How can you possibly convince America to despise the Frosts?
The Graeme Frost ordeal possesses a certain degree of beauty, beneath all the ugliness created by rightwingers desperate to prove they’ve still got George W. Bush’s back.
A more perfect paradigm for how the right functions could scarcely be found. You have the incentive for political assassination, typically to take down anybody who effectively gets in Bush II’s way. Bush vetoed an incredibly popular bill for simply unbelievable reasons (sudden objections in the name of fiscal responsibility that only arise when it’s a Democrat bill?) that makes him look like a complete idiot/asshole (nothing unusual there, of course), and Graeme Frost became the face of the children he wants to leave high and dry. Could the right simply tolerate this good simple kid from a family of modest income being out there, a living threat of others out there like him? Could they tolerate a face being put on a health care need?
Remember Michael J. Fox? Enough said. Throw in somebody saying, “I have a health care need, and the government can help,” and you inevitably set off another explosive set of priorities. Now the righties have to defend George W. AND fight off the possibility of the public seeing the government handling health care successfully enough to make socialized medicine not seem evil. Get out the troops!
Sure enough, within a few hours we were treated to the sad spectacle of a rightwinger attempting “research.” This guy likely thought he had an easy job, because fact-checking standards simply don’t exist in the right-o-sphere. “DID YOU KNOW GRAEME FROST GOES TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL!?” sufficed. “DID YOU KNOW THAT A HOUSE NEXT TO THEIRS SOLD FOR $400,000?!?!” beckoned like Al Capone’s vault to Geraldo. Soon, a profile was assembled for the Frosts that suggested people living the gilded life, failing to purchase health care because…well, because they could scam the government into doing it for them, naturally! A chance was had to dig into YOUR WALLET to pay for their BAD CHOICES. Rightwingers looked it over and nodded, “This is wonderful…we’ve taken down the Frosts! They’re actually a perfect argument against S-CHIP!”
Ah, what a glorious few minutes they had there, before the facts started rolling in. Besides the fact that the kids attended the private school on scholarships, the fact that the home was originally purchased for $55,000 and taking out a mortgage on it would have its own problems, the family had, completely unsurprisingly for average Americans trying to purchase their own insurance, been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The failure of our broken health care system stood up and announced itself: even if these people wanted coverage, they didn’t appear profitable enough for private companies to cover them for less than a fortune.
Reality. What an inconvenience for those who reject the reality-based community for make-believe rightwinger land.
Talking with Mike G. on the phone, I said, “Surely our rightwinger friends are all over this kid. Dana Pico quite likely, but Sharon surely is on this kid and his family like white on the Republican Party. You know she dived in with both feet!” Within seconds, Mike confirmed it: she had her pitchfork and torch in hand, and was waving them in front of the Frosts’ home (not literally, that would be Michele Malkin), demanding their gubmint-grubbin’ freeloader asses be held accountable. She wasn’t just in disagreement with them…she was livid. And, naturally, it revealed just how bankrupt liberals were.
Having your children hurt in an accident is a tragedy. Exploiting that tragedy for political gain is despicable.
Just like Michael J. Fox, the truth had to be reversed. Somebody who supported a specific policy had to be construed as somebody whose agenda was to support a political party. The fact that the Frosts did owe much to S-CHIP or the fact that Michael J. Fox did believe stem cell research to be a source of hope for those with Parkinson’s could be allowed to hold no weight whatsoever. The fix had to be in. The alternative was too terrifying for deranged dishonest ideologue hacks like Sharon. Could the Frosts genuinely believe S-CHIP could help other children out there like their own?
It simply could not be. Fight, rightwingers, fight on! Batten them hatches! Prop up the tent! Bar the front door! The Frosts must be defeated…the Frosts must be defeated! They didn’t do it for others, they did it because they’re partisan Democrats! Aha!
