Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCHIP, Graeme Frost, and the Bloggers
Townhall.com ^ | October 11, 2007 | Amy Ridenour

Posted on 10/12/2007 3:22:44 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Do people on the dole have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis their financial affairs?

No.

That question, though not always my answer, is coming up frequently as defenders of the Democratic Party's $35 billion SCHIP expansion proposal condemn bloggers and talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, who have examined the statement penned by aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and delivered as the official Democratic Party rebuttal to President Bush's weekly radio address by 12-year-old Graeme Frost, that the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is for "families like mine."

The questioners' question: If Graeme Frost's family isn't all that low-income, then maybe the SCHIP program doesn't need to be expanded by $35 billion to cover millions of extra families with even higher incomes than the Frosts apparently have.

Rather than address the core question, some say it is inappropriate even to consider the Frost family's circumstances, even if the people doing the considering are helping the Frosts raise their kids. This assumption reverses a thousand years of philanthropic practice.

Throughout history, charity has typically been given out voluntarily and to people whose circumstances were directly known to the donor. Donors usually knew, or could learn, if a recipient genuinely couldn't meet his own needs. As population growth and industrialization led to fewer people living in small towns, charity grew more impersonal. Then the growth of the welfare state made “charity” mandatory. And finally, hastened along by certain wrong-headed Supreme Court decisions, helped by activism by welfare advocacy lobbyists, an assumption developed that people who receive handouts are due privacy along with the help.

The obligation to be self-sufficient when possible had been reversed: Now the self-sufficient are obligated to assist those who are not, and it is considered bad form for the donor to question if the charity is misplaced.

There's more involved in the Frost case, of course, namely the fact that the family itself put its financial condition in the public square by agreeing to serve as the public face of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's $35 billion public health expansion. Once you let your son go on a national broadcast to ask Americans to consider your financial situation, you ought not be surprised if a few of your fellow Americans do just that. Nor should you be surprised if some of them conclude that in some ways your life seems more prosperous their own, and they don't expect other people to pay for their health insurance, so why do you?

And maybe some of these people will note that Graeme Frost's argument -- that his family needed help -- was irrelevant to the issue at hand anyway, because the present SCHIP debate on Capitol Hill is between those who want to expand SCHIP by $5 billion dollars (President Bush) and those who want to expand it by $35 billion (mostly Democrats and Senators Grassley and Hatch). All other things equal, the Frost family gets taxpayer-financed health insurance either way.

What's regrettable about the SCHIP debate is not that the Frost family received national attention after seeking it out, but that so many important parts of the debate are being glossed over. Nothing in the Reid-cum-Frost radio presentation, for instance, mentioned that the Reid-Pelosi $35 billion SCHIP expansion plan is underfunded.

The big-spending expansion proponents urge Congress to adopt a 61 cents per pack cigarette tax increase to pay for expansion. But as Michelle C. Bucci and William W. Beach of the Heritage Foundation have pointed out, there aren't enough smokers to pay the SCHIP expansion tab. Bucci and Beach say new tobacco tax funds may be sufficient for no more than two years' worth of the expansion, and certainly not much more. What will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do then? Start running public service announcements asking people to take up smoking, because the Frost family needs help?

Reid and Pelosi aren't telling the full truth about the price tag of their big baby, either. As the Wall Street Journal has reported, $35 billion is the price tag for extra spending for just five years. As the Journal put it, "come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls. The chances of the latter happening are approximately zero..."

Another inconvenient truth left out of the Reid-Frost presentation is the bitter little fact that whatever funding a tobacco tax increase provides will be highly regressive -- even as the SCHIP expansion makes that program less regressive. As David Hogberg in his paper "SCHIP Expansion: Socialized Medicine on the Installment Plan" for the National Center for Public Policy Research pointed out, if the expansion plan is adopted, "it is not inconceivable that a parent with one child with an income of $13,690 will be funding benefits for two children in a family of four with an income of $82,600."

12-year-old Graeme Frost probably doesn't know the SCHIP expansion he's fronting for would tax the poor to fund the middle class. What's Harry Reid's excuse?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: bloggers; bonniefrost; charity; cigarettetax; democratparty; democrats; donors; frostfamily; funding; graemefrost; halseyfrost; harryreid; healthcare; nancypelosi; nationalhealthcare; poor; privacy; regressivetax; schip; schipexpansion; selfsufficiency; smokers; socialism; socializedmedicine; taxthepoor; veto

1 posted on 10/12/2007 3:22:46 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abundy; Albion Wilde; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; bayliving; BFM; cindy-true-supporter; ...

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


2 posted on 10/12/2007 3:23:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
What's Harry Reid's excuse?

He's a punk.


3 posted on 10/12/2007 3:24:58 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
4 posted on 10/12/2007 3:34:45 PM PDT by -=SoylentSquirrel=-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Michelle Malkin received an email from Frost’s neighbor

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/

Very good read.


