THANK YOU for this, Amy. I can't tell you how bloody sick I am of acquaintances bitching about not having health insurance, but *refusing* to either look for a job that has it or shop around for quotes on insurance to cover a reasonably healthy adult.

And don't even get me started on people who think that having children they can't afford (because it's Uncle Sam's responsibility to pick up their slack,) is A-OK. Urge to kill... rising...

Thanks so much. I waited to have a dog before I could afford any potential medical expenses. I'm just stunned by people who cavalierly pump out litters of children with little means to pay for them.

Sounds like a good idea gone bad. Obviously you have to some kind of system that takes into account income vs. actual costs. I am not even sure you could find a condo to buy in this city for $175000 -- certainly not one for a family of four. And how much is going to be going to rent if they don't own?


I always find the fact checks funny. My favorite was this couple who where teachers on strike screaming how little they made. Someone got there salaries via a public information request. They as a couple made more then 98% of the households in the county and that did not include their summer jobs.


My friend's wife lost her job awhile back (a legal tussel is still going on over it) where she had insurance. The cheapest they could find for just her was almost $1000/month that was worth anything (by their evaluation). She has not been able to find a comparable job either.

You can't buy much in this city (Los Angeles) for $175,000. Not in a nice neighborhood. So, I rent, and don't constantly buy new crap, which means I can pay for my own health care and other costs, because I couldn't imagine passing them onto others.

Already, the lefties are attacking me (and others) for this post:

http://thedisbrimstone-dailypitchfork.blogspot.com/2007/10/early-frost-kills-gop-plans-for-harvest.html

Without getting into schip or not, I think you're wrong about your Graeme Frost analysis.

I think "Thersites" and his commenters make a convincing case that the so called fact checking was lacking in analytical thought.

I do agree completely with them that some of the commentary about the Frosts on the order of "get a real job!" are amusing if not hypocritical coming from Republican's the party that supposedly worships entrepreneurs while it is the Democrats that supposedly hates small business.

I haven't followed this closely, but I have an attachment of sorts to the Frosts. My grandfather came from Russia as a cabinet maker, and our next door neighbor came from Sonora as a cabinet maker. I didn't know my grandfather, but I watched over 20 years as our next door neighbor started out in his garage, built some of the finest cabinets around, including the ones in his kitchen, and has ended up with a very nice business, employing many people.

I actually do think very highly of entrepreneurs and the risk takers that create small businesses. If I recall either Reagan or GHWB, than small business creates the majority of jobs in the country.... All else being equal, if we could "liberate" more engineers, and other people from their 9-5 existences with companies that can afford to provide their employees with health insurance by providing everyone with health insurance, I think that would provide fantastic benefits for society and our economy. And that holds true even for the large companies. If you want to let GM compete better with Toyota, than why burden GM with healthcare costs?

I may be a weakling, or perhaps just a divorced father, but one of the things that keeps me shackled to a 9-5 job with a "real company" is precisely the health care that I am legally required (and want) to provide to my kids.

Here's the comment I left at Thersites:

If you can't afford to support four children, including paying for health care for them, you should have two or one. I don't own a building (or buildings) or have children I send to a tony private school (a neeeeeed?). I do pay for Kaiser HMO every month, and have for about 20 years, so if I get sick, my treatment doesn't come out of the pockets of others. If you think it's okay to fund others' lives, come over to advicegoddess.com and put $500 in my tip jar. Thanks.

Entrepreneurialism is for people who don't have mouths to feed. If you want to take risks in business, wear condoms until you get your shit worked out.

What I don't get is how you can say I'm wrong in my analysis, and then write this:

one of the things that keeps me shackled to a 9-5 job with a "real company" is precisely the health care that I am legally required (and want) to provide to my kids.

Life isn't always a day in Disneyland, and shouldn't be, if that's what it takes to properly care for your kids. You have a "real" job. I'm sure you'd rather be "woodcarving," but apparently, you have the ethics to provide for what you brought into the world.

I agree in the main with your notions of frugality Ms Alkon as waste has far more societal ripples outward than mere usage. Buying things you do not need is a form of waste. But what I think you miss are the economics of the situation. Now I am the last journalist on Terra that will ever defend the rich for their lifestyle but I will defend the middle class for theirs. Americans have a right to expect their lives not to be destroyed to pay for medical care and if that has to be done via block grants to states, vice taxes or shakedowns on Rodeo Drive of people who have more than they DESERVE then so be it.

You way of living while preferred for the long term viability of Terra as a going concern is never going to be sexy enough to replace runaway consumerism which by the way is what drives the economic engine pulling America along. Now whether they are being pulled toward a precipice by this manner of lifestyle is another topic for another time. I am sure the frosts had they been given some supernatural choice of their kitchen counters and business arrangements and their children's health would have chosen the latter.

Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

people who have more than they DESERVE then so be it.

And just how do we determine which people have more than they deserve?

Americans have a right to expect their lives not to be destroyed to pay for medical care

And this right is enumerated where? Americans have a bunch of rights, but this isn't one of them. And with our rights and our freedoms come a bunch of obligations, and one of them is to take care of your and (if you have one) your family's medical expenses. My older brother has a wife and two kids and works for a small company in a small town. He spends a huge chunk of his salary on their health care and doesn't have tons of extra cash for things. He doesn't complain about it - that's what you sign on for when you become a parent!

Cavalor Epthith, Esquire

Does this mean something?

Cavalor --

Who the fuck do you think you are to determine what I deserve?

I work damned hard (when I'm not posting here), and I'm entitled to the fruits of my labor. If you don't like it, work more or lower your expectations.

Don't tell ME that I don't deserve my life and my toys because YOU made bad decisions.

In short - Fuck you. Fuck you very much.

Americans have a right to expect their lives not to be destroyed to pay for medical care

Justin rightly questions this "right" above, and gives exactly the right response: With rights come responsibilities -- such as getting medical coverage for your kids rather than gambling that they won't need it, and forcing others to pick up the cost.

Obvious ways to pay for health care: Have fewer kids, send the kids to public school, don't live in such a tony neighborhood...and then there's the SUV. SUVs are prone to rollover and are hard to control in accidents. Personal responsibility, as a parent, to me, means driving the safest car on the road -- probably a Volvo station wagon...not the most stylish.

