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

 
SCHIP - Round two: the Dems try a new family
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 15, 2007

In a tacit admission that perhaps the Frost family wasn't the best representation of their argument for the expansion of SCHIP, Democrats went back to the well and found the Wilkersons:
This week, Democrats have brought forth the Wilkerson family, whose two-year old daughter Bethany is covered by SCHIP and had life-saving heart surgery when she was an infant. On Monday the Wilkerson family held a conference call, sponsored by USAction, a liberal grassroots advocacy group lobbying in favor of the $35 billion SCHIP expansion.

For the record, the Bo and Dara Wilkerson say they make $34,000 in combined income from restaurant jobs in St. Petersburg, Fla. They rent their house and the couple owns one car, which Bo calls "a junker."
Sounds like a family for which the program was originally designed. And lo and behold they've already used it. Under the present law their child would remain covered.

Question: How do to the Wilkersons argue for the expansion of the program that the Democrats are trying ram through that could include families 400% over the poverty level and "children" who are 25?

They don't.

So other than emotional appeal and an attempt to pretend the Wilkersons are the sort of family the fight is about when it is not, why are we seeing the Wilkersons at all?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Cause they’re demonstratably ’poorer’ than the Frosts were on paper.
Even though this really isn’t about ’poor’ people of course.

Though, wish I had a dime for every time I heard the word poor come out of a Dem’s mouth during the live televised sessions I watched.

and, for the children, of course.

25 year old children will fit in well with the whole ’sending children off to war’ meme the Dem’s were spewing a while back.
I had some great times as a child as I recall, in fact, I think I married a child...
OH MY GOD... I did!
OH MY GOD!

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This sounds a lot like the same drivel they use when talking about "innocent children" being the victims of gun violence. They go up to age 25. In contrast, I will lose the deductibility of my "adult" daughter, age 17, on my taxes next year. Why? because she turned 17 and presumably became an "adult".
 
Written By: Borax Johnson
URL: http://
Borax, yep, I was thinking about the same thing . . .

It’s for the children, of course, and children are defined depending upon their ability to further the leftist narrative . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Apparently they’re bringing in another family, one that as mentioned already qualifies under the plan as is, to continue with the lie that Bush vetoed health care for poor children!!!

The strategy is implicit in all the ads from the various special interest groups. As has been mentioned elsewhere, they won’t bring out any families that are 400% of poverty level, because that would expose the truth of their agenda.

Ezra Klein has inadvertently let it slip in his recent post on the issue:
"The question won’t be how good our policies are, but how good our political strategy is."
 
Written By: Bill B
URL: http://
This is ridiculous. They’ve tried an anecdotal appeal to emotion twice and still haven’t come up with a story that would justify an expansion of the program. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves and fire whoever is doing the research on these families.
 
Written By: Jim
URL: http://
They think that they’ve successfully portrayed Bush as trying to kill SCHIP altogether instead of killing a ridiculous expansion of SCHIP.

That is the only logical reason to parade people who were covered and who’s coverage was never in jeopardy. Make it appear as if they coverage was in jeopardy.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
At what point in the story did Count Bushula come and drink the poor child’s blood?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
They did the same with social security reform and it worked. Why should the Dems change now? I’ve got to say, without a certain level of ignorance among the populace and the MSM helping out, they couldn’t get away with this stuff.

Now, if I were the GOP, how would I stop such nonsense? I’d find my own "families" that meet the new criteria and put them in ads, in either a serious or humorous way. Serious ad would be "we don’t need help. we take care of that ourselves." while funny would be this one:

The Smiths make a combined $60,000 a year. They have two children currently now covered by their own insurance, but Bob Smith says, "Since the new plan of the Democrats will pay for my kids insurance, I’ll probably drop them from the policy and let the taxpayers cover them for me. With the savings, I’m thinking of buying a new powerboat."
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harun,

actually the best ad would be a dirt poor couple who will pay more taxes to fund a middle class family’s healthcare.

Oh, say someone like the Wilkersons paying for someone who owns $400,000 home, 3 not so cheap vehicles, and their own business with their kids in $20,000/yr. private school.

Its ironic, but the idea of the Wilkersons’ paying the Frost’s way is exactly whats wrong the Democrat’s plan.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
darn it, jpm, what have you been reading the past few days?

No 400k home, no business and they kids are on practically full scholarships. (The Frosts pay $500 in total, I believe) Can’t speak to the cars - don’t really know.

