NationStates Jolt Archive

The link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10memo.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

In short: The democrats say "Hey, here's a kid that really needs healthcare." Republican bloggers and pundits then go on to lie about the family's income, bringing up the fact that their kid goes to a private school (he has a scholarship) and estimating the cost of the family's house at twice it's actual value. It all comes down to their assertion that the father of this family of six is intentionally not buying health insurance in order to mooch off of the state.


In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions. “We stood up in the first place because S-chip really helped our family and we wanted to help other families,” Mrs. Frost said.

Truly, some people will sink quite low.

Wait? Republicans hate poor children? Pah, that's hardly news. News would be if they liked or were at least indifferent to poor children.

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers." -George Carlin

Since when are conservatives expected to care about living children? They only care about those who haven't been born yet, and even that is only because they can use them as a way to control women.

Damn both sides for fighting over a child, I mean for Christ Sakes, why can't we just renew the SCHIP program without the expansion? The SCHIP program will still go on (without any expansion) and families like these will still get help.

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.

...

Mr. Bush’s plan could force states to tighten eligibility limits, but it seemed likely that the Frost children would still be covered.

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.

Ah, bloggers. Like unchained junkyard dogs. Sometimes they bite who you want them to, sometimes not so much. Although the wording on that last sentence is...interesting. Were you going to and stopped in time?

The sad thing is no matter who the dogs bite it works out. For those the dogs influence it brings them in line, but the official party members get to step away from the whole thing, "That wasn't us, it was that unchained dog."

It seems that with the increase of information the accuracy of information didn't really increase-there is too much traveling too fast to correct everything. You just have to spread enough seeds and some will take. How many people still believe Gore said he invented the internet? The dadaists were right, and they were only talking about print...

Since when are conservatives expected to care about living children? They only care about those who haven't been born yet, and even that is only because they can use them as a way to control women.
Or reap single issue voters. When you have a major church telling you it's a sin to vote for someone who supports abortion it's like a gimme vote.

Or reap single issue voters. When you have a major church telling you it's a sin to vote for someone who supports abortion it's like a gimme vote.

Win the troglodyte vote, control women, be assholes. It's win-win for them.

Damn both sides for fighting over a child, I mean for Christ Sakes, why can't we just renew the SCHIP program without the expansion?
Because that is communism and communism would take away our guns, make abortions legal, kill Ronald Reagan (again), and resurrect Stalin.

kill Ronald Reagan (again)

Oh, if only that were doable! Now, we just get to contend with dancing on his grave. :(

Damned Alzheimer's! You robbed us!

Damn both sides for fighting over a child, I mean for Christ Sakes, why can't we just renew the SCHIP program without the expansion? The SCHIP program will still go on (without any expansion) and families like these will still get help.

Agreed.

I'm so glad I'm on the NHS

course everyone knows that the father is just lazy and that there is an anecdote out there or somebody who made it :rolleyes:

Damn both sides for fighting over a child, I mean for Christ Sakes, why can't we just renew the SCHIP program without the expansion? The SCHIP program will still go on (without any expansion) and families like these will still get help.

Fighting over a child is not always a bad thing. When someone wants to drop a child off a cliff, fighting over it is actually rather honorable. The family came forward and spoke out about this issue. The democrats didn't subpeona them. Unfortunately the repubs look at a brain damaged 12 year old in a family of six making less than $55,220 a year and say "this kid has too many nice things."

## on the record.

Thou shall not trust everything the pundits say? true.
many Republican pundits are garbage? true.
This strategy against that family is sick? true.
Republican US health care policies are weaker? true
...
Republicans hate children? Not true.
Republicans dont care about Children? Not true.

Fighting over a child is not always a bad thing. When someone wants to drop a child off a cliff, fighting over it is actually rather honorable. The family came forward and spoke out about this issue. The democrats didn't subpeona them. Unfortunately the repubs look at a brain damaged 12 year old in a family of six making less than $55,220 a year and say "this kid has too many nice things."
The want to examine assets in order to qualify for an already crappy system; it's rather ridiculous. Assets don't make you money unless you sell them.

