...Graeme Frost's family actually proves the conservatives wrong, demonstrating in one crisp clear shining example that even if you do everything the American myth tells you to your family may still need a helping hand to get by!
On the economic message the Frosts own their own business and commercial property, have two jobs, work hard and own their own home. On the social front, they are a white nuclear family that goes to church and stayed married even after the incredible stress of two kids being severely hurt in a car accident that was not their fault. On the education side, they used government support (like vouchers) to opt out of public school and go to private school.
They work hard, own property, didn't divorce, had children, use private schools and they still need extra help from the government just to get by.
This goes against everything the conservative Republicans tell us about how to live our lives...
This is funny on so many levels. First, most of the information in this post was the result of conservative bloggers who wanted to know the truth. The democrats didn't care about ANY of those things, or frankly any facts at all. The reason the DEMOCRATS chose Frost was that he had a 12-year-old that they considered brain-damaged, and therefore figured would make a good object of pity for them to sell their message.
In other words, the Democrats didn't care that they were hard-working, that they owned property, that they sent their kids to private school. They only cared that, to the DEMOCRATS, the Frost kids were damaged and therefore pitiable, and would make the perfect pawns for their national radio address.
As to the specifics, the Frost family is a perfect example of how the EXISTING SCHIP program works. The SCHIPS program was of course created by the Republicans, a fact that must irk the democrats so much they are willing to kill it in order to make a political point.
Meanwhile, there's a LOT of error in the Kos post:
...Graeme Frost's family actually proves the conservatives wrong, demonstrating in one crisp clear shining example that even if you do everything the American myth tells you to your family may still need a helping hand to get by!
No conservative I know thinks people never need help. We think guaranteed government handouts are harmful to society, and to the people they supposedly help. Some think you should use private charity, others are OK with government help. Further, it's not an "american myth", it's just life. Third, nobody can claim the Frosts needed this program, because nobody has enough information to be certain they couldn't buy medical insurance before the accident.
It is typical democrat to make the argument that just because people didn't do something, and it put them in a bad situation, that this proves something. If I decide to go rock climbing without the proper equipment, I might get trapped halfway up the mountain, and would need "help" to be saved. But I could have done more. The Frosts COULD have made different choices so that they had medical insurance for their family. They didn't have to go without, and expect others to pay for it.
On the economic message the Frosts own their own business and commercial property, have two jobs, work hard and own their own home.
This is all well and good. But we don't know a lot about their jobs. I don't WANT to know about it, but without more information it's absurd to claim they work hard. As I said, we wouldn't know any of this if someone hadn't done some research. But more is needed. Could Mr. Frost really not get a job with a company? Did he have to work for himself? Couldn't he get a group medical for employers, which would have covered his wife who worked for him as well? We don't know, because we don't have enough information. Democrats love to argue without facts, but I can't.
On the social front, they are a white nuclear family that goes to church and stayed married even after the incredible stress of two kids being severely hurt in a car accident that was not their fault.
I can only speak for myself, but that just rubbed me wrong. Why would we expect a couple to break up under stress? What's the deal with being "white" -- do Democrats suddenly have something against black families? I think the suggestion that a black family couldn't stay together, or that if your kids get hurt you'd expect a divorce , seems so very wrong.
On the FACTUAL front, while the accident obviously wasn't the children's fault, there is a lot we don't know about the accident -- but we know it was a 1-car accident involving a tree. We don't know if they were wearing a seat belt. I wouldn't "blame" them, I just bring it up because if they weren't wearing seat belts, than it's absurd to claim that they had NO fault, or that they did EVERYTHING right.
In a rational world we could just TALK about all these things, but I'm treading lightly because I'm discussing something with Democrats, who will no doubt launch personal attacks about any perceived slight I make about THEIR EXAMPLE.
On the education side, they used government support (like vouchers) to opt out of public school and go to private school.