But at best, you’ve got 3 out of four totally and disatrously wrong. You need to clean the Rush out of your ears, I think. Try a wood chisel, but no larger than 1/4 inch.

Hell, even the WSJ editorial page agrees the Frosts are exactly the type of family the program was meant for. And as far as I can tell, this is the first truth they’ve spoken in about a gazillion issues, which can only mean that is a fact so utterly and embarassingly obvious that not even they have the cajones to say otherwise.

as for poor McQ - he still can’t wrap his head around the strategy of saying "Look, here’s what schip can do now - let’s expand it so that some of the other millions of poeple without insurance can be helped out." I guess the two step process involved in understanding that sentence is a bit too much. Or maybe he just thinks that the idea of trying to help more people is just so ridiculous that no one could possibly be serious about it.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Mario,

The home is worth how much then? I think it was valued in 300K area, but I am sure you can tell me.

No business? What is Frostworks then? Does he have a job with some other company?

Commercial property, didn’t he own some of that worth about 160k?

I understand about the scholarships for private school...if only everyone could get vouchers...

Seriously, if you have updated information let me know.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Mario:
"as for poor McQ - he still can’t wrap his head around the strategy of saying ’Look, here’s what schip can do now - let’s expand it so that some of the other millions of poeple without insurance can be helped out.’ I guess the two step process involved in understanding that sentence is a bit too much. Or maybe he just thinks that the idea of trying to help more people is just so ridiculous that no one could possibly be serious about it."
Everyone else here can speak for themselves, of course.

For my part: if I came across you and a bunch of people standing at the foot of someone’s driveway, taking a vote on whether to break into the place in order to take things that belonged to the owner so that others could "be helped out," I would calmly inform you that you are involved in what’s plainly known as a conspiracy, and that you had better just move along peaceably before I started shooting your asses off.

"Wrap your head around" that.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Hello,

I have been reading Q and O for awhile now (I even link to it from my blog), and I recently found myself in a situation that I think your blog would be interested in knowing about.

On Oct 29th I will be hosting The Market Anarchist Blog Carnival over at my blog, The Radical Libertarian, and I want to invite you to submit an entry! I think an essay from Q and O would be perfect from the carnival, for obvious reasons.

All the Carnival details can be found here. The deadline for submission is Oct 28th.

Hope to see you submit an entry! Thanx for the great blogging, keep it up :)
 
Written By: Aaron Kinney
URL: http://radicallibertarians.blogspot.com
mario,

show me a link that confirms through facts that both children had scholarships. I know the Time article declares it for Graeme, as if their declaration without even implying a reference to a source of some kind is a fact. And the other child is not explained at all.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
So, I’m curious: I turn 25 next month and am constitutionaly elligible to run for congress. Can I do so (assuming this were an election year), be sworn in in January, serve as a Representative and still benefit from SCHIP at the same time?

That would be something.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
jpm,

It has been reported in numerous places, apparently in sources that you don’t read, that the girl goes to a private school at the state’s expense. And she doesn’t go to some ritzy school like Andover - she goes to a school for kids with severe brain injuries. You know, like the kind she got in the car accident that’s the whole starting point of this sad and sorry affair.

p.s. You have the notion of who has to prove what exactly backwards. It’s guys like you that have been creating or repeating accusations made out of whole cloth. Where’s YOUR proof?

It goes like this - make an accusation then prove it. Only in places like the USSR, Kafka novels and Bush’s America does it go - make up an accusation and wait for the accused to prove it wrong.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
billy,

You’re John Galt imitation is very cute. But if your objection is to paying taxes "at the point of a gun" or "by the rule of the mob", then you’re arguing in the wrong place.

McQ is wondering and wandering why these families are appropriate as an argument for the expansion of the progem. Your argument, such as it is, is for the elimination of the program, and by exension, public roads (ain’t got no car, why do I have to pay for it?), public schools (ain’t got no kids, why do I have to pay for it?), public libaries (cain’t read, why do I have to pay for it?) , hell, public everything.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a wonderful and entertaining argument. Just make it in the right place for the right subject.

 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
oops,
That’d be "your", not "you’re"
I should get to the library more often.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Guys, Mario will attest to the, um, vehemence of our discusssion last time on this - but in the case of the Frost’s their businesses (both) are listed by the State of Maryland as ’forfeited’ for the purposes of being viable corporations in the state. (Feel free to check the various Web sites for the State of Maryland to verify this...having done so myself, I’m convinced).

