Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Remember the "poor" child who gave the Dem response on SCHIP? (update)
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 08, 2007

As it turns out, he's not so poor. Don Surber brings us up to date:
Remember the Frost family of Baltimore? They had a bad traffic accident 3 years ago. Their medical bills were paid by the taxpayer-subsidized SCHIP. Democrats trotted out Graeme Frost, 12, to call the president mean for not expanding the program beyond what he was willing to expand it.

But all is not what it seems. Based a sympathetic Baltimore Sun story — reporters never question “victims” — a blogger did some snooping around.

Brutally Honest found that the Frosts (check out the kitchen) live in a 3,000-square-foot house in the Butchers Hill historic district of Baltimore.

The children attend the private Park School, where tuition is $20,000 a year each. Maybe that is subsidized. Interesting that public schools aren’t good enough for their kids but public health insurance is.

The Frosts contend they live on $45,000 and cannot afford health insurance. He’s a self-employed woodworker.

And they appear to be land rich, cash poor. He bought a building for $160,000 in 1999 and their house mortgage appears to be worth $200,000.
Mark Steyn says:
Meanwhile, a healthcare actuary writes:
Why, in a full-employment economy, does someone who wants an employer to pay for health insurance not take a job with health insurance?
Well, in the case of Mr Frost, his employer was, er, Mr Frost. And, in the case of Mrs Frost, her employer was also Mr Frost, who employed her as a bookkeeper and operations manager until this year, when she joined the medical publisher Kaufman-Wills. Why a medical publisher doesn't offer health insurance is unclear, but, if the various cooing profiles of the Frosts are to be believed, Kaufman-Wills is a medical publisher that publishes everything except a company health plan.

And an obstetric anesthiologist asks:
Where is the auto insurance to pay for Frost's medical bills?
All interesting questions.
Yes they are. And all unanswered.

Per the Baltimore Sun they just couldn't afford health insurance:
"Bonnie Frost works for a medical publishing firm; her husband, Halsey, is a woodworker. They are raising their four children on combined income of about $45,000 a year. Neither gets health insurance through work."
A combined income of $45,000?

But as Steyn points out, both of the Frosts work (or have worked) for their own company. He's hardly just a 'woodworker' but instead the owner of "Frostworks", a company he's headed since 1992.
He owns Frostworks, a woodworking and furniture-design studio in Baltimore.
And he owns commercial property in which another company is located (rental income?).

So what magic have the Frost's been able to pull off with that $45,000 a year salary?

Well own a business, a 3,000 sq. ft. house, a commercial building, owned an SUV and apparently somehow manage to convince the state that they were too poor to afford health insurance.

I'd also bet if the Baltimore Sun had actually looked into this, they'd find the Frost's represent exactly what opponents to SCHIP have been contending would happen - middle class families finding ways of opting out of private insurance to take government coverage (although in the case of the Frost's it may be more serious than that, they may have misrepresented their income to get the health coverage).

I'm sorry the Frost children were injured in an accident and am glad they're on the road to recovery, but to contend they are representative of the "need" for SCHIP is simply ludicrious. They've apparently gamed the system and found a way to get you and I to pick up the tab. The fact that the Baltimore Sun didn't look into this any deeper than it did is telling as well. And, unsurprisingly, the fact the the Democrats exploited this child to get their disingenuous message out there is equally telling.

Retail politics at it's lowest.

UPDATE:
Commenter shark, trying to anticipate the left's reaction to the above disclosure was sure it would be something like this:
This is terrible. Rather then seeing the reality that shows people need this medical care, you choose to look at one unimportant case example and try to destroy it. As hard as you may try to deny, this is an important and needed program, and focusing on this little sideshow proves that you’re only more interested in politics than people.
Here it was in actuality. Says the spokesman for Harry Reid:
"This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, D-Nev. "Instead of debating the merits of providing health care to children, some in GOP leadership and their right-wing friends would rather attack a 12-year-old boy and his sister who were in a horrific car accident."
Close.

I think shark deserves a cigar for that one. And get him one quickly before that tobacco tax goes up.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
...own a business, a 3,000 sq. ft. house, a commercial building, send two kids to a private school at $20,000 a year, owned an SUV and apparently somehow manage[d] to convince the state that they were too poor to afford health insurance.
IOW, rather than being a case study in the necessity of expanding a government handout the Frosts are a perfect example of the ultimate "welfare queen"; sucking on the teat because they can.

Your taxes hard at work...
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
What I don’t get is that the Frosts were already eligible for the program and were taking advantage of it. Why are they an example for the need to expand it?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The fact that the Baltimore Sun didn’t look into this any deeper than it did is telling as well.
As I understand it, from reports in the blogosphere, the Baltimore Sun basically turned the Democrats’ press release into a heart-tugging human interest story, in which the Frosts were victims and (implicitly) the Dems were the would-be heros and Chimpy the evil arch-villain.

Then, some freeper in his pajamas did a simple Google search on the Frosts and discovered that the story was baloney. The Frosts are upper middle class, if not wealthy, and could easily afford their own health insurance.

I haven’t pulled the original links to the Baltimore Sun story or Free Republic yet, but if this thing played out the way it was descibed it is yet another example of journalists abdicating the basic responsibilities of their trade in order to shill for the Demos.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
JWG stole my thunder. If they really only made 45,000 per year, wouldn’t that qualify them for the already existing SHCIP program? I thought this bill was to expand SHCIP to people who earn upwards of 60,000? Why didn’t the Baltimore sun mention that?
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
Check and see if they have a privately held corporation.
As a corp he may be making more and paying it as distributions to the ’stock holders’ while ’paying’ himself and his wife dirt salaries to avoid the corporate double hit on social security and medicare/medicaid payments for the employees. From the Social Security administrations point of view, that’s how it would look. His/her social security benefits would be based on that, not on their actual disposable cash flow.

With a little selective reporting their definition of income may be the ’salary’ by phrasing the question as "How much do you make a year in salaries?" and then foisting that off as their total available disposable income.

They’re playing games somewhere
and
they’re the working model for how the Federal Government does business, spending vast amounts more than it takes in.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
As others have pointed out at FR, since the injury was caused in an auto accident, and Maryland has mandatory insurance requirement with mandatory PIP coverage, why was this a SCHIP case anyway? Should have been paid out under the auto insurance.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
Sounds like someone needs to audit them.

I mean, if they only make $45,000 and have 2 kids in a private school at $20,000 each. Then they must be getting cash from somewhere off the books...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Of course, it goes without saying this is another "fake but accurate" story.

First we have phony soldiers, now we have the phony poor...

You think the Democrats would just get used to doing background checks on the people they choose to highlight in the media.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
[ERB]

This is terrible. Rather then seeing the reality that shows people need this medical care, you choose to look at one unimportant case example and try to destroy it. As hard as you may try to deny, this is an important and needed program, and focusing on this little sideshow proves that you’re only more interested in politics than people.

[/ERB]
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://

Shark, if it is such a needed program, maybe the dem’s and the press could play it straight up and give us some real poor that will be helped. Guess this shows that dem’s and the media are more interested in snowjobbing people than relaying facts and letting the citizen/reader come to their own conclusions.
 
Written By: doubled
URL: http://
lol

shark, you made my day
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Let me guess, a lot of his clients pay in cash and he’s bad with paperwork, if you get my drift.

"I’ll knock off a hundred dollars for the custom cabinetry if you pay cash."

That said, there is a problem with small businesses where the owner under-prices their work or there is too much competition, and instead of going out of business and getting a new job, the owner works for less than they should. Then they grumble and say if the government provided healthcare they could stay in business. (Cap’n Sarcastic’s position.) As a small business owner, I sympathize, but just remember that under a lot of the plans, the business owner would still be on the hook to pay.





 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Shark, you hit the nail on the head. I don’t know about Erb, specifically, but I’d bet a dollar to a donut that the Sorosphere response to this story will be to criticize the right for focusing on the anecdote, rather than the "need for universal healthcare."

The way I see it, if they chose to make this case the focus of their argument, then it is fair game to look at this case. And the press should have done it, rather than leaving it to the blogosphere.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
They pimp out their own children for political purpose.
 
Written By: newc
URL: http://
This is terrible. Rather then seeing the reality that shows people need this medical care, you choose to look at one unimportant case example and try to destroy it. As hard as you may try to deny, this is an important and needed program, and focusing on this little sideshow proves that you’re only more interested in politics than people.
And, as if on cue:
"This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, D-Nev. "Instead of debating the merits of providing health care to children, some in GOP leadership and their right-wing friends would rather attack a 12-year-old boy and his sister who were in a horrific car accident."
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
*slapping forehead*

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Harry Reid must really be as dumb as he looks.

You know its gotten really bad when you are trotting out the old "Move right along! Nothing to see here!" rhetoric on your own freaking case study.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
So the moral here is that:

(1) If a single case bolsters an issue for the left, it’s in play and in fact should be on national radio.

(2) If that single case turns out not to bolster their case after all, then it should be ignored, and it’s unfair for political opponents to bring it up.

ARRGGGHHH!

They brought the Frosts into this!! And now, caught (again!) using exaggerations and distortions to make their case, they want to blame the other side for their own screw ups!!!

This isn’t funny any more. I’m seeing the moral underpinnings of political discourse disappear. You can’t have political discourse with those who believe they ought to be able to shift the sands of the argument whenever they want, just to gain a rhetorical advantage.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
He’s hardly just a ’woodworker’ but instead the owner of "Frostworks"
Well, he’s gotta be rich if his company has a name! Those things don’t come cheap, I hear.

