The practical effect is this. Without an asset test, anyone living off any passive income (annuity settlements, pension income, social security income, retirement savings, or even trust funds) are still eligible for SCHIP. That means that a trust fund baby who has no job and just lives off the exorbitent wealth of their parents is eligible for SCHIP in 46 out of 50 states. (H/T to Bizzy Blog)
Look at this example,
Husband age 62, wife age 41, two children 2 and 7. The husband receives early social security payments, a mutual fund capital gain of $50,000 and ordinary dividends of $30,000. The wife works part time for about $29,000. Despite having a fairly large asset base and plenty of income, the only income counted by the California version of SCHIP is the wife's part time job. Since she receives no health insurance through work, this particular couple is eligible for S CHIP.Remember Graeme Frost, poster child for SCHIP, well he and his sister were able to both go to private school, his parents owned a home, a business, and the property on which the business was located, with at least one confirmed tenant. Somehow this family was able to qualify for S CHIP as well. Now, if anyone has ever seen the tax returns of any business owner, they know full well how easy it is to make a business owner's income wind up being less than $40K per year.
Now, I said a little while back on these same pages that the only way for Republicans to win this debate is for them to scream corruption from every corner of the country vis a vis S CHIP. This is not the first time that politicians, of both parties, have held up victims in an effort to expand the size of government and every time that expansion leads to corruption. If business owners, homeowners and trust fund babies can already qualify for S CHIP, what do you think will happen if the program is increased exponentially.
Unfortunately, so far, the Republicans have gotten comfortable letting the right blogosphere point out the massive corruption of the program and furthermore attack Frost, its new poster child
In California…it appears that there’s nothing stopping a trust fund baby, if their ONLY income comes from investment returns (i.e., it’s “unearned”), from qualifying for SCHIP! Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie could sit at home and stop boring us with their TV show, appearances, and commercials, have babies by any number of entourage members, and join in the SCHIP party. Is this a great country or what?
...
The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man’s job, then the boy is fair game. As it is, the Dems do enough cynical and opportunist hiding behind biography and identity, and it’s incredibly tedious. And anytime I send my seven-year-old out to argue policy you’re welcome to clobber him, too. The alternative is a world in which genuine debate is ended and, as happened with Master Frost, politics dwindles down to professional staffers writing scripts to be mouthed by Equity moppets…
…So executive vice-presidents’ families are now the new new poor? I support lower taxes for the Frosts, increased child credits for the Frosts, an end to the “death tax” and other encroachments on transgenerational wealth transfer, and even severe catastrophic medical-emergency aid of one form or other. But there is no reason to put more and more middle-class families on the government teat, and doing so is deeply corrosive of liberty. And, if the Democrats don’t like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case
I shouldn't be reading this on the pages of Michelle Malkin, but it needs to be coming out of the mouths of John Boehner, Trent Lott and Eric Cantor. The S CHIP program is already corrupt and full of loopholes, and what the Dems want to do is make it even bigger, which makes it even more corrupt. The new program makes it easier for illegal immigrants to receive free health care, it raises the income level all the way to $81,000 per year in some states, and it doesn't fix any of the holes already in it. This leads to CORRUPTION...CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION.
If the Republicans are going to win this debate, that word must become a fabric of the debate. Graeme Frost must become a symbol of the corruption masquerading as compassion. He put himself out there when he responded to President Bush's radio address. His story must be told. Not just the story of his terrible accident, but the one in which he lives in a 3000 square foot house, goes to private school, while his dad owns a business, and still receives free health insurance on the government's dime. That is CORRUPTION. Say it, say it, and say it again, and don't stop saying it until everyone understands what the Democrats are doing.
26 comments:
I suggest learning something about the Frost family from somebody other than the wingnut slime machine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp
I suggest learning something about the Frost family from somebody other than the wingnut slime machine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp
Anyone that holds up Paul Krugman as the model of objective journalism is themselves misguided. Say what you will about Michelle Malkin, however she gets first hand accounts of this family. Read her latest including an email from one of their neighbors. This family owns three autos, nice ones...
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/
Ah you realize that an email of unknown provence isn't a "first hand account" right? As far the autos being "nice" those aren't actual pictures of their cars. Michelle thought left out the year of the vehicles. They could all be beaters. Michelle did seem to imply they were all brand new - they aren't.
Great work Mike. I agree completely. I too wonder when the GOP leadership will rise to the occasion and start pointing out all the goings on by the Democrats. It shocks me that they just sit by and do little.
You are 100% correct on the business owner income manipulation. My father-in-law has a successful business, but their "income" is super low, yet they live in what is probably an $800k house in No. Va. Alot of that value is due to appreciation, but if they are the working poor, then I am a billy goat.
Neighbors don't know people first hand? If you say so.
I don't know if they are beaters or what however if you can afford to buy three cars, you can afford to buy your own health insurance, especially when those three cars are parked in home with a mortgage, owned by someone who also owns a business and the property that business sits on.
If the liberals want to get into a debate of what the minutae of the assets of the Frost's is now that is a winning debate. Let's all try and figure out exactly what the Frost's own, how much they pay for it, and if they couldn't cut back on some of those payments so that they could pay for their own health insurance.
I work in mortgages so income tax manipulation is quite familiar. Bernie Goldberg wrote a book called "Crazies to the Left of me and Wimps to the Right"
That's the problem they are all wimps. They don't want to put themselves out there to be criticized and it is a shame. This debate can be won if the Reps make the case and the case is corruption. Americans hate corruption and the Dems put out the poster children for corruption the Frosts. Let them scream from the top of the mountain that our side is smearing children. These children put themselves out there when one of them delivered the address. Now, we can scrutinize them and see just how it is that they got free health care. If they own three cars, a home, a business, and go to private school, they are corrupting the system if they also get free health insurance.
Mike - It's a random email claiming to be from a neighbor. It could be anyone.
My point is the Michelle is being deceitful when posting pictures of brand new vehicles. You can wander in and claim corruption all you want but it's going to take a lot more than owning three beater vehicles to prove it by a wood worker to prove it. As the Frosts have mentioned, they are unable to purchase insurance now because of pre-existing conditions.
Of course, she is. They own three cars. How much did the cars cost them. Let's say it only cost them $2000. That is half the insurance money for the year.
As for the emailer, well, maybe they are not being truthful however they seem to know an awful lot. They seem to provide detail.
Again, here is what I see. This family owns a house, a business, the property the business sits on, and they send their kids to private school. Now, I look at that and say that this family can figure out how to pay for their own insurance, and when they don't it is all of the rest of the tax payers that get hurt.
I know a great deal about the corrosive effect of corruption. Read any of my stories about Emory University.
Corruption is a concept that can hit home for the Reps. This family is the poster child for corruption. If you think getting into the minutae of what this family does and doesn't own, what their conditions were an weren't is a winner, well I hope the Dems agree with you. What is this pre existing condition? Did the kids have it? If the kids didn't have it they could still be insured. Again, this family is the poster child for a corrupted system that the Dems want to expand. You want to see corruption at its finest, look at the Farm Bill passed in the 1930's. It was 500 million dollars and it will soon grow to 171 billion dollars. That is what happens when government gets expanded.
If this family can afford to own a business they can afford to buy insurance, it is just that simple. If we allow people to run businesses while subsidizing their health care, the government will grow exponentially. Now, maybe you believe in that, but I don't.
I believ in Ronald Reagan,
"the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
"What is this pre existing condition? Did the kids have it? If the kids didn't have it they could still be insured."
You are really completely clueless about this family aren't you.
The prexisting condition is from a traumatic brain injury to their son from an auto accident. No insurance company on the planet is going to insure that child.
"
If this family can afford to own a business they can afford to buy insurance, it is just that simple."
Sorry it's clearly not that simple. You clearly have never been declined insurance for a pre-existing condition.
"If we allow people to run businesses while subsidizing their health care, the government will grow exponentially. "
Well I understand what exponential growth actually is. So it cannot grow "exponentially". I will agree entitlements tend to grow over time though.
That's from the auto accident however why didn't they have insurance prior to the auto accident. What was the excuse for the family prior to the auto accident for not being able to provide for their own health insurace?
They can't get insurance on the son, how about the rest of the family. All you bleeding heart liberals want to government to provide for everything as soon as anyone has any struggles. Well, first, that is not how this country was founded, and second that is how government grows out of control.
Nice manipulation of the facts, Brian. The kid said it was SCHIP that saved his life because of the auto accident. Well, he had no pre existing condition then.
As for owning their own business it is that simple. Plenty of parents sacrifice their professional dreams and work for companies because they get health insurance. Somehow those families go without imposing on the government while the government finances this guy's dreams of owning his own business, which he has owned since 1992. After 15 years you should be established enough to be able to afford your own health insurance. If you aren't then maybe you shouldn't have the business, and one of the trappings of owning your own business is you need to get your own health insurance. There are all sorts of risks in life and when people eliminate risks by being subsidized by the government others take up those risks.
Yeah, the program is going to more than double and that is just the projection. That is exponential growth. It is much easier to expand government than to shrink it. Once people making up to $83K per year get health insurance for free, they won't ever want to go back to paying for it. Thus, slowly we drift towards socialism.
In the name of Jesus, what is wrong with helping to provide for the common good? Did Jesus say at the sermon on the mount, "Blessed are those financially well off enough to pay for private medical insurance?" Did He say "Blessed are the ones who only serve their self interests?"
Since when did health become a privelage? Does the Declaration of Independance say "...the privelage of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...?" Doesn't the Constitution say "...promote the general Welfare...?"
I'm sorry I have to disagree with the naysayers who whine about their tax dollars going to pay for the general welfare of our society and our health. That's not big government that's responsible government. That's not the government intruding into your life. That's the government helping its people. A government is only as effective as the people who run it. And as long as we continue to sit idly by and let it "run itself" it's only gonna get worse. If we take the government back into our own hands as a real American society we can curb the corruption that has left us with unregulated pharmaceutacle pricing practices, and rediculous malpractice insurance premiums that doc's have to pay and pass the cost onto the patient to stay afloat.
Seriously it costs enough to maintain a baby. Should it cost thousands to give birth to one? For that matter, why not just have the mother pay the cost up front when she finds out, that way it wouldn't be worth the non-refundable price for 1)negligent pre-natal care, 2) abortion?
Back to my main point. We're a supposedly "Christian" nation (according to most "conservatives") We tried to prove it in the 50's by declaring "In God We Trust" and adding "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, why then the hypocricy in ignoring the following passages?
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)
With all due respect, the only thing wrong with your position is that it is Communist. Giving up individual liberty for the common good is the hallmark of Communism. When Communism was sold to the people it wasn't sold as a totalitarian regime that was going to take away individual rights, but rather as a system in which everyone shared in the wealth. Community, communism, you get it.
As for Jesus, he believed in personal charity. If you want to pay for the health insurance of someone more needy than you then do it, and you will be upholding Jesus' principles, however Jesus' principles weren't that the government forces us, by taking away the money that we make, to help the needy. That is why it is called charity, because it is a choice. If you are forced to provide for others through the forceful removal of money you earned by the government it is no longer charity.
That is the dirty little secret of your position. You are Communist and you don't even know it, however everyone reading this from now on will know it and it is the way in which the Democrats sell their communist position.
They trot out little kids and make us feel compassionate for them. The tug at our heart strings and then plead that we give up something to help them. We do and we don't even realize that by doing it we fall closer and closer toward Communism.
Despite what you believe, communism fails every time, and it isn't because it hasn't been mastered. It is a flawed system.
"Nice manipulation of the facts, Brian. The kid said it was SCHIP that saved his life because of the auto accident. Well, he had no pre existing condition then."
Well no but I didn't claim he did. I said the family cannot get insurance now. What do you propose they do now? I can see you have already started calling people "communists." There is simply no point in debating you further.
Without S-CHIP this kid would be dead. In your world view that's perfectly acceptable.
As to calling the other person a communist, if the shoe fits.