What right do I have to criticize their choices? Well, it's like my mom and dad paying for my education. As long as they were funding it, they had the final say. Pay your way, and mom and dad (or angry taxpayers) can think what they want, but you get the right to cover your ears and say, "Neener, neener, neener..."

I totally agree that no responsible person's life should be destroyed paying for needed medical care. Which is why I would prefer for health insurance to work like car insurance, in which you pay more of the cost for the equivalent of oil changes (i.e. checkups, visits to the allergist, etc. etc.) but the insurance kicks in a big way in the occurrence of the equivalent of a car wreck (cancer, terrible accident, etc.). However, that's a change that needs to be made in the way that health insurance works, not a call for mass socialization of health care. And this isn't even a case in which regular insurance probably wouldn't have covered most of the costs. We're not talking about prolonged cancer with expensive, exotic treatments here.

And I totally agree that health insurance should not be inextricably tied to one's job. However, I must point out that if you work 20 hours a week at Starbucks, you get health insurance, which I believe covers your dependents as well. I've known plenty of people who obtained their health insurance that way - why can't Mrs. Frost put up her hair and churn out lattes and espressos for 20 hours a week?

These people have four children that are going to a very, very nice private school. Do those children "deserve" to go to that private school any more than the hardworking child born to a 15-year-old poor mother in the inner city? Call me radical, but I don't think so, any more than I "deserved" to go to the private schools I attended. Why was I able to attend those? My parents lived within their means, limited their number of children, and worked damn hard. If the choice had come down to health insurance or the private schools, we would have been put in public schools, not made the poster children for a government handout.

Look, there will always be people having children who genuinely can't provide for them at all. Allen Iverson went pro early partially because his little sister needed brain surgery and he didn't want to take out a loan that he couldn't pay back if his career ended early. Things would have been MUCH tougher for his family if he hadn't been born with the peculiar combination of talents needed to play pro basketball. I am all for my tax dollars going to help out the type of children that Amy is going to go talk to about life choices and careers. If I thought throwing money indiscriminately at inner-city schools would fix them, I'd be grabbing money out of my wallet and throwing away. But there's a difference between ensuring that the hardworking 16-year-old fifth child of a drug-addicted teen mother is given access to the resources she needs to stay healthy and prepare for college, and ensuring that a guy can do the EXACT work that he wants to do and still send his FOUR children to expensive private schools while living in a lovely home.

Having the government bear a large portion of your childrearing expenses should be a matter of very last resort. The Frosts want what they want when they want it in the exact way that they want it, and they want to use my tax dollars to achieve that. Sorry, no.

I must say, though, that in terms of memorable irony, the Frosts don't come close to matching the case of the poor uninsured girl with the mysterious illnesses who became the poster child for Hillarycare. Remember her? She turned out to be the victim of Munchausen's by proxy - i.e. her mother was making her sick. The Frosts may not be making their children sick, but they sure as hell aren't doing everything in their power to get their kids health insurance.

Cavalor - I'm sorry (not really) but your post there is such a font of comment fodder.

Now whether they are being pulled toward a precipice by this manner of lifestyle is another topic for another time.

No - this is exactly the time for the lifestyle topic. People must make choices about their lifestyles; parents must make those choices with the well-being of their children in mind.

Also, love the reflexive bashing of Beverly Hills as though the people there somehow don't deserve what they have. I worked for several years as a tutor to children in places like Brentwood, Beverly Hills, and the like. For the most part, their parents worked constantly - becoming and staying that wealthy is hard and most people are not willing to work that much or make the sacrifices necessary to get there. What I saw was people who deserved what they got.

And I totally agree that health insurance should not be inextricably tied to one's job. However, I must point out that if you work 20 hours a week at Starbucks, you get health insurance, which I believe covers your dependents as well. I've known plenty of people who obtained their health insurance that way - why can't Mrs. Frost put up her hair and churn out lattes and espressos for 20 hours a week?

Exactly. I knew an opera singer who did just that. She had a career in which she didn't make much money, especially starting out: "Half cap triple whateverit is, anyone?"

I wanted to go to private school -- and probably would've been much better-served by one. But, my middle-class parents paid for me to have medical and dental care, so I went to North Farmington High, which adequately educated me, instead of Roeper City & Country.

"I am all for my tax dollars going to help out the type of children that Amy is going to go talk to about life choices and careers."

Me, too. I'll pay for truly poor kids to have health care and education -- including whatever it takes to show them ambition and hard work pays off. In a flash.

Too bad you jerks don't have welfare queens to kick around any more.

You seem to love the stories of people getting more than their fair share, but have no taste for those that involve people getting less than their fair share. Huh.

I think this vitriolic thread says a lot more about those of you posting here than about health insurance or anything else.

If I pay $100 in taxes, some portion of that is going to pay for medical care for seniors -- the outrage! The injustice!

When you guys grow up a bit you might want to join the rest of the world on Planet Real.

Planet Real? Isn't that the place where, if you want something, you find a way to pay for it rather than asking someone else to do so?

But, y'know, Jim, when my opponents are reduced to ad hominem attacks, I know I've won my argument on substance. So thanks!

You seem to love the stories of people getting more than their fair share, but have no taste for those that involve people getting less than their fair share.

So, it's this family's "fair share" that I pay their medical bills so they can send their kids to a tony private school?

Great. Then it's my fair share that you pay for my ticket to Paris. Paypal's on your left, dude.

Note what Marion and I are saying above (this requires actual reading rather than leaping to conclusions that I'm a horrible person who hates poor people). I will pay for the truly poor -- the hard-scrabble poor. People like the Frosts, who own more than one building and send their kids to the Baltimore equivalent of Crossroads School, do not qualify.

And theoretically, the hardscrabble poor should be covered by Medicaid. That's the point of Medicaid. I am, in theory, in favor of a program that closes the gap between Medicaid and private insurance to ensure that kids can still get medical care even if their parents are unlucky/feckless/struggling to get by. You should be able to be vaccinated even if your parents are hopeless with money. But if you want to convince me that the latest expansion of the program is anything other than yet another middle-class entitlement, you're going to have to do better than the Frosts. The fact that a major newspaper couldn't find a better anecdote than the Frosts indicates to me that those poor suffering families who NEED this because they're choosing between the gas bill and medical bills aren't exactly thick on the ground, and the fact that the Baltimore Sun used the Frosts as a sob story tells me that either the paper didn't bother to do its rudimentary fact-checking or DIDN'T CARE as long as it could bolster the case for this bill. How can I trust any of the reporting that the paper does on this after that?