Where do you come up with this stuff? It’s plenty funny, so keep it coming, Macaca!
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
As a corp he may be making more and paying it as distributions to the ’stock holders’
A ’stockholder’ gets ’dividends,’ which are factored into what we call ’gross income.’ Is that ’simple’ enough for you to ’understand’?
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
I mean, if they only make $45,000 and have 2 kids in a private school at $20,000 each. Then they must be getting cash from somewhere off the books...
Um...or they’ve got scholarships, Einstein.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Uh jpe look at their assets and get back to me on how they can afford all that on 45K a year? It doesn’t add up...they have 800K in property on 45K a year? Tell me how that works?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Um...or they’ve got scholarships, Einstein.
I do love it when one of the netroots circuit riders decides to stop by. They always do so well in raising the level of the discussion.

Scholarships? See, had vouchers been available, that would never have been a question, would it?

But that’s a no-no. Government provided health care? OK.

School choice?

Huh uh.

If you think about it, there is a certain consistency there though ... in both the case of your school and your medicine, government will decide.

Oh, and:
A ’stockholder’ gets ’dividends,’ which are factored into what we call ’gross income.’ Is that ’simple’ enough for you to ’understand’?
Yeah, but expenses, company cars and other little goodies somehow never find their way into the income column, do they?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Maybe they moved into a neighborhood that was poor at the time, got a great deal and fixed the place up. (he’s a woodworker. He can probably do that [just to anticipate the inevitable "who’d he pay to do the woodwork!?" idiocy.])

And that turns out to be the case.

What amazes me is that none of this was tough to figure out, but GOPers seem to understand neither business, nor real estate, nor private schools. And worse, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you don’t even know what you don’t know. If I don’t know something, I at least reserve my judgment; yall just jump in and start screeching about fraud.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Yeah, but expenses, company cars and other little goodies somehow never find their way into the income column, do they?
You get a gold star for that!
Scholarships? See, had vouchers been available, that would never have been a question, would it?
While that’s an interesting topic, I was citing scholarships to cite this gem:
send two kids to a private school at $20,000 a year
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Shark that was some seriously good humor!! Can’t stop laughing
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
A simple question: Are the Frosts "poor" or are they "middle class"?

Another simple question: They ALREADY qualify for SCHIP. Why is their story relevant to an expansion?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Maybe they moved into a neighborhood that was poor at the time, got a great deal and fixed the place up.
So if they bought the place 16 years ago at $55K (according to jpe’s Think Progress link), they’re paying about $350/mo mortgage. That’s less than 10% of their monthly income at $45K/yr.

They can’t afford health insurance?

I don’t see how this is helping the Left’s case.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Dividends are taxed, but if you are a company owner you can deduct an awful lot of personal expenses. That’s how Arianna Huffington and all of the Hollywood types do it. (not to mention all other owners of companies, too.) Private Jet? Its not hers, it her company’s. Trip to France is not a vacation, but work related, see.

I think the Frost family might indeed be "poorer" than people are imagining, but I’d like to see this case fully investigated, because it could be a useful "teachable moment" to the public about how tax money can be spent inappropriately. 45,000 dollars is not the poverty line. The threshold for a family of 4 is $20,650. They have more than double that. The median income in 2006 was 48,201, only slightly higher than their income as reported in the story.

But they sure are telegenic.





 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
That’s right Harun, although we don’t really have any evidence that expenses were inappropriately deducted. We don’t know either way, and it’d be silly to jump all over this one case (as Steyn notes when he realized he had made a bunch of wild assumptions that didn’t pan out: this particular case isn’t really important from a policy perspective)
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
That’s right Harun, although we don’t really have any evidence that expenses were inappropriately deducted. We don’t know either way, and it’d be silly to jump all over this one case (as Steyn notes when he realized he had made a bunch of wild assumptions that didn’t pan out: this particular case isn’t really important from a policy perspective)
Sometimes experience and logic provide the required understanding of what actually happened. Even you should understand that one doesn’t accrue what that family has accrued on $45,000 a year. No way.

It’s funny how your type suddenly doesn’t want to jump to conclusions in cases where it is obvious something isn’t quite right, but are more than willing to do so when it is equally obvious that your point is a load of nonsense (like Limbaugh’s "phony soldier" bit) but serves your narrative well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Isn’t it interesting that questioning the families income and situation, has suddenly become "attacking the children."

Nice framing of the narrative, but hardly what is happening.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
jpe mocks those who point to the Frost’s expensive home by pointing to a link that shows they must only pay a few hundred dollars for their original mortgage.

So jpe must have an equally mocking reason why they can’t afford insurance with such a low mortgage, right?

The bottom line is that people must prioritize how they send their time and money. It’s obvious that this family doesn’t feel that health insurance is a high priority unless someone else is paying it for them.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Caution. Correctives for teh stupid ahead:

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.

uh, gee, does that make the comment "send (2) kids to a private school at $20,000 a year, " stupid, ignorant, a**hole or evil? The eternal question of the Bush Years.

3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

but gee, it’s worth a ton of alot more now, so why not just take out a 2nd mortgage for 300 grand, right? I mean, that’s what the consumer economy ran on for the Bush Years. They must hate America.

4) Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

but, you know, they’re probably lying about that, because, well, you know, because their kids go to expenisve schools and they have an SUV.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.


Your corrections and apologies are eagerly awaited.

oh, wait....forgot where I am.

Nevermind.


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-graeme-frost/


 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
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.
So why can’t they afford health insurance if the state (meaning the taxpayer) and school are picking up the tab?
3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
So if their mortgage payment is that low, why can’t they afford health insurance?
4) Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.
You mean they’ve claimed no more than 45 to $50,000 a year for income. But "expenses" and deductions associated with their "business" wouldn’t somehow add to that income stream would they? In fact it would be interesting to see how the SUV they have is listed. My bet is we’d find it is a ’company car’.

But to your argument: Minimal school costs, low mortgage payment, the ability to buy commercial real estate and an SUV - why wasn’t health insurance a priority?

The way you paint the picture of their living costs, that should have been a breeze.
5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.
The state of Maryland has means testing requirement to join CHIP.

So again, given your contention that all of their stuff isn’t really that costly, why didn’t they put insurance ahead of acquiring additional property?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Caution. Correctives for teh stupid ahead:
Can those on the Left really be this dumb?

Their arguments in support of the Frosts are:

1) They pay virtually no costs for private education.
2) They pay less than 10% of their monthly income on their original mortgage.
3) Their household income is below the median income in their state but above the national.
4) They are already eligible for the current SCHIP funding.

Once again, why won’t Mario or jpe explain why the Frosts are an example of why we should be EXPANDING the program?

Once again, why won’t Mario or jpe explain why the Frosts can’t afford health insurance unless we all give them more money to spend? WHY ARE THEY UNABLE TO AFFORD IT ON THEIR OWN?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
McQ,

"why didn’t they put insurance ahead of acquiring additional property"

That’s a real stumperoo.

Try supporting a family of 6 on 45k, (in Baltimore, mind you, not East Bumfart, Mississipi) and then get back to me.

And of course, that begs the question anyway - maybe they could have afforded it by cutting back on a bunch on other expenses. They could then live lives of effective poverty,(yeah, I know you’re gonna bite me on the ass for that) but they’d have health insurance! Whatta country!!

——————————————————————-
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic
that you’re doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)***
——————————————————————-

Yup. Uniquely American. He got that right.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
And on the Left, the family is poor and has been for some time.

But could the Left explain how the Frost’s are able to purchase a commercial building for $160,000 on an income of $45,000 per year with a family of 6?

And given that they can choose to make that purchase, why should I pay for their healthcare?
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
That’s a real stumperoo.

Try supporting a family of 6 on 45k, (in Baltimore, mind you, not East Bumfart, Mississipi) and then get back to me.
You’ve outlined their ability to do so with your reference to them paying practically nothing on the their mortgage and little for private school.

And you’ve ignored the fact that when you own a business "income" per se isn’t an indicator of wealth or ability to pay for things such as insurance.

So here’s the deal Mario - given the fact that they have little going out of their monthly income for shelter or education, why didn’t they buy health insurance for their family, given that there are small business associations (you do know they’ve owned their own business since ’92, not to mention somehow managing to buy another business property during that time - something you continue to ignore) provide at very reasonable cost.

Why take out a second mortgage (given the obvious equity in their house) when you can pimp the state for insurance, huh? Why inconvenience yourself when you can instead inconvenience the tax payer?

The problem here is, as is becoming apparent, this family proves precisely what the right has been saying would happen - middle class families who can afford their own insurance preferring to let the taxpayer subsidize them rather than paying for it themselves. And what is also obvious is your damage control isn’t working.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
jwg,

"Once again, why won’t Mario or jpe explain why the Frosts are an example of why we should be EXPANDING the program?"


sorry, I didn’t think that that was a serious question, but I’ll answer it anyway. The Frosts were simply presented as an example of why CHIP is important and effective. Therefore, expansion of this useful program is a good way of helping some of the millions of people who aren’t insured.

Is that so difficult to understand? Is the only to show that a program should be expanded is by showing a family who was harmed by not having access to CHIP?

Yeah, I’m sure that would have gone over REAL well with you guys.
(home come italics doesn’t work anymore?)

And as for why the Frosts can’t afford health insurance, not knowing their net income, their property taxes, etc, that’s pretty much kind of impossible to answer. (though you guys always make the impossible possible) But as I said earlier, 45k for a family of 6 in Baltimore isn’t a whole helluva lot.