Interestingly, Sharon claims that she now has health insurance, whereas recently she confessed to us dirty librulz here that she had been denied healthcare due to her excessive weight (this tempts us to joke, but knowing today’s healthcare system she could easily be denied for having a little extra badonkadonk in her trunk). She’s also facing the challenge of a husband with cancer who she flatly declares to be uninsurable. Naturally, where’s the profit in a man with cancer?
Not many Americans could easily be convinced to pass judgment on the Frosts. Both parents seem like intelligent ordinary people who do what they can with the skills they have. They’re not working at Burger King. They’ve got four kids, which means they didn’t have abortions or only have sex as often as they wanted children, thus pleasing conservatives and liberals alike (or displeasing both, if you’re feeling really fucking cynical).
Take those Americans who can be convinced that the Frosts are scamming greedy idiots who could have health insurance IF THEY ONLY WANTED IT ENOUGH. Now ask yourself, how many of them could sit there stoically and accept having themselves or a loved family member denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. It’s one thing to see somebody you don’t know denied, but to experience it directly is quite another. Hearts and minds tend to get changed really quickly when the stakes are personal. Being told that you and your loved ones can’t get health care because you’re too sick already, and knowing that you can’t get better unless you get health care?
Who can take that on the chin and keep on fighting government health care for people like themselves?
A very tiny number of disciplined, rock hard rightwinger Rush Limbaugh-lovin’ Republicans, that’s who. These are the people who can look at their rightwing heroes like Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, and a whole lot of other folks who can easily afford healthcare for themselves, and see Thulsa Doom, beckoning.
Thulsa Doom: Yes! You know what it is, don’t you boy? Shall I tell you? It’s the least I can do. Steel isn’t strong, boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; a beautiful girl. Come to me, my child…
Thulsa Doom: [coaxes the girl to jump to her death]
Thulsa Doom: That is strength, boy! That is power!
The faithful few shall endure. They shall attack anybody, but more importantly they shall lie freely about them. They shall endure indignities, and even risk death for themselves or their loved ones. If the Great Leader asks them to let their own go without insurance, they will do it, and smile. They will thank Him for the privilege.
And soon, America can say, “How did we let those cultists ever get near public office?”
-jb
October 12th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Oh my, vain Sharon admitted why she can’t afford health insurance?
I guess if she had worked harder and wasn’t so slothful then the market would have accommodated her!
October 12th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Do you happen to remember when Deamonte Driver died? Within a week, the wingnuts who flock to Dana’s blogsite were piling on the muck. One of them, I remember, was busy claiming that Deamonte and his brother didn’t deserve health insurance because their mother was a whore (she was black, homeless, and had two children, which was evidence enough for him) and Sharon screamed non-stop that NO ONE was denied health care in the US, and when I pointed out to her that this meant she was saying Deamonte Driver was no one, she claimed – angrily and persistently – that his mother could have got him free health care and saved his life, but (wait for it) she had wanted to get him a Medicaid dentist. That was it, as far as Sharon was concerned: Ms Driver had tried to use Medicaid to save her sons’ teeth (and, as it turned out, this would have saved her oldest son’s life) and therefore, she was obviously the kind of evil mother who had deliberately turned down free health care in order to make use of government-funded health care.
When I asked what free health care services had been available in Maryland that Deamonte Driver’s mother could plausibly have known about and taken her children to rather than trying to get a Medicaid dentist, Sharon didn’t answer except with wild claims that such free services were available anywhere and everywhere in the US.
Honestly, whatever poison she’s spewing about Graeme Frost and his family, it won’t surprise me: she was that ugly about a dead boy and his bereaved mother.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Obsess much?
If you put yourself in political eye to be held as an example of why this country needs a particular bill, then I see no reason why your life choices can’t be criticized.
And while we’ve at it, I find parading children around for political gain to be utterly disgusting…but I guess it’s ok if you there’s a means to a end, huh?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Jeremie: If you put yourself in political eye to be held as an example of why this country needs a particular bill, then I see no reason why your life choices can’t be criticized.