5 posted on 10/12/2007 3:36:52 PM PDT by CaliGirl-R (Hey Democrats! Who are you gonna hate in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

bump for later


6 posted on 10/12/2007 3:38:47 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; The majority are satisfied with a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
7 posted on 10/12/2007 3:38:49 PM PDT by -=SoylentSquirrel=-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

S-enator
C-linton’s
H-ealth
I-nsurance socialization
P-rogram


8 posted on 10/12/2007 3:41:57 PM PDT by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Anyone named Graeme ought to be ashamed to be looking for public assistance. And when public assistance ceases to become public assistance and ceases to become embarrassing for the recipient to have to resort, it becomes socialism. I’d like to personally shoot some vitriol their way. They really need to be given a full ration of grief. Sell your shit before you ask me to kick in for you. Man this pisses me off. My kids are in public HS #$%#@!#$!


9 posted on 10/12/2007 3:43:41 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

And I told my wife we couldn’t afford an XC90 and got a smaller wagon instead. And then these these little f’ers get in front of congress and poor mouth? This is frigging making me see red. And they assistance. They got freebies already and still have 3 bigassed trucks and SUVS.


10 posted on 10/12/2007 3:45:21 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
11 posted on 10/12/2007 3:46:57 PM PDT by -=SoylentSquirrel=-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse

I see she’s got a tat on her foot and he looks halfbaked. F-ing halfwits.


12 posted on 10/12/2007 3:47:23 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This is the crap I received from my Rep.

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to H.R. 976, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.

I regret that President Bush vetoed H.R. 976 and denied health coverage for 10 million children. President Bush has lost sight of America’s most valuable resource for the future: our children. I do not understand how President Bush can request an additional $200 billion for the war in Iraq this year, and still have the audacity to veto the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) due to cost concerns. It is clear that President Bush’s priorities do not include health care for our children. I will continue to work with like-minded colleagues to enact SCHIP reauthorization, and I will vote to override President Bush’s misguided veto.

As you know, on September 25, 2007, I supported and the House approved H.R. 976 by a vote of 265 to 159. Introduced by Rep. Rangel, H.R. 976 would reauthorize and increase SCHIP by $35 billion through 2012. SCHIP currently provides health coverage for about 6 million children and more than 600,000 adults. H.R. 976 would provide health care coverage for an additional four million eligible children who are not currently enrolled in SCHIP. H.R. 976 targets funding to low-income children for outreach and enrollment in SCHIP coverage. Created by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, P.L. 105-33, SCHIP was intended to cover children from households with incomes that are just over Medicaid thresholds. Since SCHIP was created, the rate of uninsured children in the nation has fallen by about a third. The expansion would be paid for with a 61-cent increase to the current 39-cent federal cigarette tax.

The cigarette tax increase was proposed for a number of reasons, including as an effort to promote good health practices. According to the Congressional Research Service, the price elasticity for cigarettes is between 0.3 to 0.5 in absolute value, meaning that a 10 percent increase in price would cause a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked. As you may know, total public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking are $96.7 billion a year. Smoking prevention would reduce the level of related illnesses and treatment expenses for Americans, and a higher cost in cigarettes would discourage children to start smoking.

Thank you again for contacting me. Although we disagree on this issue, I hope you understand my reasons. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Visclosky
Member of Congress


13 posted on 10/12/2007 3:49:01 PM PDT by A_Tradition_Continues (THE NEXT GENERATION CONSERVATIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues

gosh that’s worse than the usual form letters. When I worked on the hill I was next to Visclosky’s office. His staff are all leftist dorks.


14 posted on 10/12/2007 4:47:40 PM PDT by Reagan79 (Ralph Stanley & The Clinch Mountain Boys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
You've got to laugh. Only a liberal loon would justify paying for health care "for the children" by taxing something that is bad for health and then justify that by saying people will do less of the thing that is suppose to pay for the health care in the first place.

Here is how you are suppose swallow this nonsense: read each paragraph in a vacuum and then emote, don't think.

Don't think about how socialized medicine has failed every place it has been tried, don't think about how socialism enslaves one man so the government can buy another, don't think about how the system will be abused, don't think about how the best health care system in the world will rot under socialization....don't think, just feel: "for the children"
15 posted on 10/12/2007 5:10:49 PM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious
I was simply forced to respond to his email. For some reason the quote "lost sight of America’s most valuable resource for the future" just really hit me the wrong way. In my return note I indicated that it was he that has "lost sight of America’s most valuable resource for the future"...the American taxpayer.

As an 18 year old I look to the future and see my paychecks going directly to the government for all of these damn social programs.

16 posted on 10/12/2007 5:42:35 PM PDT by A_Tradition_Continues (THE NEXT GENERATION CONSERVATIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
I worry about your generation (I'm mom to 7 kids and the oldest three are around your age) and mine. If the socialist slide keeps up you guys will be carrying my generation on your backs....how long before you shrug?

