NY Times uncritically reported that Senate GOP leadership "has not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts" over SCHIP
On September 29, 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who relied on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to pay for treatment for brain injuries suffered in an automobile accident, delivered a Democratic radio address criticizing President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the program. In an October 10 article, The New York Times reported that "[i]n recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats' plan to expand" SCHIP. The article further reported: "Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off." As evidence, the Times reported that "[a]n aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts." But according to an October 8 post on ABC News' "Political Radar" blog by senior political correspondent Rick Klein, McConnell's spokesman "declined to comment" on the charge "that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about [the] Frosts"; specifically, Klein reported a claim by Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that a Senate GOP "leadership aide" had sent an email to reporters "summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family." The Times article did not mention Manley's reported claim, nor the spokesman's reported refusal to comment.
The blog Firedoglake also noted that the Times simply cited "an aide to Sen[ator] Mitch McConnell."
From Klein's October 8 post:
According to Senate Democratic aides, some bloggers have made repeated phone calls to the home of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, demanding information about his family's private life. On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused GOP leadership aides of "pushing falsehood" in an effort to distract from the political battle over S-CHIP.
"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."
Manley cited an e-mail sent to reporters by a Senate Republican leadership aide, summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Manley's charge that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about Frosts.
From the October 10 New York Times article, headlined "Capitol Feud: A 12-Year-Old Is the Fodder":
There have been moments when the fight between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the State Children's Health Insurance Program seemed to devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.
So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush's weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.
Then, they wasted little time in going after him to score their own.
In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats' plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family's income and assets -- even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite -- and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.
[...]
Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off.
An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.
Well silly, of course they aren't going to issue a press release! Republicans were behind the smears, but are now content at letting the right wing blogs take the heat for something they helped drive.
In the meantime, will Michelle "The Mouth" Maulkin take Ezra up on an offer to debate S-Chip now that she shot her mouth off about democratic fear of an honest debate?
Here are the honest FACTS:
The Democrats' Unhealthy Poster Child AbuseAfter 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered the Democrat radio address, which was penned for him by Senate staffers, conservatives on the [link to FreeRepublic.com"> class="yshortcuts">FreeRepublic.com forum and across the Internet asked the questions the mainstream media wouldn't ask about the family's financial situation. The couple claims a combined annual income of about $45,000. Neither the Democrats nor the Baltimore Sun indicates how they verified that assertion before circulating it.
What is verifiable: The Frosts own a home in Baltimore purchased for $55,000 16 years ago — and now worth an estimated $300,000. That's a lot of equity. In addition, the children's father, Halsey Frost, owns commercial real estate and his own small business, but chose not to buy health insurance for himself and his wife, whom he hired as an employee. She now apparently works freelance at a medical publishing firm, which also reportedly doesn't offer insurance.
Gemma and Graeme both attend expensive private schools; the Frosts have two other school-age children. Reid's staff says Gemma and Graeme receive tuition breaks. But it's not clear when those scholarships were instituted and/or whether the other two receive tuition aid as well. Moreover, Frost's family comes from considerable means. The children's maternal grandfather was an engineering executive. Their paternal grandparents hail from affluent Bronxville, New York, where the grandfather is a prominent facilities management consultant and chairman of the municipal planning board.
In other words: The public trough is not Halsey Frost's last and only resort. The accident was horrible. The children deserve much sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them.
The Frosts claim it would cost them more per month than their mortgage, reportedly $1,200 a month, to buy private insurance. But insurance bloggers quickly found available plans for a family of six with premiums as low as $452/month. "That's almost a third of the price quoted in the [Baltimore Sun] article," wrote Bob Vineyard at InsureBlog. "Doesn't anyone bother to check the facts?"
---------------------------------------------
The bottom line is that at several points in their lives the Frosts made decisions NOT to buy health insurance - even though they had a growing family. Owning a home and commercial property are great. And working independently is fine.
However, I had to make a choice to work for a company that had health benefits when I got married.
