Alright, That's Enough On Graeme Frost

I did some research into the Frost family last night but was just going to let it go, no need to pile on, etc. But Think Progress doesn't seem to want to let it go. So, I'm posting what I turned up after I say my piece.

See those faces at Right? No, not the kids. This was never about the kids, Graeme, or otherwise. It's tragic that they were injured so severely. But it's also tragic that apparently F Halsey Frost, otherwise known as Daddy here, never learned to take responsibility for himself, or give up options he wasn't prepared to support. Why bother, one can always call on the American taxpayer for that?

This story is about the parents, Bonnie and F. Halsey Frost who grew up with all the advantages and, despite what I might assume is a liberal view on abortion, not only most likely support that free choice; if someone wants to have kids, they apparently believe it's cool to play with wood, or hold low-paying, fun, or perhaps lower stress jobs without having to worry about providing for whatever number of moppets one might feel like dropping into the world. I guess it's, let someone else pay for it, in their world view. I'm thinking F H learned that and little else from his Daddy.

Do they have any idea of the number of people who stay in less than great jobs precisely so their kids can have excellent benefits? It's called sacrifice, something Bonnie and F don't seem to think is their job. Nah, let's leave that to American taxpayers, many of whom don't even make as much as they do and certainly don't have the long line of private schools in their past.

How about getting Dad to cash in on the vintage 1956 T-Bird, 56 being the year he graduated from Princeton, F H? Doesn't he care enough about his Grand kids? I mean, that question's fair game, right? After all, you weren't too ashamed to put it to us by allowing your child to be used by a liberal political machine, right?

That's the car that recently won him third place in an antique car show. He has money to help send the Princeton Band on the road - how about calling Dad next time you need some help instead of trying to reach into the collective pocket of the American taxpayers, you irresponsible, simpering wimp.

I hate to pile on here, but some of what I've been reading given a deeper search kind of steams me. Following up on Michelle's post on Graeme Frost, meet Mr. and Mrs. A. Corwin Frost of Bronxville, N.Y.

That would be Princeton '56, as in they were able to cough up some dough to help send the Princeton Band to San Diego. Take third place in the Manchester Antique and Classic Car Show with their '56 T-bird. Must have been fun tooling around Princeton in that, I'd bet. Of course now, they're reduced to tooling around in "affluent" Bronxville - Corwin is Chairman of the Planning Board - keen to keep the riff-raff out of the hood, or so it seems.

"The more we hear, the more we think he may be an undesirable guy," said Frost. "We don't know his real motivation."

Bronxville is an affluent bedroom community of 6,200 people in southern Westchester County, about 15 miles from mid-town Manhattan. In a one-square-mile village dominated by Tudor, Victorian and colonial homes, Green's warehouse home would be by far the largest and most peculiar.

There was money for the Alumni Walkway at a Private School in Bronxville, looks like Corwin went from there straight to Princeton. I assume he does alright given this billion dollar NJ project he ran. There are three generations of Frost architecture in the archives of American Art.

Yes, the Frost children are victims, but not of conservatives. They look more like victims of a couple of mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves when it came to the bottom line on that. There are poor people in America who need help, particularly as regards Health care. The point is, the family above shouldn't be and simply aren't among them. Call Dad next time you want some bucks FH. And kindly leave the rest of America's collective wallet the hell alone.

Or, hey, get a second job with benefits. I've done that more than once in my life when I needed the cash. And do it before you let Graeme tell the media how much you struggle to take care of him, because there are enough people in America who really do struggle with these issues. And when they take a look at your lot in life they are left far from impressed and unmoved to cough up one thin dime so you can enjoy afternoons playing with your lathe, or whatever the hell else it is you do in your factory.

I don't see someone who needs my help in F Halsey Frost. I see a simpleton and a loser who had more kids than he could afford and doesn't appear to have given up very much in life to deal with that situation. Who knows, maybe Dad figured it out, too and cut him off. What the hell, there's always welfare, right?

Comments

[AlphaLiberal]

curvelib, their business partners are being questions, insinuations made against them at their workplace and neighborhood, they're being called liars in the public sphere, you guys are openly insulting the father for trying to start a business, their home is being stalked, their home address has been published (which the hypocrite Malkin whines about if it happens to a con).

This is all about silencing people who disagree with Republicans.

[curvedbrain]

"their home is being stalked"

Let's take just one of several false claims you've made. Define "stalked", and support your assertion. I think your response will reveal much about your 'integrity'

[curvedbrain]

"their home address has been published"

Presumably, since you name Malkin, you can direct us to your protests of her address being published? No? How about Jeff Gannon?