You are right. There will be no American taxpayer b/c either the government will drive him into poverty or he will go there willingly; people aren't going to work all that hard when the government takes all their money. I'm not going to work so the Frost family can sit home, send their kids to private school, own 3 cars and 400K in property. We have an entire class of people who think nothing of spending 500/mo. on truck payments, 100/mo. cable t.v. bills, yearly vacations, hundreds of dollars/mo. in must have lessons and cell phone bills yet believe that someone else should pay for their health care?!

Congress needs to read the Constitution and learn the difference between a right and a want. They should also read Amendment XIII, Section I: the part where it says: involuntary servitude shall not exist within the US.
17 posted on 10/12/2007 6:18:47 PM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious
Congress needs to read the Constitution

I did challenge Mr.Visclosky to read the Constitution and reply to me the exactly Article of the Constitution that authorizes the government to provide healthcare or healthcare insurance to anyone.

18 posted on 10/12/2007 6:30:37 PM PDT by A_Tradition_Continues (THE NEXT GENERATION CONSERVATIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
exactly=exact
19 posted on 10/12/2007 6:34:40 PM PDT by A_Tradition_Continues (THE NEXT GENERATION CONSERVATIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
They have three vehicles - a nice new volvo SUV, a Suburban, and his F250 Ford Pickup work truck,

I'm still driving a car that's almost 12 years old, but I'm supposed to pay THEIR health insurance?!?!?!?!

20 posted on 10/12/2007 6:37:50 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (L'Chaim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As David Hogberg in his paper "SCHIP Expansion: Socialized Medicine on the Installment Plan" for the National Center for Public Policy Research pointed out, if the expansion plan is adopted, "it is not inconceivable that a parent with one child with an income of $13,690 will be funding benefits for two children in a family of four with an income of $82,600."

Nuff said.

21 posted on 10/12/2007 6:43:14 PM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaliGirl-R

That’s the thing; where in the heck is all the money coming from. I suspect that “the lovable goofball,” as the neighbor writes regarding Halsey Frost, with his qualifications, could get his stinky ol’ sh!t together and get a high-paying architecture job with insurance. Instead, with apparently less faith in himself than what is necessary, he passes it off onto S-CHIP.

Bonnie Frost looks like she’s no dummy herself, and she could probably find a full-time position, if necessary.

And for heaven’s sake, sell one of those SUVs and use the money saved on payments to take care of your kids, Mr. Frost.


22 posted on 10/12/2007 8:50:50 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse

It’s not Graeme’s fault. The objects of opprobrium are the adults; Graeme is an innocent, regardless of how his name is spelled, who was used by his parents and the DemonRATs to promote socialized medicine.


23 posted on 10/12/2007 8:53:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
I regret that President Bush vetoed H.R. 976 and denied health coverage for 10 million children.

Eh, I stopped reading after he used 10 million "children" (some of whom would be over 21) as pawns in his screed against Bush's veto of S-CRAP.

24 posted on 10/12/2007 8:56:17 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
According to the Congressional Research Service, the price elasticity for cigarettes is between 0.3 to 0.5 in absolute value, meaning that a 10 percent increase in price would cause a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked.

The Congressional Research Service fell for the old phony "price elasticity" trick.

What they are actually measuring is cigarette sales _that they know about_.

As taxes go up the black market increases, off shore purchases increase, and roll your own increases.

These are transactions that they can't measure as a practical matter.

My guess (from a sampling of current and former smokers I know) is that about half of them quit as a result of higher taxes and half choose "off the books" methods of obtaining their smokes.

This reminds me of the old story (legend?) about houses in the Middle Ages. The story goes that the local noble decided to tax his subjects based on the number of windows in their residences. Being the good socialist that he was he concluded that windows were a good proxy for wealth.

Within ten years no home in his domain had windows. People just went outside if they needed a view. :-)
25 posted on 10/14/2007 5:20:27 AM PDT by cgbg ("I give you health care and I say 'no smoking'". "Yass'm Miss Hillary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A_Tradition_Continues
When America was founded, 20,000 - 30,000 citizens were represented by one representative. Until about 1913, the ratio was still quite reasonable.

Since Congress unilaterally froze the number at 435 back then, the ratio has been climbing.

It is now about 600,000 - to 700,000 citizens to one representative.

This is why your representative can send you a letter flipping you off.

Peon.

Shut up and pay your taxes, worm.

26 posted on 10/14/2007 9:30:59 AM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It’s not Graeme’s fault. The objects of opprobrium are the adults; Graeme is an innocent, regardless of how his name is spelled, who was used by his parents and the DemonRATs to promote socialized medicine.

That's precisely why the dimocRATs and the MSM are lying about Republicans "attacking a 12-year-old". I've seen a lot of comments made but, aside from the fun poked at the kid's name, all of them are critical of the parents and the dims for putting them out there. (Come to think of it -- even making fun of the kid's name is more a poke at the parents than it is at him.)

27 posted on 10/14/2007 9:44:45 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson