Exactly. They took some information that on the surface sounds damning, but under further investigation it isn't. Yet they still push it. It's not misleading. It's dishonest, to say the least.
That's what I hate about it... these misleading statements will be shown to be bullshit almost instantly, but the right-wing talk radio jackasses and the like will take them and run, all the while keep talking about this family weeks from now going to private schools and renovating their house...
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Sounds to me like they need to increase their income. They're making $22K each. That's not bad if you're in high school or college, but not so much if you're a parent.
"Increase their income"? A little easier said than done - or else we'd all be millionaires.
Nah. Since we're playing the black/white, simplest answer imaginable game here (correctness of answer notwithstanding) then I'll say it's easier to rob from you to pay for theirs. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
That's what I hate about it... these misleading statements will be shown to be bullshit almost instantly, but the right-wing talk radio jackasses and the like will take them and run
This sounds like this board in a lot of ways...except the opposite side of the spectrum. That's not a defense of the jackass bloggers in the original article as much as a condemnation of their actions.
That's what I hate about it... these misleading statements will be shown to be bullshit almost instantly, but the right-wing talk radio jackasses and the like will take them and run, all the while keep talking about this family weeks from now going to private schools and renovating their house...
It's the audience. Both sides make their outrageous claims (I mean, really, 12 year olds speaking on healthcare?); but, and maybe I'm just prejudiced here, it seems the right wing audience takes it all as gospel truth (their politicians and pundits never lie, after all - too God-fearing).
Rush Limbaugh can scream about shit all he wants - if the people listening didn't believe him (or at least take him with a grain of salt), this shit wouldn't work as well as it does.
"Increase their income"? A little easier said than done - or else we'd all be millionaires.
Nah. Since we're playing the black/white, simplest answer imaginable game here (correctness of answer notwithstanding) then I'll say it's easier to rob from you to pay for theirs. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
$22K ain't much. That's pretty much starting pay with no experience at lots of companies.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
$22K ain't much. That's pretty much starting pay with no experience at lots of companies.
True. But perhaps he's pulling in an average of $35,000 ("average," because it's his own business and customers directly determine his pay), and she's bringing in $10,000 as a part-time worker who spends a lot of time taking care of the children. Both of which sustained serious injuries due to an automobile accident. Likely expensive ones, too.
And ain't ain't a word, so it ain't good to say.
But you're right. 22K ain't much. Which is likely why they qualify for the SCHIP.
True. But perhaps he's pulling in an average of $35,000 ("average," because it's his own business and customers directly determine his pay), and she's bringing in $10,000 as a part-time worker who spends a lot of time taking care of the children. Both of which sustained serious injuries due to an automobile accident. Likely expensive ones, too.
And ain't ain't a word, so it ain't good to say.
But you're right. 22K ain't much. Which is likely why they qualify for the SCHIP.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
So what if she could work an extra 8 hours per week, but then they wouldn't qualify for the health insurance program anymore. What would she do?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
She? Likely she wouldn't do that for the simple fact that she couldn't afford childcare, let alone healthcare.
I say implement a universal healthcare program and be done with it. No more squabbling over who qualifies for what and when.
I say ban insurance (except for catastrophic) and let people pay directly for medical services. If people need help, let's give it to them, but let it NOT be under the guise of "insurance".
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I say ban insurance (except for catastrophic) and let people pay directly for medical services. If people need help, let's give it to them, but let it NOT be under the guise of "insurance".
Wow. You're a cold-hearted f@$%. I hope your gram and gramps do well on that.
Wow. You're a cold-hearted f@$%. I hope your gram and gramps do well on that.
What are you talking about? I said give help to the people who need it.
It's my contention that health insurance is one large price fixing/monopolistic scam.
Let people pay directly for most everyday services and the cost of those services should drop due to competition and the elimination of the large insurance bureaucracy those prices support.
Furthermore, since employers would not have to pay such large, large sums in insurance for employees, they could (in theory and I know you will say they won't) pay the employees more money with which to pay for their medical care.
I'm telling you, the biggest part of the problem is that the concept of insurance even exists.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Eh... the right wing attacks on the child are predictably disturbing, but does no one fault the dems for making this kid a poster child? It was them that politicised the life of the kid when they invited him to speak for them. The response was utterly predictable.