How many life choices does a 12-year-old boy have, again?
And while we’ve at it, I find parading children around for political gain to be utterly disgusting…but I guess it’s ok if you there’s a means to a end, huh?
Yeah, that would be why Michelle Malkin and the rest of the wingnut blogosphere viciously attacked the Noah McCullough and his family, back in 2005, right? Noah McCullough, too, claimed that he was an example of why the US needed a particular legislative reform. Please, do link me to all the right-wingers who are now busily attacking Graeme Frost and his family, who spent time stalking and abusing Noah McCullough and his family, and who said that “parading children around for political gain” was “utterly disgusting”.
Go on. I’ll wait. Find me those links.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:55 am
ZING!
October 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Of course, viciously attacking and lying continuously about a child for political gain is peachy keen.
Graeme Frost advocated a particular policy. If Republicans want to support it, and many do, that’s great. Treating him like some sinister Democrat operative? A little beyond the pale.
While I guess it must be taken for granted that anybody who is a Democrat must be lied about and subjected to flimsy rightwinger “research” (honesty and accuracy simply cannot be expected), and I guess we simply can’t expect Republicans to attack the policy instead of the poster child, one would hope that the objections raised to the child’s story were a)at least remotely factually accurate and b)somewhat devoid of venomous spittle.
As our commenter CBMC urged, Republicans should keep this up and show America what they’re really like.
By the way, Mr. Jordan, if you’re going to comment here, please be bothered to incorporate points I’ve already made into your thinking. Repeating “EXPLOITING THAT CHILD FOR POLITICAL GAIN!” again without new information will be a signal that you’re just another cultist rightwinger hack. Please, do attempt to surprise me:)
October 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
“How many life choices does a 12-year-old boy have, again?”
So you believe the 12 year old personally made the decision to be an example? He was so concerned about the state of children’s healthcare that called up his congressman and “hey I’ve got a story tell?” I’ve seen very little of these so-called attacks on the child, most has been on his family and maybe deservedly so. Maybe not…as you linked to no actually examples, just another liberal blog. If you wish me to comment on that person’s feeling I can do so, but you just went on a rant with no actually examples and just parroted another blog.
Forget what you think about Bush’s veto or the bill, I only commented on the use of a child as a political pawn. My opinion. I don’t represent the views of an entire party, just me. I understand you are used to arguing by simply play a game “uh yeah, but they do it too,” but that’s not entirely deep.
And I didn’t see a disclaimer that said I have to incorporate points of the blogger made when leaving a comment. That would have required me to really care about you wrote. And really don’t fucking care if you believe I’m a “cultist, rightwinger hack,” because the truth is that you need me to that so your brain can process it. Just the simple fact that I disagree with you makes me a “cultist, rightwinger hack” doesn’t it or do you have some litmus test I am suppose to pass?
October 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Okay, so you are going to repeat yourself regardless of what is said to you, but you’re not a cultist rightwinger hack. Glad we cleared that up.
BTW, I didn’t link to another liberal blog. I linked to the specific rightwing blogger I was talking about. You guys just can’t get your facts straight to save your lives, can you?
October 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
So you believe the 12 year old personally made the decision to be an example?
No, I don’t believe he did, personally, decide to be injured three years ago: nor do I believe he, personally, decided to go on S-CHIP: nor do I believe he, personally, decided his parents should be running their own business and therefore not have employer health care. So, no: he personally did not make any of the life choices that led him to be an example of how vital S-CHIP is to children whose parents cannot afford to buy them private health insurance.
What beats me is that apparently you do believe it. Because he and his family are such a good example for how S-CHIP works for these children, he’s got to be an evil Democratic monster who decided to have himself and his sister injured three years ago in order to be an example for why Bush shouldn’t be trying to veto S-CHIP.