At least Malkin had a plausible reason - pointing to the sizeable real estate values of the Frost's house and business property from a family pushing for the govt to pay their bills

[LOL]

I can't believed you piled on to this. I thought for a few days that you actually wouldn't, but jeezus! I guess it's just 'cause you were waiting for your marching orders. You are shameless Dan

[LOL]

who's the freaking loser here dan, the turleys with a successful marriage and family in the eyes of god, or you, a man with ghastly record with the opposite sex

[LOL]

oops i mean the frosts

[D. Aristophanes]

So let me get this straight. Dan and the gang are mightily upset that a hard-working family that suffered a terrible accident are getting a hand from a pretty well-run government program. That bad luck and possibly some bad choices by these folks (and others like them) would conspire to take, like, a quarter a month out of Dan and company's pocket. That a kid who owes some degree of his current health to the government program would ... be ... trotted ... out (gasp!) ... to humbly suggest that we should keep said program. That some people with a house and a business and (holy crap!) a running vehicle would have difficulty paying the insurance and hospital bills for their children (did I mention two of the children have traumatic brain injuries and are likely uninsurable?) ...

That about the score? When do you guys break out into the bit about "Are there no poorhouses? Are there no workfarms?"

[Aaron]

Some facts:

US$ 45,000 per year is slightly under the median income in the USA of US$ 48,000. In other words they are middle class, not in poverty. They should be able to afford their own health insurance or get a job that offers one.

The poverty threshold for a family with 4 children is US$ 26,000 - they are way above poverty.

These aren't poor folks. They should be able to take care of themselves.

[King Troll]

"They should be able to afford their own health insurance or get a job that offers one."

But they can't. That should point out the problem to you right there. They tried three times to get health insurance and were turned down. Their 'substantial real estate assets' it turns out, are worth, gross, probably a grand total of $300K to $400K. Now, let's assume they're like me and they don't actually *own* their home and business, so their actual divestiture value there is probably more on the order of $100K. And then they wouldn't have a place to live. Oh, and that's *if*, and we are talking a might big IF, here, IF that would even pay for the medical bills. Having just gone through my mother-in-laws car accident... guess what... it won't.

So, bankrupt and homeless is that path they should take? That's just stupid.

BTW, their son goes to private school on scholarship.

You keep saying "should" and holding up ideology instead of looking at the simple hard reality of their situation.

The whole nonsense about "get a well paying job or a job with health insurance" is bunk. Sometimes things don't work out that way, and you have no control over it.

I am constantly amazed at how right wingers have to tell themselves the same story over and over and over again, regardless of the facts. I believe it's rooted in fear. You're so scared that this could happen to you. And it might.

Sometimes s--- happens, and that's what SCHIP is for.

Get over yourselves and your false sense of invulnerability and your delusional attitude that we are all in absolute control of our own situation. We're not, and sometimes we need help.

I am generous when people need help.

Are you?

It doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting.

[Bandit]

I wonder why if these people live in Balt they send their kids to private school? Don't they support public education?

[Krista]

"Lesley said everything was covered by his mother's insurance.

I thought private insurance was illegal in Canada."

Lala, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but I'm not surprised. The "private-insurance-is-illegal" meme is absurdly pervasive, particularly amongst Americans who are against government-funded healthcare for all citizens.

Private insurance is indeed legal in Canada. Basically, each province administers their own healthcare system, which covers acute care services. In other words, if it's considered to be medically necessary, the government will pay for it. As well, as you all likely know, our government does heavily subsidize prescription drugs.

Some people will also get private insurance, to cover such things as vision care, physiotherapy, chiropractic, the cost of medical equipment such as walkers, braces, etc., dental care, prostheses and wigs, and private hospital rooms. As well, the private insurance will cover the rest of the cost of prescription drugs -- anywhere from 60% to 100% of the cost, depending on one's plan. The plan can be purchased privately, or if you're lucky, you have coverage through your employer.

Any fee for any medical service automatically goes through the government plan first. If eligible, it is paid that way. Any services not covered, or not covered at 100%, can then be put through the patient's private insurance.

And NO, people are not turned away from medical care, especially for acute services. That's an absurd meme as well. Waiting lists tend to be for non-acute services such as joint replacements, plastic surgery, etc.

Yes, to see a specialist, you do have to be referred by your GP. No, not everybody has a family doctor, due to the doctor shortage. However, even those without a family doctor can still get a referral by visiting a doctor at a walk-in clinic, or if worst comes to worst, the ER. (They can expect a wait, though, as the ER deals with genuine emergencies first.)