Billy Bob,
Your source for "facts" is a Free Republic blogger who used google for all of his research. The point of SCHIP is not for the poorest of the poor. Nobody claims this family is destitute. Those who are destitute can get Medicare. Then there are those who make too much for Medicare but not enough to afford $500 to $800 a month in insurance payments...like a family of six making $50,000 to $70,000 per year. Also, who appraised their unit (built in 1936 and it's not a house) for $300,000? How do you know how much it's worth? The supposed $485,000 comparable used in the Freeper story was actually a renovation project undertaken by a company named Creative Property Development, which has a website proudly showing off their recent historic renovation work (click this link to read about them). They bought the unit in Feb. 2002 for $95,000, completely renovated it (which is what they do) and flipped it four months later for $320,000 (June 2002) to Kris Alden, who then sold it five years later for $485,000. Presumably, this company did not renovate the Frost unit, which is over a block away. Picture Ty Pennington renovating the house down the street from you. The renovated unit is city block 1749, lot 7, while the Frosts are at block 1748, lot 17. Therefore, they are not connected units. The unit next door to the Frosts sold for $46,500 in July 2006. Regardless of their home value, you seem to think that they should sell their house and move because it is supposedly worth a lot of money. If they have such a small mortgage, why would they do that? BTW, Mr. Frost took out a second mortgage for $52,500 a year after the car crash (to pay medical bills perhaps?). There is no way they could move into another house for as cheap as their mortgage is now, especially with 4 kids and his business a block away. That would be financial suicide. Net worth and cash flow are two different things, btw.
chrisgodawgs
First, I use a quote from the NYT to make my same point a few replies down from this one.
Second, people on both sides are determined to point to different "facts" and then ignore the opposite sides arguments -
Here are the points upon which there is NO dispute -
1, The medical benefits that the Frost family was using to cover their medical bills DO NOT have a means test.
2. The Frost family claims to only be making approx. $45,000 per year, but this has never been verified.
3. The Frosts did buy a home and invest in commercial real estate. They have extended family who are well off. During the time that the Frosts owned their own company they did not purchase insurance. And even now, Mr. Frost works "intermittently" and, I guess, figures he never has to get a real job with real benefits.
4. The unemployment rate where the Frost family lives is 4%.
A basic point can be drawn - The Frosts had the means to purchase insurance before the accident. If they are having tough luck now, it's primarily their own bad decisions that are to blame.
Bottom line - if you have a family, get some insurance - or get a real job with real benefits.
Most people know this.
Billy Bob,
Also, Graeme and Gemma don't just get tuition breaks...Time magazine says they are on full scholarship.
QUIZ TIME:
How many kids to the Frosts have and how many of them go to private school? (you only mention 2)
I have a simple question? Were the democrats not using this kid to get sympathy for their bill? There are probably 1000's of cases where Americans have been without insurance and had hard luck. We all have choices to make and we live with them. Either, look to better yourself, or live taking chances and hoping that nothing happens that sets you back. God equipped each of us with a brain.
And lets not forget the other "phony patients" that the Democrat Party has tried to foist off on the public -
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE -
When it comes to Democrat health care poster children, the answer is "No, they don't." Graeme and Gemma Frost are not the first political symbols to be exploited by the socialized health care pushers of the Left:
In 1996, Hillary Clinton propped up young Jennifer Bush, a 7-year-old with mystery ailments whose mother coached her to lobby for universal health care. Jennifer was trotted out to present the Clintons a lucky silver dollar "to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance." Jennifer's mother was later convicted of aggravated child abuse and welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms.
In 2000, Al Gore propped up elderly widow Winifred Skinner to lambaste high drug prices. Gore repeated her claim that she had to pick up cans on the side of the road to pay for medicine. Dan Rather bemoaned: "She's no child, but she belongs on a poster about high drug costs." One problem: Winifred's own well-to-do son, businessman Earl King, debunked those claims.
In 2004, John Kerry propped up Mary Ann Knowles, a breast cancer patient whom he claimed "had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family's health insurance." The conservative Manchester Union Leader editorial page reported: "Knowles chose to work through most, but not all, of her chemotherapy because her husband was out of a job. … She and husband John did not want to take the pay cut that would have come with disability leave, so Mary Ann kept working."
The Democrats sorely resent that they can no longer peddle their Big Nanny propaganda unchallenged. Harry Reid is already throwing tantrums and attacking the messengers who expose their health care poster child abuse. Here's a free prescription for our stunted politicians: Grow up.
--------------------------------------------
We really owe honest bloggers such as Michelle Malkin for checking up on the dishonesty of the political hacks who want to push rotten agendas down our throats!
- also, check out her great website today for continuing coverage of the "Frosts" !!
From yesterday's NYT: "As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete."
vysotsky First, nothing you posted contradicts anything that Michelle Malkin writes -Second, here is a quote from your NYT's story:Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.Under the Maryland child health program, a family of six must earn less than $55,220 a year for children to qualify. The program does not require applicants to list their assets, which do not affect eligibility.
(by the way, I'll just skip over that fact that it's very misleading of you not to at least refer to this part of the story that contradicts the MMFA propaganda!)
-------------------------------------------------In other words, the Frosts made some choices NOT to buy insurance. They invested in a home, commercial real estate and other assets. And what the hell does it mean that Mr. Frost works "intermittently"? He needs to realize that sometimes when you have a family you have to get a real job with real benefits.