I dislike band-aid programs. This is a band-aid program - rather than fixing the very real issues/dysfunctions with health insurance, which is hard, we're proposing to throw billions of dollars at middle-class families, which is easy. I prefer to spend time, energy - and, yes, money - on the fix, not on the band-aid.

Hey, fuck you, Amy. I love the notion of a woman dumb enough to live the Freeper lifestyle thinking that she's qualified to dole out advice to other people.

Intelligent people are appalled by Freepers and Freeper "logic." You are proud of your association with them.

Advice goddess, my ass.

Life isn't always a day in Disneyland, and shouldn't be, if that's what it takes to properly care for your kids. You have a "real" job. I'm sure you'd rather be "woodcarving," but apparently, you have the ethics to provide for what you brought into the world.

My experience as an engineer, is that there are an awful lot of engineers that work in very large companies, where creativity, innovation is pretty much stomped out by the HR, Lawyer, and corporate beancounters. There are lots of reasons that these engineers, who I find very creative, don't strike out on their own, but a real fundamental reason is the expense of health care.

So because I think engineers are the "engine" of our culture. (I am very much biased that way) I just think it's a loss to society as a whole, that so many people that have so much to offer have to attach ourselves to enormous, faceless, stifling organizations just to get the healthcare we need.

Put another way, in my younger, single days, it was easy to take chances and work for small startups. Now with a lot more experience, I would love to go back to small startups where I think I would be more valuable to myself and to the company, but with small kids, I cannot afford to do so.

I think that's true of a lot of people, and if so, it means that people with some real valuable experiences, but also with families are not able to make use of those experiences to better themselves, their families, or society.

If insurance rates were based on almost anything but who your employer was, I would like to think that the change to society would pay for itself in terms of more innovation. Of course, I have no evidence of that, so I'll just claim it to be true.

There are lots of big companies that produce crappy, expensive products that should fail, but large companies have some real advantages over smaller companies. One of those advantages is often that of being able to provide good, inexpensive healthcare.

"I love the notion of a woman dumb enough to live the Freeper lifestyle thinking that she's qualified to dole out advice to other people."

Freeper? It's a little hard to have a debate with you if you use code. I'm guessing that's why you do it.

The weird thing about some of these people defending this family is their propensity to use words nobody's ever heard of in knocking me and others who favor a personal responsibility approach.

Earlier, on the Thersite blog, somebody called me a "numpty"!

P.S. From where I hail, a Freeper is a person who works for the Detroit Free Press instead of the Detroit News or Metro Times.

I think I smell trust-fund hippie in the Frost kitchen. My family has owned a small business and health insurance was part of the deal for us and our employees.

And let's think about the short-sightedness of a wood-worker who doesn't have health insurance? I'd think he'd have disability insurance as well, since it's hard to carve hardwood when you're missing a couple of fingers.

There might be a family out there who would have better illustrated the need for this insurance, but the Frosts weren't the best choice. And the Baltimore Sun reporter who did the original story might think about going into PR.

KateCoe: Good PR people fact-check stories such as the Frosts before promoting the heck out of them. :) Otherwise, I agree with you.

Jerry: See, now, THAT is the type of debate I think we should be having about insurance in general.

Amy: I think Mr. Ad Hominem, Now With More Profanity, is accusing you of being on the same side as the Free Republic types. HORRORS!

("Numpty"? Numpty-Dumpty sat on a wall, Numpty-Dumpty had a great fall, Nancy Pelosi and her friends, couldn't put Numpty together again, so they dragged him to a press conference and prayed that the Lord would soften Dubya's hard heart...)

What's that I hear?

Wait...I think it's Cathy Seipp, laughing from the grave, at the idea that I'm a neocon.

Well, Chuck, you picked an appropriate link for your name - because you certainly are a yahoo.

The lack of intellect shown by these drive-by trolls is appalling. Actually, the quality of trolls is declining web-wide. Even the trolls at LGF suck now.

I have an idea. Why don't we seize the assets of all the people who support this here S-CHIP expansion and use that to fund the program, instead of raising my not-child-having taxes?

Amy: While I'm also laughing at the idea of you being a "neocon," you also don't operate with the M.O. that if a "neocon" thinks/believes/does something, it MUST BE WRONG. The fact that the "neocons" over at National Review oppose the drug war hasn't stopped you from opposing it as well, for example. So, you're going to get lumped in with the rest of the "neocons." At least they tend to be pleasant and have copious supplies of booze...

Amy is nothing if not an original thinker.

Exactly, Marion.

And I have a post about Republicans vs. Democrats -- that the Republican tent is actually bigger and they have drinks that have alcohol in them instead of hemp.

And thank you, Ms. Coe.

Freepers? That's hilarious. Did this nut just fall out of 1968 Haight-Ashbury?
I'd say Amy is more of a Rand-y Libertarian in her approach to life, liberty, and the pursuit of doing something useful before ya croak.

I'm working the grind w/ a large financial firm so I can have health insurance. It's a solid job (and I still have time for advicegoddess.com!!) and it pays my bills w/ some leftover for retirement and fun...

...meanwhile, my boyfriend is stashing away a few (hundred) bucks a month for his (non-existent) children's college tuition accounts. He is THAT worried about being able to pay for children someday that he's saving before having kids is even being considered. I'll grant he's a financial planner and a bit more on top of his shit than most people...but the attitude is right where it should be: don't have kids until you know you can provide them w/ what they NEED.

And if I'm the person he'd like to have kids with, he will have to wait until I figure out how to launch my dream company (if it's even possible). I want to be a perfumer, but for now I'm stuck in sweater sets in the finance world...and it doesn't bother me one bit b/c I know I'll get there someday. Besides, sweater sets are warm and I sit below an A/C vent.

I would think it an intrinsic part of the "let's have kids" discussion to lay out the finances. If I wanted to have kids *NOW* I would take the necessary steps and make the necessary sacrifices which result in the best financial scenario w/in my power.

The thing that offends people is that kids are alive - they're people...humans...we aren't talking about not buying a new BMW b/c you can't afford it...we're talking about peoples' "right" to reproduce.

I don't think it's about anyone's "right" to have a child but it IS about their responsibility to not defray the costs of child rearing on to others...just as the Frost's don't pay my car insurance, I shouldn't pay their kids' health insurance b/c they've made a string of bad decisions which result in their kids not being covered on a plan.

TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: What IS This?

It looks to me like a direct play against what Alexis de Tocquville warned US about almost two centuries ago...

"The American Republic will maintain until the Congress discovers that it can bribe the populace with their own taxes."

Think about it. And think about who is proposing this.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Re-Defeat Communism!]

TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: What IS This?

It looks to me like a direct play against what Alexis de Tocquville warned US about almost two centuries ago...

"The American Republic will maintain until the Congress discovers that it can bribe the populace with their own taxes."

Think about it. And think about who is proposing this.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Re-Defeat Communism!]

Sorry folks I was off doing my real job for a bit there [trying to make sure none of that Pamela Anderson twaddle gets onto the site]. So it seems I have awakened many a slumbering middle class America, some of whom appear downright irate at the prospect of paying a higher tax on anything to ensure a child gets health care.

Well, well, well, I wish you all felt that way about the Bush adult abstinence program that cost taxpayers well over $20 million dollars. I am certain some adolesecent cancer patients and their parents could have used a small slice of that in relief.

So let's dive in . . .

Justin--- the people in beverly hills do not deserve what they have vice a man digging a ditch because this is the impression that the "American Dream" gives people that we wish to keep at the lower levels of economic strata in their place by not providing them with the means via our largesse to lift their own boats. And yes i do understand how hard it is to stay wealthy enough to feed darfur with a months pay. really i do.

how to determine who has more than they deserve? if you have more than two houses three cars and one family then you have more than anyone deserves. Where's the limit to stuff? And no I do not fault the frosts their business building or their counter tops those are just baubles in a house not extravagances.

Jim Pharo-- you tell 'em bub. Those cane hopping elderly are just living too damn long!

the "esquire' points to my past career as a solicitor at law.

brian --thank you for tripling the excitment in my sex life

Ms Alkon-- How is it that you can tell people how many children to have but having to pick up a middle class persons catastrophic medical care via a state program is a travesty? I do not even drive a car I take public trans to work and to home every day, but I do confess i do not reside in the USA. LOL a Freeper Ms Alkon is an acolyte of the right wing chat news site free republic. As a journalist the "freeper" was the Detroit Free Press until these nuts showed up. You are crunchy but you are far too sane to be a freeper.

Can someone tell me where the line of income should be drawn then for SCHIP? And a caution the site I edit is truly not safe for work if for no other reasons the adult topics we discuss the photos and videos we display and our reckless disregard for all faux displays of religion patriotism and political partisanship.

Cavalor,

You seem to be missing the point of so many on this website.

Life is about choices. If a person makes "the right" choices (has a job, pays the bills on time, lives to his/her means and do what is necessary to ensure the kids have insurance) then when a "travesty" occurs I am sure most of us on this blog would love nothing more than to reach out and help a fellow human facing tough times.

The thing is, many people make shitty choices. Choosing to be a woodworker, keeping up a $1+million home, having the mom stay home and sending the kids to private school in lieu of having health insurance is STUPID STUPID STUPID.

I have no problem helping people out - but I shouldn't be anyone's option to hedge themselves against leukemia. These people had four kids and don't make enough money - bad decision.

Do we hate kids? No. Do we hate sick sicks? Double no. We DO HATE people who make bad decisions and latch on to the rest of us good-decision-makers to bail them out.

"How is it that you can tell people how many children to have but having to pick up a middle class persons catastrophic medical care via a state program is a travesty?"

I'm not speaking for Amy - she can defend herself just fine...but I must say people can have as many children as they want but the responsibility to care for those kids is on the PARENTS WHO HAD THEM. It doesn't take a village, it takes two fucking incomes and condoms to prevent child number 5 from being conceived.

P.S: I'm not sure if the mother is unemployed - but at the very least, she isn't doing something that provides the family w/ insurance. I know many people who have a job JUST to get insurance. The dollar amount they earn covers their share of paying for the plan and covers the babysitter. They break even - but the kids have insurance...

That's what my mom did (she did a little better than breaking-even). When dad's company wasn't doing too hot we relied more heavily on her income...that's just how families need to function - you earn money to support each other.

To summarize: Cavalor says that he is the one who decides whether someone has more than they deserve. In this case, anything in excess of two homes, three cars, and one family is too much.

the people in beverly hills do not deserve what they have vice a man digging a ditch because this is the impression that the "American Dream" gives people that we wish to keep at the lower levels of economic strata in their place by not providing them with the means via our largesse to lift their own boats

Can anyone make sense of this? Is it: wealthy people in Beverly Hills don't deserve what they have because some people work hard doing manual labor and don't get ahead?

I don't follow. I work hard at a full time job. On the side, I've partnered with my brothers to build another business. I work a lot of nights and weekends. If our business succeeds, there's a chance I'll make a lot of money. Will I not deserve that success simply because others don't have the same?

We're all rolling the dice here - you, me, the Frosts, and everyone else. I'm sorry if times are tough and the Frosts can have everything they want. But it's utterly ridiculous to think that someone whose family can shell out the bucks for an expensive home and private school should be getting insurance on the dole.

Amy & Kate Koe, I tend to fall in love with smart women.

You're both smart women.

Therefore...

I love insouciance, too.

Gretchen - Actually, I do hate kids. But that's not the point.

People like Cavalor have appointed themselves the guardians of what is proper. "You there - you're doing too well. I'm going to take your surplus profits and give them to someone more deserving by virtue of their abject failure to plan to be an adult".

And yes, I picked the words "surplus profit" very specifically.

And again I say to you, how dare you presume to dictate to me not only how well I ought to do, but what I ought to do in service to others. Who do you think you are, the Pope?

If I pay $100 in taxes, some portion of that is going to pay for medical care for seniors -- the outrage! The injustice!

Way to miss the point.

When you guys grow up a bit you might want to join the rest of the world on Planet Real.

And that would be how many light years away from your planet? o_O

"Do we hate sick sicks?" that's supposed to be sick kids. Heh.