..drop a child off a cliff..-We are Sparta- Health policy?

Republicans hate children? Not true.
Republicans dont care about Children? Not true.

speak for yourself.

The want to examine assets in order to qualify for an already crappy system; it's rather ridiculous. Assets don't make you money unless you sell them.

Except that the value of assets can appreciate over time. I think that's capital gains, but I haven't taken Economics in over a year and didn't pay much attention in the class.

Not that it makes the situation this kid and his family are in any less deplorable, nor does it make the reaction by the right any less reprehensible. I just wanted to clarify.

speak for yourself.## = OcceanDrive

my post reads on the first line:
"Occeandrive on the record."

my full post:## on the record.

Thou shall not trust everything the pundits say? true.
many Republican pundits are garbage? true.
This strategy against that family is sick? true.
Republican US health care policies are weaker? true
...
Republicans hate children? Not true.
Republicans dont care about Children? Not true.

## = OcceanDrive

my post reads on the first line:
"Occeandrive on the record."

my full post:

Sorry then. I guess I hadn't gotten the memo that ## = Occeandrive.

Do you derive that from any particular thing, or did you just choose it at random?

Except that the value of assets can appreciate over time. I think that's capital gains, but I haven't taken Economics in over a year and didn't pay much attention in the class.
Like I said, assets are worthless unless sold.
Economists be damned.

Like I said, assets are worthless unless sold.
Economists be damned.

Again, that's not wholly accurate. For instance, with a house, one may take that asset and take a home equity loan against the value of the house, essentially borrowing against the appreciated value of the house above what has (generally) already been mortgaged.

Sorry then. I guess I hadn't gotten the memo that ## = Occeandrive.

Do you derive that from any particular thing, or did you just choose it at random?

He does it so he can find all of his idiotic posts.

Again, that's not wholly accurate. For instance, with a house, one may take that asset and take a home equity loan against the value of the house, essentially borrowing against the appreciated value of the house above what has (generally) already been mortgaged.

Which is effectively crap. What those who believe that are saying is that equity counts as an asset because you can go further still into debt and borrow against it. Unwise, unsound, and part of the reason the US is in such economic peril.

Sorry then. I guess I hadn't gotten the memo that ## = Occeandrive.

Do you derive that from any particular thing, or did you just choose it at random?

He hasn't yet figured out how to search by username.

###

Which is effectively crap. What those who believe that are saying is that equity counts as an asset because you can go further still into debt and borrow against it. Unwise, unsound, and part of the reason the US is in such economic peril.

Fair enough. Heh, well that shows what I know about personal finance. :D

Republicans dont care about Children? Not true.

All of them? Of course not. But there are those who don't care about children that are not their own.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010730

yeah, you know whatever.

All of them? Of course not. But there are those who don't care about children that are not their own.

Well they care about poor children in that they hope to keep them poor so as to have wage slaves/crap consumers and they want them to be unhealthy to keep the pharmaceutical companies rich on pill popping consumers. They have their corporate base to keep happy too, not just the religious base. :p

Apparently some conservative bloggers have posted the kid's home address on the internet.

Despicable.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010730

yeah, you know whatever.

Nice article. It's got nothing to do with the OP, which is criticizing some portion of the GOP and/or their fan base for publicly trying to discredit the family in question with complete fabrications and lies. But it's a nice article.

Apparently some conservative bloggers have posted the kid's home address on the internet.

Despicable.
Conservative pundits are all fucking insane. No one denounces them but Democrats which all their brainwashed thrall laugh at then go on and march upon logic and reason.

Nice article. It's got nothing to do with the OP, which is criticizing some portion of the GOP and/or their fan base for publicly trying to discredit the family in question with complete fabrications and lies. But it's a nice article.

I think since Pelosi is lying and making shit up.....

I think since Pelosi is lying and making shit up.....

Go ahead, finish that thought. If you don't, I will, and it'll go something like this: "I think that since Pelosi is lying and making shit up, that the family in the OP deserves to be attacked by the GOP smear machine."