No, our system is not perfect. And yes, there are circumstances where people have had to wait for things like hip replacements and MRIs (to that end, there have been a few private MRI clinics opening up here, where those who have the funds can go pay for the MRI. It's controversial here, because many people don't like the idea of people with money getting to jump the queue. I, however, think it is a good idea, because even if Joe Rich gets his MRI before I do, him leaving the line means that I will STILL get my MRI that much earlier.)

However, when it really comes down to brass tacks, I do feel that our system is much better. I don't currently have private insurance. (I work for a small charity, and neither I nor my employer can afford private insurance.) However, when I had to go to the Emergency Room last year, for what turned out to be a kidney stone, I did not walk out with any bill. The only thing for which I had to pay was my prescription for painkillers, which came to about $20.

How much would that ER visit have cost me in the U.S.?

[Hank]

Brilliant post ! Maybe you can go through their garbage and see whether they eat regular food or the more expensive organic choices.

It's amazing to me that a fine journalist like you is gungho to scrutinize this family from Baltimore, yet you don't bother to look into the missing billions that disappeared in Iraq.

Keep up the fine work!

[upyernoz]

jesus christ, i'm astounded my mr. riehl once again. i guess being proven wrong on every point you made isn't enough to get you to give up. i mean, the fact that they tried repeatedly to get private health insurance and were turned down by three different companies should be enough to settle the matter.

and the sad fact is that in this country a lot of solidly middle class people cannot afford health insurance. the ranks of the uninsured keep growing and it has crawled up the socio-economic scale far enough to reach people who aren't destitute. hell, i know a lawyer who can't get health insurance.

it blows my mind that you don't see this entire issue as a major strike against your political position. the more you bring it up, the more reason there is to support S-CHIP expansion. no wonder republican politicians, even they seem to have a better grasp of reality than you do, are backing away from the "kill the frosts" strategy. it's like you're trying to discredit yourselves here.

and, by all means, be my guest...

[Rocketeer]

Oh, I'm generous when people need help, King Troll. Most of us are. That's what churches and charities are for. However - and here's a tip - having goverment dictate your "charitable giving" by forcibly taking your money at the end of the barrel of a gun (taxes) is not the commonly accepted definition of "generosity."

[Bandit]

The phony outrage is a beautiful thing! It's not that they can't spend their own money - they'd just rather spend yours - typical libs - willing to give you the shirt off someone elses back.

[MarL]

As a taxpaying American in the bracket that takes the biggest percent income hit (my taxes are almost what the Frost's make per year), I am FULLY and PROUDLY in support of a portion of my tax dollars going to help out people like the Frosts. It saddens me to see how heartless and selfish and shortsighted our nation has become. How judgmental of others. How nasty people are to one another. This is not the kind of place I want my kids to grow up in, that's for damn sure.

What seems to have escaped everyones notice here is how frequently and successfully large corporations and super-wealthy people game the tax system. Make no mistake, these folks are more "on the dole" than you think the Frost's are, and not for sustenance, but for greed.

So all of you get a goddamn heart and realize that we are all in this together, us Americans, and stop trying to make war with your fellow citizens.

[Bandit]

I am FULLY and PROUDLY in support of a portion of my tax dollars going to help out people like the Frosts.

So why do the rest of us have to support them?

It saddens me to see how heartless and selfish and shortsighted our nation has become. How judgmental of others. How nasty people are to one another. This is not the kind of place I want my kids to grow up in, that's for damn sure.
That's a joke right? Other people are judgemental!?!?

What seems to have escaped everyones notice here is how frequently and successfully large corporations and super-wealthy people game the tax system.

So if someone else is scamming the system that makes it OK for everybody?

So all of you get a goddamn heart and realize that we are all in this together, us Americans, and stop trying to make war with your fellow citizens.

Well not really - we're in it together - but people who are scamming the system aren't.

Your moonbat synapses aren't fully fuctional - you only swore a couple of times in your post and only used a couple of insults.

[curvedbrain]

"Lala, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but I'm not surprised. The "private-insurance-is-illegal" meme is absurdly pervasive, particularly amongst Americans who are against government-funded healthcare for all citizens.

Private insurance is indeed legal in Canada."

Is it? If private insurance has been legal in Canada, it sure as hell hasn't been for long, and has plenty of strings attached. From 2005 http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001025/39/

So to be clear, you accuse Americans of pushing "absurdly pervasive" false memes about Canadian private health insurance, when in reality this 'meme' is/was firmly rooted in fact.

[curvedbrain]

"jesus christ, i'm astounded my mr. riehl once again. i guess being proven wrong on every point you made isn't enough to get you to give up. i mean, the fact that they tried repeatedly to get private health insurance and were turned down by three different companies should be enough to settle the matter."