"Gretchen - Actually, I do hate kids" Fair enough!

gretchen-- the frost home is not worth a million dollars but I have already fought the "do the frosts have too much granite on their countertops" battle over at BlogsforBush. look, this is not the 1950s anymore having property is not liquid wealth. Sure you can borrow against it but unless you want to be behind the eight ball between college and retirement then you do not do such things. Clearly, the Frosts qualified for SChip under the rules in the state of Maryland or their applications would have been rejected.

And I do grasp the choices thing. If Halsey frost had gotten an MBA from Johns Hopkins we likely wouldnot have been having this protracted conversation about whether or not he was worthy of having his children covered by SCHIP. But let me drop a little something on you to make it clear how difficult it is for human beings to do what is right or even RATIONAL VICE WHAT IS FACILE.

Just look at how many people are coming to sites on the Internet looking for advice. Watch as the numbers of people who are getting syphillis are skyrocketing when a 95 cent condom or the word "no" might have prevented this STD. look at how many people dive right in to marriages with people because they are lonely/ poor/bored/horny scare of dying alone/hungry/jealous of their friends who are hookedup/want a fantasy wedding/want someone to take care of. it is the essence of being human to make these bad choices. i am sure on her path to the pinnacle of rationalfrugality and care and love of Terra and all its verdant fields Ms Alkon stubbed her toes once or twice.

What does this have to do with Halsey frost wanting be a woodworker? I think it's sour grapes on your parts really because he wants his dream of woodworking a large family and a nice home and the rules allow him to have and have you pick up some of the cost of taking care of his progeny in a pinch. Which one of you lot would have had the balls to look at his kids after the accident and tell them "Sorry, mate, you dcan't pay so we'll just let them die here, because it is our opinion you've made dumb life choices having such a large brood and not being able to pay. Wait here and we'll wheel their corpses out in fifteen minutes. And oh yeah there's this release form you'll have to fill out while you wait. try not to get any tears on that luv."

Feel free to come over the Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork "Hell's leading daily newspaper!" to kick me in the shins any itme.

Cavalor. You just made me choke on my yogurt.

People can do WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT!!

If Mr. Frost wants to lay on the dining room table while Mrs. Frost watches the neighbor lick honey off his ass I don't care. If he wants to be Santa Clause I don't care. None of this matters!!

But if someone willing makes a decision which is based on "wants" and not rationally sound logic no one else should shoulder the costs incurred by this decision - in this case, to maintain a single income house hold which is inadequate. Meanwhile he screws his kids out of health insurance. Get another job. Send the wife off to work. Use condoms.

If I really, really, really want some action and don't use birth control, and then get preg, who should pay for raising a child which I know I cannot afford at this point in life?

Do you want to? Awesome, my boyfriend will be happy to hear that he can start spending his hard earned money on a fancier car instead of stashing it away for his future children's college education!!! YOU ARE SO GENEROUS!!!!

I feel dirty now.

Cav - I probably could say "tough shit to you", but I wouldn't because that's the kind of guy I am.

What I would say, instead, is "either you take out a second mortgage on the house, or sell some of your fancy shit."

It's the doctrine of the capitalist world.

Fuck you. Pay me.

What does this have to do with Halsey frost wanting be a woodworker? I think it's sour grapes on your parts really because he wants his dream of woodworking a large family and a nice home and the rules allow him to have and have you pick up some of the cost of taking care of his progeny in a pinch.

It is precisely the existence of these rules, and the fact that people are deliberately taking advantage of them to live a more opulent lifestyle than they could otherwise afford that frosts us.

gretchen-- thanx for the visual. Sheesh. What we have here is a failure to communicate. I have more than I need and I have no problem being taxed so that others less fortunate than me can have a bit of an easier road. I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I do undertsand the American notion of do it this way or that way like we tell you or you are fucked. this is why lies can be used to drive you into a war that for stubborn reasons you cannot get out of. Your country I am assuming you liv in America is driven by "wants." if you li9ved in the Amy Alkon world where you got by on only what you need then well America would be a third world country. Waste and surplus are what America is all about in their entertainments in her culinary choices her homes and automobiles. Waste is king in the USA and debt is the means by which you pay for it. I would be willing to say that you have more than one credit card, a student loan payment and would have to borrow to buy a house? And what are these things other than bendings of rules that had been around against usury for CENTURIES but because people needed help to afford what once they only dreamed about now they want. but I am yelling at a hurricane this is like those old WMD arguments I used to have with people at AEI. once you have drunk the Kool Aid even henry kissenger could not make those who have made up their minds see another's reasoned method.

I will pert as we do in my homeland with these words . . .

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

Unfortunately for you, Cav, you know almost nothing about our country, and what little you know is wrong.

Your method has no reason. It is, simply, the assertion that those who do, should be happy to sacrifice the sweat of their brow for those who can not or will not.

Yes, a failure to communicate.

you said: so that others less fortunate than me can have a bit of an easier road

I say: sure, I'm willing to help some people out when they're hard up. But, unfortunately, I don't believe in bailing people out who are in their position out of sheer stupidity and lack of good decision making.

And as for your assumptions: yes, I am American. I currently owe a total of $36 bucks for some makeup I bought at Macy's - that's the extent of my credit card debt, haven't even gotten my bill yet. I have student loans - yes. Why? Well, friend, in the U.S we don't have apprenticeships and tradespeople like in many other places - a university education is really the only true way for an American to get a proper shot at earning a decent living. And in big bad capitalist America, we don't go to univ for "free" - aka no one but my parents subsidized my education.

That said, my parents didn't have enough money to foot a $150,000 bachelor's degree - a cost which has risen well above inflation over the past decade. Only the ultra wealthy, ultra talented (merit based scholarships), or very poor (grants) can go to university for free. I, a child of middle class Americans, did not have $150,000 in the bank at the age of 18. Surprised? Well you must be, like, five years old if you think people have that kind of money. So, yes, I owe Sallie Mae 20k - my parents paid most and it is beyond my comprehension how they did it and is why I now do everything I can to help them.

I would like to buy a house but I don't know anyone who can just buy a house for cash - median home prices in Boston are around $400,000. The average salary in Boston is about $45,000. A person "should" be able to afford a home three times that of his/her salary - which is $135,000. I'll let you think that one through...