That must really burn the democrats, it's why I think they are so upset, because we found out that their poster-family rejected the liberal public education system.
On a FACTUAL basis, I've read nothing that said they got "government support" for their private school. The liberals actually OPPOSE vouchers, and the only child that is getting government support is one of the injured children who has special needs. The other three children get some sort of "financial aid", but Maryland does not have a voucher program.
I wish the Frost family would record a national address asking for a publicly-funded School Voucher program, if for no other reason than the hypocrisy that would follow as the left tore them to shreds.
In fact, I'm certain what really has the left upset about the right's exposure of the frosts is that we've shown the Frosts to be a family that epitomizes everything the left opposes -- hard work, private school, property ownership, owning your own business and not offering health care for your workers.
They work hard, own property, didn't divorce, had children, use private schools and they still need extra help from the government just to get by.
Before they had their accident, they could have afforded health insurance. Because the SCHIP program exists, their options were somewhat limited (no private insurance company can COMPETE for people like the Frosts, since they could get free coverage). But there WERE affordable programs that would be within their price range, in general (if their children had pre-existing conditions beforehand that might be a problem, but since I'm not arguing to cancel medicaire and SCHIP we've got them covered in any case).
This goes against everything the conservative Republicans tell us about how to live our lives...
Actually, a lot of people who have argued against SCHIP have stated that they are in much the same circumstance as this family, but somehow managed to provide for their family, including purchasing health insurance. But this family decided they didn't need health insurance, and then when they had an accident the result made it too expensive to purchase it.
If however they had just bought a catastrophic care insurance, they would have been fine without government help. I'm not attacking them FOR getting help, I'm saying that the Frosts are NOT an example that proves anything other than that a hard-working family feels comfortable not buying health care for themselves because they know that if something goes bad the government will bail them out.
The only reason a program like SCHIP is affordable is that there are a LOT of families who still believe in taking care of themselves, not expecting everybody else to take care of them.
Frankly, you can hardly live in this country without getting something from the government. Of course, most of us pay taxes as well, and obviously a good number of us are NOT getting as much back as what we pay in taxes. But MOST of us actually make out, because so far the rich have been willing to essentially subsidize the rest of us, even while the Democrats attack them as being heartless.
Anyway, there are probably a FEW people who are mad at the frosts. But most of us conservatives are mad at the Democrats for exploiting this family.
2 comments:
The original sponsors of the SCHIP bill Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children's_Health_Insurance_Program
Sucks to be you.
The first Wiki entry for SCHIP was made in 2004:
"The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a national program designed for families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance."
By July of 2007, it had been edited 50 times, but still had no mention of the "sponsors" of the bill.
Since July 17, 2007 it has been edited 450 times, as the partisan hacks took over, making the entry into another one of those political battlefields.
The 100th revision on October 2, 2007 STILL didn't mention the "original sponsors".
The text about Ted and Hillary was added by an anonymous poster on October 4th, 2007 (about 10 days ago), no doubt in order to build a phony history to counter the fact that SCHIP was passed by a republican house and republican senate, and is a republican program.
Wiki sucks for any "facts" that have political ramifications, but at least they keep a history of postings.
Oddly, nobody has bothered to link the Thomas information about the bill into the WIKI page.
The actual bill was HR 2015, with S. 947 the major senate version.
HR 2015 was sponsored by Republican John Kasich, and S. 947 was sponsored by Senator Pete Dominici.
Neither bill had ANY co-sponsors.
These were the budget reconciliation bills for 1997. The SCHIP program was part of this bill, called title XXI. Title XXI did not exist as it's own bill, although it's genesis was in other legislation.
There is NO references in the Wikipedia entry for the claims of "original sponsors" for the SCHIP bill. Normally Wikipedia requires actual sources for factual claims, but this entry isn't flagged for unsourced information.
I haven't spent a lot of time searching, but can't find whatever standalone bill may have existed that was rolled into the budget act of 1997.
Post a Comment