Bogus radio address by the Dems.

Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Yet, if they could sell down or borrow on equity, is that not a viable option?

No! You're saying that they should go into debt 13-15k per year, in perpetuity?

That's a terrible way to run a society or to help someone.

So-called 'asset testing' is ridiculous in this case. Do you know what the penalties for taking money out of their retirement account would be? Gigantic. And the results? More people on the dole later on in life. It isn't a net gain for the taxpayers to force people to spend their retirement savings on health insurance.

I think you have no idea how much houses cost these days. There's not much chance they would find a cheaper house then the one they have; there's actually little chance they could sell their current house in the climate we're in, not for anywhere near what the supposed 'value' of the house is.

I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to go into debt to pay for health insurance for their kids. I don't know why you think this is reasonable.

Cycloptichorn

Qualified Medical expenses are allowable exemption from qualified plans, so theirare no penalties but income taxes would need to be paid, yet the medical expense is deductible since it would exceed the limits for imcome tax purposes. This may not be available to this familiy, but it is an option that could be used/considered.

Selling down could also mean renting for a while until they get back on their feet. Again, why is this not an option. Again, maybe not for this familiy but why should it not be considered.

You suggest this "debt" would be perpetual. Why? Will they never get back back on their feet? Where is the incentive for a familiy to get back on their feet if taxpayers keep "feeding them"?

I am not suggesting people go into debt.

I am suggesting that people need to be responsible financially and live within their means. I pay as much for health insurance as you or anyone else. I do not live in a 3K sq foot house because I can not afford to given all the other financial responsibilities I have to myself and my family. If I did live in a 3K sq foot house, I would be in financial trouble.

So should I move into the 3k sq foot house them come to you and ask you to pay for my kids health insurance?

Let me know and my wife and kids will thank you endlessly for giving them more room then they need to live in.

Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

Then we can agree to disagree.

You take a position that personal responsibility is irrelevant and the taxpayers are the saftey net for your poor decisions.

Great. I am moving into that 3K sq foot house tomorrow that I can not afford and I will send my health insurance bill to you to pay for my childrens health insurance.

Have a nice day.

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Woiyo, if you're not going to be serious, I'm not going to continue the conversation.

The thing that gets me is that you seem to believe that people plan on making poor financial decisions and getting you to pay the tab. I don't think there's any evidence that this is the case at all.

A few points.

First of all, 'selling down' isn't really an option in that they won't save any money that way. I know you're hung up on the size of the house, but that's meaningless; the fact is that the house isn't worth much more then the median home value these days, the market is terrible, they'd lose tax credits. Selling down is an option for some but not a solution for everyone.

I specifically challenge the notion that they made 'poor financial decisions.' They didn't make the cost of health care and health insurance skyrocket. They didn't make the cost of food and energy go up tremendously. There are a lot of financial considerations in their life which have nothing whatsoever to do with their personal decisions, yet they still have to pay for the results.

You should realize that this is a children's health insurance program that we're talking about. If you go on disability, you're likely to be on it for the rest of your life. SCHIP is by definition a limited-basis program. Therefore the background checks that they need for a lifetime of assistance are going to be stronger then those for a shorter time of assistance.

Also, there's the point that, at the end of the day, if something bad happens to your family, you shouldn't be forced to liquidate all your assets in order to pay for health care for your kids who need it. There's a definite case to be made that children in society shouldn't be punished for their parent's poor decisions. The alternative is to say, 'well, you can just die, b/c your parents made bad decisions. So sorry!' I'm not comfortable with making that statement.

Cycloptichorn

Then we can agree to disagree.

You take a position that personal responsibility is irrelevant and the taxpayers are the saftey net for your poor decisions.

Great. I am moving into that 3K sq foot house tomorrow that I can not afford and I will send my health insurance bill to you to pay for my childrens health insurance.

Have a nice day.

You just don't f*cking get it. All you can see is the potential to abuse the system, and not the potential to help people who need it.

I think that's the real reason Republicans are against any sort of public assistance; they project what THEY would do onto other people. YOU would cheat the system (you propose doing exactly that, so don't say you wouldn't) so everyone else must be as well.

I don't understand it....

I believe that we have a responsiblity to see that kids get taken care of even if their parents have financial disadvantages, for whatever reason; you would prefer that those same kids did not receive the health care they needed, in order to teach them and their parents a lesson about personal responsibility. I find this to be a morally reprehensible position.

Cycloptichorn

But what I wonder is - should they have to insure me at the same rate they would any other family of my size?

What if doing so meant that your rates would double in order to cover such undesirable people as my family seems to be?

Should they be able to set the price at some fee that I could never afford?