I am currently saving money but I'm not in a rush to buy a home. I have a near-perfect credit score b/c I don't buy what I can't afford and pay my shit on time - so when I do buy a house I will be a great candidate.

If I get hit by a bus on my way home from work I have health insurance so only the persons who willingly participate in the pool will "pay." The Frosts won't owe me a cent and that's how I like it.

I think Bush has run his course and it's time for a new leader and I don't like this "war."

Am I a decent enough person for you to consider paying for my health insurance? I could do so much with an extra $125 a month...Aruba in February sounds good.

how is it that you can tell people how many children to have

There's no specific number, actually, just this: "Have no more than you can afford to pay for."

Gretchen is exactly right (see kitchen table ass-licking above). Unlike Halsey Frost, I have the freedom to have the kind of job I want because I have only a tiny dog depending on me.

Furthermore, I work seven days a week, and long hours, too. If the fruits of my labor are going to be redistributed, why should I bother working much at all? Communism and socialism are utterly irrational and moronic to anybody with even a fleeting notion of human nature. My work, my profit, keep your greasy little hands off.

Your right to have a cool job ends the moment when your sperm fertilizes an egg is some lady's vagina. Unless, of course, she's pro-abortion like me!

in some lady's vagina.

Boy, this is getting all Hustler all of a sudden!

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN?????

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Cav, you are such a tool. I'll bet you can't discuss ANYTHING without going off on a completely irrelevant tirade about the war, the evil rich, and the evils of waste. Shut up and go eat some soy.

On the other hand, I can't believe my libertarian buddies at Advicegoddess.com have gone so completely soft. You're willing to pay for other people's health insurance, as long as they're poor? If you fork over money to insure the progeny of some braindead inner city slut, aren't you just encouraging her to have more kids? Take those kids away, give 'em to Brangelina, and tie that stupid cow's tubes.

You get more of what you subsidize.

Paying for basic care for the very poor is actually a cost-savings in the long run, and probably a social problems savings, too. Otherwise, you get them in emergency rooms where we pay anyway. And through both nostrils, and then some.

Does anyone know how insurance works with unions?

Folks, keep something in mind for me:

A good, hard-working ditch-digger, or other manual laborer working as hard as he or she can IS due some respect, and possibly some help from us defending them against predators who are good with money and not with their hands. There is room for all of us. We should get, be and stay proud of what we do right, do more of it, and show others what doing things right looks like. There is enough condemnation to go around already.

I agree with Amy here and almost everyone else except; Cavalor, Jim Pharo, and Chuck Barry.
I do have one point to make though. It is insurance that has caused this mess. Medical expenses rise at a much faster rate than inflation. They do so because of all the guarantied money. If insurance did not exist, could anyone afford the ridiculous rates/service that is provided by are health providers? No, so rates would plummet.
It is very hard to find a middle class doctor. They all end up very wealthy. Most have entire departments dedicated to maximizing insurance money.
With that said, I do recognize the great costs associated with cutting edge medicine. Also, it is in the best interest of this country to develop these new techniques/cures. So since I am for a safety net, why not have a national catastrophic health insurance program. This insurance could kick in at say $20,000. That way folks that develop cancer, aids, or any other debilitating injury/sickness would be covered and the nation would benefit from the knowledge gained while treating/curing them.
To quote Shrinkwraped,” Everywhere the Left has succeeded, the people have suffered terribly. By overtly attempting to destroy inequality (and those who were successful) the Left has managed to impoverish all, save those who are "more equal than others."
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2007/10/why-myths-matte.html

Radwaste,
Well I used to be a ditch digger. Now I run an oil company. It took years of sacrifice, doing with out and a lot of ditch digging, truck driving, and welding. What stops everyone else? Oh yea, they were drinking beer, dating women and having a general good time while I worked fifty hours a week taking twelve hours a semester at night. Now I am supposed to take care of them? Anyone know the fable about they chicken that went to bake a pie? The grasshopper that played all summer and froze in winter?

Very late in the game on this thread. But this struck me:

"There are lots of reasons that these engineers, who I find very creative, don't strike out on their own, but a real fundamental reason is the expense of health care."

Is health care really that much more expensive when you get it on your own? My example: left a big law firm to start my own practice five years ago and ended up SAVING on my monthly premiums for a very similar plan. OK, so I was a single 28 year old male. I understand it might be harder to get dependent coverage. Flash forward three years - I take on a partner. There are exactly TWO of us in the entire firm at this time, but we qualify for a "group" plan that covers his wife and kid. Again - at a monthly savings vs. what he was paying before.

So how is the cost of health care prohibitive? Seriously, when employers offer health care as "benefit," are you really getting anything of value (other than the time spent shopping for your own insurance)?

snakeman99,
Great post and exactly right. It sure wasn’t health insurance that kept me from forming my own oil company. Seriously, I mean how many times have I actually been to a doctor in the last twenty years? Medical was not the risk. It was putting up all my stuff as collateral and then failing that was the risk.
Once one has kids or lets say others depending on you it becomes difficult to take that risk. For the record, I finally did strike out on my own. I managed to keep my stuff.

Ahemmmmm,
Bad Medicine For Health Care
Laws that require people to buy insurance only drive up the cost of policies
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_42/b4054081.htm

"Paying for basic care for the very poor is actually a cost-savings in the long run, and probably a social problems savings, too. Otherwise, you get them in emergency rooms where we pay anyway. And through both nostrils, and then some.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 8, 2007 3:44 PM"

-----------------

That's a very worthwhile & sensible thought.

Running the numbers on something like this might yield some surprises.

I think that there must be quite a bit of support from grandparents, and one of the kids gets state-aid for the school tuition, which was a result of her disability from the accident. I don't think that having grandparents write a check is so awful, but if they'd been paying the health insurance bill, maybe things might have been better all around.

But, it's not the Frost family that bugs me. It's the lazy political hack who found them, coached the kid through the script and then threw them to the wolves, as well as the reporter who just swallowed everything whole--these people bother me a great deal.

Every time a party hauls out a child to make a political point, something smells. Remember Hilary's poster girl? She ended up being removed from her mother, who went to prison.