And by the way, having 2 of their 4 kids go to private schools at little expense has nothing to do with anything, other than it gives you guys something else to gripe about. It doesn’t give them more money, because the kids obviously would be going to public schools without the assistance.

I’m surprised I haven’t seen anybody question why he has 4 kids.

And McQ, since you have zero specific evidence of what their net income is, your assumption that they can ’afford’ insurance is based on exactly that, a big fat zero (plus more than a pinch of ideology). But, lack of facts never stops you guys.

You state, as if it’s a fact, that they have little going out for education. Really? You know how much they pay in school taxes? Tell us, please. By your logic, anyone with kids in public schools has "little going out". I’ll keep that in mind the next I get my property tax bill. A little white-out, and I’m golden!

And are you really suggesting taking out a second mortgage to pay for health insurance? Doesn’t sound fiscally prudent to me. (sounds downright asinine, actually)

But in all seriousness, this whole story/smear is based on pretty much nothing. The honest among you know it, but are having fun playing. The rest of you, well, God, will sort it out in the end.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
45k for a family of 6 in Baltimore isn’t a whole helluva lot
It’s more than 2x the poverty level and just below the median income of the state.

I suppose more of my money needs to go to about half the households in Maryland — oh, wait — then I’ll need help paying MY bills.

At what level of income will the Left be satisfied that people don’t need other people’s money?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And McQ, since you have zero specific evidence of what their net income is, your assumption that they can ’afford’ insurance is based on exactly that, a big fat zero (plus more than a pinch of ideology). But, lack of facts never stops you guys.
You’re the guy who told me that their mortgage way back when was $55,000 (obviously they’ve paid it down over the years because they’re still in the house). And given the present market value of the property in the area, they probably have about $250,000 in equity.

They also have a business property. They also have a business.

Now I’ve run a business, so I know what you can and can’t do with "income", something you obviously have no clue about. You can represent it at incredibly low levels and still afford things like SUVs and additional buildings which provide rental income, which, of course, you hide in your other business’s income while you write most of that business income off to "expenses".

Lack of facts? Heh ... hardly. It irks you that we won’t accept your sob story at face value doesn’t it?

Well Mario, those days are over ... get used to it.
And are you really suggesting taking out a second mortgage to pay for health insurance? Doesn’t sound fiscally prudent to me. (sounds downright asinine, actually)
Actually the point was they choose to live on $45,000 a year and sob to dopes like you about not being able to "afford" health insurance when most likely they have, readily available to them, almost a quarter of a million dollars in equity.

Not to mention that business property, you know, something all poor folk have, right?

Heh ... what a pile of manure you guys are trying to unload.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,

Who ever called the Frosts poor?

Oh, right. No one. I guess that’s why you think it’s a worthwhile talking point.

Look, you’re resting your entire claim on your speculation that Mr. Frost earns more than 45k but is hiding the rest of it (because as we know, every businessman will do whatever it takes to hide income from the gummint)

And, exactly wtf do you know about his business property, except for the cost? How much does he net from it, or is is he even losing on it? Gee, I don’t know. And neither do you.

Problem for you guys is that if you deal with the known, actual facts, you don’t have much too work from.

And how come the absurd statement that Frost spends 20k per kid for two kids on private schools hasn’t been corrected yet?

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Who ever called the Frosts poor?
Hey, Mario, who said this:
Try supporting a family of 6 on 45k, (in Baltimore, mind you, not East Bumfart, Mississipi) and then get back to me.
What’s the implication there, Mario?
Look, you’re resting your entire claim on your speculation that Mr. Frost earns more than 45k but is hiding the rest of it (because as we know, every businessman will do whatever it takes to hide income from the gummint)
Actually, Mario, it’s simple math. If you have an old original mortgage, and property values in the area are now 6 times what your original mortgage was, you have a heck of a lot of equity available.

Secondly, if you’re able to buy business property you’re getting the money from somewhere. It probably isn’t with "income" either. And I assume you understand that owning such a property and allowing some other business to occupy and operate from it isn’t done for free. So there’s rental income as well.

So we have a business which provides income, we have two types of property which have equity (and one which provides further income) and you buy into the nonsense that they can only squeeze "$45k out of all of that?

You are gullible.
And, exactly wtf do you know about his business property, except for the cost?
What do I know? That it isn’t vacant and the tenet business isn’t occupying it for free.
Problem for you guys is that if you deal with the known, actual facts, you don’t have much too work from.
LOL!

Really? Facts aplenty have been presented here and you’ve simply ignored them as you plow on. You seem to think denial is a convincing argument.

The problem for you Mario is we just don’t swallow the story hook, line and sinker like you do. And it obviously bothers you that we don’t. Hurts the narrative, doesn’t it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ

Please, cut the crap.

You have zero facts, other than the size of his family, his gross income, and the fact that he owns property and has equity in it.

Everything else, you’re pulling out of your butt. Now, what you pull out of there, albeit stanky, may be well-reasoned - it may even be true. (I’m just a worker drone, so I admit I don’t have a lot of experience with small-business financials. But just because some, maybe most, small businesses hide stuff, doesn’t mean everyone does. Again, mere specualtion.)

And as to his equity, I ask you again - is he supposed to take out a loan to pay for health insurance?

But I do know for fact that what you speculate on (i.e. make up), you don’t know for certain, so don’t pretend as if you do. And certainly don’t tell me it’s a "fact".

And what about that statement about the 20k per kid. The average reader who comes to your site is going to read that and think it’s true.

Don’t you think you have a responsibility to correct such a critical falsehood, even if you didn’t originate it?


 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
And why didn’t their auto insurance cover the injuries caused by the accident?

An additional question, how does this particular example justify a massive expansion of the SCHIP program?
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
jpe - do you have a corporation?
Unless you do, don’t tell me how it works.
If you do, you can tell me how your corp works with regard to how the money goes to the ’stockholders’, and then I’ll explain how mine does it’s thing.
All approved by the IRS since they have yet to complain about any of my filings over an 8 year period and which are handled by a CPA in the first place.

And, I can assure you, while I do have to report the income from the corporation apart from the salary, that THAT income is not taxed by the Social Security administration nor is it subject to FICA. Meaning, for the purposes of Social Security, the payments I will receive from them when and if I ever get to retire will not be based on the income I took from the corporation, but will be based on the salary I claimed.

When I see their 1040 forms we can talk about what was claimed where and as what. Till then I, and you, have no way of knowing if someone didn’t weasel word the term ’gross salaries’ into pretending that’s the same thing as gross income.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You have zero facts, other than the size of his family, his gross income, and the fact that he owns property and has equity in it.
Mario you can continue to say this till the cows come home and it won’t change a thing. Like I said, denial isn’t an argument.

If the man worked for a salary in someone else’s business, then you might have a point.

He doesn’t.

He owns a house, a business, business property and that means he has a revenue stream and established wealth.

Instead of using that wealth to take charge of his life and the family he has chosen to establish, he’s pushed of part of it on the gullible like you who are perfectly happy to defend that sort of activity.

I know it’s tough being had, but it is your side which chose to exploit children for political gain.

I suggest the next time you choose more wisely.
But I do know for fact that what you speculate on (i.e. make up), you don’t know for certain, so don’t pretend as if you do. And certainly don’t tell me it’s a "fact".
Well that’s because in order to understand the argument you have to know how these things work, which, obviously, leaves you out.

I’d bet if you looked very closely at his tax returns you’d find that an "income" of 45K is the perfect income in which to leave him with zero income taxes. That’s not to say he couldn’t have more and doesn’t actually enjoy more of the income his business generates, it simply says that’s what he claims and that’s probably the reason why?

Unless the guy is an utter fool (and I don’t think he is), he knows (and has known since ’92 when he opened his business) that he can live quite well off his business and afford all kinds of stuff if he simply has his business buy it instead of himself.

Know an accountant? They can fill you in. If you believe this guy only has 45K available to him and his family each year, you’re more gullible than I thought.

Now I know that in your world, what I’ve presented isn’t "factual" because you really can’t rebut it and you also know I’m probably right.

Tough position to be in, isn’t it?

As for the $20K per kid - edited. Of course, what you apparently don’t realize is that makes it even more unlikely he couldn’t afford health insurance.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
." Therefore, expansion of this useful program is a good way of helping some of the millions of people who aren’t insured."

Even if these uninsured can afford it themselves, but would rather spend their own money on fun stuff and have the taxpayers pay for the insurance?


" Is the only to show that a program should be expanded is by showing a family who was harmed by not having access to CHIP?"

Interesting. Offhand, I would say yes. Perhaps you could expand on why we would need to expand a program when nobody is harmed. Are you also in favor of increasing subsidies to corporations like McDonald’s, subsidized flood insurance for beach front vacation homes, and farm subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
because as we know, every businessman will do whatever it takes to hide income from the gummint)
Yeah Mario, in every legal possible way, we’d be idiots not to, because I worked for it, not the government. I’m not sure why you think (oh wait, yes I am sure why you think it....) a business owner pays the government as much as he possibly can when there are perfectly legal ways to reduce that tax liability (ask the Kennedy’s and the Heinz-Kerry’s, and the Edwards’s and George Soros how that works umkay?).

I never claimed Frost was doing anything illegal with his money.
Very heavy emphasis on the word HIS since that’s what this discussion is about.
It’s when he wants (and people like you want) some of mine to help him live the life to which he has become accustomed that I get irked, because then I can’t continue to live in the manner to which I have become accustomed and I’m not asking him to give me some of his.
And as to his equity, I ask you again - is he supposed to take out a loan to pay for health insurance?
Um, how about...yeah, who do you think is paying my health insurance? He has the wherewithal to do so, he should do so. Health insurance isn’t going to cost him the total value of his available equity (and we know what that is Mario, we know what the mortage was - that’s his cost, and what the property is now worth, the difference being his equity in it - see?)