What if they said "Sure, we'll insure you. That'll be $5,000 a month."

Then you have a choice to pay it or find a different company that will insure you for less money.

parados wrote:

Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

woiyo wrote:

I am not so sure THIS particuliar family, based upon the facts presented, is what the program was designed to do.

The people who run the program - who asked the required questions - and reviewed the responses - decided that assistance to this particular family was indeed what the program was designed to do.

Yeah right..woiyo.. this is all about getting the facts right.

woiyo wrote:

Here is my question/issue. If they have the resources to pay for private school to the tune of 40K.yr, I would assume they have sibstantial resources. Therefore, why should I the taxpayer, subsidize their healthcare?

woiyo wrote:

So they pay 6K (500/mo) to send thier children to this private school.

woiyo wrote:

What about personal responsibility? Can the wife work?

woiyo wrote:

You are right I do not understand how someone making 50K /yr, spending 6K on private education, living in a 3K sq foot house that property taxes nust cost several thousand dollars, feed 6 kids, clothing ,so on and so on.

This is about accusing of fraud anyone that might get more money than you from the government. And you seem to be more than willing to make up "facts" to do it.

Time.com exposes the shameful smear attack by the right-wing sick f***s


The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost
Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007 By KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON

If you listen closely to the two-minute radio address that 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered last week for the Democrats, you can hear the lingering effects of the 2004 car crash that put him into a coma for a week and left one of his vocal cords paralyzed. "Most kids my age probably haven't heard of CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program," he says in a voice that sounds weak and stressed. "But I know all about it, because if it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today."


.Graeme, whose sister suffered worse brain injuries when their family SUV hit a patch of black ice, was making an appeal for President Bush to reconsider his veto of legislation that would have expanded the program designed to provide health coverage to children of the working poor ?- those who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance.

Since then, Frost and his family have been introduced firsthand to something else that most kids his age haven't: the reality of how brutal partisan politics can be in the Internet age. It started over the weekend, when a blogger calling himself Icwhatudo put up a post on the conservative website Freerepublic.com noting what he had found by scavenging around the Internet: that Graeme attends a private school, lives in a remodeled house near one that had sold for $485,000 in March and is the child of parents whose wedding was announced in the New York Times. The post also noted that his father purchased a $160,000 commercial space in 1999.

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business... maybe money can be found for other things," the blogger wrote. "Maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes."

That was just the beginning of what turned into a Category 5 hurricane on the blogosphere. Typical of the tone was what Mark Steyn wrote on National Review Online: "Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices. But, if this is the face of the 'needy' in America, then no one is not needy." Nameless commenters to conservative blogs were even harsher. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens," wrote one one on Redstate.com, who was quoted in the Baltimore Sun. "Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.

Halsey did have this to say in an e-mail to me:

"My son Graeme has helped put on a human face, that of a young boy, representing the needs of children and families across this nation. We are a hard working family that has stepped forward to support SCHIP. Mudslinging from the fringe has now been directed at the messenger. To be smeared all over the Internet and receive nasty e-mail ?- my family does not deserve this retribution. It is both shameful and pathetic.

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

Roxxxanne wrote:

Time.com exposes the shameful smear attack by the right-wing sick f***s


The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost
Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007 By KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON

If you listen closely to the two-minute radio address that 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered last week for the Democrats, you can hear the lingering effects of the 2004 car crash that put him into a coma for a week and left one of his vocal cords paralyzed. "Most kids my age probably haven't heard of CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program," he says in a voice that sounds weak and stressed. "But I know all about it, because if it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today."


.Graeme, whose sister suffered worse brain injuries when their family SUV hit a patch of black ice, was making an appeal for President Bush to reconsider his veto of legislation that would have expanded the program designed to provide health coverage to children of the working poor ?- those who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance.

Since then, Frost and his family have been introduced firsthand to something else that most kids his age haven't: the reality of how brutal partisan politics can be in the Internet age. It started over the weekend, when a blogger calling himself Icwhatudo put up a post on the conservative website Freerepublic.com noting what he had found by scavenging around the Internet: that Graeme attends a private school, lives in a remodeled house near one that had sold for $485,000 in March and is the child of parents whose wedding was announced in the New York Times. The post also noted that his father purchased a $160,000 commercial space in 1999.

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business... maybe money can be found for other things," the blogger wrote. "Maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes."

That was just the beginning of what turned into a Category 5 hurricane on the blogosphere. Typical of the tone was what Mark Steyn wrote on National Review Online: "Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices. But, if this is the face of the 'needy' in America, then no one is not needy." Nameless commenters to conservative blogs were even harsher. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens," wrote one one on Redstate.com, who was quoted in the Baltimore Sun. "Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.