Stop bumming around, Mr. Frost. You're embarrassing yourself and your whole family for God's sake! Making your wife work and sitting around the house like a lazy-ass!
why did you put Frosts in quotes? is it a fake name or something?
There is no such thing as a Democrat Party OR a Democrat healthplan. Since you are too ignorant to even know the NAME of the largest political party in America your post isnt worth reading
no,
they just let rush and malkin be their attack dogs.
Shame on the GOP and Bush for not supporting this.
"People make choices and it's clear the Frosts have made choice to invest in property and a business, but not in private health insurance," Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner,
One would think that Mr. Tapscott would invest time in getting the facts before following the WH script.
What the Republicans through their far right attack dogs, Limbaugh, Malkin, and the Free Republic web site, are doing to this family is Unamerican.
To no great surprise there's been very little coverage of it in the main stream media.
When is some one going to hold these people responsible for their hate-driven agenda.
This is the exactly the same thing they did to Michael Schiavo.
They dragged him through the mud trying trying to convince the general public he was responsible for Terry's condition though they had no facts to support them and an autopsy later revealed otherwise.
Using kids or soldiers to score political points is distasteful & offensive.
SCHIP needs some tweaking to assure that only those that have a financial need are covered.
More distasteful than dragging this family though the mud the way Republicans, Limbaugh, Malkin and the Free Republic web site are?
Where were you and the Republicans when Bush used children as props when signing No Child Left Behind?
Did you publish their home address as well as email addresses?
You mean when Bush & Ted Kennedy were pushing No Child Left Behind? Mmmm?
Did you find the image of Bush surrounded by kids when signing the bill distasteful and offensive?
Johnie-B-Good,
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I wrote:
Using kids or soldiers to score political points is distasteful & offensive.
It's offensive no matter who does it. Though I'm sure you only get in a twit if a Republican does it.
BTW I find Ted Kennedy offensive & distasteful 100% of the time.
No comprehension problem here.
At what site did you register your displeasure with Bush for using children as props? The Free Republic site perhaps? I'd like a look.
I have a feeling you're paying lip service to the idea when it's the Democrats involved.
Also, politicians have been using children as props since politics began. Every politician uses their family as props when they're campaigning.
You must go through the day filled very offended and filled with distaste.
Well Johnny to begin with posing with your family can in no way be equated with having a kid give the Democratic Radio Address. Apples & oranges. I find that kind of political posturing as offensive as Bush landing on an aircraft carrier.
Since you brought up No Child Left Behind...I thought the program was a crock from day one. Our eldest son is a teacher [Middle School History] and he concurs.
You must go through the day filled very offended and filled with distaste.
Nah that would be you & most of your Liberal cohorts. That's all one reads here...
"Well Johnny to begin with posing with your family can in no way be equated with having a kid give the Democratic Radio Address."
Please explain why not.
I see no material difference and who better to advocate for a program than someone benefitting from it regardless of race/gender/religion/age?
Are you saying if the kid just posed for a photo it would be OK and it's the speaking part you're objecting to? Do you object to children on the campaign trail saying "Vote for my mom/dad" too?
As for your eldest thinking NCLB is a crock, he's entitled to his opinion but I doubt I'll be consulting with him when I'm forming opinions about things. Thanks anyway.
You insult my kid & you don't even know him? You think you know more about the program than a teacher that must implement it? Then I say F#ck you Johnny.
And trust me your opinions are like crumbs in my pocket. Worthless.
Saying someone is entitled to their opinion but I won't be consulting them is an insult?
I will admit that's a novel way to avoid the issues.
You get an A+ for playing the "righteous indignation" card and stalking off
The subject had to be avoided. It's too unseemly to acknowledge that our fellow Americans are being intimidated from participating in the public debate by everyday rank and file Repubuplican thugs.
This is a unique development. Freeperville is an online community of regular folks, just like any liberal blog, the majority of people involved are citizens. They are not media figures, they are llike us except that they apparently have no problem threatening fellow citizens with which they disagree.
So, this blight on the psychological make-up of fellow street level Republicans must be ignored, redirected and generally avoided at all costs. It's just too hard and probably too frightening to admit that one shares ideologic common ground with such politically violent neighbors.
Bad day for Jeter?
In the span of a few entries, he accused Johnny of having a reading comprehension problem (debunked), made the broad-brush insult that Johnny and his Liberal cohorts go through the day offended and filled with distaste, adding that that’s “all one reads here” (and Jeter knows perfectly well this isn’t true), and then accused Johnny of having insulted Jeter’s son (and it’s blindingly obvious this didn’t happen), and tossed in some foul language and nasty insults in the bargain.
Is somebody in here writing under Jeter’s name, or is he just having a really bad day? I sure hope we get the real Jeter back soon.
does that matter? No.
Hey Snoop, it was your fellow Lib Johnny that brought up No Teacher Left Behind. I just thought he needed to be reminded that Teddy Kennedy was also a part of that fiasco. K?
Oops
Not No Teacher Left Behind [though they could use some help!]
I meant No Child Left Behind :-)
Someone should spank your behind for that mistake! ;)
No - when Bush constantly used kids as press conference props. Like the time he paraded out a bunch of test-tube babies that were produced by frozen sperm to spout some sort of pro-life crapola.
Get your facts straight before you resort to the old right-wing ploy of throwing Ted Kennedy into an argument, Jeter. It makes it look like you have even less ammo on this argument than usual....
Troll,
Your buddy Johnny brought up No Teacher Left Behind that has diddley to do with this thread. I simply reminded him that Teddy Boy Kennedy was part of it.
Now back under your rock.
No CHILD Left Behind.
Why I keep writing teacher I don't know...
Ok Wiz, back under your rock.
The point of the thread is the way Republicans, Limbaugh, Malkin and the Free Republic are dragging this family though the mud and you refuse to address that apparently thinking children in politics is a much worse problem.
I've no problem with anyone criticizing the Frosts [if it's deserved] or objecting to Graeme Frost delivering the Democratic Radio Address [pure political posturing] or finding fault with SCHIP [which as it's written today should not pass.]
The Frosts followed the law as it was written.
They aren't being accused of fraud.
What criticism do they deserve?
If anything need to be criticized its the politicians who wrote and passed the law.
Rather than leaving their criticism for politicians Republicans, Limbaugh, Malkin and the Free Republic web site want to make it personal and drag this family through the mud for simply following the law.
This is exactly what Coulter did to the 9/11 widows for simply stating their opinions. She didn't argue about the facts, she attacked them personally, questioned their motives.
Now that Republican political dominance is waning, things are going to get nothing but uglier. The harassment by these smear gangs typify the thug tactics that the rightwing authoritarians must use to silence the presentation and debate of liberal ideas.
They got nothing, no ideas to share so they have to attempt to intimidate the left into submission.
It's the same on college campuses:[link to news.newamericamedia.org]
The main difference there is the kids were actually test-tube babies. On the other hand, the Frosts appear to be fairly well off, yet the Democrats protrayed them as poor. It's not that children are used to make a point. It's whether or not that point was made honestly. In the Frosts' case, it appears that the Democrats were not being honest.
Actually, the Frost's were portrayed as what they really are: one of the millions of middle class families that, despite working hard and doing the right thing, would be bankrupted by the outrageous cost of healthcare.
A combined income of $50K and they're "well off"? In what country?
I remember a bunch of Republican politicians whining because they couldn't survive on $162K plus free health care ...
Also, the Frosts bought a fixer-upper, and Mr. Frost is a woodworker ... so his house probably is worth more BECAUSE HE FIXED IT UP?
And aren't the home prices high in that area? I would bet a home VALUED AT $250K is a bargain in that area; mind you, he hasn't sold it and collected it ... he's still paying property taxes along with trying to feed his family ...
Normally I would agree. THIS time however we are talking about a CHILDRENS healthcare issue. This specific child had been effeted by this program. So this time I dont agree it was distasteful OR offensive. I think they DID try to do what you objected to. Whether or not they did a good job is debateable. I agree in principle this program should be needs tested.
Solon,
I wouldn't have found this too objectionable if the child had been included in a TV/Radio/Newspaper/Magazine ad by some advocate group. However, to have him deliver the Democratic Radio Address smacked of political posturing IMO.
I'd be happy to see this Bill pass if they could assure us that only those in financial need were eligible. The $$ figure needs to be discussed more thoroughly.
Yeah, it's just posturing.
The Democrats really didn't send a bill to Bush which he vetoed.
The Bill needs to be re-worked.
The Veto was justified.
Didn't we just have this discussion about a week ago?
I predict final bill will be about 17B to cover all existing qualifiers and be expanded to 250% of the FPL. About 3x what Bush wanted, and 1/2 of what the dems wanted.
The Bill needs to be re-worked.
Because one man said so. Shame we couldn't get bipartisan support for it.
Why did Bush veto this bill? "First, poor kids first."
Yes, the GOP would never stoop to use kids to push an agenda.I guess I just was dreaming when the snowflake kids were surrounding the major flake, when he vetoed stem cell research.
Not to mention pimping your child for a campaign ad. Think Ashley Faulkner.