See, I'm not naive enough to believe that one party has the corner on horseshit. Pelosi is full of shit, so was Hastert -- this is nothing new. Put yourself in the family's shoes for a tic, Smunkee.

I think since Pelosi is lying and making shit up.....

Nothing new there.

I think since Pelosi is lying and making shit up.....

... this boy and his family have to suffer for you liking to think that?

Go ahead, finish that thought. If you don't, I will, and it'll go something like this: "I think that since Pelosi is lying and making shit up, that the family in the OP deserves to be attacked by the GOP smear machine."

See, I'm not naive enough to believe that one party has the corner on horseshit. Pelosi is full of shit, so was Hastert -- this is nothing new. Put yourself in the family's shoes for a tic, Smunkee.

you put your kid in the middle of a pile of shit, and you don't expect it to affect him in any way?

I wouldn't make my children part of a political ploy.

Republicans hate children? Not true.
Republicans dont care about Children? Not true.
Yeah, they're fine with the ones who have rich parents.

And they start to like the poor ones once they reach military age.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010730

yeah, you know whatever.
Yes, opinionjournal, such a reputable source for cold, hard facts.

Yes, opinionjournal, such a reputable source for cold, hard facts.

Hey, it says "journal" right there in the title. What else than a reputable source of information would be allowed the title of "journal?"

Yes, opinionjournal, such a reputable source for cold, hard facts.

To be fair, it's the Wall Street Journal, not a blog or wikipedia or something. Yeah, it's an opinion column and it is of course possible that it's taking its own liberties (and it's an opinion piece, so it's giving that persons opinion) but it is the facts she presented, you kind of have to refute the points themselves instead of dismiss it out of hand.

you put your kid in the middle of a pile of shit, and you don't expect it to affect him in any way?

I wouldn't make my children part of a political ploy.

"But your honor" - said the rapist's defense attorney - "She was wearing skimpy clothes!"

Apparently some conservative bloggers have posted the kid's home address on the internet.

Despicable.

We need a hacker to find out their addresses through their IP and reciprocate the favor.

To be fair, it's the Wall Street Journal, not a blog or wikipedia or something. Yeah, it's an opinion column and it is of course possible that it's taking its own liberties (and it's an opinion piece, so it's giving that persons opinion) but it is the facts she presented, you kind of have to refute the points themselves instead of dismiss it out of hand.
I'm kinda lazy and the article she posted is quite off topic to begin with. I was just making a quick sarcastic comment because the thing read like opinions given by someone who is a jerk.

All of them? Of course not. But there are those who don't care about children that are not their own.True that.

you put your kid in the middle of a pile of shit, and you don't expect it to affect him in any way?

I wouldn't make my children part of a political ploy.

Agreed. That why I damn both side of this debate.

The Democrats naively tried to put a human face on an issue. They should have known that the Republicans would piss in that human face.

Agreed. That why I damn both side of this debate.

Yes, damn that family for wanting their kid to have health insurance. I mean, how fucking depraved and wrong is that? They should be executed!

I'm kinda lazy and the article she posted is quite off topic to begin with. I was just making a quick sarcastic comment because the thing read like opinions given by someone who is a jerk.

Can't argue the last part, and I have to admit I made my comment because I was lazy and wanted someone else to look into the claims made in it. Bah, I already have everything open in tabs...

The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage. And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement. In truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion. A majority of Congress backs a much larger expansion. The controversy is over the role of government in health care.
This is really a semantic argument. While she may have been being dramatic, his retort is a little dramatic as well-" And even if Washington can't agree by then, there will be another stopgap, because Schip might as well already be an entitlement." Drama with more drama. Bush vetoed the bill, which this guy acknowledges means the bill runs out in November.

If Kerry can be characterized as voting against funding as against the troops, this can be characterized as Bush denying children health care. It's drama, since they do in fact have a chance to come back with another bill and Bush does have his version of a compromise, but strictly speaking Bush did just say no to health care for kids.