I have no idea if that's true, but I thought the Frost's said that they COULD get health insurance, only that it was too expensive.

And since you lefties have researched these details about the insurance applications, perhaps you could shed a little light on medical treatment provided to the Frosts as part of the auto insurance settlement from the accident. And didn't the Frosts already get S-CHIP benefits?

Either way, I want whoever did their kitchen to remodel mine. But I'll have to save up for such an extravegance. Unless I can get Congress to pay for it.

[Krista]

Once again, Lala, you have no idea what you are talking about.

"Canada's Supreme Court dealt a powerful blow to the state monopoly on health care Thursday, striking down a Quebec ban on private health insurance for services provided under the country's Medicare system of universal coverage."

In other words, in Quebec, it used to be illegal for private health insurers to cover services that were already paid for by the government. It was still legal for services that WEREN'T universally covered, though.

Either that, or my employment as a medical claims adjustor from 2002 to 2005 was all a strange dream.

As I said, our system is not perfect. But to say that private insurance is illegal here is just flat-out false.

I've done a bit of digging -- am I right in assuming that had I been in the US when I had to go to the emergency room, that my visit, treatment, x-ray and ultrasound would have come up to about $5000?

If so, thank God I don't live in your country. I would not have been able to afford that bill.

[MarL]

Bandit wrote: "So why do the rest of us have to support them?"

Because the tax system is not like ordering a meal at Burger King.

[curvedbrain]

"As I said, our system is not perfect. But to say that private insurance is illegal here is just flat-out false"

Flat out false, you say? From the article I cited, until the 2005 Canada supreme court ruling, private health insurance throughout Canada was illegal. As the article makes clear, that 2005 SC ruling applied only to one provincen Quebecn as all the other Canadian provinces at the time of that ruling did not allow the possibility of private health insurance

Private health insurance - illegal in Canada.

[curvedbrain]

From the 2006 Canadian hosted AIDS conference informatino site, a warning to visitors coming to the Canadian conference from other other countries:

"Some of the medications you take at home may not be available in Canada, so be sure to bring enough to last until you return home"
http://www.aids2006.org/subpage.aspx?pageId=458

In other words, a number of the most most modern, effective AIDS treatment drugs are not available here in Canada. So be sure you bring enough to last the entire conference, or otherwise you'll be out of luck (like Canadian AIDS sufferers who lack these options).

[krista]

Curvedbrain - you're interpreting the article differently than I am. However, having worked for a private medical insurance company, I can assure you that private health insurance was not illegal in Canada prior to 2005. It is completely and utterly legal and common for people to have private insurance as a COMPLEMENT to the government insurance. You cannot, however, opt out of the government-funded healthcare. That is likely where the confusion is coming. You cannot REPLACE your government plan with a private plan. The government plan is there for all citizens, you can't opt out of it, and it is always the first payer for any health service. As I mentioned above however, it is perfectly legal and common for people to obtain private insurance in order to cover services that may not be covered by their government plan.

What WAS illegal was for private insurers to cover services that were already covered under the government plan. This was so that people weren't paying premiums for services that were already covered by their taxes, and also to discourage physicians from opting out of the government-funded insurance plans.

Basically, the whole point of our system is so that NECESSARY medical care is guaranteed for everybody. Were my country to scrap the plan, would I save on taxes? Yes, but probably not all that much, in the long haul. Certainly not enough to be able to afford to purchase a private plan.

And, if you didn't already know this, I can certainly tell you this much, having worked on the "inside". Corporations are looking for profits. Bottom line. That's all they care about. If they can find a way to deny a claim, they will. (Believe me, we adjustors did not look for reasons to approve a claim -- we looked for reasons to deny it.) If a policyholder starts to cost more than they're paying in premiums, you can bet that the insurance company will find a way to get him off the plan. And if you've got a heart condition, God help you if you went to the doctor for shortness of breath prior to your coverage being implemented...they won't cover anything to do with your heart, because you had a pre-existing condition. The right-wing faith in the free market is laughable. They're not competing -- they're colluding. And "taking your business elsewhere" isn't always an option.

[curvedbrain]

"And, if you didn't already know this, I can certainly tell you this much, having worked on the "inside". Corporations are looking for profits. Bottom line. That's all they care about. If they can find a way to deny a claim, they will."

Thanks for that bit of "insight". Who knew about all this profit business? Insurance companies here in the US - health, auto, life, etc who don't pay claims get sued, and get a reputation which loses them business. Because they are, as you say, profit driven, they try to keep their reputation by paying legit claims to avoid lawsuits and resulting loss of customers. In Canada, as you say, consumers have no such option. Cutting edge AIDS or diabetes treatments not availabe in Canada? Suck it up.