The truth about the Frosts:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDAzYjY5OWVkMmQxZTJmNTZlNDNjZTlhOGU3NjNlZDA=
Why would I think I'd get an impartial, factual article from a web site that running a "Stop Hillary" campaign to raise money?
You' don't mind if I rely on other sources for the facts do you?
National Review has been around for 50 years and is a respected publication.
Did you find anything inaccurate in the article?
"National Review has been around for 50 years and is a respected publication."
Well you're half-right. They have been around for 50 years.
"Did you find anything inaccurate in the article?"
It contains the same crap as the other blogs.
They point to the value of their home but conveniently leave out that they bought it for a whopping $55k.
They point out that their kids go to private school and "forget" to mention that they go on scholarships.
They point out that he has a "design business" with, gasp, a property from which to run it. Too bad they fail to challenge anything regarding the families combined income of $45k. I guess if you own a business you are automatically rich, well at least that's what they want you to think.
They throw in what his father and grandfather did for a living for no apparent reason.
What an article from such a "well-respected" magazine.
Quick follow-up.
That "design business" has been dissolved since 1999. Another inaccuracy from that rag.
Truth seems to be a pretty pliable word on Planet Wingnut
I read a bit, four paragraphs to be exact and already found 2 lies which is to be expected since the article is just repeating what's on the Free Republic web site.
1) Halsey Frost hasn't owned and run a woodworking company since 1999. 2) The Frost children are going to private schools on full scholarship. The family isn't paying.
So much for an objective, fact filled article. After 4 paragraphs I'm not reading any more.
In Maryland, eligibility for SCHIP is based on income not total assets. Maybe the law should be rewritten so that if you're refused health insurance, don't qualify for other federal programs and have a catastrophic illness you have to sell all your assets and declare bankruptcy before you can get help.
The Frosts qualified because of low income even though they have other assets like their home.
The Frosts tried to get private health insurance but were turned down because of pre-existing conditions.
For simply following a law as it was written and seeing the SCHIP program as a godsend they're being dragged through the mud by Republicans, Limbaugh, Malkin and the Free Republic web site.
1) Halsey Frost hasn't owned and run a woodworking company since 1999. 2) The Frost children are going to private schools on full scholarship. The family isn't paying.
Provide proof.
"As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete."
You might also have mentioned that the young girl qualifies for the scholarship because she is a "special needs" student, due to brain damage suffered in the accident.
Actually, no, it's good you didn't do that. It might have been taken as a play on the emotions, which is something our right wing friends would never do.
Just as I thought. You lied. Frost BOUGHT the building in which he operates his business in 1999.
In Maryland, eligibility for SCHIP is based on income not total assets. Maybe the law should be rewritten so that if you're refused health insurance, don't qualify for other federal programs and have a catastrophic illness you have to sell all your assets and declare bankruptcy before you can get help.
----------------------------------------------
In which case, of course, they qualify for medicaid.
Which means the Stalkin' Malkins of the world want the taxpayers rather than private insurers to foot the entire bill for these families.
Dazzling logic.
The Frosts qualified because of low income even though they have other assets like their home.
And, as I understand it, their home was purchased at a time when the area wasn't a very nice one. It was purchased for the princely sum of $55,000 in the mid 90s.
The GOP stand ready to throw ANYBODY under the bus, and back over them repeatedly, if they commit the cardinal sin of disagreeing with Republican POLICY positions.
It doesn't matter, nobody is safe. Not kids, grandmas, soldiers, sailors, or candlestick makers. One phrase of "disparaging words" is enough, the Rightwing Smear Machine is on the job (Dixie Chicks), with the intent to DESTROY the offender, trash their reputation, impugn their character, charge them with cowardice and Anti-Americanism ... and hopefully prevent them from ever making a living again.
It's SCORCHED EARTH with these hate-filled rightwingers, and ZERO-TOLERANCE for anything perceived as slightly against Republicans or their ideas.
Of course, it's FEAR that drives this manic attack-mindset, FEAR that Republicans and their ideas are so fragile and flawed, that the least criticism might well break away the patina of candy-coating (provided by the phony-imagemaking of the thoroughly dishonest GOP/Rightwing PR gurus), and expose THE TRUTH.
Frankly, it's a very valid fear. It's real. The rightwing IS NOT "overreacting." Rightwing lies, narratives, and phony imagemaking IS that fragile. And it cannot withstand even the SLIGHTEST scrutiny. Although despicable, desperate, and mean spirited, the rightwing have no choice. The alternative is THE TRUTH ... and that's simply unthinkable!
TEX:
How about the travel office employees under the Clintons, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Joe Lieberman, our troops, and others that the Democrats have thrown under the bus.