The 10 million children that Ms. Pelosi cites are the sum of the current enrollees plus those who could join under the Democratic plan (which also has the support of some wayward Republicans). Never mind that up to 60% of these children already have private insurance, which Schip would displace as it moves up the income scale. Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance.
Again, as he already stated, without approval the funding runs out in November. So the sum total is in fact the correct amount. The last bit is kind of ridiculous. "Only by Beltway reasoning could "not expanding" count as "denying" public assistance." In what way is it not denying? The legislative granted that expansion, the veto denies it. Is asked for, then refused or 'denied.' He's playing more games than he accuses Nancy of (I can call her Nancy, I'm in her district...)

And on the 60%, according to Factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html):

The House bill would extend coverage to a total of 7.5 million people, 5 million of whom are uninsured, while the Senate bill would reach 6.1 million, 4 million of whom are uninsured, according to CBO reports. The rest of those affected by the expansions would have private or other coverage. Those numbers give crowd-out rates of 32 percent for the House bill and 34 percent for Senate's. Orszag said of the House crowd-out effect, "given the scale of the net reduction in the uninsured, it’s pretty much as good as you’re going to get. In other words, I have not seen any other proposals to reduce the number of uninsured children by 5 million with crowd-out rates that are lower than 33 percent. Again, in the absence of a mandate on an employer, or a mandate on an individual, or a mandate on state governments, CBO does not believe you’re going to do much better than these kinds of crowd-out rates." (Our calculations show 32 percent from the CBO charts, which include numbers rounded to one decimal point.)
Sources for those numbers are linked at the bottom of the factcheck page. I'd like to see the source for the opinion articles almost double numbers.

Despite their howls about "the children," Democrats and their media partners are happy to milk them for political gain.

Unfortunately, that narrative was bolstered this week by some conservative bloggers. After the Schip veto, Democrats chose a 12-year-old boy named Graeme Frost to deliver a two-minute rebuttal. While that was a political stunt, the Washington habit of employing "poster children" is hardly new. But the Internet mob leapt to some dubious conclusions and claimed the Frost kids shouldn't have been on Schip in the first place.

As it turns out, they belonged to just the sort of family that a modest Schip is supposed to help. One lesson from this meltdown is the limit of argument by anecdote. The larger point concerns policy assumptions. Everyone concedes it is hard for some lower-income families like the Frosts to find affordable private health coverage. The debate is over what the government should do about it.
Here at least he concedes the point of the thread-those attacking the family are dicks.

The remaining part, which I don't feel like pasting, is really to vague to bother with, and is really just more of the NSG standard accusations of "socialism' and 'the market will save us all.'

But it's hardly the stinging rebuke to Nancy Pelosi it was billed to be, especially since the only thing in there that was untrue was the author's claim about the '60%' of children already covered.

The Democrats naively tried to put a human face on an issue. They should have known that the Republicans would piss in that human face.

Step one to putting on the boot and stomping on it forever?

Step one to putting on the boot and stomping on it forever?

*Hands you a picture of the future*

Yes, damn that family for wanting their kid to have health insurance. I mean, how fucking depraved and wrong is that? They should be executed!

*roll eyes* You are an idiot. The President supported renewing the SCHIP program, but the Democrats saw it as an opportunity to expand the program, regardless of the fact that the program was working fine before the proposed expansion. Now neither side will sit down and talk it out, they're just playing politics with SCHIP.

Win the troglodyte vote, control women, be assholes. It's win-win for them.

Me offended. As troglodyte immigrant, me come to surface for live better life.

Me support woman right choose. When me wife choose not release spores to make more troglodyte baby, me support.

On topic, me also think means test for benefits problematic, but reasonable limits necessary.

Please no more compare troglodytes to hardline conservatives.

*roll eyes* You are an idiot. The President supported renewing the SCHIP program, but the Democrats saw it as an opportunity to expand the program, regardless of the fact that the program was working fine before the proposed expansion. Now neither side will sit down and talk it out, they're just playing politics with SCHIP.

Precisely.

Yes, opinionjournal, such a reputable source for cold, hard facts.

Wall Street Journal

*marks off her list of "real newspapers"*

Me offended. As troglodyte immigrant, me come to surface for live better life.