I say ban insurance (except for catastrophic) and let people pay directly for medical services. If people need help, let's give it to them, but let it NOT be under the guise of "insurance".
Well then what do you call it? This isn't going to break down into a semantic "marriage" vs. "civil union" type thing, is it?
Eh... the right wing attacks on the child are predictably disturbing, but does no one fault the dems for making this kid a poster child? It was them that politicised the life of the kid when they invited him to speak for them. The response was utterly predictable.
As is the response to the response. Personally, this one was so obvious I'm surprised the right took the bait.
Well then what do you call it? This isn't going to break down into a semantic "marriage" vs. "civil union" type thing, is it?
It would be more than just nomenclature. It would be in the administration of it. Insurance encourages greatly inflated medical costs because that ensures it's own survival.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It would be more than just nomenclature. It would be in the administration of it. Insurance encourages greatly inflated medical costs because that ensures it's own survival.
Well, with universal healcare (socialized healthcare, if you prefer) we'd effectively be getting rid of insurance.
Of course, no one with a chance is advocating that right now. It's more of a "down the road" thing.
What are you talking about? I said give help to the people who need it.
It's my contention that health insurance is one large price fixing/monopolistic scam.
Let people pay directly for most everyday services and the cost of those services should drop due to competition and the elimination of the large insurance bureaucracy those prices support.
Furthermore, since employers would not have to pay such large, large sums in insurance for employees, they could (in theory and I know you will say they won't) pay the employees more money with which to pay for their medical care.
I'm telling you, the biggest part of the problem is that the concept of insurance even exists.
so how many people would be able to pay out of pocket over 1/2 a million dollars? cause that's the medical expenses for the last year of someone that I know.
so how many people would be able to pay out of pocket over 1/2 a million dollars? cause that's the medical expenses for the last year of someone that I know.
Two things:
I did say that I support catastrophic insurance - just not for everyday things.
The cost might not have been 1/2 million if there were no insurance.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I did say that I support catastrophic insurance - just not for everyday things.
The cost might not have been 1/2 million if there were no insurance.
who gets to decide what qualifies as and what gets covered under
"catastrophic" insurance? if left up to the insurance companies i'm sure that the answer would be: Nothing.
insurance companies need to be scrapped altogether. it's way beyond time for Universal Healthcare in this country.
Dems' Poster Child Faces a Firestorm
Email
Share October 08, 2007 3:05 PM
ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: With debate raging in Washington over children's health insurance, congressional Democrats found a new way to make their case for an expansion last weekend: Rather than have a senator or a congressman respond to President Bush's weekly radio address, they decided to have a child who was helped by the program speak directly to the public.
But the 12-year-old boy whom Democrats chose as their poster child is now at the center of a firestorm in Washington and beyond. Conservative bloggers who uncovered some details of the family's finances are blasting the family, calling the fact that they rely on federal insurance an example of how the State Children's Health Insurance Program has expanded beyond its original intent.
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.
In making the case for a proposed expansion of the S-CHIP program, Democrats found a boy who seemed like an ideal poster child in Graeme Frost, a Baltimore native whose family does not have private health insurance.
When Graeme and his sister were seriously injured in a 2004 car crash, their parents relied on S-CHIP coverage to help them recover. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office became aware of the Frosts through a healthcare interest group, FamiliesUSA, Democratic leaders turned to Graeme to deliver the party's weekly radio address Sept. 29.
"If it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today," Frost said in the address, which was written by Senate Democratic aides. "We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don't have CHIP, and they wouldn't get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt."
But after a largely positive story about Frost appeared in the Baltimore Sun, conservative-leaning bloggers began focusing on details of Frost's family situation. They suggested the family makes the conservative argument -- that the children's health insurance program has strayed from its original purpose by subsidizing healthcare for middle-class families, not just poor children.
A blogger on FreeRepublic.com discovered that Frost and his sister, Gemma, attend a private school where tuition costs $20,000 a year. Their father, Halsey, is a self-employed woodworker, meaning that if his family doesn’t have health insurance, it’s because Halsey Frost -- as his own boss -- chooses not to purchase it for himself.
"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," a blogger with the handle "icwhatudo" wrote on FreeRepublic.
