The Truth About The Frosts

Brought to you by Jonathan Cohn:

We know that people with modest incomes are having a harder time paying their medical bills, because insurance is getting so pricey and--increasingly--the benefits available leave them exposed to high out-of-pocket expenses. We also know this is particularly true of people who can't get coverage through large employers--a class of people that is expanding as the business community slowly extricates itself from the mess of providing workers with insurance.

In other words, it's not just the most destitute Americans who need assistance getting health insurance. It's people who have jobs, make a decent living, and own their homes. And when medical crisis hits, they're forced to take drastic steps--like selling their homes, depleting life savings, declaring bankruptcy, or simply going without the care they and their loved ones need. Unless, of course, the government provides them with insurance at affordable rates.

And, of course, that this is a problem afflicting the non-destitute just is the case for health care reform. The market is structurally screwed up in a way that has nothing in particular to do with income. It's true, of course, that if you're rich enough you can spend your way around the system's flaws, but even non-poor people often can't afford insurance, and even people who can afford insurance and have it still find dealing with the system to be hellish.

Comments

Your liberal media at work.

What a joke.

Posted by NCProsecutor | October 11, 2007 10:42 AM

Exactly. The Republicans want to pretend that everything is just OK. That's why they have to attack in this case, otherwise they'd have to admit they're wrong.

Posted by e40 | October 11, 2007 10:43 AM

And this is the sort of issue that perfectly illustrates the way that the GOP wants individual folks to take on more personal financial risk. Do you suppose that most folks think that they should be personally liable for unforeseen and bankrupting medical expenses?

Posted by Kurzleg | October 11, 2007 10:48 AM

Isn't this what Michael Moore's "Sicko" was supposed to be pointing out? Not that it sucked to have no insurance, but that even having insurance was no guarantee that a medical crisis wouldn't bankrupt you?

Posted by H West | October 11, 2007 10:49 AM

this basically proves all the criticism of the ad right. The criticism, if you will be kind enough to stop shuvelling your own bullshit down your throat for just a moment, was not of the frost family. It was that the democrat's are portraying this schip expansion as a program for the poor destitute children and the frosts clearly didnt fit with the picture they were trying to push.

It is only now that you feel the matter has been sufficiently confused that you turds will admit the truth.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | October 11, 2007 11:01 AM

It was that the democrat's are portraying this schip expansion as a program for the poor destitute children and the frosts clearly didnt fit with the picture they were trying to push.

But that's not true, of course. The idea that only poor, destitute children should get government-sponsored health insurance is strictly a right-wing construct.

The premise of S-CHIP is that even some middle-class families can't afford health insurance for their kids, and thus the government should help them out. Unfortunately, insurance is so expensive that you don't have to be "poor and destitute" to find it unaffordable.

I thank the right wing for helping to drive this point home, and for exposing their own feral nature in the process.

Posted by Steve | October 11, 2007 11:08 AM

Why are American conservatives so determined that life should be miserable?

If there's one thing we should learn from those awful French, it's that an enjoyable, fun life, free from worry and anxiety about your family's well being, is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

Posted by Virginia | October 11, 2007 11:17 AM

Why are American conservatives so determined that life should be miserable?

Because if your life is miserable and insecure, you will likely compensate by taking as few risks as possible and conforming to the demands of whomever has any power in the hopes that you might relieve some of the misery you're suffering. Both conformity (and, by extension, control) and lack of risk-taking are part of the very definition of what conservatism is all about.

Posted by Tyro | October 11, 2007 11:56 AM

Really, steve?

if that is the case why does the democrats own website describe schip as a program for 'poor children' and why do their press releases contain stuff like:

"Does Bush think that poor sick children should have to get a job, and hope it comes with health care?"

"Mitt Romney: When Romney was asked whether he'd support President Bush's veto of the popular health insurance program for poor children, he responsed, "Yeah. Yeah, I sure would."

and I can get tons more if you'd like. So, you still want to claim that the democrats arent pushing this a bill targetted at poor kids?

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | October 11, 2007 12:11 PM

this basically proves all the criticism of the ad right. [...] It was that the democrat's are portraying this schip expansion as a program for the poor destitute children and the frosts clearly didnt fit with the picture they were trying to push.

Ooh, I hope that you and Al and y81 will keep it up. In fact, I'd love to see even more comments from y'all, explaining how middle-class families ought to be forced to sell their homes and bankrupt themselves if their children get sick or injured.

Yeah, that'll help you win over lots of swing voters in 2008....

Somebody hand these trolls a megaphone!

Heh heh heh.