Technically they have no standing/recognition from the state, presumably for failure to pay the various corporate taxes which are due.
It’s unclear who the tenant is paying, unless someone wants to climb a little further into the pocket of the Frost family. I think at some point many of us arguing that should be done would conceed it’s a bit intrusive, a bit big government like.
That doesn’t mean they don’t own the property, but it does mean there is certainly a shadow over them in a financial regard. However given that the state can take the property for back taxes (yeah Mario, ain’t it great to pay our taxes!) it’s questionable. I’m not familiar enough with Maryland forfeiture law to determine how the properties would now be listed if they had taken them.

I agree, I think they made some incredibly poor, and I’ll go so far as to say narcissistic decisions on how they spent their money before the accident, but I think it would be a stretch, unless it can be proven other wise at this point, to say they’re living the life of Rielly.

The point to remember is, they are already eligible under the current program, and have been assisted under the current program. Therefore, they were/are not a good example for an EXPANSION of the current program. They are perhaps an example of keeping it, but that’s not what the argument was about.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So the Dems CAN’T or WON’T find a family that needs this program and isn’t covered?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a wonderful and entertaining argument. Just make it in the right place for the right subject.
Who made you thread nazi...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I’ll tell you what, mario: cite me in the Constitution where it allows Congress to take money out of my pocket and provide a service covered by the private sector and i’ll concede the argument.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
But if your objection is to paying taxes "at the point of a gun" or "by the rule of the mob", then you’re arguing in the wrong place.
Not hardly, given that that’s exactly what you’re advocating.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Mario - your tax arguments are fairly juvenile, considering your likely age (being at one of the No Nukes rallies in ’79 (Clam Shell Alliance?) unless the picture shows a 2 year old in a No Nukes t-shirt).

Yes, we all pay for things with which we agree, and don’t agree, via taxes.
The fact that we pay them has not abridged our right to question the need for increased payments for programs we consider dubious. You still don’t have the servant/master relationship between citizen and government down, do you.

You may feel free to contribute more than you are asked to contribute, I’m sure there’s a mechanism for doing that, don’t feel free to volunteer me for the effort. I’m guessing you won’t be volunteering any more of your money than you have to though.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It has been reported in numerous places, apparently in sources that you don’t read, that the girl goes to a private school at the state’s expense.
I’ll refine my question. What was the original source of this information. I read a few places where they state the scholarship as fact and don’t indicate a source for the information.
And she doesn’t go to some ritzy school like Andover - she goes to a school for kids with severe brain injuries. You know, like the kind she got in the car accident that’s the whole starting point of this sad and sorry affair.
Which raises another point. Did the boy’s scholarship start after the medical hardship or before? Much of the talk of their financial condition is concerning today and what really needs to be known is their condition at the time of the incident.
p.s. You have the notion of who has to prove what exactly backwards. It’s guys like you that have been creating or repeating accusations made out of whole cloth. Where’s YOUR proof?
My proof: The school’s website has two things clear. School costs ~$20,000/yr and they spend $2 million on financial assistance. That means at most, 100 students have full scholarships. But they also say that they give a spectrum of awards starting at $1000. That means they have some number fewer than 100 students on full scholarship. They are used very sparingly. Hardship for already enrolled students comes to mind.

But thanks for proving my point. You couldn’t find any good definative source on the nature of the scholarship. Otherwise you would have used it.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
It goes like this - make an accusation then prove it. Only in places like the USSR, Kafka novels and Bush’s America does it go - make up an accusation and wait for the accused to prove it wrong.
Because of Bush’s Veto, this Frost kid will die!!!
I got 3 Purple Hearts in Cambodia ... er ... Vietnam!!!
These TANG Documents are real!!!
9/11 was an inside job!!!
Torture at Gitmo!!!

If only those on your side of the aisle would heed your advice...
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
in the case of the Frost’s their businesses (both) are listed by the State of Maryland as ’forfeited’ for the purposes of being viable corporations in the state. (Feel free to check the various Web sites for the State of Maryland to verify this...having done so myself, I’m convinced).

Technically they have no standing/recognition from the state, presumably for failure to pay the various corporate taxes which are due.
In Minnesota, this means that you have not filed the annual (or is it bi-annual?) report with the Secretary of State, showing where your corporation’s registered office is currently located. It is all about maintaining some real presence for the legal entity of the corporation, so that the corporation can be legally served in case of a lawsuit.

You still get the privilege of paying corporate taxes to the state, despite not being in good standing. And no one comes from the state to close you down and chain your doors shut. But banks may not lend to your corporation, and you probably don’t have protection from another company assuming your corporate name.