That posting was widely circulated in the blogosphere, making great fodder for conservatives who argue that President Bush was right to veto the Democrats’ bill expanding S-CHIP.
"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, wrote on his blog.
But Manley say conservative bloggers didn't dig deep enough. It turns out that the Frost children attend Baltimore’s Park School on near-full scholarships; they pay roughly $500 per child per year in tuition, he said.
Like many small-business owners, Halsey Frost can't even afford to provide health insurance to himself, Manley said.
"Last year, the Frost's made $45,000 combined," Manley said. "Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined depending on Halsey's ability to find work."
The Frost family did not immediately return calls seeking comment
so in addition to the healthcare; they get almost free private schooling? now that's a family that knows how to work the system. i wonder what other freebies they get from the taxpayers.
It's very American. This is a very capitalistic country with relatively few safety nets as compared with Europe and Canada. It's a cowboy country. It's always been a cowboy country, and health care, as I said, has been seen as just one more commodity and the genius of the marketplace will take care of it. People don't think, "Well, how will that play out? Suppose you're poor and you're sick, what will the marketplace do for you," because if you want a VCR, for example, and you're poor, you don't get it. So you do without a VCR. Are you really going to say that to someone that has a brain tumor? So you do without your brain surgery. And also what markets do is they put out a lot of goods. The consumer pays out of pocket. He or she looks around, looks for a bargain, decides maybe he can't afford a VCR this year, he'll get one next year. Well, imagine you have a brain tumor. You're gonna shop for a bargain? You're gonna say, "Well, I don't want an excellent brain surgeon. I want a mediocre brain surgeon. I want a cheap piece of brain surgery." No. And you can't say, "And I'll wait until next year," either. This is a life and death thing and we ought to treat it that way. We ought to treat it the same way we treat education. You don't personally buy education insurance or your employer doesn't buy you education insurance. It's something that a decent society supplies to everyone.
*Do ethical concerns play a role in the debate about health care policy?
Well, our health care system creates ethical dilemmas that no health care system should create. In managed care, doctors are paid for doing less. The employers pay the HMO a certain amount, as little as they can get away with, and then HMO often pass along that risk to the doctors themselves in the sense that the HMO gets a set premium and if they spend more than that premium taking care of their enrollees, then they're in the red. If the spend less than the premiums on their enrollees, then they get to keep what's left over. And some HMOs pass those incentives along to doctors, to individual doctors and say to the doctor, "Your salary depends on doing less, and you will have something deducted from your salary if you do more. If you do more than, say, ten chest X-rays in a month, we'll deduct something from your salary. But if you do fewer than five, we'll give you a bonus at the end of the year." So there are financial incentives directly affecting doctors now that put them at odds with the best interest of their patients. Now, to me, this is an unethical system, and it puts ethical doctors in a terrific quandary.
If you look at Medicare, people say, "Government is inefficient." That's not true. The overhead of Medicare is one percent. The overhead of the private insurance industry is roughly 20 percent. That's profits and administrative costs. So Medicare is extremely efficient, even given the fact that they have to use private carriers, which they do. But we could go in that direction to a single payer system, Medicare for everyone. Or we could, instead of being one country, we could decide that we're going to be like a Third World country , like India. And the rich do fine and the almost rich do okay, and the poor, who cares about them?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I believe that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is related to medical issues and a lot of those folks have health care insurance.
And we still have people who think that any overhaul of the medical care system will be some sort of a communist jack booted authoritarian system that won't let people choose their own doctors..
Leave off the word 'communist' and that also describes the system we have now.
Many are starting to see the light, but overcoming the lobbying power of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies will be an overwhelming task.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
who gets to decide what qualifies as and what gets covered under
"catastrophic" insurance? if left up to the insurance companies i'm sure that the answer would be: Nothing.
insurance companies need to be scrapped altogether. it's way beyond time for Universal Healthcare in this country.
If the government were to run it, it would probably end up costing even MORE than it does now.
Get rid of insurance companies and government involvement.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"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, wrote on his blog.
If this guy wants to speak of health/medical insurance in terms of an "investment" . The truth is "investing" your money on private health insurance is not a good investment. HMO/Insurance companies are major swindlers and their only interest is in larger and larger profit margins.