I think health insurance, when you have kids, is just fundamental -- even if it means living in a crappier house. And here's a question for you: looks like they have four kids. What are "struggling" people doing having four children? Isn't one challenging enough to support? (I mean, if the rest of us aren't paying their way?)

Yes, while I certainly don't think one must be wealthy in order to reproduce responsibly, they didn't give birth to quadruplets - they chose to conceive four times. Four. As in, more than average. Fine IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.

In other news, that scary neocon Mark Steyn has weighed in on the matter at NR's The Corner. Click on my name to see his post. I especially liked the closing line: "And, if the Democrats don't like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case."

Exactly right, Marion.

Here's my e-mail exchange with one of the Balt Sun reporters. (My apologies to those who have heard my hard luck story before.)

From: Amy Alkon Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:46 AM To: Anderson, Lynn Subject: the Frosts - from syndicated columnist Amy Alkon

Dear Ms. Anderson,
You seem awfully credulous about their inability to afford health care.

http://www.apria.com/resources/1,2725,494-669844,00.html

What kind of reporting did you do on this story? It seems, from a blogger's research, that these people own a home and another building and apparently send their children to a pricey private school. Should I pay for their health care?

Personally, I have Kaiser Permanente HMO for $200-plus a month - much as I'd rather put the money into lovely glass-doored cabinets like the ones in the Frost's kitchen. Awaiting your reply, -Amy Alkon

In a message dated 10/8/07 9:29:21 AM, Lynn.Anderson@baltsun.com writes:

Hi Amy,

Yes, I've seen some of the blogs to which you refer. However, the fact still remains that this family can't afford health insurance. If you take a look at state realestate records you'll find that the family bought their house for much less than its current value. When I met with them they told me that they did most of the renovation work themselves, including the work on their kitchen.

But thanks for the note.

-Lynn Anderson

AMY TO LYNN:

Actually, I saw on one of these blogs that health insurance is available for $450/month with a $750 deductible. And excuse me, but if you have four children, you should get a job that pays well, and maybe even move to a less chic neighborhood -- so that those of us who live frugally don't have to fund your expenses. As for not being able to "afford" health insurance, I've had it my entire working life -- including the year when I couldn't afford a bed, and slept on a door on two milk crates, and even worked as a mover (and let's just say I'm not exactly the redheaded Hulk Hogan). Of course, I couldn't imagine anyone having to pay for me and my choices. Personal responsibility -- a lost concept, it seems. -Amy Alkon

I mostly lurk (access at work when work's slow) but I've got to weigh in. First of all, Amy's right. Don't have kids that you can't afford and hello, sell that house to pay for their doctor if you have too. I really don't get that argument about it's being worth much more now as if that's an argument against selling it. No, it means they'd make a profit. That said, shit happens. I had my child (now 25) when I'd been working for State government for close to a decade but when she was three had to skip state to protect her from an abusive father the family courts failed to. She'd probably be dead now. I took a $7,000 a year pay cut and still provided for. If she hadn't been more important to me than material things, there's no way but I also even through the worse of it expected anyone but myself to be responsible for her. Ideally, her father also should have been but wishing don't make it so and I always say a woman's got to be able to take care of herself and anyone else that comes along. Because I never got to college, because of the above situation and, frankly, because I'm not willing to take on longer hours/more responsibility, it's a struggle and will be. I live in cheap apartments and take the bus. That's partly because I had to make the move (with the government job I had before the state-skipping I'd have made enough and been able to keep my credit good enough to obtain both even without taking on the supervisory responsibility I don't want the headache of) and partly because I'm willing to sacrifice some material things for the freedom of no overtime and not being managerial. But that's wants. My needs are my responsibility. When I got where I was going with my daughter (my pulling out my pension fund to fund the move), getting new employment was my first priority and I used savings to get day care to enable that. I insisted on employment with health care and a salary that enabled decent housing on a bus line. I don't expect others to foot my bill and I'm fed up with those who screw up big time getting a free ride. My sister had a baby at 16, another at 18 and got put through the college I never had an opportunity for by welfare. I want to puke when someone sitting in jail does the same. For 33 years, I've been honest and law-abiding (other than the above mentioned interference with visitation rights) and I don't ask anyone to take care of me or mine. If someone has something unforseen happen or some true hardship, sure, I'm willing to have part of my taxes go to that but I'm Atheist so don't make pay for your religion (pray to some imaginary friend all you want but don't ask me to fund your illusion or join you in prayer or worship) by doing it through faith-based charities with tax dollars or funding religious schools through vouchers or charters and don't ask me to pay health insurance for someone's kids who had them without thinking about how to provide for them and who has tangible things I don't that they could sell to pay for the health insurance. Frankly, they could buy the Kaiser Permanente Amy's talking about probably just by saving the private school tuitions. The little darlings should have health insurance; it's just their parents' responsibilities to make it a priority over SUV's, private school (or perhaps a less expensive one) and a big house.

Donna, we need to clone you.

The reason I call myself a quasi-libertarian is that I'm not opposed to my tax dollars going to all expenditures other than roads/firefighters/police/defense. I see it in my best interest to fund programs that will help kids with autism/cerebral palsy/severe learning disabilities/Down's syndrome have a better chance of becoming reasonably independent adults (and taxpayers). If the seventh child of a drug-addicted teenage mother works hard and wants to go to college, I'm all in favor of that (though, see what I said before about the taxpayer thing). I'm theoretically in favor of making sure that kids don't outright suffer for their parents' terrible decisions, with the huge caveat that there are enormous tradeoffs there. Which is why I supported welfare reform, and would like to see new payments go directly to/for kids rather than being made to parents. In general, my ideal approach for the distribution of my tax payments is that people who make ONE stupid decision and then do their best to make up for that, along with people who try to do the right thing and get slammed down by fate, receive some aid in staying on their feet. This is both because I'm a softie AND because I'd prefer not to have potentially productive citizens lost to inescapable poverty rather than working and paying taxes.