KOZAKID:
In each instance you mention, THE TRUTH was the goal of the Democratic party, and THE TRUTH is not helpful to the rightwing.
THE TRUTH about the travel office employees under the Clintons was, (1) Billy Dale mishandled public funds by parking them in his personal account, (2) this was a firing offense, (3) the Clintons wished to avoid any hint of such corruption, so fired those employees who (4) worked at the pleasure of the president anyway. Once it was investigated and known that Dale operated alone, (5) the other employees were rehired.
THE TRUTH about Monica Lewinsky is that Clinton tried mightily to keep her name from being exploited by the GOP. He ultimately failed, and the GOP set about embarrassing, smearing, and attempting to destroy this woman. The RIGHTWING threw this woman under the bus, not Clinton.
THE TRUTH about Paula Jones is that she was exploited by rightwing smear merchants into making FALSE CLAIMS in the form of a lawsuit. Once THE TRUTH was known, her case was thrown out of court due to NO MERIT. Once she was no longer useful to the rightwing smearmerchants, she was indeed thrown under the bus, discarded and abandoned. By her "FRIENDS", the Rightwing.
THE TRUTH about Juanita Broaddrick is that her "story" had no credibility. Her own words over the years were a mass of contradiction, and she had no proof for her most recent claims. Once the Rightwing found out that her story could not be used to bring Clinton down, she too was abandoned by the Rightwing, thrown under bus, discarded as being no longer useful.
THE TRUTH about Joe Lieberman is that he is a politician who seeks votes, and either gets them or doesn't. Not voting for someone is NOT "throwing them under the bus", as you suggest. It is merely the rejection of a candidate based on his policy positions.
THE TRUTH about how Democrats view "our troops" is that they should be SUPPORTED. Bush and the Republicans use and exploit the troops, which HARMS them. The Republicans routinely IGNORE the needs of our troops and combat vets, which HARMS them. The Republicans routinely attack and smear decorated combat veterans, and that HARMS the troops. The Democrats wish to SUPPORT the troops, and this means NOT sending them into war without proper numbers, support, and based on LIES.
Your list, KOZAKID, viewed from the perspective of THE TRUTH, reveals yet MORE people whom the Rightwing has thrown under the bus. What a terrible backfire for you!
The Republicans refuse to recognize there are hard working people who are working poor being affected by this health insurance crisis.
It's the same way they refuse to recognize the benefits of this recent economy aren't touching the middle class who are keeping up by having more people in the household work.
Coulter admits to getting her views on mixed race couples from a Seinfeld episode.
That must be where most Republicans get their views on what's happening in America.
Case in point:
My husband I have seperate private health insurance through our employers, we have no children, so would not qualify for this program, anyhow. This summer, he had three long and painful bouts with kidney stones, requiring three emergency room visits, two lithotripsies, one surgery, a bunch of medications, and one overnight hospital stay. When all is said and done (the bills are still coming in), even with our health insurance, we're looking at about seven or eight thousand out of pocket. If we weren't able to afford health insurance? We'd be looking at over twenty thousand.
I still have student loans and a car to pay off. We live paycheck to paycheck, and struggle to put away just a little bit in savings every month. Our combined HH income squeaks us into lower middle class (I think - maybe upper lower class). Because of these stones, we've now waved good-bye to the hope of buying our own house in the forseeable future, as the money we've been saving is now going to pay our medical providers.
I thank providence every day that we had insurance to cover what it did, and that the problems weren't worse. I can see first-hand now how it's possible for one relatively tiny medical event to ruin an entire family's financial future, and I wish it were possible to show these people who oppose the program why this is so important to have in place. I can't imagine this is just a lack of empathy - there has to be some extreme ignorance of reality involved here.
Needs based? Not so.
Access to quality healthcare is a basic human right, not a commodity from which to squeeze a profit.
Some posters here have suggested that healthcare ought to be distributed on a basis of need. What greater need is there than a healthy society?
Our very security as a nation depends on a vibrant, healthy society. We should stop at nothing to gaurantee a healthy society.
'Access to quality healthcare is a basic human right, not a commodity from which to squeeze a profit.'
According to whom? Is Hillary 'Alinsky' Clinton writing our constitution now?
'What greater need is there than a healthy society?'
How about a fed society? I suppose the government ought to mandate McDonalds give away food? Where should the entitlements stop?
How many times does Socialism have to fail before you Libs get it?
Calm down, you're getting hysterical.
Just look at how desperate Republicans are to manintain control of government despite the big seeya the voters have given them. They are so desperate, in fact, they attempt to re-cast essential family help programs and the social safety net as some failed system of a planned economy. That's weak. And when they fail to thwart the liberal agenda (yep, we have a proud liberal agenda) with bizarre, outdated scare tactics and childish labels...they harrass their fellow citizens with which they disagree.