Halsey did have this to say in an e-mail to me:

"My son Graeme has helped put on a human face, that of a young boy, representing the needs of children and families across this nation. We are a hard working family that has stepped forward to support SCHIP. Mudslinging from the fringe has now been directed at the messenger. To be smeared all over the Internet and receive nasty e-mail ?- my family does not deserve this retribution. It is both shameful and pathetic.

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

woiyo wrote:

parados wrote:

Maybe we should talk about personal responsibility.

Don't you think people should be responsible for their own actions woiyo?

For once, you might take a moment and look at my latest posts/responses to Cyclo, and you will see I am directly talking to personal responsibility.

Maybe you have a different meaning of what personal responsibility means than I do.

I am surprised that any of you would have the gall to show back up on this thread after being exposed to the fact that you are participating in a smear attack on a boy who was the victim of a horrific accident that put him in a coma for a week.

"Let us not assassinate this lad further... You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Roxxxanne wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Time.com exposes the shameful smear attack by the right-wing sick f***s


The Swift-Boating of Graeme Frost
Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2007 By KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON

If you listen closely to the two-minute radio address that 12-year-old Graeme Frost delivered last week for the Democrats, you can hear the lingering effects of the 2004 car crash that put him into a coma for a week and left one of his vocal cords paralyzed. "Most kids my age probably haven't heard of CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program," he says in a voice that sounds weak and stressed. "But I know all about it, because if it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today."


.Graeme, whose sister suffered worse brain injuries when their family SUV hit a patch of black ice, was making an appeal for President Bush to reconsider his veto of legislation that would have expanded the program designed to provide health coverage to children of the working poor ?- those who are too rich to qualify for Medicaid but unable to afford private insurance.

Since then, Frost and his family have been introduced firsthand to something else that most kids his age haven't: the reality of how brutal partisan politics can be in the Internet age. It started over the weekend, when a blogger calling himself Icwhatudo put up a post on the conservative website Freerepublic.com noting what he had found by scavenging around the Internet: that Graeme attends a private school, lives in a remodeled house near one that had sold for $485,000 in March and is the child of parents whose wedding was announced in the New York Times. The post also noted that his father purchased a $160,000 commercial space in 1999.

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business... maybe money can be found for other things," the blogger wrote. "Maybe Dad should drop his woodworking hobby and get a real job that offers health insurance rather than making people like me (also with 4 kids in a 600sf smaller house and tuition $16,000 less per kid and no commercial property ownership) pay for it in my taxes."

That was just the beginning of what turned into a Category 5 hurricane on the blogosphere. Typical of the tone was what Mark Steyn wrote on National Review Online: "Bad things happen to good people, and they cause financial problems and tough choices. But, if this is the face of the 'needy' in America, then no one is not needy." Nameless commenters to conservative blogs were even harsher. "Let 'em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens," wrote one one on Redstate.com, who was quoted in the Baltimore Sun. "Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice."

It turns out, however, that not everything about the Frosts' life pops up on a Google search. While Graeme does attend a private school, he does so on scholarship. Halsey Frost is a self-employed woodworker; he and his wife say they earn between $45,000 and $50,000 a year to provide for their family of six. Their 1936 rowhouse was purchased in 1990 for $55,000. It was vacant and in a run-down neighborhood that has improved since then, in part because of people like themselves who took a chance. It is now assessed at $263,140, though under state law the value of that asset is not taken into account in determining their eligibility for SCHIP. And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.

In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.

While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.

Halsey did have this to say in an e-mail to me:

"My son Graeme has helped put on a human face, that of a young boy, representing the needs of children and families across this nation. We are a hard working family that has stepped forward to support SCHIP. Mudslinging from the fringe has now been directed at the messenger. To be smeared all over the Internet and receive nasty e-mail ?- my family does not deserve this retribution. It is both shameful and pathetic.

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

"I find it morally reprehensible, and the act of a true coward, to publicly (world wide) smear a man and his family and not sign one's own real name to what they have written. I sign my name to what I write.

-Halsey Frost"

"Driven by a most dubious agenda, shortsighted cut-and-paste bloggers, lacking all the facts, have made a feeble attempt at being crack reporters. This is an aberrant attempt to distract the American people from what the real issues are. Hard working American families need affordable health insurance.

Hey Rox go troll the bay not the thread. If you don't think he should be a target then he shouldn't have been put on the radio for a national address. Once you go from private to public then you are a target. The Dems knew this was going to happen but didn't care, so why should we not debate the family. Just like Cindy Sheehan they made themselves a target the minute they opened their mouths in the world of politics.