The IRS doesn’t like it when you continue to operate your business at a loss, because then they don’t get their money and they consider that a hobby at some point, not a business and they start disallowing your expenses and such. But, again, you have given no evidence that you actually understand that, or are in a position to know from experience.

But you don’t get it - the bozo’s trotted out a guy who WASN’T poor and made him the poster boy for why we all had to tighten our belts while he doesn’t.
You want to trot out a genuinely poor family and make them the poster children for why we need this policy, do so, but this guy isn’t working for me.
Truly poor people don’t have his kind of equity, they don’t have businesses and properties.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
From appearances in the photo, they have 2 younger children than the (now) 9 year old daughter. In 1999, the year they bought the commercial building, she would have been an infant.

So did they have insurance in 1999, when they bought the commercial building? Did they have insurance when the 2 younger children were born (which appears to be since the commercial building was purchased)?

Logically there can only be 2 ways this worked out: Either they had insurance when they invested in commercial real estate, had 2 more kids and then dropped the insurance somewhere along the way. Or, they had no insurance, decided to have 2 more kids, and bore the costs of 2 more maternities (or stuck the state with those costs) but still decided to invest some portion of their cash flow in commercial real estate with money that they could have used for purchasing their own health insurance.

In either case, one has to question why the state (and taxpayers) should effectively subsidize the purchase of commercial real estate by relieving the family of the need to pay for their own health insurance.

Ignore what equity the family homestead has generated, it is only slightly germaine to the discussion. The real focus should be on the optional purchase of the commercial building. At 10% down, with a 8.5% rate and a 25 year loan, the payments are more than 1,100/month.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
looker,

schip is not meant for poor people. There’s something called Medicaid for that. You may have heard of it - it’s one of those government programs.

But hell, if you don’t understand that basic fact, why assume you understand anything else?
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
"This isn’t funny any more. I’m seeing the moral underpinnings of political discourse disappear. You can’t have political discourse with those who believe they ought to be able to shift the sands of the argument whenever they want, just to gain a rhetorical advantage."
It’s very interesting to me, Billy, that you refer to the "moral underpinnings" of an essentially epistemic category: communication.

"The sands of the argument" is a good metaphor to illustrate the importance of definitions and context. Facts are becoming more irrelevant as words refer less explicitly to concepts, and the upshot is that perceptual symbols ("words") come to serve the interests of political gangs by way of implication, which can always be disavowed. What you’re calling "rhetorical advantage", I see as unprincipled range-of-the-moment action for isolated concrete political values, to be disconnected from the full sets of knowledge that must condition them as ideas. (A principal example of the day is what constitutes "socialism", and whether any given act of government qualifies.)

This is an enormous theme. The best I can do with it today is something like, "It will always serve the purpose of evil to see the language destroyed."

You’re right: there is nothing "funny" about it.

The "political discourse" is about applications of power: in what directions, for what purpose.

It would not do to fail to note that the power in contention — in myriad ways, with myriad rationales — is more florid than ever before in American history, and only more so all the time, at greater factors of speed and intensity.

My essential wonder is how and when this lust for power manifest among such incommunicable pressure-groups will come to such contention that it can no longer be assuaged with elections. For one thing: elections are a primitive appeal to reason. But you’re quite correct when you observe the mounting impossibility of reason.

It’s why I say that all politics in this country now is dress rehearsal for civil war.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Mario says:
schip is not meant for poor people...

But hell, if you don’t understand that basic fact, why assume you understand anything else?
Democratic Caucus’s Senate Journal
Contrary to White House Rhetoric, The Majority of the Kids Covered By the CHIP Compromise Are From Low-Income Families. In his ‘Fact Sheet’ on CHIP, President Bush said his proposal of increasing the program’s budget by $5 billion over five years “maintains SCHIP’s original purpose of targeting dollars to poor children who need them the most.” According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, under the congressional compromise the bulk of the children who would gain coverage are poor and near-poor children who are uninsured, not middle-income children with private coverage. [Five Key Myths About President Bush’s Support fort SCHIP Reauthorization, 9/21/07]
John Kerry
“Today with a single stroke of his veto pen, President Bush single-handedly jeopardized health care for millions of poor children.”
Democrats.org
George Bush has vetoed legislation that would fund and expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a highly successful program that makes sure poor children can receive medical care when they are sick.
NPR
President Bush vetoed a bipartisan bill on Wednesday that would have expanded a popular health insurance program for poor children
Is Mario the brightest the Left can send over this way?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
But JWG, what does it matter what a politician says about something. It’s not what they say that matters, it’s what it was actually meant for that matters.

Except when what they meant wasn’t what they said, and then they end up voting against something even when they are for it, or is it for something even though they are against it.

I think Mr Beck has it right in this instance.

Despite several people questioning liberal/leftist/democratic/progressive apologists here in this thread on the larger issues, they’ve fail to produce anything to justify the SCHIP program or a massive expansion of it.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
45k for a family of 6 in Baltimore isn’t a whole helluva lot
I know I’m a meanie but if Mr and Mrs. Frost choose to pump out a bunch of kids that they can’t afford, why should we have to pay for them?

Maybe Mr. Frost should take responsibility and take a position in a company that would allow him to place his family under coverage.

They chose to have a gaggle of kids

They chose to be their own bosses

Too bad for them
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"schip is not meant for poor people..."

Sounds like a good reason to oppose it. If they are not poor, they should pay for their own d*mn health care.

*********************
"I know I’m a meanie but if Mr and Mrs. Frost choose to pump out a bunch of kids that they can’t afford,..."

Evidently they cannot afford birth control, either.

The mean and median wages for a carpenter in Baltimore County are about $37,000. Drywall and ceiling tile installers, as another example, have a mean and median of about $32,000. Cabinet makers and bench carpenters mean/median are $32k/$31k.
http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/wages/PAGE0118.HTM
http://dllr.state.md.us/lmi/wages/PAGE0123.HTM
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Oh look! It appears that the business Frost owns actually was sold in 1999. I think that means that, like, all the "arguments" based on the business he owns need to be corrected. Because all that sh*t about hiding assets and buying SUV’s and granite countertops (concrete, actually) and charging them as business expenses is, um, what’s that word?

Bullsh*t.

Man, right blogistan is gonna be awful busy offering up all those corrections to make sure that their loyal readers aren’t misled.

Can’t wait to read them.

It should tkae me all of 7 seconds to read all of them

So, anyway, Mr McQ, what do you hang your sorry argument on now?
************************************************************************
And to JWG,

Wow, you found politicians rhetoricizing by using the word "poor" in its colloquial sense to engender public ssupport for their position.

Damn, what will they think of next?

The FACT is that schip was set up SPECIFICALLY to offer assistance to people OVER the official poverty line, people that would not qualify for Medicaid. And yes, some of those schip benficiaries would be considered poor by me, but probably not by you, and certainly not by the federal government.

And no, I am far from the best the left has to offer. Which is sad for you guys, cause I’m kickin’ ass here. Your (that would be the collective "your") right/wrong ratio is the inverse to mine.

But I do appreciate your quote-mining effort. B+!
************************************************************************
And to timactual,
"schip is not meant for poor people..."

Sounds like a good reason to oppose it. If they are not poor, they should pay for their own d*mn health care
I see, so the government should ONLY be helping poor people.
Run with that awhile and see where you end up.
Start with your mortgage deduction, if you own a home. Or if you don’t, start with Bill Gates’ mortgage deduction.

Get dividends? Do you like the lower taxes on those? I sure do! And I’m sure all the people making 25k a year with a couple of kids love them too.

ad infinitum...
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Oh look! It appears that the business Frost owns actually was sold in 1999.
Look where?

And doesn’t that mean he had more than $45K in income when he sold?

So far you have told us that he hardly pays a mortgage and now you’re telling us that he must’ve had some extra income in 1999.

Do you not realize that you’re making an ever BIGGER case as to why the Frosts should be able to afford health care?

Frost made CHOICES. He chose to buy commercial property rather than insure his children.
I see, so the government should ONLY be helping poor people...Start with your mortgage deduction, if you own a home.
My God — are you really this stupid?

A reduction in taxes means you are keeping more of YOUR OWN money.

SCHIP is REDISTRIBUTING money already taken from you and giving it to someone else.

You want to forcably take money from people in order to give it to other people (children AND adults in the case of SCHIP) making over 300% of the poverty line (over $60K)?????
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JW - Clearly Mario thinks that money actually comes from the ’government’.
Probably all the McDonanld’s franchises they own, or maybe their patents on velcro and other alien technologies.
Start with your mortgage deduction, if you own a home. Or if you don’t, start with Bill Gates’ mortgage deduction.

Get dividends? Do you like the lower taxes on those? I sure do!
Hey Mario, you’re half way there....now you just need to ask yourself why the government has to allow you ’deductions’ to explain why you don’t need to send them more of the money YOU made so they can redistribute it to people like the Frosts.

Get Dividends? No, not many, but the ones I do get, I’d like to keep more of.

You’re kickin @ss all right chester, I’m just trying to figure out how you’re bending your leg around like that to kick your own butt.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Wow, you found politicians rhetoricizing by using the word "poor" in its colloquial sense to"

Wow. I thought I knew English pretty well, being a native speaker and all. What is ’its colloquial sense’ and how does it differ from the dictionary sense.