Is private auto insurance illegal in Canada too? How about privately owned grocery stores? Because I hear that grocery store owners and auto insurers are looking for *gasp* profits too. You better get busy doing something to rectify those abominations.

[Krista]

Besides, all of this is distracting from the real point: the Frosts HAD insurance. They had CHIP. The government of Maryland approved them for it. That was their right as a state, was it not? Can we not assume that the state of Maryland would have done a needs assesment on them? So if the state of Maryland decided that the Frosts qualified for CHIP, then why are so many of you saying that that was the wrong decision? Is there something that you know about the Frosts that their own state government does not?

So, the situation as I see it is this: the Frost family was approved for CHIP coverage by the state of Maryland. The family is very happy to have had this coverage, as their medical bills are quite high. In light of the current debate about S-CHIP, one of the children was asked to make an address, talking about how CHIP was a very good thing for his family. Many people on the right do not approve of S-CHIP. And so, instead of talking about S-CHIP and why it is not a good idea, they instead are investigating the family's financial situation, EVEN THOUGH they legally qualified for CHIP under the current rules.

It's just plain silly. The Frosts were found to be eligible for CHIP. End of story. If you don't like S-CHIP, that's your prerogative, and you have every right to decry S-CHIP, CHIP, or even CHIPS for all I care (Erik Estrada's a big boy, he can take it.) But to fancy yourself investigative journalists, speculating how the big, bad, wily, clever and evil Frosts MUST be pulling the wool over the eyes of the poor, trusting, innocent, naive state? You guys are really barking up the wrong tree, and it's not going to help your case at all. It just makes you look like jerks.

[Tax Analyst]

Well, OK...let's see - 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Many who DO have insurance are strapped financially and have to forego or cut back on other basic needs. Many more still walk the tightrope; covered - as long as they stay at the same company and do not, heaven forbid, try to start their own business (and yes, as one commenter noted, there is a rather generous provision in the Tax Code for a "Self-Employed Health Insurance" deduction - it's actually an adjustment (reduction) in your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). The Self-Employed Taxpayer gets to take 100% of premiums paid in the tax year for medical & dental and qualified long-term care insurance for themselves, their spouse and their dependents, up to the amount of their Net Income from that Self-Employment (so if you lose money or make very little net income you are quite limited,and it also does not apply to any month in which your were eligible to participate in an Employer subsidized Health Plan, if say, your spouse had work coverage and it was available to both of you). No charge for the Tax mini-Seminar. Anyway, it boggles my mind that people would reject what would eventually would be a clear-cut and workable system because they begrudge people who don't fit their personal standard or criteria of being "needy". I mean, who in the Hell should care, really? Health Care is something pretty much everyone needs at some point or other. Will there be some abuses in a Single-payer system? Uh...sure...aren't there abuses NOW in the current system? When money is involved there will ALWAYS be someone...some folks, who will try and "game" the system for whatever they can. I know this will shock you all, but why, this even occurs within our always fair, equitable, and easily understood Federal Income Tax system (snark). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it - in spite of whatever any "anti-taxer's" out there might be saying under their breath right now - taxes are part of living in a SOCIETY. There are BENEFITS in being part of such a society. I'll save the long-winded lecture on THAT for some other time and some other audience. My point? Stop worrying about someone getting an edge or advantage over you and look at the broader picture and then get serious about what type of society you wish to live in. If you really prefer "every man/woman for themself",or think that "Private Charities" should provide to those who are unable to do so themselves, well, get real. Do you really want to run a "Queen For A Day" type of system - whoever has the saddest, most pathethic tale gets a million one-dollar donations while thousands sit on the sidelines. I'm through, you can kick around ideas and plans to improve what we have now or you can spend your time judging and kicking around those you envy or disagree with or whatever your particular annoyance or resentment dictates. I can't make you want to make things better, I can ony suggest how little sense it makes to want to snoop and investigate everyone who receives any sort of government benefit.

[seekeronos]

"--- Sometimes s--- happens, and that's what SCHIP is for. ---"

I can reasonably accept that. This is what government assistance programs should do - serve as a limited safety net.

However, like any other safety net, (my days of dealing with OSHA coming back to haunt me :P ) it has a critical working load. Put too much weight upon it, and it will rip and come apart.

Plus, the more people who remain inside the safety net, the less it is able to catch some other unfortunate who looses his or her balance.