But being "forfeited" does not necessarily indicate that the business in no longer in operation. At least as far as my own experience.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
Loern - thanks. I don’t (okay, once in a bit...) generally miss my filing with the State of Texas for these, so I’m not familiar with what they do when they consider you ’forfeit’.

The information you provide would be consistent with queries with his tenant indicating the tenant still thinks Frost is the owner of the property,
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
BTW - Frost is still the contact point for both companies in the state documentation.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
behold, the twin faces of evil!!!
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Your argument, such as it is, is for the elimination of the program, and by exension, public roads (ain’t got no car, why do I have to pay for it?), public schools (ain’t got no kids, why do I have to pay for it?), public libaries (cain’t read, why do I have to pay for it?) , hell, public everything.

But Mario, the difference between what you list above and SCHIP is that a person CAN use the roads, CAN send kids to public schools, and CAN go to the library, regardless of their personal income, class, sex, race, sexual orientation ect.

I don’t use the public transportation system in my city, but I CAN if I want to.
Don’t have a car, well, sorry, but if you get one, you CAN use the road. Meanwhile, you CAN take the bus, or call a cab, or ride your bike, which do use the road, plus get your mail, which uses the road to bring it to your place of residence.
Don’t have kids?, well, whatever, but if you adopt some or decide to have some, they CAN use the public schools, as you CAN for night classes.
Can’t read? Well, sorry, but if you decide to learn, you CAN use the libraries.

If a person makes too much money, or doesn’t have the proper financial status, they CAN’T enroll in SCHIP. But I sure CAN pay for.

With all due respect, maybe I’m a little cynical, but it’s getting a little old paying for things that I CAN’T use because I might make a little too much money.



 
Written By: autot
URL: http://
behold, the twin faces of evil!!!
So, you admit it’s all about truthy good warm fuzzy, feeling good about yourself feelings, not financial reality, not about who has to pick up the tab for your warm fuzzy truthy generosity.
All about the emotions. Big surprise.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
oooh.
So many people to talk to!

looker,

I am not questioning your right to question how your taxes are spent. I’m an American, after all. I’m just saying that the arguments I’ve been seeing are kind of piss-poor. (hmm, wonder if I can say piss here.)

Many of the arguments here seem to be either against expanding the program, or complaining that the Frosts are too darn rich to qualify. That means, to me, you guys are perfectly willing to pay your taxes at the point of a gun - you’re just arguing about the amount. So, when someone makes the point of taxes as theft, I have to laugh, because no one here is arguing against theft, they’re arguing about too much theft, or who gets the proceeds of the theft. The theivery itself seems to fine and dandy.

And that’s where my apparent behviour as a thread Nazi comes in. I was just saying (poorly I guess) that the argument/analogy was off the mark because it’s not speaking to the subject, or more specifically, wasn’t speaking to my post, which billy was attempting to reply to directly.

And as for your confusion about why the Frosts were used to argue for the expansion of schip, I can only repeatt I wrote earlier, since it can’t possible be made clearer:
as for poor McQ - he still can’t wrap his head around the strategy of saying "Look, here’s what schip can do now - let’s expand it so that some of the other millions of poeple without insurance can be helped out." I guess the two step process involved in understanding that sentence is a bit too much. Or maybe he just thinks that the idea of trying to help more people is just so ridiculous that no one could possibly be serious about it
AS for my naivete regarding my view of taxes - no one has yet to provide a rebuttal to my earlier, other thread argument about the effect of gov. policies on each and everyone of our bottom lines. Whether your bottom line is affected because the gov. lets you keep more of your money because of a tax benefit, or whether you gain a service that you wouldn’t normally be able to afford, makes no difference.

And the argument that it’s a difference between keeping your own money and getting money from taxes paid by others is simplistic in the exterme - worthy of an 8-year old. Maybe.

Here’s a different example - 2 earners, each makes 50k. One owns a house, the other rents. Every other expense is the same. At the end of the year, who ends up with more money? If you don’t think that your (and I mean you and you and you) bottom line at the end of the year is not affected by the gov’’s largesse, then you’re living in la-lal land.

As for the cute comments about why don’t I pay more taxes than I have to, if I care so much - well, I pay an awful lot in taxes. Way too much. And the reason I pay too much is one - I live in a state that actually gives a cr*p about stuff like education (unlike, let’s say, MS or AL), and secondly, the middle class has been screwed by the Washington ever since Reagan - forcing more and more of our taxes to be paid to the local governments, where the economies of scale obviously can’t match the federal government’s. To say nothing if the net outflow of tax dollars from my state to the third world parts of the country.