Honestly, if the threat of entitlements is so stark, so horrific, then we ought to just rid ourselves of that "socialized drinkng water program" and that "socialized library system" and that "socialized police dept." Get a grip dude. Quality healthcare is as much an American birthright as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Republicans it seems would have us shackled to insurance companies instead of being free citizens to pursue our dreams of owning a home or starting a business or even just enjoying our place in the world. And for what? To teach the guy, who loves his work and does it well eventhough it will never make him wealthy, a lesson about self-discipline or some such Republican jive talk?
Socialism indeed.
Just take a breath and come back when the oxygen reaches your brain.
*Breath*
So you would rather be shackled to the government than insurance companies?
I admit the idea's profound. Everybody gets free health care since the day they're born til the day they die. But the problem is it's not free, it's funded by the people. You pay for the government to poorly manage your money and tell you how your health care will be handled. What kind of freedom is that? Idea aside, what will be the quality of the health care be? Could you honestly say their won't be waiting periods? Rationing? Could you point me towards a health care model that we should emulate?
ps
We need the fair tax.
The premise of the questions posed are faulty as they are based on the conservative perception that government is bad and privatization is unassailable.
Responsible liberal government works.
Government committed to the liberal/progressive values of empathy and mutual responsibility built the greatest middle class in the history of the world. This was accomplished by fostering practices that nurture the common good. In short, working people were freed from economic enslavement to pursue their dreams because the people's government held down the cost of higher education, healthcare and housing.
Indeed, the very same Republican politicians who complain the loudest about a single payer healthcare system are the same who see fit to accept that same system to provide care for their families, as well as military families. The argument that publicly sponsored healthcare plans are inefficient is a ruse formulated by corporate lobbyists to keep the people's money flowing to the private sector.
But little of this matters anyway, the conservative mantra of profit first is losing the debate in the public square. Americans want people first changes in healthcare and government from the ground upward. Apparently, the people have had enough of paltry payoffs in the form of taxcuts and governance by unitary executive.
Sorry, the Republican agenda has simply worn out its welcome.
Ok, just please describe to me specifically how universal health care in America will function without waiting periods and rationing? Would you agree that the European experience with universal coverage has been at the least sub-par?
I'm just trying to understand why you have so much faith in government. The last thing any congress has ever been is responsible, why would they start now? Especially given the amount of power the politicians will yield when given control of health care.
And you don't have to be so nasty. I am trying but I cannot understand your reasoning. If responsible liberalism works then is social security an example of irresponsible liberalism? Cause the money is kinda runnin out. And that wonderful socialized military care? VA hospitals anyone? I mean cmon Round, our FBI and CIA barely spoke to each other before 911. Businesses have profit as incentive to do things correctly and efficiently. What reason does the government have to do things right? You actually get rewareded for spending all your money. I'm sorry man I just don't get it.
Oh and if the country's so liberal all of a sudden, why are we still in Iraq? Figured Nancy and them woulda got us out by now, huh.
Begin tangent * They won't do it because it would be political death. You know the old 'weak on the military liberals' mantra. I know that's just neo-con chatter but the Dems still look pretty scared of it. Otherwise it would be easy to get the votes right? Must be a lot of neo-cons out there. * End of tangent.
Are shelter and food a basic human right too?
Would you suggest that each American be given a free home and a government financed debit card to go food shopping?
You lefty loons won't be happy until we're handing over 50% of our incomes for taxes to pay for your lefty programs. You'll start with healthcare but you won't stop there.
Go sell your socialist crap somewhere else.
Thanks. I couldn't have parodied the regressive response any better. We've got your basic misunderstanding of the issue, your basic fallacy, you've got your straw man argument tossed in for fun, and then to cap it all off, there's the name calling.
Compassionate conservatism in a nutshell!
Hey Taz they teach you that in church?
Hey, whatever man. America does better when led by liberals.
The greatest middle class in the history of the world was built by liberal policy makers following liberal values of empathy and mutual responsibility.
It wasn't until the 80's that Republicans started making headway in deconstructing the New Deal. And today we are reaping the rewards of the Republican revolution with stagnant wages, higher healthcare costs, higher tuition, job insecurity and we are disdained as imperialists by the world community.
Way to go Republicans! With friends like that...
TAZ has questions:
TAZ: “Are shelter and food a basic human right too?”
RESPONSE: Yes indeed, those are fundamental needs for survival.
TAZ: “Would you suggest that each American be given a free home and a government financed debit card to go food shopping?”