Me support woman right choose. When me wife choose not release spores to make more troglodyte baby, me support.

On topic, me also think means test for benefits problematic, but reasonable limits necessary.

Please no more compare troglodytes to hardline conservatives.
You win the thread.

Wall Street Journal

*marks off her list of "real newspapers"*
The point is that nothing with "opinion" in it's name can be taken at face value. Opinion columns are rarely fact checked.

Agreed. That why I damn both side of this debate.

You seem to have an allergy to facts.

This "pox on both houses" approach conveniently ignores that one side is trying to help this child and children like him and the other side is opposing that and defaming the child's family.


*roll eyes* You are an idiot. The President supported renewing the SCHIP program, but the Democrats saw it as an opportunity to expand the program, regardless of the fact that the program was working fine before the proposed expansion. Now neither side will sit down and talk it out, they're just playing politics with SCHIP.

Again, your point glibly ignores facts.

This is not a simple partisan debate as many Republicans support the expansion of the SCHIP program. 18 Republican Senators and 45 Republican Representatives voted for the expansion.

In fact, some of the harshest critics of Bush's position have been Republicans:

Some of the "sharpest challenges" in the Senate to Bush's position "came from Republicans," who said that the "administration was misinformed -- and even misleading the public" -- on several provisions, according to the Los Angeles Times. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said, "The administration is threatening to veto this bill because of 'excessive spending' and their belief that this bill is a step toward federalization of health care," adding, "I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the administration's concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, bluntly put, they are not" (Los Angeles Times, 9/28).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said that Bush's concern that the program would lead to "government-run health care" is unfounded. Corker said, "What will move our country toward socialized medicine is not this bill, which focuses on poor children, but the lack of action to allow people in need to have access to private affordable health care" (Pear, New York Times, 9/28).

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that he would lobby House Republicans to override a presidential veto (Schor, The Hill, 9/28). Grassley said that Bush's objections to the legislation are based on false assumptions, such as his concern that families with annual incomes up to $83,000 would qualify for the program. Grassley said, "In Iowa, you can't call a cow a chicken and have it be true" (Norman, Des Moines Register, 9/28).


link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84089.php)

In fact, some of the harshest critics of Bush's position have been Republicans:
link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84089.php)


Me troglodyte think Senator Corker (R-Tennessee) make cogent point. People no can get affordable health care in privatized context, people naturally gravitate toward support for different system.

If man no want socialized healthcare, private system need overhaul.

Me have suggestion. Man interbreed with troll. Troll regenerate. Then, need only burn wards and kill all wizards. Vote Krghgh!

Wall Street Journal

*marks off her list of "real newspapers"*

You win the thread.


The point is that nothing with "opinion" in it's name can be taken at face value. Opinion columns are rarely fact checked.

If you look up you'll find an actual critique of the opinion piece...

If you look up you'll find an actual critique of the opinion piece...

I read it. The point was, the non factualness of an opinion piece does not necessarily reflect badly on the Wall Street Journal.

you make it sound worse than it is. All they were saying is that a child shouldn't be used for politicals games because it makes debate more difficult. And they're right.

-We are Sparta- Health policy?

This is Sparta.

you make it sound worse than it is. All they were saying is that a child shouldn't be used for politicals games because it makes debate more difficult. And they're right.

Which "they" are you referring to? The pundits who lied about the boy's family? the article writer? Smunkeeville?

How stupid. I would have answered the Democrats with "well, how much of your money did you donate?".

Unfortunately that would piss off the evangelical right, so to satisfy both the belief that socialised healthcare is evil and that helping others is good, they simply proceeded to dispute the existence of the problem in the first place. How transparent.

Damn both sides for fighting over a child, I mean for Christ Sakes, why can't we just renew the SCHIP program without the expansion? The SCHIP program will still go on (without any expansion) and families like these will still get help.
Or....here's a even more outrageous idea: The President supports the expanded program to help people like this who are - let's face it - making sod-all and can't get medical coverage.
But nope. He wants to suddenly start bleating on about fiscal responsibility. The fact he can even say that with a straight face speaks volumes about his level of delusion and removal from reality.