None of this applies to the Frosts. He wants to be a self-employed woodworker? Fine. She wants to stay at home? Fine. They want to have four children? Fine. They want to fix up a house and live in it rather than turning it for a profit? Fine. They want to send their kids to expensive public schools? Fine. But when they demand taxpayer subsidies in order to do ALL of this at once without making substantive sacrifices, I balk. And yes, this is how I see the SCHIP expansion where they're concerned. Ensuring that their children had health insurance should have been their first priority. It appears to have been their last priority. And these are not people who had to take on $300,000 in student loans just to get a decent job. They didn't start with strikes against them. They came from comfortable backgrounds, get help from their parents, live a life the way that they want, and demand my tax dollars in order to keep doing so. Sorry, no. Having four children and being a woodworker without health insurance is like riding a steep mountain trail on a bike you know has no brakes - maybe everything will be fine, but I'm not going to feel sorry for you if your risk comes back to bite you. (And yes, I am aware that their parents are probably subsidizing the school, but why did the Frosts pick THAT instead of, say, parental subsidization of a catastrophic care policy?)

Is it fair to judge the whole SCHIP bill based on my feelings about the Frosts? Well, the supporters of the bill picked the Frosts as the human face of their suggested policy, so I do think the choice says a lot about their mindset. What this mindset appears to be, at least to me, is that those in the middle class shouldn't have to make substantive sacrifices in order to ensure that their families have health insurance. What does that say to those who are? Right now there's a guy somewhere working in an office, feeling like a drone, wishing that he could be something cool like a woodworker, but hey, he and his spouse wanted four kids, so that's out. Right now there's a woman at work pumping breast milk in a closet wishing she could stay at home with her kid and afford to create a college fund for him at the same time. Right now there's a couple deciding against having a second or third child because they're concerned about their financial situation. Right now there's a sensitive artist serving lattes at Starbucks because he needs the health insurance. Making the Frosts into victims tells ALL of these people that they're SUCKERS.

I am fine with using my tax dollars to help people out who truly need the help. I am not fine with using my tax dollars to ensure that people get to live EXACTLY the life they want. I don't get to live EXACTLY the life I want. The kids Amy is going to talk to don't get to live EXACTLY the lives they want. We all have to make sacrifices. I don't wish the Frosts ill, but if the SCHIP expansion is really needed to help people out who have done everything right but are getting screwed, then show me those people! Even if they're not as pretty as the Frosts! Otherwise, be prepared to be judged on your chosen symbol.

Thank you, Amy. It's nice to hear. Sometimes I agree with you; sometimes I don't but you are always interesting and articulate. I admit to cringing at the thought of paying $250 a month for health insurance but like I said I take the need for it into consideration when job hunting instead of saying oh, well, I can get Medicaid. It's good to have that available if laid off and job hunting but it should not be viewed as something to be accepted instead of trying to find either a job that would pay enough for me to buy my own or that offered health insurance as a benefit. We returned to our home state after her father died (I was homesick) and I worked temp work while looking for a permanent job and was very briefly on our State's version of this for her (while I remained uninsured because we were $100 a month over the income limit for Medicaid) but I didn't view it as an instead of providing for her myself and was happy to see it go when I got back on with the State and got insurance for us both as a benefit. Bottom line, I brought her into this world, I was responsible for her. I guess I'm old school but what happened to welfare and the like being something you were ashamed to have to rely on? What happened to being too proud to take a handout? And, yes, I do think that those willing to work harder than I am more entitled to big homes and fancy cars etc than I am. I preferred spending time with my daughter to putting in the time necessary to earn those extras. I don't expect them handed to me just because I have a child. Oh, and, Amy, keep posting the beautiful pics that you and Greg take. They're gorgeous! And I have jigsaw puzzle software. And may never get to Paris myself but I enjoyed living vicariously through your shared image of it.

Marion, I agree with everything you said, but obviously you and I have a different take on things than the people in favor of the SCHIP plan. When you point out the guy working in the office drone job, the woman pumping breast milk in the closet at work, the people limiting their family size, you think the SCHIP advocates are calling these people suckers. I think they are calling them victims, in order to appeal to them.

So that guy in the office job, the woman pumping breast milk, the people limiting the number of children they have, will say 'Hey - why should I have to make these sacrifices just to have health insurance, when the government will provide it for me?' Just listen to this comment by Cavalor: "How is it that you can tell people how many children to have but having to pick up a middle class persons catastrophic medical care via a state program is a travesty?"

Well, indeed. Why should anyone have to make any sacrifices for anything? Why should ANYONE have to limit the number of children they have, for any reason? Why shouldn't we all be able to get jobs as woodworkers if we feel like it? Why can't we all just get everything we want? All it takes is a simple government program, and how could you consider THAT a travesty?

People will be tempted by this. They'll look at folks like the Frosts and think, well, if these fairly wealthy people can qualify for state health insurance, so can I! I never have to worry about health insurance again! Yay! They won't stop to think about how all of this will be paid for, but they may not have to. Where income taxes are concerned, more than half of the people in the USA don't pay any. All the money will come from those evil rich people, those wasteful, self-indulgent people who always have more than they need. (Of course, someone like Cav thinks it's okay to point the finger at people who have "more than they need," but you can't say someone has more children than they need. Because that would be YOU talking and having an opinion, and only Cav is entitled to one. He deems himself the arbiter of all things fair, not too surprising he is a lawyer.)

Karl Marx, 1 - Adam Smith, 0

At least this is happening at the state level. Let a couple of states screw this up, which they will, and let everyone else learn from it.

Hey - why should I have to make these sacrifices just to have health insurance, when the government will provide it for me?'

Right on, Pirate Jo.

My translation of the above: "Why should I have to make these sacrifices when the Democrats will make you make them for me?"

Mark Steyn over at "The Corner" had a follow-up comment on this today in which he mentioned that, apparently, Mrs. Frost works part-time "at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals." So I stand corrected - she works. However, my point about how she could work at Starbucks and get health insurance still stands, even if it's not as much to her liking as her current job.

More from Steyn:

I tremble to return to the subject of the Frost family, if only because so many e-mailers in the last 72 hours seem to confuse a debate on health care with an analysis of my sexual inadequacy and the accommodational capacity of my posterior. But here's my, er, bottom line...

I just love that last bit, and again, absolutely right about Starbucks. Sorry, when you choose to become a parent, your choice of fun careers comes a distant fifth. Yes, tragically, Barren! girls like me get to have all the fun.

I'm a republican and no intention in giving you free anything.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and a personal responsibilitarian, and I have no interest in giving anyone free anything or in being anything other than self-supporting. More people should try it. It's good for the self-worth.