RESPONSE: All that is necessary is to provide MINIMAL support for human beings at time of need. People who cannot afford shelter, due to temporary conditions, should OF COURSE be provided with a roof over their heads and a cot to sleep on. As to food, the government already provides Food Stamps and WIC, which provide minimal subsistence. Your suggestions are unnecessarily extravagant, but it looks like you’re thinking in a compassionate manner.
TAZ: “You lefty loons won't be happy until we're handing over 50% of our incomes for taxes to pay for your lefty programs.”
RESPONSE: We on the left will fulfill our social responsibility, and will also responsibly PAY for those chores we expect government to do. We understand that SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY over the years (through “liberal programs”) has made America the great nation that it is. We also understand that there are “FREE RIDERS” who wish to enjoy living in this great nation without paying anything. That would be you, TAZ. It’s OK. We’ll continue to make policies that are best for ALL Americans, we will continue to make America a place that has minimal suffering, but will still allow people to be as wildly successful as they want, we will continue to figure the best and most fair way to PAY for running this nation (including social programs), and you will continue to be asked to pay your share. For YOUR part, you can continue to whine and cry about taxes … it’s what you DO. And it’s OK. No harm done.
TAZ: “You'll start with healthcare but you won't stop there.”
RESPONSE: What? Where have you BEEN? We “started” with elder care, Social Security. Medicare addressed healthcare decades ago. We address ALL problems of society, from hunger and poverty to illness to drug addiction, discrimination, racism, homelessness, ALL with social programs.
In the last part of the last century … 1930’s to 2000 … America became the lone superpower, the most prosperous, productive, and inventive nation in history. We evolved enormously in terms of racial and gender equality. Our lifespans and quality of life improved enormously. And ALL THIS occurred with Liberal Policies firmly in place. The America you see today (domestically) is a result of the American people operating under Liberal structures developed over decades. Liberal programs, along with American spirit, made America what Reagan referred to as the “Shining city on the hill”, the envy of the world, a land of freedom, justice, and compassion.
TAZ: “Go sell your socialist crap somewhere else.”
RESPONSE: If you’re younger than 70 years old and live in America, you don’t know anything OTHER than what you call “socialist crap.” The life you know is surrounded by, formed by, enabled by a myriad of “liberal programs” which have been firmly in place for many decades.
If you had your way, TAZ, I have no doubt you would immediately eliminate all the “socialist crap” you see in America, and there would be a profound difference in our nation. The way we live, the communities we currently live in, the society formed over the past century … would vanish, replaced by a nation WITHOUT those programs you hate.
Would anybody wish to LIVE in this nation you would create, one without the “socialist crap” you see? No sir. Nobody would want to live in your nation with no compassion, no social responsibility, no help for those in need … only greed, avarice, and a brutal “law of the jungle.”
You would create a hell on earth, and I would suggest you go “sell that crap somewhere else.”
My God, Tex. Could you have nailed it any better?
You're my hero!
LORELEI:
Bless your heart.
There's a reason why Jimmy Stewart's great film, "It's a Wonderful Life" is such a beloved classic. It tell the story of the constant struggle between the forces of good and evil, as it applies to our everyday lives.
We can be good neighbors, or we can be exploiters. We can have compassion, or we can advocate a cold "survival of the fittest." We can value virtue, or we can value only money. We can embrace love for our fellow man, or we can foment only hatred. We can be trusting and optimistic, or we can be suspicious and fatalistic.
It's our choice, each of us. Are there dangers in the world? Absolutely, and they should be dealt with forcefully and with as much finality as we can muster. But our core philosophy, our root beliefs, can lead us to live lives of peace and happiness, or to live in constant fear and anger. It's our choice.
lol good argument, sounds a lot like mine
How about a solution?
We spend about $1600, government and private insurance. How about giving individuals the opportunity to use that money, deciding themselves about the kind of insurance they need. Allow market forces to keep costs lower, patients to control of their health care, keep extra monies in a Health Saving Account insurance companies to provide options across state lines and avoid the abyss of bureaucracy. The VA is now the only fully government 'owned' health care provider and its record is awful.
The private sector would provide personal accountablity for care choices and lower costs as a result.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp
I meant to say $1600 per person
Oh, good, Proudcon. I was going to say, that's not going too far with a couple hundred million people. ;0)
Too late my friend.
The market has had ample time and opportunity to alleviate the healthcare burden on working people and has relentlessly pursued profit over the welfare of people.
As for the VA thank the neglect of anti-government Republicans for underfunding and mismanaging it into the ground.
Roundhouse nailed it, ProudCon. The free market has had its chance to work its much ballyhooed magic on health care insurance, and it has failed miserably.
Thanks for the affirmation, man.