The answer is not always to make the net bigger, but to encourage people to get out of the net, get their feet back on the ground, and climbing back up ladder.

Making the net bigger (by the $135B USD which Bush vetoed) may seem expedient, but given humankind's proclivity toward taking advantage of a "free ride" at others' expense... I think it would be better to maintain the existing SCHIP budget, or extend it sparingly to meet the need of the people who need it most... like un-insured or under-insured _working_ single parents... not people who own (or are vested in) their private business.

In the end, who would (will, if the veto is overturned) pay the $135Bn to float this much bigger safety net? I reckon it won't come out of any corporate taxes, but out of Joe and Jane Paycheck's monthly income. Of course, I don't have a studied answer for it, but given the pattern of who usually winds up paying for "tax and spend" programs, I won't be thinking about buying that new plasma screen TV or visiting my relatives in Japan as easily.

By the same token, another commenter said that we'd do as well to kill off or draw down "corporate welfare". Well said, if you can get the powerful rich to play along, and to instruct their private congresscritters to start cutting back some of the special loopholes and tax shelters that some corporations abuse.

Again, moderation is in order: if we get to punitive in taxing large business, they'll simply take the next fast plane to Red China or Bangladesh.

The better idea, of course, is for government to make policy that favours small business and regional businesses --- and tax relief contingent upon and proportional their efforts to keep their employees insured.

Regional and local businesses have a vested interest in keeping their customers happy - both the external buying customers, and the internal customers - the employees satisfied.

Multinational corporations have no such loyalty - except to themselves, i.e. the CEOs and their hedge fund managers, and their stockholders (in theory, at least).

"--- I've done a bit of digging -- am I right in assuming that had I been in the US when I had to go to the emergency room, that my visit, treatment, x-ray and ultrasound would have come up to about $5000? ---"

This depends largely on where you get treated at, I think. I have had kidney stones before - a pain I wouldn't wish upon an enemy or a dog.

My ER visit had a $50 co-pay, which included the ultrasound and treatment. In my "statement of benefits" letter I got several weeks later, I think the visit was billed for $1800 (to my insurance). I also pay a premium of about $140/month, with my employer picking up the rest of the tab (about 75%). I have $30 office visit copays, and $10 per prescription - which suits me fine, as (thanks be to God) my family and I are relatively young and in fairly good health.

As I age and my family's needs evolve, and our income increases, we can choose other insurance options that may have a greater up-front cost (premiums) but lower limits for copays and office visits.

In the US, many hospitals also give deep discounts for the uninsured for ER visits, and provide flexible payment plans.

I won't pretend that our health care system hasn't got its issues, but it largely works in the middle. The edges - with S-CHIP for our youngest _citizens_, and a horribly broken Medicare/Social Security for the elderly needs attention.

What we differ on is how to fix it.

[Lala]

Krista

My friend went to the emergency roomn in terrible pain. Within hours her gall bladder was removed. The bill for everything was about $15000.00. She didn't pay a dime as she didn't have a job or insurance. She didn't even apply for Medicaid as it was too much trouble. She is a true socialist.

[curvedbrain]

"So if the state of Maryland decided that the Frosts qualified for CHIP, then why are so many of you saying that that was the wrong decision? Is there something that you know about the Frosts that their own state government does not?"

I think there is agreement that truly poor people should be helped. The rub comes with giving govt assistance to people who have $100k - $200K or more in real estate equity (and other assets??), and who, given their education and health (I'm speculating on the parents' health, but both of them look young and healthy), why isn't the husband working two jobs or whatever to provide for the family? He certainly wouldn't be the first, or the last father to work two jobs to support a family. And given his educational and family background, it certainly appears that he chosen to work and live as he does. He, unlike others, has other options. His choice... just don't force me to pay for his choices.

[Krista]

"The bill for everything was about $15000.00. She didn't pay a dime as she didn't have a job or insurance. She didn't even apply for Medicaid as it was too much trouble. She is a true socialist."

I think there's something I'm missing here. She didn't pay a dime? Why not? Did she simply refuse to? If that's the case, I can't imagine them just shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Oh well, she won't pay."

There's something to your story that needs a bit more detail.

[Slim Tyranny]

God you people are sick

[Krista]

"The rub comes with giving govt assistance to people who have $100k - $200K or more in real estate equity (and other assets??), and who, given their education and health (I'm speculating on the parents' health, but both of them look young and healthy), why isn't the husband working two jobs or whatever to provide for the family? He certainly wouldn't be the first, or the last father to work two jobs to support a family. And given his educational and family background, it certainly appears that he chosen to work and live as he does. He, unlike others, has other options. His choice... just don't force me to pay for his choices."