For years now, people who not only have private health/medical insurance, but people who get it through whatever corporation they work for; have been getting screwed and prohibited from getting the tests, medicine, care and procedures/operations they require, because corporate lackeys with their eye on the profit margin, at HMOs/Insurance companies are making health/medical decisions, that doctors should be making. So americans are getting fucked no matter which way they go.
The Insurance companies, with the help of their political whores; have established, dictated and controled the Health/medical Care business for a long time now. They wrote their own rule and laws; on the backs of their well-paid political representitives (whores).
And this is the reason that this country's health/medical care is a disgraceful mess!!! This is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time.
It is widely believed that if you are not working and collecting welfare/social services and medicare; that you actually have better and more extensive access to the care and treatments you will require should you become ill.
Meanwhile, lower middle-class to upper-middle class people (such as myself) have to pay a shitload of money to cover our families and ourselves; only to run into brickwall after brickwall at time when one requires responsible, timely and expensive medical/health treatment and expertise; and when the time comes for these scumbag insurance companies to pay you back and cover on one's 'investment". You end up battling and fighting for the services that you been dearly paying for, for years; while they make up bullshit reasons to not live up to their end of the contract.
Since I work from home and I am a freelancer of sorts. I've been paying for my own private insurance (and for my two boys) for years, now. It's criminal. It's such a racket.
Comments
That's what I hate about it... these misleading statements will be shown to be bullshit almost instantly, but the right-wing talk radio jackasses and the like will take them and run, all the while keep talking about this family weeks from now going to private schools and renovating their house...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Nah. Since we're playing the black/white, simplest answer imaginable game here (correctness of answer notwithstanding) then I'll say it's easier to rob from you to pay for theirs. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
This sounds like this board in a lot of ways...except the opposite side of the spectrum. That's not a defense of the jackass bloggers in the original article as much as a condemnation of their actions.
Rush Limbaugh can scream about shit all he wants - if the people listening didn't believe him (or at least take him with a grain of salt), this shit wouldn't work as well as it does.
$22K ain't much. That's pretty much starting pay with no experience at lots of companies.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And ain't ain't a word, so it ain't good to say.
But you're right. 22K ain't much. Which is likely why they qualify for the SCHIP.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
So what if she could work an extra 8 hours per week, but then they wouldn't qualify for the health insurance program anymore. What would she do?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I say implement a universal healthcare program and be done with it. No more squabbling over who qualifies for what and when.
I say ban insurance (except for catastrophic) and let people pay directly for medical services. If people need help, let's give it to them, but let it NOT be under the guise of "insurance".
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly!
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Wow. You're a cold-hearted f@$%. I hope your gram and gramps do well on that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What are you talking about? I said give help to the people who need it.
It's my contention that health insurance is one large price fixing/monopolistic scam.
Let people pay directly for most everyday services and the cost of those services should drop due to competition and the elimination of the large insurance bureaucracy those prices support.
Furthermore, since employers would not have to pay such large, large sums in insurance for employees, they could (in theory and I know you will say they won't) pay the employees more money with which to pay for their medical care.
I'm telling you, the biggest part of the problem is that the concept of insurance even exists.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It would be more than just nomenclature. It would be in the administration of it. Insurance encourages greatly inflated medical costs because that ensures it's own survival.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Of course, no one with a chance is advocating that right now. It's more of a "down the road" thing.
so how many people would be able to pay out of pocket over 1/2 a million dollars? cause that's the medical expenses for the last year of someone that I know.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Two things:
I did say that I support catastrophic insurance - just not for everyday things.
The cost might not have been 1/2 million if there were no insurance.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
who gets to decide what qualifies as and what gets covered under
"catastrophic" insurance? if left up to the insurance companies i'm sure that the answer would be: Nothing.
insurance companies need to be scrapped altogether. it's way beyond time for Universal Healthcare in this country.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
so in addition to the healthcare; they get almost free private schooling? now that's a family that knows how to work the system. i wonder what other freebies they get from the taxpayers.
Some excerpts from the article:
*What led us to this situation?