(heh - can’t wait to see how "third world" gets interpreted)

Tax the rich! A lot. They can afford it. I can’t.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
behold, the twin faces of evil!!!
Was that link supposed to support your lame arguments? With gems like these...
In their first television interview since Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and others on the right decided to crucify their 12 year old son and swiftboat their family, the parents of Graeme Frost sat down and talked with Keith Olbermann tonight on Countdown.

-

To bring this whole disgusting episode into perspective, Keith showed heartbreaking pictures of Graeme and his sister Gemma in the hospital shortly after their horrific accident

-

Speaking as a mother, I pray with every bone of my liberal body that you never, ever spend one day as the Frosts have, hoping against the odds for the recovery of their children.

-

I can’t look at those pictures and not have tears for the pain they must have felt–that’s what becoming a mother has done for me–I want to take care of children.
All you did was reinforce the issue that these people we already covered by the existing program. And while doing it, showed the complete lack of reason on the left. Crucify. Swiftboat. Heartbreaking. And the classic ’I want to take care of children’.

Fine lady - take care of your own... and stay the hell away from me.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Whether your bottom line is affected because the gov. lets you keep more of your money because of a tax benefit, or whether you gain a service that you wouldn’t normally be able to afford, makes no difference.
You keep talking about services as if you think that specifically is the government’s job, to invent services that we should pay them for.

Maybe if they took less of Frost’s income way back when in taxes, he would have purchased health insurance for his kids in addition to whatever other spending he did (that he didn’t use to insure his kids - too bad he was gambling with his kids eh, but we’re the heartless bast@rds).

There is no common ground here for the discussion - you believe that governments purpose is to extract money from us to deliver services we may or may not want, and we’re supposed to agree to all the services they want to provide because we might actually use some of the service they provide, even when they are proposing to provide a service to people we don’t think NEED the service in the first place, and even when it’s clear people who don’t need it will now take advantage of it, thereby driving up the cost.
Not questionable situations, but real, THEY DON’T NEED THIS, situations. The ’social engineering’ goal being to get more people on the ’dole’ from the government health plan.
Then the example given for why we need to put more people on the dole, is a person who’s already ON the dole.

We cry foul. Your view is we should allow it because, we’re already being taxed, so why not a little more? It’s the frog on the hot plate plan.
And then, when in doubt, tax the rich! Whatever that means and whoever they are. Good old class warfare. Those rich sobs! They can afford the programs you like and you can’t (don’t want to ) pay for! Wow.

There’s no reasoning with that view.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Mario says:
As for the cute comments about why don’t I pay more taxes than I have to, if I care so much - well, I pay an awful lot in taxes. Way too much. And the reason I pay too much is one - I live in a state that actually gives a cr*p about stuff like education (unlike, let’s say, MS or AL), and secondly, the middle class has been screwed by the Washington ever since Reagan - forcing more and more of our taxes to be paid to the local governments, where the economies of scale obviously can’t match the federal government’s. To say nothing if the net outflow of tax dollars from my state to the third world parts of the country.
So, now the definition of humanity is based on how much you pay to the federal/state/local government in taxes? They parade a few unfortunate kids in front of you and you want to give away your paycheck? Then you try and sit in your ivory white tower and cast down dispersions on other states and the people from there because they are not stupid enough to let the government rob them blind. Because, in your world a state must care if they tax the living hell out of you. WOW!! GIMME SOME OF WHAT YOU ARE SMOKIN’!!!! No offense, but if you are the representation of that state’s educational system, I highly recommend you get your money back.
Moving on.org, here is a new concept for you and it is quite simplistic, it’s called "management." I understand in the convoluted world of macroeconomics this is a bad word but what do you want? Theory states,"Manage the money you do have and you probably will not need more." You don’t need differential equations to know that.
It is highly doubtful that the gleaming bastion of taxation, you call home, is managing theirs. Money does not fix problems, it usually exacerbates them and I noticed you have not named your État d’accueil. Why not run it past us???
 
Written By: Keith
URL: http://
"where the economies of scale obviously can’t match the federal government’s."

Economies of scale are not necessarily linear, and if you are dealing with government, may not exist at all. Why you seem to think that having two governmental bureaucracies involved in a task that can be performed by one is more economical seems a bit irrational to me.
 
Written By: timactuaql
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