He doesn't have that much equity, though. He's still paying mortgages on both his home and his work building. How many of us here who "own" homes actually have them all paid off? I saw a picture of the guy's house. They're not living in splendor. It's just a normal-looking home.

But like I said...they qualified for CHIP. Why are you second-guessing the state's decision?

I just find it very disturbing that so many of you expect families to live in substandard housing and work 18-hour days so that their kids can have medical care? What on earth is wrong with you that you think it is acceptable for citizens of your great (and RICH!) country to be forced to make those choices?

And if you shouldn't be forced to pay for his choices, then I'm certain that everybody who voted against Bush in 2000 would be justified in demanding their share of their tax money back, right? After all, they didn't vote for him, and they've been forced to pay for his choices and mistakes.

[seekeronos]

"--- You cannot, however, opt out of the government-funded healthcare. That is likely where the confusion is coming. You cannot REPLACE your government plan with a private plan. ---"

This is quite telling, and is typical of the health care/insurance model of Japan and Germany as well. (My wife is Japanese, and I had dual German/US citizenship as a youth).

Mandatory nationwide government insurance, I'm not sure we are ready for that yet. With our free market system in the USA, we are able to support some of the most advanced applications of medical science available.

As an intermediate step, I'd support S-CHIP where it gives the greatest power to the many states to set their own policy and offer _supplemental_ levels of insurance. Perhaps, allow the states to set their own budgets, and refund any surpluses at the end of the year into an investment fund to help defray deficit years.

We Americans are quite fond of having choices, and being able to shop for the best plan(s) that suit our needs.

In other words, the governmental catchall plan should be an _option_ that is available for the most needy, or for those whose employee insurance options are insufficient.

But to mandate a centralized health care plan from which we have no legal recourse to opt-out, forces us into yet another set of liberty-destroying shackles, and makes some middle-men who will assuredly take their place in the tax "food chain" of entitlements.

It only creates more bureaucrcacy, and drives us further into the arms of the nanny-state.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Bandit]

"The Frosts were found to be eligible for CHIP. End of story."

Don't question your masters - I'll make it simple so you can understand

Tax dollars are supposed to be allocated based on need - when people who don't need thenm take them then they are cheating both the taxpayers and the truly needy

[Lala]

She refused to pay, they tried to collect but she had no money and no assets that they could go after.

The State has a fund to reimburse doctors and hospitals when patients don't pay their bills.

All of us who do pay our bills unknowingly contribute to this fund.

[curvedbrain]

"they qualified for CHIP. Why are you second-guessing the state's decision?"

How dare you question how govt benefits are handed out! Govt benefits going to those who could pay for it themsleves?? Just shut up and take it! /Krista

Are you seriously complaining about peoples' right to question these things? I think you are. Seems like quite an authoritarian position to be taking.

[Lala]

Nationalized Health Care is Broken
By John Stossel

Last week I pointed out that Michael Moore, maker of the documentary "Sicko," portrayed the Cuban health-care system as though it were utopia -- until I hit him with some inconvenient facts. So he backed off and said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things."

OK, here we go.

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

"People line up for care; some of them die. That's what happens," Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure, told "20/20". Gratzer thought the Canadian system was great until he started treating patients. "The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting. ... You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! You just gotta wait six months."

Michael Moore retorts that Canadians live longer than Americans.

But Canadians' longer lives are unrelated to heath care. Canadians are less likely to get into accidents or be murdered. Take those factors into account, not to mention obesity, and Americans live longer.

Most Canadians like their free health care, but Canadian doctors tell us the system is cracking. More than a million Canadians cannot find a regular family doctor. One town holds a lottery. Once a week the town clerk gets a box out of the closet. Everyone who wants to have a family doctor puts his or her name in it. The clerk pulls out one slip to determine the winner. Others in town have to wait.

It's driven some Canadians to private for-profit clinics. A new one opens somewhere in Canada almost every week. Although it's not clear that such private clinics are legal, one is run by the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day, because under government care, he says, "We found ourselves in a situation where we were seeing sick patients and weren't being allowed to treat them. That was something that we couldn't tolerate."

Canadians stuck on waiting lists often pay "medical travel agents" to get to America for treatment. Shirley Healey had a blocked artery that kept her from digesting food. So she hired a middleman to help her get to a hospital in Washington state.

"The doctor said that I would have only had a very few weeks to live," Healey said.

Yet the Canadian government calls her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

Not all Canadian health care is long lines and lack of innovation. We found one place where providers offer easy access to cutting-edge life-saving technology, such as CT scans. And patients rarely wait.