Posted by J | October 11, 2007 12:19 PM

First, speaking as a long term survivor of childhood cancer, I have been dealing with the health insurance crisis since the 1980's, back when no one else knew the problem existed.

Second, if you like the way the Congressional Democrats are now dealing with Iraq, you will love how they are actually going to deal with health care.

Third, at the rate things are now going, I will actually be on Medicare before "incremental reforms" produce any measurable results.

Under these circumstances, I think prospects for federal reform are dim. Such reform as may be accomplished will occur in the states.

Posted by Publis | October 11, 2007 12:49 PM

I am, in the general run of things, quite well off. Not Republican rich, but very comfortable. I am also not very well. I NEED health insurance, and, since I live in Massachusetts, someone has to sell it to me, no matter how sick I am and at a rate that is solely determined by my age. My husband is semi-retired. He works a day a week at a well paying job that allows him to pay for our insurance in pretax dollars through the office. What he makes covers our insurance, our medical cafeteria plan, and some years a bit more. So I ask myself, how can the republican presidential candidates talk about giving tax credits to low and moderate income families that will enable them to buy private insurance. THEY SHOULD BE STRUCK BY LIGHTENING FOR TELLING SUCH LIES. Even in the state that is the most protective of private insurance purchasers, buying a policy that will really protect you from catastrophic medical bills is beyond the means of almost everyone. Medicare for all.

Posted by Ellen | October 11, 2007 12:52 PM

"So, you still want to claim that the democrats arent pushing this a bill targetted at poor kids?"

Actually, some people are capable of two thoughts at once, i.e., pushing at bill targeted at poor kids AND the uninsured/underinsured middle class (the proposed expansion is FOR the middle class, numb-nuts).

Bush decided to "take a principled stand" on the latter rather than compromise on the former and effectively halted the support to the poor (thereby handing the Dem's TWO political victories). Despite this initial breathtaking political stupidity, the nut-bags on the right chose to then go after the Frosts (who represent the uninsured/underinsured middle class) without consulting with one another to get their "stories" straight (uh, oh, looks like McConnell might be involved in this too). That is soon to be the third political victory since not only will the American middle class get to see the advantages of SCHIP but they'll get to hear what utter assholes those on the right actually are.

So, "Pump" hand, please, do continue, because you're already up to your shoulders in it....

Posted by Rihilism | October 11, 2007 1:24 PM

Im not denying democrats are capable of two thoughts at once, that is in fact what im saying. Theyre thinking 'lets get all these middle class kids on a social program to bring our dream of a communist america closer' whilst also thinking 'lets decieve people by claiming its targetted at poor kids'.

the democrats publicity materials describe the schip expansion as aimed at 'poor children'. There is absolutely no wriggle room here, none at all. Stop embarrassing yourselves, no wait, keep right on.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | October 11, 2007 2:11 PM

See, this is exactly what I meant. At a gut level, most ordinary people in this country are repulsed by the idea that a family would have to sell their house and go into bankruptcy because of a child's illness or injury.

Meanwhile, freaks like p.h.s. here rant on about how S-CHIP will lead to "a communist america".

All you're doing is hurting your own cause.

Posted by J | October 11, 2007 3:41 PM

"the democrats publicity materials describe the schip expansion as aimed at 'poor children'."

Actually, PHS, those pop-up brochures you've been reading were meant for the recipients of SCHIP.

OH, MY! The Dem's have been distributing some literature (that probably no one except for policy wonks and right wing staw-grapsers will ever read) that suggests SCHIP helps poor kids! Exclusively, even! How could they ever have painted themselves in a corner like that! They'll never recover from this travesty! Whoa is me, whoa is me....

Posted by Rihilism | October 11, 2007 6:06 PM

Theyre thinking 'lets get all these middle class kids on a social program to bring our dream of a communist america closer'

See, this is the kind of thing that keeps me going--at some point, we cross over from the ridiculous to the sublime. Right now I'm picturing Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein in Mao jackets, waving little red books and baying for the blood of the running dogs of reactionary capitalism, and it's the first thing about this unspeakably sad and sordid little "controversy" that's actually made me smile.

Thanks for that, PHS...you just made my day.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | October 11, 2007 7:07 PM

I've recovered now from "DEM'S ARE DOOMED" hysteria (thank goodness for fainting couches...). I see I used Whoa (little horsy) instead of Woe. Oops! Well, you can understand I was overwhelmed by the impending doom....

Posted by Rihilism | October 11, 2007 8:56 PM

is the pimp hand the one you beat off with? or does one hand have to pay the other to touch your own dick? what a sad life you lead.

Posted by merlallen | October 12, 2007 4:07 AM