non-profit insurance since enriching a few corporate CEOS may mean I'll be invited someday to join their country club?

Those are some tough questions, kids, which will surely cost the Democrats many an election...

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 7:16 PM

So anyway, the other side's partisans got their licks in:

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.

So, those Freeper accusations about a half million dollar house and $40k in tuition payments, eh, not so much.

Posted by Bo | October 8, 2007 8:21 PM

A double sawbuck says "RW" makes a dollar over minimum wage.

I'm not a Democrat seeking yet another gov't program to cover my a$$. You know, like you guys.

D'ya ever think things through? YOU are the one's looking for the handout.

And, yeah, it's quite noticeable that you guys ran like scalded dogs from the query of why you're not ponying up for what you 'care' so much about. Feh, all you care about is votes for your party and getting your share of the booty.

Posted by RW | October 8, 2007 8:42 PM

"Feh, all you care about is votes for your party and getting your share of the booty."

Feh, pot, kettle, black....

"And, yeah, it's quite noticeable that you guys ran like scalded dogs from the query of why you're not ponying up for what you 'care' so much about."

I made it quite clear earlier that I wanted to eliminate Rush Limbaugh's access to Oxycontin and Viagra. That should be enough to finance SCHIP as well as pay off the deficit...

Posted by Rihilism | October 8, 2007 8:54 PM

In other words, RW, not only are you only earning a dollar above minimum wage, but you are really angry about it. Since the freeper "journalism" has now been debunked, I suggest you crawl back in your hole.

Anyway, 70% of Americans already support the expansion of the program, so that puts you in a distinct minority. Of course, as a Bush sycophant, you already know how that feels.

Posted by Max Klein | October 8, 2007 9:24 PM

For all the fantastic minds in this thread who think a family of eight in Baltimore can afford a $700-$1000 a month insurance policy on a $45,000/year income ... WHAT are you smoking?

The only way you can possibly think that expense is doable for that family is if you're just guessing it should be. If you think this is a family that can "clearly afford" that insurance then I think you clearly have zero real-world experience buying health insurance, raising children, living in a city and making less than six figures a year.

Posted by Leslie H | October 8, 2007 11:50 PM

You are really missing the point. The RW are just trying to put the breaks on the wholesale slide into Soviet style tyranny that our society seems to be heading for. Remember, the old Soviet Union promised everything to everyone. The only thing they delivered on was a shared level of misery for everyone with only the party elites enjoying the fruits of everyone else's labor. That is where we are headed right now. And unless you think you will be lucky enough to be one of the "elites" you should be fighting it tooth and nail too.

Posted by GuyInCT | October 9, 2007 8:06 AM

You're wasting your time, GuyInCT.
As long as they "get theirs", they're happy. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter when, they just want they're gimme programs. And, in order to appease their precious consciences, they'll tell themselves that they 'care' more than those bastards who seek help for those who need it (instead of the dead-enders, as evidenced in so many comments above), along with claiming that they - the ones seeking to suck on the taxpayer teat - are the ones who are the smart & successful ones.

As I stated earlier, labia laden screeds, with the goal of appeasing the emotional needs therein. It oozes from the text.

If the goal were truly to help out those in need, they wouldn't be so earnest in signing themselves up for every darn program that they can conceive. Oh, and you're selfish if you disagree (more emotion from the mommy class, but don't you dare question their masculinity).

Posted by RW | October 9, 2007 9:09 AM

RW sure does like saying "labia laden." I bet if he says it three times fast, he orgasms.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | October 9, 2007 10:24 AM

Nice argument. Emotion and caring = labia-laden, mommy class = women= bad. I hear there is a lot of raping going on in Congo now. Maybe if you hurry, you can get in on the penile-packed action.

Posted by spoon | October 10, 2007 10:45 AM