But they have to bark or meow to get access to this technology. Vet clinics say they can get a dog or a cat in the next day. People have to wait a month.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/socialized_medicine_is_broken.html

[Krista]

"Are you seriously complaining about peoples' right to question these things? I think you are. Seems like quite an authoritarian position to be taking"

No, I am laughing about the fact that based on a bunch of dubious research done by a Freeper, you all have decided that you're in a better position to determine the Frosts needs than the State of Maryland was.

And LaLa, as for your friend...if she had no job and no assets, and a hospital bill of $15K, then I'm curious as to what you think should have been done. Or, conversely, let's say she was taking home about $1500 a month and owned a modest home. There appear to be people here who would have had your friend sell her house in order to pay her medical bills. If nobody can see how wrong that is, then frankly, I give up on all of you.

[Lala]

Krista,
Your question was what would your emergency visit cost you in the U.S.
It would cost you nothing if you chose not to pay it.
Hospitals in the U.S. are required by law to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

[prozacula]

once again dan, riehl stupid.

oh, and you're and asshole.

[frits]

Yeah, Dan. You're an arrogant, compassionless piece of shit.

[Krista]

"Krista,
Your question was what would your emergency visit cost you in the U.S.
It would cost you nothing if you chose not to pay it."

Wow...that's a great system. So how come everybody isn't refusing to pay their bills?

Or is it that people who actually DO have income and assets, unlike your friend, ARE made to pay their bills?

[Lala]

Krista,
Do you pay your bills willingly or are you forced to pay your bills?

How do you make someone pay if they have no money and no assets?

[curvedbrain]

"No, I am laughing about the fact that based on a bunch of dubious research done by a Freeper, you all have decided that you're in a better position to determine the Frosts needs than the State of Maryland was"

First, no one is relying just on research done by "Freepers", and it's a strawman for you to suggest otherwise. And what research did you rely upon when you made your definitive statement that the Frosts don't have $100k - $200k in equity in their real estate property holdings as you stated above?

[seekeronos]

"---
And LaLa, as for your friend...if she had no job and no assets, and a hospital bill of $15K, then I'm curious as to what you think should have been done. Or, conversely, let's say she was taking home about $1500 a month and owned a modest home. There appear to be people here who would have had your friend sell her house in order to pay her medical bills. If nobody can see how wrong that is, then frankly, I give up on all of you.
---"

That is much more reasonable than someone who has a $400K house and the _ability_ and access to personal connections so as to be able to pull in six figure income.

[waka waka]

Wow. You people are truly, TRULY without class. Keep it up. Your moral "values" are just shining through. All the better for the true party of moral values next year. Unbelievable.

[waka waka]

Oh yeah, why do you people ignore the fact that this family tried to get insurance three times already but were repeatedly rejected because of their children's pre-existing medical conditions? What else are they supposed to do?

[seekeronos]

"---
Do you pay your bills willingly or are you forced to pay your bills?

How do you make someone pay if they have no money and no assets?
---"

In theory, someone with zero income and zero assets would be unable to pay.

However, in practice, most people do exercise some degree of trade or receive welfare, and likely some portion of that would be collected against the payment of the medical bills.

That extreme case would seem not to be typical, as most people still have a moral sense of obligation to pay their bills and earn an income.

[Krista]

From the Baltimore Sun:

"Folkemer said a family's assets are not considered in determining eligibility. Halsey Frost purchased the family home for $55,000 in 1990, according to city records, and refinanced in 2005, he says, to make improvements to accommodate the return of Graeme and Gemma from the hospital. The 1936 brick rowhouse, on a side street near Patterson Park, has an assessed value of $263,140.

Halsey Frost purchased a 1920 warehouse in East Baltimore for $160,000 in 1999, according to city records. It is assessed at $160,500. Frost says he is still paying off the mortgages on both properties."

So, if he refinanced in 2005, and they have a family income of $45K, then it's pretty blatantly obvious that they would not have paid that off in two years.

Anyway, I've wasted more than enough time over here. But like I said, the state of Maryland determined that the Frosts were eligible for SCHIP. You folks think that was the wrong decision, and feel that the Frosts should be made to sell both their home and business, and that the father should be made to get a "real job" that just happens to have great health coverage (that would just happen to cover two kids with severe pre-existing conditions), instead of being an entrepreneur.

Like I said, I just have to laugh. This family...lower-middle class, happily married, 4 kids, the guy owns his own business, they're paying down their home and making a life for themselves....isn't this family almost emblematic of your typical blue-collar, apple-pie-American family, working to make ends meet? I can't help but think that if they were on YOUR side of the argument, you would have been revering them.