"I see, so the government should ONLY be helping poor people."

Why would we need government to help those who can help themselves? Aside from the immorality of it, it is terribly wasteful, hiring all those bureaucrats to move money around between people that really don’t need any help. And if you think that taking away all those tax deductions is a shocker, you are in the wrong place. Personally, I would love to see a flat tax.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
looker and jwg,

uh, no, I don’t think I’m stupid, but then again, if one is stupid, they don’t really know, do they? So I guess it’s either me or you.

So, try out the following and put it in your stupid-o-meter. Careful, it’s a bit nuanced.

Let’s take the mortgage deduction.

Favoring the expenses on your home by allowing you to decrease your taxes increases the amount of money in your pocket. The government is, in effect, giving you money. Whether you earned it or not happens to be immaterial, because, obviously, the only money you are allowed to keep directly is the money that the government chooses not to take. And how you happen to spend, or make your money, determines to a large extent what percentage the government allows you to keep.

As it also turns out, here in America, the more money you’ve got, the more avenues you have to exploit to keep higher percentages of that money.

But, I’m pretty sure I didn’t have to tell you that.

The net effect of the mortgage deduction is to give you money that you wouldn’t ordinarily have. You can argue with the word "give" if you want, but that’s just semantics - the outcome is the same - money in your pocket. You are the beneficiary of a government program that favors you because of your circumstance, and the benefit, rather than a check in your name, is, instead, permission to legally keep a portion of your money.

Furthermore, someone has to pay for that benefit through their taxes, because if the government needs x dollars, but they have x-y because the y is what they lost in giving you your benefit, the y has to be paid by someone. And that payment, from others, in effect, ends up in your pocket.

In other words, we pay taxes to support your mortgage deduction.

With me so far? Relax, grab some joe and some cherry pie, you don’t have to read this all at once.

In the Frost’s case, they are also the beneficiary of a government policy. They are favored due to their circumstance and are allowed to get access to medical care at no (or a very low) cost. And the expense is paid for out of taxes.

In other words, we pay taxes to support their health care.

Are you getting my point here? Do you see the similarity?

I know this all sounds like liberal, semi-socialist gobbledy-gook to you, but I’m just describing the real world, and how people like you and me benefit financially from government policy, just like the Frosts do. As a practical matter, there’s really no difference in how the benefits get distributed. As an emotional matter, of course, it lets you get all blustery and hissy about how "my" money is being spent on "them". And that’s the beauty of conservatism - it lets you have self-righteous hissy fits, and still lets you feel like a man.

Except the rest of us know you’re just a bunch of whiners.

chester? wtf?

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
"You’re kickin @ss all right chester,"

That was Goode.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Mario
As a side note - chester...heh....chill out, just an expression....no evil intended. Chester is a perfectly good name, not used enough any more.
In other words, we pay taxes to support your mortgage deduction.
Okay Mario, and the day I don’t pay those taxes, supporting my mortgage deduction, I’ll let you know. You’re not talking to the class that doesn’t pay income tax here, and property tax. Which I’ll bring up just to say we won’t even get into how generous it is for the ’king’ to allow you to own your own house and land so long as you continue to send in your yearly tithing, but the big clue is, the property really isn’t yours Mario, and if you don’t believe that, try not paying the taxes you’re bragging on. If you don’t pay the IRS, the property you thought was yours will become theirs.
And that means, it’s not really truly yours in the first place. You’re renting
everything you own and the taxes you pay are the rent.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re implying my purpose on the planet is to work and create value so the government can have money to pass out and spend while it graciously allows me to keep some of what I worked for.
You know, the idea that you think the amount of money I ’make’ and ’spend’ is based on what the government generously allows me to keep tells the the rest of the conversation is pointless.

Please, go on kicking @ss with statements like that, but I still don’t get how you can be that flexible. Mind you don’t spill your cherry pie and coffee again on the next kick.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
permission to legally keep a portion of your money
Wow. Just...wow.

I mean, seriously, wow. I am speechless.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The government is, in effect, giving you money.
Sorry, I just had to highlight that one...it was too good to skip.
Tell you what Mario, send me the amount of money equal to your next two net pay checks and I’ll ’give’ you some money after I get the second one.
Maybe I’ll even ’give’ some to the Frosts to defray their medical expenses.
Awwww hell, I’ll ’give’ them ALL of the money, I’ll be feeling generous no doubt.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I know this all sounds like liberal, semi-socialist gobbledy-gook to you...

Actually, it sounds like the mewlings of a contended slave. Mario, you are deliciously compliant and I’m sure your masters love you.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
to the last 3 commenters,

ya see, you’re getting all confused.

You’re placing value judgements on my descriptions of how the world works. I am not saying whether it’s good or not, whether it’s the way it should be, or not. That’s a totally different discussion.

I’m just telling you how things are. Now. In your life and mine. Today.

ya know, that "reality" thing that the kids talk about so much these days.

and, as for the comment about "You’re not talking to the class that doesn’t pay income tax here, and property tax.", why don’t you include the other taxes that pretty everyone pays, like fica and sales and gasoline? Oh, because I guess that wouldn’t be convenient. The fact is that people like Frost and other beneficiaries of schip pay taxes too. So what’s your point? That you pay more than Frost does? whoop-dee-doo - your medal’s in the mail.

to looker:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re implying my purpose on the planet is to work and create value so the government can have money to pass out and spend while it graciously allows me to keep some of what I worked for.
You know, the idea that you think the amount of money I ’make’ and ’spend’ is based on what the government generously allows me to keep tells the the rest of the conversation is pointless.
First off, I didn’t say anything about what you "make", but I certainly am talking about what you’re allowed to keep. And if you don’t understand that what you’re "allowed" to keep for your own personal enjoyment is based on the government’s "generosity", well, we need to check out that stupid-o-meter again.

And yes, you’re wrong. Your purpose in life is not what you think I think it is. Your purpose in life is to be happy. What your responsibilities are, in a civilized society that attempts to do the moral thing, is a different matter entirely. And part of your responsibility is, in fact, to pay for the services that government provides to you.

Or do you deny responsibility?

Anyway, is there anything in my earlier post that is factually wrong? I understand that it hurts your brain to have to look at the world in those terms, but what did I state that’s actually incorrect?

Having said that, I do have a clarification to make:

My earlier statement "In other words, we pay taxes to support your mortgage deduction." isn’t strictly correct, owing to the fact that we’re currently living in a Republican administration, which means that we get to spend money we don’t have. Of course, you’ll have to pay it back eventually, once a Democrat gets back in office. (Or a sane Republican, but it doesn’t look like that’ll happen soon. I mean, just look at those candidates. It’s friggin embarrassing to see so many empty heads in one place.)
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
part of your responsibility is, in fact, to pay for the services that government provides to you

Sez you.

I am not saying whether it’s good or not, whether it’s the way it should be, or not

Liar: CHIP is important and effective
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Mr. Good,

sez me and the vast majority of Americans, and the rest of the world.

I know that doesn’t make it right of course, but are you saying you shouldn’t pay for the government services you receive? Do you believe we have no civic responsibility?

And, no, I wasn’t lying. In the first quote that you mined I was referring to the context of that particular post, where I was making an analogy between two different forms of government benefits, showing how they’re similar. In that post, the subject had nothing to do with whether schip was a good program or not.

You do see the difference, right?

If not, I do apologize for confusing you and I’ll try to write slower next time.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Mario, speak on, you continue to amaze.

I can only presume you weren’t around for the previous incarnations of our government where the Democrats held both the legislature and the White House to observe the conservative fiscal policies they engaged in. Or, even the spending that occurred when Republicans had the White House and the Democrats had the legislature (you know, the guys who propose the bills on how we will spend the tax dollars the government keeps instead of generously allowing you to keep it). Perhaps your reality commenced in 1994?

With regards to your tax arguments -
Perhaps you have heard the old adage of the cart and the horse, but, perhaps not.
You are, after all, in the reality based community and probably have had little experience with hitching an actual horse to an actual cart and where the actual horse ought to stand in respect to the actual cart so the whole contraption can actually work effectively.
And part of your responsibility is, in fact, to pay for the services that government provides to you.
And another part of my responsibility, is to elect officials who will be responsible about the services that the government provides to me and to others, knowing full well I will have to pay for them. I feel like George Bush recently acted in a responsible fashion, and the Legislature did not.

I consider all taxes, sales, excise, income and property when I talk about taxes (gee, so many types, so many ways to ’help’ others ).

It is a broad brush, but you argue as if all government programs must be good because they come from the government, and I’m responsible for funding now, and in the future, the current government whim, manifesting itself in the bodies of the legislature, whenever it happens to come along.

Are you ’factually’ wrong? No, you’re right, we have responsibilities to pay taxes. The government uses those taxes to provide services. You are wrong in thinking that because it was proposed by government I necessarily ought to think it was a grand idea, and I ought to be prepared to send them more of the money they generously allow me to keep (the mind boggles) to pay for this new proposal.
And yet, you yourself agree with me - for your closing words are -
My earlier statement "In other words, we pay taxes to support your mortgage deduction." isn’t strictly correct, owing to the fact that we’re currently living in a Republican administration, which means that we get to spend money we don’t have. Of course, you’ll have to pay it back eventually, once a Democrat gets back in office. (Or a sane Republican, but it doesn’t look like that’ll happen soon. I mean, just look at those candidates. It’s friggin embarrassing to see so many empty heads in one place.)
See, we agree Mario, I’m against the government spending money now, and in the future, that they don’t have. I was against it when the Republicans held the Legislature and the White House. The government won’t have the additional funding in the future for SCHIP without raising taxes, or discontinuing some of those valuable services you are already paying for.
The SCHIP proposal was to spend more money in order to provide benefits to a much larger class of people, some of whom, I maintain, could be paying for themselves.

You wouldn’t want people who didn’t deserve to receive the benefits to receive the benefits would you? I mean, wouldn’t you resent that as a waste of the money that the government has generously taken from you to pay for the things they give you?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And if you don’t understand that what you’re "allowed" to keep for your own personal enjoyment is based on the government’s "generosity", well, we need to check out that stupid-o-meter again.
Again...just wow.

The government is being generous when it doesn’t confiscate what I earned from a private contract between me and my employer.

I suppose the government is being generous when they don’t set up a camera on public property to monitor your house.

I suppose the police are being generous when they don’t set up checkpoints on every street in your area.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Therefore, expansion of this useful program is a good way of helping some of the millions of people who aren’t insured

So the sentence above, which followed the first I "mined" isn’t you saying CHIP is a good thing either??
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
JW - no, he’s in ’reality’.

In his part of the Matrix we ought to just agree to any government program, well, okay, clarification, unless it was proposed by the ’Republican Administration’ because we know that government spending is inherently suspect and wrong by virtue of the fact that we used the word ’Republican’ to describe the administration. For the sake of breveity, for the remainder of the post whenever I use the word ’evil’ it should be understood I mean ’Republicn’ and when I say ’good’ I mean Democrat.

In his part of the Matrix, it’s all part of our responsibility to recognize the truthy good spending programs and agree to those, while derailing the evil bad spending programs. The evil spending proposals cause an increase in the deficit, while the good one are covered by the amount of money we made that the government doesn’t generously allow us to keep for our own uses.

See, because we have inferior stupid-meters we’re not able to discern the truthiness of this position.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
lord almighty, but you guys sure know how to get off topic.

But I guess since all of your arguments about the evilness of the Frosts have whithered on the vine, I guess you need to blather on about something else now.

You’re reduced to saying that some government spending sucks, and boy do I hate paying taxes.

As Clarence Thomas said, whoop-dee-damn-doo

and Ron, here, read my lips:

I think SCHIP is good. Mmm, good! Feels good! Is good! Real good! Tastes good! Mighty good! Good for you! Good for me!

ahem

And nowhere did I ever say it wasn’t. I’d make an anology to explain my post about the anology, but somehow I don’t think you’d be able to follow it.

and looker,

Really man, if you’re worried about what the government spends money on, I can think of a gazillion places where you can save a helluva lot more than what you’d save from schip. For an economy our size, the cost of schip is about the same as the change in your pocket. At least schip, you know, actually helps people.

and jwg,

Did you notice the "quotes" around "generosity"?
Thought you did.

Well, gang, it’s been real fun, sorta like shooting fish in a bareel, with the noise and stench and splinters.

And I will expect full apologies and retractions for all the evil nasty aspersions you cast upon the All-American, hard-working Frost family.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Running away is probably the first smart thing you’ve done today.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Declare victory, leave.
I have to admit, you produced so many gems in this thread I was going to suggest it be left as a calibration point for stupid-o-meters.
I can think of a gazillion places where you can save a helluva lot more than what you’d save from schip. For an economy our size, the cost of schip is about the same as the change in your pocket. At least schip, you know, actually helps people.
Right, a million here, a million there, chump change, fugedaboudit.
I can think of a gazillion places too.
But you know, we weren’t talking about all the other places boss, we were talking about SCHIP. That’s what the post is about, SCHIP and the ’poor’ people George Bush dissed when he vetoed the bill. And how we’re dissing them by looking into their finances and wondering if they spent and spend their money wisely before asking for other people to give up theirs, and whether or not the proponents of the bill did their homework in picking a good example to support their position that Bush is evil.

Let’s see if you can handle an analogy yourself.
When there’s forty holes in your boat, all of ’em fountaining water, and Mario is drilling yet another (mumbling derangedly about ’letting the water out’), it seems sensible to me to stop Mario from drilling a new hole and taking his drill away before I try to plug all the old ones.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker,

aw, didn’t do so well on the Miller Analogies test, didja?

sorry ’bout that.

Here’s the correct analogy:

You’re in a boat that is miraculously staying afloat through the magic of borrowed bouyancy. In this boat are a bunch of holes, a small number of them the size of a Hummer Limo, and a bunch of little ones that if you added them all together, wouldn’t match the size of the Hummer’s gas cap.

You would spend all your time plugging up the little holes, and when you were done, you would yell "Hot damn, I’m good", just before your loan ran out and the boat went under.

That’s an anology.

jwg, sorry to disappoint, but I’m still here.
I can’t help it, you’re all such fun yourselves.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Wait — now you’re comparing SCHIP to a small hole in a sinking boat? Wouldn’t that be a bad thing (however minor the hole may be)?

I know, I know — you’re just trying to criticize people for not wanting to spend money when there are other programs spending more money. I mean, what’s another $35,000,000,000 going to matter?

In other words — Hey! Look over there! Don’t pay any attention to this program that’s actually being voted on!

Let’s summarize Mario’s points so far:

1) Frosts pay very little mortgage (less than 10% of income) BUT AT THE SAME TIME barely have enough money to make it.
2) Frosts sold commercial property BUT AT THE SAME TIME did not increase their income. And please ignore the additional commercial property they currently own.
3) SCHIP is not meant for poor people BUT AT THE SAME TIME it’s necessary to expand the program because not enough people can afford to live without it.
4) Keeping more of your own money is no different than having other people pay for your bills.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
mario: your "correct analogy" might be more convincing if you hadn’t been defending the little hole under discussion as "useful", "important" and "effective".

...to use your "correct" analogy.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
When there’s forty holes in your boat, all of ’em fountaining water, and Mario is drilling yet another
Yeah, I gotta agree that this is the more accurate analogy.

Everyone agrees there’s too much spending (forty holes).

Mario thinks another $35B is necessary to include millions more people on top of the spending already allocated to SCHIP (drilling another hole).
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"I know that doesn’t make it right of course, but are you saying you shouldn’t pay for the government services you receive?"
But look here, "mario": they’ve been trying to tell you all along that SCHIP is not a "service" to them. Don’t you see? There are people here who do not find it valuable, and it simply won’t do to try to tell them that something is valuable (a "service") to them when it manifestly is not.

Can you see this objection?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
McQ asks:

So why can’t they afford health insurance if the state (meaning the taxpayer) and school are picking up the tab?

Because the reason the state and school are picking up the tab for Graeme and Gemma Frost’s private school tuition is because of the serious medical/physical issues they have as the result of a catastrophic car accident three years ago. Let me say it again, a different way, to make sure you understand. The almost-all-expenses-paid private school tuition came AFTER the car accident. Now, logically, if the Frosts got the private school tuition picked up by the state and the school AFTER the accident, then it follows that, when the Frosts go to get private health insurance, as you so intelligently suggest, they are getting that private health insurance to help them with medical expenses resulting from .... you GUESSED it! A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION! Ta da! And guess what, McQ? Private health insurance policies .... are you ready for this one? ..... DON’T COVER PREEXISTING CONDITIONS! Ta da!

Do you understand now, McQ? Let me know if you don’t. I’ll try to use shorter words.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION! Ta da! And guess what, McQ? Private health insurance policies .... are you ready for this one? ..... DON’T COVER PREEXISTING CONDITIONS! Ta da!
My goodness, all that foolishness just to be told you’re wrong.

Yes, Kathy, they do cover pre-existing conditions. Bit they normally have an exclusionary period.

Obviously this will come as a surprise to you, so I’ll use short words from the beginning - From a Maryland guide to health care insurance:
You cannot be turned away or charged more because of your health status. Health status means your medical condition or history, genetic information or disability. This protection is called nondiscrimination. Employers may refuse or restrict coverage for other reasons (such as part time employment), as long as these are unrelated to health status and applied consistently.
Got that?

Pre-existing conditions:
When you first enroll in a group health plan, the employer or insurance company may ask if you have any pre-existing conditions. Or, if you make a claim during the first year of coverage, the plan may look back to see whether it was for such a condition. If so, it may try to exclude coverage for services related to that condition for a certain length of time. However, federal and state laws protect you by placing limits on these pre-existing condition exclusion periods under group health plans. In some cases your protections will vary, depending on the type of group health plan you belong to.

· Generally, group plans in Maryland, including fully insured large group plans and self-insured group health plans, are permitted to impose pre-existing condition exclusion periods for new enrollees.

· Pre-existing condition exclusion periods can only be imposed on conditions for which you actually received (or were recommended to receive) a diagnosis, treatment or medical advice within the 6 months immediately before you joined that plan. This period is also called the look back period.

· Group health plans cannot apply a pre-existing condition exclusion period for pregnancy, newborns or newly adopted children, children placed for adoption, or genetic information.

· Group health plans can only exclude covering for pre-existing conditions for a limited time. The maximum exclusion period is 12 months. However, if you enroll late in one of these types of group health plans (after you are hired and not during a regular or special enrollment period), you may have a longer pre-existing condition exclusion period, up to 18 months.

· HMOs and fully insured small group plans cannot impose pre-existing condition exclusion periods. However, if you enroll late in a small group health plan (after you are hired and not during a regular or special enrollment period), the plan can impose a pre-existing condition exclusion period of up to 12 months.

· Group health plans that impose pre-existing condition exclusion periods must give you credit for any previous continuous creditable coverage that you’ve had. Most types of private and government sponsored health coverage is considered creditable coverage. Coverage counts as continuous if it is not interrupted by a break of 63 days in a row.
To make this even more understandable I’ll break it down for you. Only one of the parents need find a job with benefits to cover the children. Just one. Either one will do. They can’t be denied coverage and they will only have a short exclusionary period.
Do you understand now, McQ? Let me know if you don’t. I’ll try to use shorter words.
I understand completely, always have ... you haven’t the foggiest idea about what you are claiming. No news there.

Oh ... ta da.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
jwg,

The point is not whether a small hole is good or bad - the point is the sorry state of the boat, and grossly misplaced priorities in trying to save it.

As to your fanciful summarization of my points so far:

1. Where did I ever say his mortgage was less than 10% of his income? Never,so you made this one up.

2. As to his commercial property - I do need to correct what I said and clarify it as best I can, because the news reports are confusing. It appears that building was purchased to house his business, but the business folded. It doesn’t look like he sold th building, but there’s also no evidence that he’s making any money off of it. If there was a tenant there, it hsould be pretty easy for you clever bloggers to find him, but no one has, so I can only assume there is none. However, he is not a business owner, so all that claptrap that McQ put out about hiding assets behind his business, is b.s.


3. I startesd to write e response to 3, but then I realized that it makes no
friggin sense. Please redo it in English. Do you really think that "BUT AT THE
SAME TIME" is a correct logical connection between the two parts of your
argument? Hint: NOT.

4. ah, finally you came up with one that requires more than a smartass comment (however on target they might be) to defend. So, one out of 4 ain’t bad. Actually, 1 out of 4 sucks, now that I think about it.

Sadly, my brilliant rebuttal will have to wait, since I need to leave for rehearsal.

OK, I’m back.

"4) Keeping more of your own money is no different than having other people pay for your bills"

If you are keeping more of your own money due to government policy that applies
only to certain individuals, than it really is no different than having other
taxpayers pay your bills. The end result is the same - you’ve recieved a
financial benefit due to a government policy. And, you’ve recieved that through
no special talent or ability, but merely by falling into a defined category.

Let me make it even simpler.
Government makes a policy.
Because of that policy, you end up with a financial benefit which wouldn’t have existed without the policy.

Is there really a difference? Sure you pay taxes, but the odds are that someone
pays more taxes than you do, so you’re mooching off of them, according to your
logic.


See, here’s the fundamental problem that you guys have - you think that
everything you earn is earned simply by your tremendous talent and incredible
work ethic. You think it has nothing to with luck, and it has nothing to do with the contributions made to the society by everyone else, indeed the very
existence of most of the physical infrastructure of that society, And therefore, you don’t owe nobody nothin’. And anyone who has to "take" from the government is just a moocher.

Read up "The Commoons" and learn something useful about how (successful) societies actually operate.

Anyway, this all completely beside the point, since the point of my even being
here is becaause the McQ’s post is full of bs and lies and innuendo that slanders an innocent family.

It was an injustice, and I felt a need to try and rectify it.

I’ve done my poart in pointing out the b.s., Now it’s your turn to own up to it.

as if.


 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
"Sadly, my brilliant rebuttal will have to wait, since I need to leave for rehearsal.

OK, I’m back."

Very amusing.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
mario:

Read up "The Commoons"

Most of us here have been there and did that, years ago. If you were familiar enough with the subject, you’d realize that most of the people you are flailing at here find more support for their own position than yours when examining the very subject and corresponding documents you so sophomorically recommend.

Hell, even Wikipedia would’ve told you that.

We’re not as ignorant as you generalizing from your own situation might suggest we’d be.

the point is the sorry state of the boat, and grossly misplaced priorities in trying to save it.

We’re more aware of the sorry state of the boat then you are, and much more aware than you that your kind of thinking has caused the most and the biggest holes.

Sure you pay taxes, but the odds are that someone pays more taxes than you do, so you’re mooching off of them, according to your
logic.


We don’t support stealing from others in our name; we don’t want or need your recommended handouts; and we don’t feel beholden to those who do the stealing no matter how much they steal or how much of it they throw back at our feet to buy us off.

Understand this: we have values and loved ones of our own to support and your presumptuous pilfering of our resources to support your grand "plans" is nothing more than blatant theft to us. In any case, you don’t get to give me something, especially something you don’t own in the first place, and then tell me I owe you for it—and neither does the government.

I’ve done my poart in pointing out the b.s.,

We agree. You brought it in, made it evident and then even added to the pile. You’ve done more than your part, you generous puppy, you.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Only 12 months? Oh I agree, that’s definitely not a long time to be excluded from coverage when two of your children have medical expenses that run to the millions of dollars.

And btw, the Frosts were turned down by 3 different insurers because of those preexisting conditions.

Carry on....
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com/
ron,

Such a good Randian.

Betcha you have the whole speech memorized, right?

Let me ask you this, about your ’values’ - does that include promulgating a bunch of lies intended to smear an innocent family?

Or are they "fair game"?

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Only 12 months? Oh I agree, that’s definitely not a long time to be excluded from coverage when two of your children have medical expenses that run to the millions of dollars.
That’s not a problem if the parents had taken a job which covered the PRIOR to the accident, is it?

And, did they have auto insurance which would have covered many of the expenses? If not, why not?
And btw, the Frosts were turned down by 3 different insurers because of those preexisting conditions.
After the accident I assume. BTW, did you bother to read what I wrote in the last comment? They can’t be turned down by group insurers in MD. So, as I said, that requires just one of them to take a job with benefits. Either one. You know, take responsibility for their children?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Kathy clueless as ever.
What were they doing with their money BEFORE the accident?
Buying Health Insurance for themselves and their children?

Guess not.

Carry on.....

Oh, Ta Da!

What really ought to chap the collective tush in the country is that people who were UNWILLING to spend on health insurance for their own family before now want US to buy it for them, and those of us who are questioning that are considered the monsters.

Let me type that slowly, one more time, because Mario seems to think that makes a difference.
These people (The Frosts) didn’t (that’s past tense Mario) care enough about their own children to provide health insurance for them before (that means in the past Kathy, before the accident) there were any adverse health conditions to be considered pre-existing.

Because that, Mario, Kathy, et al. is what has happened here, in a nutshell.
Have at it Mario, Kathy, I’m sure your counter-points will be brilliant, moral and in Mario’s case will demonstrate to him he’s just peachy.
 
Written By: Looker
URL: http://
the point is the sorry state of the boat, and grossly misplaced priorities in trying to save it.
SCHIP is being voted on right now. That makes it a current priority. That should be obvious.
Where did I ever say his mortgage was less than 10% of his income? Never,so you made this one up.
You said they paid $55K over 10 years ago. I was assuming you knew how to add.
it hsould be pretty easy for you clever bloggers to find him
They already interviewed him.
I startesd to write e response to 3, but then I realized that it makes no friggin sense.
The point was that you have given conflicting definitions of who you consider "poor". You claimed SCHIP was not for the poor, but you also said the poor includes those above the poverty line. If someone can’t afford to pay for the basics to care for their family, wouldn’t you consider them poor? Since you believe there are millions more people who can’t afford to care for their families without other people paying for it, you must believe they are poor.
If you are keeping more of your own money due to government policy that applies only to certain individuals, than it really is no different than having other taxpayers pay your bills. The end result is the same
Taking away less from one person is very different (as opposed to "no different") than redistributing to another. That concept is so clear that I’m amazed that I even need to keep typing it. If you really want to compare government actions based only on the end result (e.g. more money in your pocket) while ignoring the means (e.g. whose labor earned the money), then you are so far from the concept of liberty that you cannot be reasoned with.

Maybe the ends justify the means in your world, but not in mine.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Why don’t you address the central fact of McQ’s post - he participated in an organized smear against an innocent family by disseminating a bunch of bullsh*t, and hasn’t retracted a damn thing yet. An honorable man would x-out the entire post and replace it with "oops, my bad".

(gee, I’ve asked this about five times now, right? With no answer. I think I shall give up soon.)

We can argue about the benefits of the welfare state vs libertarian pipe-dreams somewhere else.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
he participated in an organized smear against an innocent family by disseminating a bunch of bullsh*t
If it’s a smear to challenge the neccesity to redistribute money to someone with the assets owned by the Frosts BEFORE their accident, then there’s little hope for us as a democracy.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Well Mario -
We have your ’say so’ that he doesn’t own the company, in fact we have your ’say so’ for a lot of this, whereas the rest of us are trying to go off the facts that we can find and demonstrate.
You ’say so’ but provide no proof but we’re supposed to buy it all.

So, it’s simple, provide the link showing he no longer owns FrostWorks Inc, and is no longer affiliated with it (and being in his building doesn’t, to my mind, count as being affiliated with it, so no need to mention that) and you’ll have some bargaining power for your demands. I strongly suspect it will be found he is still affiliated with the company however.
Till then all we have is your words, and since some of your words indicate you think I produce money to hand to the government who may give some back, I’m not inclined to just believe your word. Okay?
Providing the link is simpler than making the thread disappear. So, marshal your facts, present them for review.

Is that too nuanced for you?

And
organized smear
?

Organized? Organized? Am I to understand that McQ, and probably some of us, are members of an organization that is directing this effort to besmirch the Frosts?
After all, asking difficult questions about past behaviors and seeming shirking of responsibilities is just not done, unless we’re questioning people here on this post with regard to shirking tax responsibilities to try and prove your ignorance actually has some moral point (yes, you Mario).

You’ve demonstrated, repeatedly, you don’t have a clue who ought to be servant and who ought to be master in the relationship between government and citizen.
I suspect your parents asked you any number of times "if everybody is jumping off a bridge, are you going to jump off it?", all to no avail.

And ’reality’ doesn’t cut it, if status quo was always the way we should guide our lives when deciding to go along with the latest government whim, we wouldn’t have a country. The colonists would have shut up, paid King George’s taxes and that would have been that.
(No, Mario, perhaps too nuanced for you, I don’t mean we should throw a revolution over this, I mean, we shouldn’t just reach into our pockets and give the nice government man money every time he ’suggests’ we should).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
to jwg

You’re actually characterizing all of the crap thrown at the Frosts as "challengIing) the necessity"?

It doesn’t matter to you that practically everything written in the main post is wrong?

and looker:

that’s your argument? You’re going to quibble about my use of the word organized?
And you’re asking me to provide proof? Are you nuts? You guys are making baseless, factless accusations, with no proof whatsover, and I’m supposed to waste my time proving that something pulled out of someone’s butt is not true?

You do understand that the burden of proof is on you guys, right? The accusers.

I have no problem with challenging whether someone is gaming the system or not. I do have a problem with someone lying while trying to do it, and then when shown that they’re lying, simply try to switch the subject. All of the bases upon which the "challenge" was mounted have either been shown to be false or, at least, not shown to be true.

He doesn’t spend 40k sending his kids to school. His house is not worth 400k. His goddamn counters are not granite. He does not own a business that he can use to hide assets. He’s not making significant income from the property he owns - even his tenant says that Frost is struggling.

And guess what? I don’t have to prove to you any of what I’ve just said. I’ve read enough to convince me that what I’ve said is true. While all you have are empty accusations.

You guys have nothing left to hang your initial, smug-filled contempt for this family, so now you just want to shift the focus.

Screw you guys, I’m going home.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
"two of your children have medical expenses that run to the millions of dollars."

Millions of dollars in a every 12 month period? Wow. Where did you find that?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
He doesn’t spend 40k sending his kids to school.
Wrong blog.
His house is not worth 400k.
Wrong blog.
His goddamn counters are not granite.
Wrong blog.
He does not own a business that he can use to hide assets.
Not now. He did before the accident when he didn’t pay for insurance.
He’s not making significant income from the property he owns
He owns commercial property while claiming he can’t afford to care for the basic needs of his family.

Get your accusations straight. Then maybe you won’t embarrass yourself.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
practically everything written in the main post is wrong
This is an outright lie.
He’s not making significant income from the property he owns - even his tenant says that Frost is struggling.
He owned (and still owns) almost 1/2 million dollars in property before the accident, but he can’t afford to care for his family. That is outrageous.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Hmm, so really the question we should be asking is, why didn’t the Frosts choose to have health coverage before the accident???

Life comes down to choices. Sometimes they are hard choices, and there’s no easy answer. Like deciding between health insurance and driving a new SUV, I guess.

Man, and here I’ve been paying my own bills, and driving used cars all this time. I’ve been missing out.

***********

Let’s see if I have this mortgage deduction thing straight.

If I’m a robber, and I take all your money, but I like blue eyes, so I give you some of your money back. I’m really giving you money, even though it was yours to begin with. I’ll just steal more money from the non-blue eyed people to make up the difference...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
That’s not a problem if the parents had taken a job which covered the PRIOR to the accident, is it?

We don’t know. It would have depended on what kind of policy or policies that job gave them. IF they were able to find a job that provided health insurance. Many nowadays don’t.

But the fact is, they did NOT have insurance at the time of the accident. A circumstance that I am sure is shared by a large percentage of your readers. Tons of people pay out of pocket for medical expenses, taking the gamble that they will never need catastrophic medical care. In fact, several right-wing bloggers and their readers have suggested such a strategy as an intelligent solution to the prohibitive cost of private health insurance. So it’s just garbage to blame this particular family for not having had the power of second sight, so that they could predict that they would be involved in an accident that would come close to killing two of their children and incur astronomical medical expenses for years.

I’m sure you would be fine with the Frost children having died, or having their medical expenses cut off at any given point, but it won’t solve the problem for you, because millions of other Americans are taking the same gamble with their health, because they simply do not have the ability to pay for private health insurance.

They can’t be turned down by group insurers in MD. So, as I said, that requires just one of them to take a job with benefits. Either one. You know, take responsibility for their children?

First of all, you cannot take a job with benefits if you cannot find a job with benefits and/or do not receive a job offer from an employer that provides benefits. You say, "All they have to do is just have one of them take a job with benefits." You are out of your mind, McQ, truly. You seem to think jobs are there hanging from trees, and all you gotta do is look up and pull one off. You’re insane, you’re totally out of touch with reality. It’s extremely difficult to find any decent job nowadays, much less one with benefits. I’m sorry, I know I’m repeating myself, but your ignorance in addition to your heartlessness just boggles my mind. You are willing to pay hundreds of billions of dollars that comes out of your taxes to support war, death, killing, violence, and torture. But you are not willing to pay a miniscule (relative to those war costs) part of your taxes to help AMERICAN families with horrendous, overwhelming medical expenses that they simply cannot pay without help.

Second, they took responsibility for their children, you cold-hearted beast. They applied for an affordable health insurance program that covered all their medical expenses and they qualified for it. They did nothing wrong. In fact, they did everything right, and you are utterly and totally insane and out of your mind for saying they did not. You would have had them let their children die rather than apply for a government health insurance program that they qualified for and that was there to help precisely people like them?

You are beyond belief. Respond any way you like; I will not soil myself by talking to you anymore.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com
You are beyond belief. Respond any way you like; I will not soil myself by talking to you anymore.
Yeah, I know Kathy, verbal tonnage aside, you really didn’t have much to say did you? And, of course, when that’s the case you just scream a lot, wave your arms, call your opponent names and run off in a huff.

That may work among the 5 year olds you hang out with, Kath, but it’s a loser here.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m sure you would be fine with the Frost children having died, or having their medical expenses cut off at any given point, but it won’t solve the problem for you, because millions of other Americans are taking the same gamble with their health, because they simply do not have the ability to pay for private health insurance.
Kathy, wrong place, you wanted to post this on the Emotional arguments and the gilded cage thread....

And don’t use the job market today in your example, you need to talk about the job market at the point in time where they decided to have kids.
But you don’t get that part of the discussion.


Mario - you twit, I had to find arguments to help you. Had you done it yourself by providing a credible link when you claimed he didn’t own his business you could have saved a lot of bytes. But you either decided we were immune to hard facts or you were yelling roughly about the following without verifying it yourself..
I tend to think you were yelling without verifying, because he’s still listed as the ’owner’ of FROSTWORKS Inc and as the representative for the company that owns the property that FrostWorks resides in.

In fairness to the Frosts -
BOTH of Frost’s companies are listed by the state of Maryland as ’forfeited’ under the corporation rolls. As to whether or not the State has actually taken his business property for delinquency in taxes can’t be seen from the tax/business rolls. They may have, in which case, it’s not HIS property any more and shouldn’t be considered. Thereby hangs and falls a fair number of our arguments for their accumulated hard wealth (in my opinion), unless someone (credible) can demonstrate otherwise.
Though, the fact that his ’tenant’ still thinks he is the ’owner’ would tend to argue against the state seizing the property we don’t really know what Frost has arranged with the State.

If it’s still his property it’s value for tax purposes is 160K.
Their home property, (though it’s not their primary residence tax wise)
is 238K and it appears they have mortgaged it, in one fashion or another, for a little over 100K.

Mario, this is a demonstration of what I was talking about with who is master and servant.
If it has been forfeited for failure to pay property taxes, I maintain he never owned in the first place. You maintain the state graciously allowed him to use it while he fulfilled his ’responsibility’ to provide money to the state.
Is that really what you want to defend? Government’s right to take your stuff?
(Yes, yes, tell me it’s all because the State wanted to give it back to him in benefits).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m sure you would be fine with the Frost children having died, or having their medical expenses cut off at any given point

You have no way of knowing that, and no reason to assume it. This isn’t about the Frosts asking for help. The quarrel is with folks who demand it at "gunpoint by proxy".
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
I will not soil myself...anymore
Tee Hee.

And the really funny thing is that I actually believe she HAS soiled herself while commenting.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Second, they took responsibility for their children, you cold-hearted beast. They applied for an affordable health insurance program that covered all their medical expenses and they qualified for it. They did nothing wrong. In fact, they did everything right, and you are utterly and totally insane and out of your mind for saying they did not. You would have had them let their children die rather than apply for a government health insurance program that they qualified for and that was there to help precisely people like them?
Good lord, you really really don’t get it do you (do you know Mario?)
The problem is the Frosts as examples Kathy.
It’s not even the program, as it stands, that they already qualify for.

It’s the fact that they were cited as examples to beat the President over the head for failing to EXPAND the policy when we’re not sure they were good examples for it’s expansion! It’s the fact that someone thought it was a grand idea to have their 12 year old, needy son, browbeat the President of the United States. And it is clearly possible that they put their kids into the situation they are in by failing in their responsibilities when it was first required, not after the sh!t hit the fan.

But, yeah, stick with your emotional arguments about dead kids, because ya know, I think all of us have written that that’s what we’re really after.
We’re the blogosphere reminiscence of Jehghis Khan’s army.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I have many friends who live in 1/2 Mil. $ + homes have boats and other toys. Still, they do not have health Ins. for their children. This is not a new thing. Guess what? They are all Dems. Guess what else? They are all for SCHIP. Go figure.
 
Written By: chip o
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider