Posted on 10/11/2007 6:04:41 AM PDT by kristinn
Since then, Frost and his family have been introduced first-hand to something else that most kids his age haven't: the reality of how brutal partisan politics can be in the Internet age. It started over the weekend, when a blogger calling himself Icwhatudo put up a post on the conservative website Freerepublic.com noting what he had found by scavenging around the internet: that Graeme attends a private school, lives in a remodeled house near one that had sold for $485,000 in March and is the child of parents whose wedding was announced in the New York Times. The post also noted that his father purchased a $160,000 commercial space in 1999.
SNIP
And while they are still uninsured, they claim it is most certainly not by choice. Bonnie Frost says the last time she priced health coverage, she learned it would cost them $1,200 a month.
In short, just as the radio spot claimed, the Frosts are precisely the kind of people that the SCHIP program was intended to help.
SNIP
While the family continues to support the vetoed bill that would expand the program to 4 million more children, they are hoping to remove themselves from the middle of the storm. After giving a few interviews, Halsey and Bonnie Frost now say they don't want to say anything more, though network camera crews have planted themselves in front of their house.
SNIP
Politics has never been a gentle game. As far back as 1895, satirist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional saloonkeeper Martin Dooley observed that women, children and prohibitionists would do well to stay out of it, because "politics ain't beanbag." But surely, even Mr. Dooley could never have imagined a day would come when a mere seventh grader could be swift-boated.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
I don't know what the quote is for, but it seems to me that they should be able to join an HMO for significantly less than that.
When someone makes a big scene in public over his limited financial means, then refuses to release his tax returns, well, let's just say the appearance isn't good.
There was a picture of a Banner with children in front of a school and the Banner had the Frost’s Grandmother’s name on it.....anyone remember this??
There was no mention in this story of their parents donating money to the school. Nor in the first 3 other stories from the past two days that I checked.
I’m not sure what a picture would do. You can’t really get the information about donations from a picture.
The thread with the picture had info on the grandparents donating to the school....iirc
IF the grandparents didn't give the donation for the kid's then WHO did? The girl WAS going there also before the accident, so WHO gave the $39,000.00 a year for the two kids to attend....assuming that the Frost family ONLY had to pay $500.00 for each kid????
What you describe is not using your equity to pay your bills. It is using a home equity loan to transfer interest payments from non-deductable to deductable.
You still reach a steady state where the amount you pay each month is equal to the expenses for each month plus the interest charge on whatever loans you have taken out.
If you are actually USING your equity to pay your monthly bills, you will eventually spend all of your equity, and then you will go bankrupt.
Equity is like savings, and can be used to cover temporary shortfalls, but it’s no good for monthly expenses until you are old enough that you expect to die before you run out of savings/equity.
As for the Swift Boat analogy, take it as a complement.
Amen...however WHAT Network Cameras???? Certainly haven’t seen one story about this, have you?
“Why should I or icwhatudo or anyone else pay for Graeme’s health insurance?”
Especially when it was revealed that the two kids are attending
the private school paying only $500/yr, not the usual $20,000/yr/student.
With all those savings...why shouldn’t they at least buy their own
freakin’ disaster insurance?
I’m still waiting......
Why not use the pictures from partial abortion as a comparison???
Most benefits are taxable, Social Security is taxed twice, gifts over some limit are taxable, winnings...inheritance...monetary awards...but not high value scholarships for middle class kids??
Also, in response to Mr. Frost:
I hope your kids survive living with you and learn from this that manipulating facts for political ends has consequences, you reap what you sow and hiding behind a kid only makes it worse.
Last, in comparison, I pay between $13,000 and $14,000 a year for medical insurance for only two people - I'm retired, not under Medicare, and live off of savings, SS, and pensions.
The Frosts are going to be real disappointed if Hillary doesn't get them universal (free) care by the time they retire. Maybe the kids will do a better job of supporting mom and dad than the parents have done for them...maybe they will have learned to let the state do it instead.
“How big a loophole is it in the charity laws that you can write off
a “deduction” for a “donation” to a private school and then your grandkids
get to go to the school for a rate that is almost tuition free???????”
That question is a bit above my paygrade.
But, I do know that for some charitable donations, that in order
to get onto Schedule A (itemized deductions), the donation, once in
the hands of the qualified charity, can’t be deductible if used to
benefit a specific person.
E.g., a donation to a cemetary for general upkeep of the whole cemetary
can be deductible.
But, if utilized for the upkeep of just the plot of the donor’s relative,
that’s not deductible.
Donations to a school and then targeted to pay for a relative’s
tuition? I don’t know if that’s legit for a tax write-off or not.
Doesn't killary's health plan require you must buy health insurance BEFORE you can get a job???
Actually, icwhatudo’s original posting stated as fact that they were paying $20,000 a year in tuition per child. I’ve read his rebuttals; I know he now knows that is almost certainly not true. But it’s an example of how important it is to be careful with fact-checking before making accusations. No matter how true his overall point was — that this family could have afforded private health insurance — it gives the opposition ammunition to attack your credibility, if you assert anything that’s untrue when making accusations. It also gives the targets a basis on which to sue, and when you’re attacking a family that has been chosen by the Democrat machine to provide a “poster child” for a huge socialist program, there’s a very real possibility that such a suit would actually happen, with lawyers and funding provided by said Democrat machine.
IF someone draws an audit for whatever in their return is flagged, then so be it. That’s a far cry from:
“Calling the IRS!!! Calling the IRS!!!
Please- isn’t there a Freeper who works for the IRS?????”
The other question is: since Graeme benefited from the program the President proposed to continue, why is he pimping for the people who refused to continue it?
We have, here, a situation where the Democrats, rather than approve an extension while the argument over expanding the program continued, decided to hold the healthcare of all the children on the program hostage until they got their way. So, the only people who are responsible for Graeme having no coverage are the very people who paraded him in front of the microphone, a party that apparently doesn't care enough about 'the children' to put aside its partisanship long enough to assure they'll get medical care.
If it cost less than 7 grand per person I might be tempted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.