It's very American. This is a very capitalistic country with relatively few safety nets as compared with Europe and Canada. It's a cowboy country. It's always been a cowboy country, and health care, as I said, has been seen as just one more commodity and the genius of the marketplace will take care of it. People don't think, "Well, how will that play out? Suppose you're poor and you're sick, what will the marketplace do for you," because if you want a VCR, for example, and you're poor, you don't get it. So you do without a VCR. Are you really going to say that to someone that has a brain tumor? So you do without your brain surgery. And also what markets do is they put out a lot of goods. The consumer pays out of pocket. He or she looks around, looks for a bargain, decides maybe he can't afford a VCR this year, he'll get one next year. Well, imagine you have a brain tumor. You're gonna shop for a bargain? You're gonna say, "Well, I don't want an excellent brain surgeon. I want a mediocre brain surgeon. I want a cheap piece of brain surgery." No. And you can't say, "And I'll wait until next year," either. This is a life and death thing and we ought to treat it that way. We ought to treat it the same way we treat education. You don't personally buy education insurance or your employer doesn't buy you education insurance. It's something that a decent society supplies to everyone.
*Do ethical concerns play a role in the debate about health care policy?
Well, our health care system creates ethical dilemmas that no health care system should create. In managed care, doctors are paid for doing less. The employers pay the HMO a certain amount, as little as they can get away with, and then HMO often pass along that risk to the doctors themselves in the sense that the HMO gets a set premium and if they spend more than that premium taking care of their enrollees, then they're in the red. If the spend less than the premiums on their enrollees, then they get to keep what's left over. And some HMOs pass those incentives along to doctors, to individual doctors and say to the doctor, "Your salary depends on doing less, and you will have something deducted from your salary if you do more. If you do more than, say, ten chest X-rays in a month, we'll deduct something from your salary. But if you do fewer than five, we'll give you a bonus at the end of the year." So there are financial incentives directly affecting doctors now that put them at odds with the best interest of their patients. Now, to me, this is an unethical system, and it puts ethical doctors in a terrific quandary.
If you look at Medicare, people say, "Government is inefficient." That's not true. The overhead of Medicare is one percent. The overhead of the private insurance industry is roughly 20 percent. That's profits and administrative costs. So Medicare is extremely efficient, even given the fact that they have to use private carriers, which they do. But we could go in that direction to a single payer system, Medicare for everyone. Or we could, instead of being one country, we could decide that we're going to be like a Third World country , like India. And the rich do fine and the almost rich do okay, and the poor, who cares about them?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
And we still have people who think that any overhaul of the medical care system will be some sort of a communist jack booted authoritarian system that won't let people choose their own doctors..
Leave off the word 'communist' and that also describes the system we have now.
Many are starting to see the light, but overcoming the lobbying power of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies will be an overwhelming task.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
If the government were to run it, it would probably end up costing even MORE than it does now.
Get rid of insurance companies and government involvement.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If this guy wants to speak of health/medical insurance in terms of an "investment" . The truth is "investing" your money on private health insurance is not a good investment. HMO/Insurance companies are major swindlers and their only interest is in larger and larger profit margins.
For years now, people who not only have private health/medical insurance, but people who get it through whatever corporation they work for; have been getting screwed and prohibited from getting the tests, medicine, care and procedures/operations they require, because corporate lackeys with their eye on the profit margin, at HMOs/Insurance companies are making health/medical decisions, that doctors should be making. So americans are getting fucked no matter which way they go.
The Insurance companies, with the help of their political whores; have established, dictated and controled the Health/medical Care business for a long time now. They wrote their own rule and laws; on the backs of their well-paid political representitives (whores).
And this is the reason that this country's health/medical care is a disgraceful mess!!! This is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time.
It is widely believed that if you are not working and collecting welfare/social services and medicare; that you actually have better and more extensive access to the care and treatments you will require should you become ill.
Meanwhile, lower middle-class to upper-middle class people (such as myself) have to pay a shitload of money to cover our families and ourselves; only to run into brickwall after brickwall at time when one requires responsible, timely and expensive medical/health treatment and expertise; and when the time comes for these scumbag insurance companies to pay you back and cover on one's 'investment". You end up battling and fighting for the services that you been dearly paying for, for years; while they make up bullshit reasons to not live up to their end of the contract.
Since I work from home and I am a freelancer of sorts. I've been paying for my own private insurance (and for my two boys) for years, now. It's criminal. It's such a racket.