If you expose that we need to give up for the greater good, then that is a communist point of view.
Second, this kid is already on S CHIP. The Dems want to expand SCHIP. If the Dems merely re authorized it as the President wants, he would still be covered.
Third, having a pre existing condition has nothing to do with wealth. That is a place where the two parties could meet, if the Dems wanted to meet, that is.
Fourth, whenever someone throws out a personal attack and says something like you are not worthy of debate it is always because their own point is weak. If it wasn't you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks. I don't expect people to hang with me in debates because no one loves to argue as much as I do.
Mike - you started the name calling. You started calling people "Communists." When that happens, there simply isn't any point in debating further.
"Fourth, whenever someone throws out a personal attack and says something like you are not worthy of debate it is always because their own point is weak. If it wasn't you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks."
Hence there isn't much point in debating since you resorted to calling people "Communists". I doubt very much you have met or debated an actual communist Mark. You were the first one to wander down the road of name calling.
"Yeah, the program is going to more than double and that is just the projection. That is exponential growth. "
No it's not. Exponential growth means growing by a power of 10, not doubling.
Look, if you have a hard time understanding your own position that is your problem, however when someone says that we should give up personal liberty for the common good, that is a communist position, common, communist, do you notice the roots are the same. Communist, from the root, community, meaning the greater good at the expense of the individual.
Maybe, you don't know much about communism and that is your problem however, when someone expouses that we need to give up a bit for the common good, that is a communist position. Not name calling.
"Maybe, you don't know much about communism and that is your problem however, when someone expouses that we need to give up a bit for the common good, that is a communist position. Not name calling."
Mark - my major in college was political science with an emphasis on Sovietology. I helped dissidents in both the Soviet Union and the Czech Republic distribute samizdat documents. I saw first hand the real dangers of Communism and the Soviet bloc. Comparing someone who wants to expand a child health care program to the Soviet Union is indeed name calling. The fact that you lack the historical perspectative and think it reasonable to call someone a Communist who clearly isn't is just a sign that you are not arguing in good faith. Where did I call for you to "give up your personal liberty?"
At a way to twist my words. I didn't compare them to the Soviet Union, you made that assertion. I said they were communist. The Soviet Union, where I was born, was totalitarian and communist. That doesn't mean that their system wasn't any less of a failure. The entire European continent has this type of a system and one needs to wait for a specialist for up to 18 weeks. One lady actually pulled out her own teeth waiting for a dentist. I said that the system is faulty you brought up the Soviet Union.
If you say that we should give up some personal liberty for the common good, that is a communist position.
Gotta love how Brian continued to debate after being called a communist. Brian I thought once "name calling" occurred that the debate was over. Volpe did not call you an "as*hole*. Now that would be name calling. He simply pointed out that you support a communist ideal and thus are a communist. But for the fun of it ...I will call you an as*hole.
"Look, if you have a hard time understanding your own position that is your problem, however when someone says that we should give up personal liberty for the common good, that is a communist position, common, communist, do you notice the roots are the same."
Giving up personal liberty for the common good? LOGIC ALERT!! Does that mean the Bush Administration and the Republicans support Communism through the USA Patriot Act? The Warrantless Wiretapping program? "Why should I have to worry. I've done nothing wrong. Besides, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyways."
Those are two slightly different things though you would probably not understand the difference. Communism is an economic model, and so when I talk about giving up personal liberty for the common good, in the context of Communism, it is in the form of economic liberty like taxes, regulation, etc.
Giving up personal liberty in the context of war is something different. Of course, you get into an area that none of us is an expert in, however it doesn't stop you from smearing the President. The fact is we don't know who is or isn't being spied on. There is no case of any American's civil liberties actually being trampled on. There is only the theoretical smears of people like you.
As to war, during a war, the most important thing is to win. FDR set up an office of censorship during WWII where civil liberties, the freedom of speech and press, were regulated severely. Wilson set up the Creel Commission which spied upon war opponents. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Each of these Presidents by your estimation trampled upon the Constitution and each is considered among the best of all time and that is because in the end they won the wars in which they fought.
Post a Comment