I only commented on the use of a child as a political pawn.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that you or any of the other wingnuts actually cared a whit when Noah was “being made use of as a political pawn”….
October 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[...] Our own former commenter Jesurgislac even jumped in (and the Iowa Liberal owes me for referring her to their site!), claiming that Sharon was heartlessness personified over the sad case of Diamonte Driver. Twelve-year-old Diamonte Driver died from an infection in his brain that had spread from an abscessed tooth. His mother had spent a lot of time looking for an oral surgeon who would accept Medicaid to remove six abscessed teeth from his younger brother, DeShawn, but due to a paperwork foul-up, she had lost the family’s Medicaid coverage. [...]
October 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Oh, for God’s sake, Jeromy. If you are going to bother quoting me or linking to my site, the least you could bother doing is quoting me correctly.
For one thing, I never said I couldn’t get health insurance. I said that my husband is uninsurable. What irritated me when I looked for insurance was that even though I’d never had any health problems, the insurance company we chose wanted to increase my premiums because I am overweight. IMO, that was ridiculous.
And how do I know my husband is uninsurable because he had cancer? Because every company we contacted wouldn’t even consider covering him, no matter what the costs, because he’d had cancer. It’s not lying to point this fact out.
I’m not a fan of the insurance industry, but the Frosts made a decision not to buy insurance before they needed it. This would be like me deciding not to buy insurance, then getting angry when, after having a stroke, insurance companies didn’t want to insure me. To my knowledge, no one on the right berated the 12-year-old boy for not buying insurance. But Democrats used that boy to deliver their argument for increasing SCHIP. That is disgusting.
As for Diamonte Driver and the ridiculous lies of Jesurgislac, his mother knew it would cost $80 to get his tooth pulled. She could have come up with that money in a variety of ways, including, as I stated, donating plasma twice. It’s not the state’s responsibility to provide dental care. It is up to the parents.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:54 am
1. The bit about me thinking you got denied was remembered from a conversation long ago. That’s what I’d thought you said. Was it only a premium increase? Guess you got lucky.
2. I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding “how do I know my husband is uninsurable because he had cancer?” Nobody doubted you there in any way whatsoever.
3. Nobody berated the boy himself for not buying health insurance, but they surely argue that he shouldn’t have received it.
4. How do you know Graeme Frost is being “used”? Any reason at all, besides the fact that you disagree with the policy proposal he supports? Can you seriously claim he isn’t thankful for the medical care he received,and wouldn’t want other kids to have the same benefits?
This isn’t too difficult to understand. It’s a bill that gives kids health care. Having a kid thankful for the program provide his testament is perfectly logical. It’s a matter of policy, not politics.
And again, I must wonder how your complaint can make any sense if sliming and attacking this kid and his family for your political gain and for the sake of getting Dubya’s back is kosher.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:51 am
My God, Sharon is even stupider than I thought she was: busy arguing that an NHS for the US would be a bad, bad idea when it’s the only way her husband can survive being “uninsurable”.
jeromy: And again, I must wonder how your complaint can make any sense if sliming and attacking this kid and his family for your political gain and for the sake of getting Dubya’s back is kosher.
Because Sharon lives and breathes and eats one rule: IOKIYAR. (You should check out Sharon’s dodging and weaving sometime over Dick Cheney saying “Fuck you!” in the Senate: after all her claims that she was for civility and proper language in politics, the Vice President and President of the Senate had been foully rude and uncivil to a Senator on the floor of the Senate… and Sharon naturally had to find someway of talking herself into believing that it was just fine if Dick Cheney did it. (Oh, she was just fine over Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot, too.)
Sharon operates on a blatantly hypocritical double standard. Don’t expect consistency from her any more than we expect honesty or courage: she’ll run away from this argument with her tail between her legs just the same way she runs away from every argument that she loses. (And then, doubtless, claim she “won”.)
And I think she’s stupid enough to believe that this strategy will work. After all, it works for her heroes, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Comment in moderation>
October 14th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Sharon> the insurance company we chose wanted to increase my premiums because I am overweight. IMO, that was ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous that an insurance company is going to hedge their bets against an individual who falls within a higher risk underwriting profile? Could you point me in the direction of some actuarial data showing that individuals with a high BMI pose the same risks as those with a low one and therefore shouldn’t pay more? Obesity is a choice, Sharon, so stop expecting us to pay higher insurance premiums just because you can’t push away from the table.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Mike, actually, unless Sharon is very heavily obese, higher premiums for being “overweight” are ridiculous – being slightly underweight (or having your weight go down and up again with yo-yo dieting) is much more of a health hazard. One of the reasons that the US health care system is the worst in the developed world is that it is designed to benefit the shareholders of health insurance companies, not the people who need healthcare. Sharon has a perfect right to healthcare, regardless of what she weighs – what’s ridiculous is her persistent claims that a system which is clearly not delivering for her or for her husband is somehow better than the healthcare service she would receive in Canada, the Netherlands, or the UK – all of which have better healthcare systems than the US, at less cost.
October 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
And just like Sharon you’re free to show me the data saying that overweight people aren’t at a higher risk of stroke, heart disease, arthritis, asthma, etc.
Look, the point here is that it’s a tad hypocritical to preach the right-wing mantra of self-reliance and personal responsibility and then turn around and complain about a premium increase tied directly to your dietary and exercise decisions. Whining about your premium going up for being fat and then at the same time advocating a for-profit system is bullshit.
October 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
mike: Look, the point here is that it’s a tad hypocritical to preach the right-wing mantra of self-reliance and personal responsibility and then turn around and complain about a premium increase tied directly to your dietary and exercise decisions. Whining about your premium going up for being fat and then at the same time advocating a for-profit system is bullshit.
Actually, it’s stupid. Sharon is sitting on a branch that’s being sawn off, going on and on about how great it is to have such a really good chainsaw and people who know how to use it, and carping at the more solid branches, not being sawn off, that other people are sitting on, as not nearly as good as having a chainsaw.
And just like Sharon you’re free to show me the data saying that overweight people aren’t at a higher risk of stroke, heart disease, arthritis, asthma, etc.
The myth that it’s healthy to be underweight has no data to support it – see Why Harvard Wants You To Be Unhealthily Thin:
If you want to try and cite data showing otherwise, you’re welcome to try and find it.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Cited.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Yes, you’re citing the false claim that the JAMA study didn’t take statistical biases into account. That false claim is debunked in the (long) quote from the article.
Now try to cite some actual data.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
So you don’t think that there’s any correlation between obesity and heart disease, stroke, etc?
October 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I mean, you’re free to live your life the way you want and take your chances with being fat but I’m going to go with the preponderance of evidence available and use my own common sense.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Mike: So you don’t think that there’s any correlation between obesity and heart disease, stroke, etc?
There’s a strong correlation between high cholesterol levels (in men – lack of data for women) and heart disease. There’s a strong correlation between high blood pressure and risk of heart disease or stroke. But the best medical research can say is that there might be a correlation between obesity and high cholesterol, and obesity and high blood pressure. There’s a definite correlation between inactivity and heart disease, smoking, heavy drinking.
Much the same for having a stroke. Diabetes is also a risk factor.
The preponderance of the evidence is in: if you choose to ignore it and go with what your “common sense” tells you instead, that’s your problem. But someone who eats healthily, exercises regularly, doesn’t smoke, and doesn’t usually drink more than a glass of wine with their dinner, is at considerably less risk of a heart attack – even if their BMI is 30 – than someone who maintains a BMI of 17, smokes, drinks heavily, never exercises, and eats badly. Not to mention the other health problems that being underweight will bring.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Understood. I see where you’re coming from now.
One thing that boggles my mind in the case of Sharon is, well, why can’t she just go get a job that would at least get her and her children covered? I can understand getting abused by and growing tired of a stand-alone product but the plans that are offered by employers are generally a great deal more lenient. One would think that an enterprising, “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” Republican would do what it takes to get covered.
Just as a thought experiment let’s try and imagine the reaction I would get if I were to go over to the Free Republic and start singing Sharon’s sad song. What do you think her Republican compatriots would say? I guess it would be pretty easy to find out.
October 15th, 2007 at 2:56 am
mike; One thing that boggles my mind in the case of Sharon is, well, why can’t she just go get a job that would at least get her and her children covered?
She’s probably unemployable.
Oh, that’s mean.
She says herself that she dropped out of the labor market to become a full-time stay-at-home mom when her children were born. I don’t know how long ago that was, but if it was even five years ago, she’d have trouble getting a job again, at least the kind of job that would offer her health insurance for herself and for her children. I think that’s profoundly wrong, but then I’m a feminist.
On other occasions, Sharon has argued vehemently that it’s only just and right that employers should be able to discriminate against women who have children. It’s hard for me to feel sorry for her, exactly, when the situation she’s in is a situation she’s argued is only just and right. But I do think that it’s unjust that women who take time out to care for young children should then be discriminated against in the labour market. A woman who’s just had a baby should be able to take time off to care for the infant and still be able to get back to work.
(In the UK, you get 6 months paid maternity leave with right of return to your old job, and 18 months after that during which you can opt to return to your previous employer, and there’s a lot more job protection for people who work part-time or as jobshares, which applies to working mothers more than most: which Sharon has consistently argued is completely wrong and claimed no one should have such rights.)
So, as I said: hard for me to feel sorry for Sharon in particular, but I do think her situation is unjust.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am
We are (still) free to make a lot of life decisions. This includes the choice of job and the option of buying (or not buying) health insurance.
The cost of medical care has risen. New technology saves and extends lives but there is no free lunch. There is another cost driver and it is the result of parasitical trial lawyers leeching off the system. One is running for president.
Those who wish to migrate elsewhere for cheaper ‘care’ are free to do so. People voting with their feet who need some timely treatment seem to be going in the opposite direction.
One can elect to have a job that is more fun than work and pays accordingly. Just don’t expect others to pick up your bills.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Actually, Arthur, two things primarily drive up the cost of health care in the US. One is the need for health insurance (and, often, health care) to be profitable to the company shareholders. The other is the cost of bureaucracy in the US’s cumbersome system. The third reason for the cost of health care is the determination by health care providers not to get involved in preventive health care.
The rising cost of new technology is trivial by comparison – other countries provide better care than the US at half the cost to the US.
the result of parasitical trial lawyers leeching off the system
is pure nonsense: just right-wing fantasies about how poor people who have been injured in the race for profit ought not to have the right to compensation.
One can elect to have a job that is more fun than work and pays accordingly. Just don’t expect others to pick up your bills.
I take it that’s directed at Sharon. Suggest you tell her over at her own blog.
October 15th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Unbelievable: “Victimhood and Demonization”, what a world view! Everything is a crisis Jesurgislac; why? I am not trying to start a fight; but I have to wonder why EVERYONE who disagrees when your perception of reality is stupid, crazy, lying, hateful, and evil.
I have been noticing these past months that your hostility level is off the scale with everyone, not just the people from Dana’s blog. If you are going to answer my by calling me names, save the bandwidth and treat my questions as rhetorical.
As far as the question of care goes, I think certain realities need to be accepted. First we already have universal care. It is cobbled together, expensive and barely functional but we have it. Second, our culture here, and the form of government that has developed from that culture, make it impossible for a government run anything to function. We do those things terribly. Blame it on federalism.
The insurance and banking industries are to integral to our economy to have large parts of them nationalized, and the population wont stand for it. What we are going to get (Jeromy has a good post on it Broder as an indicator of health care’s future) is a private system/government bastardization system. Sort of what when have now, except it will be exponentially worse.
What we need is for the government to force private companies to pool and divide up the uninsured. Do away with exclusions and up-charges and apply group rates for everyone. The government then needs to pay the premiums for those who can not. There still needs to be income requirements and spend downs. Then maybe we can do away with Medicaid!
I will warn you specifically J, and all others abroad, that if this country nationalizes health care and the government takes over, your health care will suffer. Our system now, as screwed up as it is, still leads the world in R & D. We develop more new medical technologies than the rest of the world combined. Our expensive drug costs domestically, subsidize your cheaper ones. Yes the drugs you buy at a lower cost in the UK come out of my pocket, and I am on disability! You are welcome.
There would still be holes; but there are now. One glaring one is the immigration challenges we have. These are difficulties we already have now though, not new ones caused by trying to cover people. Libertarian or Liberal, wakeup, universal health care is already here.
The truth about Jeromy’s medical bills is: He would have to pay for them anyway, willing or unwillingly. Facing bankruptcy over medical bills happens to the best of us I guess. Welcome to the club my friend. As a former insurance agent, I would suggest to everyone that the most important coverage to have is disability insurance. If you can’t work how can you pay for health insurance? Cheers!
October 15th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
pgwarner: I am not trying to start a fight; but I have to wonder why EVERYONE who disagrees when your perception of reality is stupid, crazy, lying, hateful, and evil.
Oh, you noticed that too?
Mainly because the people you see disagreeing with the way the real world works are stupid, crazy, lying, hateful, evil – not all of them are all of that, but the case of Sharon, arguing vehemently for a system that ensures she can’t get a job and that her husband is uninsurable is a case in point of stupid craziness.
Our system now, as screwed up as it is, still leads the world in R & D.
I think you’re a little confused, pgw. Privatised health care in the US does not lead the the world in anything. Tax-funded medical research in the US is often of very high quality, where it’s not deliberately stalled by the current administration’s determination to impose their religious values on scientific research, but medical researchers in the US would tell you that medical research, anywhere in the world, is a collective process: individuals may be honored – (as with the three Nobel laureates for 2007) but medical research itself moves onward with the collective brilliance of all researchers, including, absolutely, those paid for by US taxpayers to do research. But improving the US health care system would not affect that.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Pardon me for not being clearer. The profits that drug companies and other medical companies use to fund their research will dry up. Our privately funded research hospitals would cease to function. We do subsidize the world’s pharmaceutical industry and that is clear. We are also kind and let ourselves being taken advantage of. Three Nobel winners do not prove your case.
It is true that our large public research universities do an incredible job with research in all types of disciplines. They of course are funded by people like me, not by you. It is also true that research for many types disciplines are shared throughout the world; very true! I was not talking about these, but of course you knew that.
Let me be clear about another thing: I don’t think that we lead the world in these things, and don’t be coy; you are too well read to believe otherwise, because of WHO we are. We are not God’s chosen. We lead the world because of the system we have. But of course you understand this.
One thing this system has is diversity. Those research institutions, our universities, are located in all fifty states. Within each state they are for the most run independently. You know this too.
Lets you and me at least admit what is true. You personally care not a thing for the particulars of our system. You care nothing of how it should best be modified to take care of the people you claim motivates you to advocate change. These people are useful only in the theoretical; as a tool to reframe arguments constantly to the left. The goal is to foster a socialist (feel free call it what you will) revolution. (again, substitute your own term).
What I find somewhat funny is that, so many of the “if I am just glib enough crowd†fails to notice people like you. The ones who mistake wit with substance; who value more the turn of a phrase, the well delivered insult, over the creation of an idea. The ones who mistake being argumentative with making an argument.
No, you are the self-styled activist. Me, well I am the guy who is living out the theory. I figure I will take the supposed evil business people over the supposed incompetent government people; but hell, that’s just me. Besides, there is so much inertia in this country it is not going to budge an inch.
In the end, thank you for again turning the discussion away from the point. You are quite skilled in finding rabbit holes! I had quite forgotten how much fun you can be. OH, BTW, I was not talking about Sharon, you are that way to everyone, I was not being hyperbolic.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
pgw: The profits that drug companies and other medical companies use to fund their research will dry up.
What, you’re claiming that the shareholders in health insurance companies – and only those shareholders – invest all their profits in drug companies?
I do believe you are still locked into the notion (it comes from being gullible enough to believe pharmaceutical company advertising) that it’s the private medical companies that do the groundbreaking (and expensive) research that develops new treatments.
It isn’t.
But in any case, you are not even trying to make the argument that switching to a more efficient health care system would do anything to cut into pharmaceutical company profits.
Lets you and me at least admit what is true. You personally care not a thing for the particulars of our system. You care nothing of how it should best be modified to take care of the people you claim motivates you to advocate change.
No, you have that the wrong way round.
I care about the people I know – and the people my friends know – who have suffered, are suffering, and sometimes have died, because the US has the crappiest health care system in the developed world. I care that politicians in the US invariably put ideological objections to a efficient health care system, and (more importantly) concern for the profits of health insurance companies, well ahead of any concern for the thousands of Americans who die each year because the US health care system is the worst in the developed world. Money and a rigid adherence to a heartless ideology kills 18 000 people a year in the US, and makes many more suffer needlessly.
I want that to change because I care about people.
The wingnut attacks on Graeme Frost and his family, and the utter indifference of conservatives to those who suffer and die needlessly in the US because of the inefficient and ineffective health care system (Sharon calls these suffering and dying people “NO ONE”, remember? Unpersons) prove that they put political ideology ahead of caring for people.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Nope, not what I said and not what I meant.
I believe it because it is true. The proof is they are the ones that come out with the drugs.
I believe in universal care. I understand that there is needless suffering, though your numbers are not believable. The present system is a disaster and extremely inefficient. You of course have read my comments on Dana’s site and know these things.
The problem I have with the government being in charge is how poorly they do anything. Our system (our system of government) is very different than any other. You may believe that it needs to be changed, fine. The present system of government can not provide effective care if you nationalize health care. European models will result in overall care to suffer and poor people will suffer the most.
For us to have a prayer for a successful system the government needs to mandate it, and let the private sector provide it. It will reduce everyone’s cost. There are many successful models that have worked for nearly twenty years on the state level regarding workers compensation insurance. I am all for holding the corporations liable. Our utility companies already are.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:49 am
pgw: I believe it because it is true.
You believe it because it’s what they tell you to believe and you are gullible.
The proof is they are the ones that come out with the drugs.
Heh. They take original tax-funded research, from the US and from other countries, and tweak.
The problem I have with the government being in charge is how poorly they do anything.
Oh, that classic conservative myth. I mean, I understand that after 7 years of the Bush administration, which is a government that does everything either incompetently or wickedly, and six years of a Republican-controlled Congress that acted as if it were there merely to rubber-stamp whatever the Bush administration told it to do, you’d be fairly cynical about government. But, not all governments are as incompetent and wicked as the Bush administration: you’re surely old enough to remember the Clinton administration, so you know that if you manage to get a competent and enthusiastic individual into the Presidency, you can have a decent administration. And, since the Democrats got the majority in Congress, they have been showing – uphill work, with the negativity and obstructionism from the Republicans – that it’s possible for Congress to work hard and accomplish things, as Congress is supposed to do.
Your country still functions, though. It’s not the best-run country in the developed world; in many respects, it’s one of the worst. But you’ve had a rotten government since 2001, evil and corrupt, fostering lawlessness, extravagance, caring nothing for the people of the US. I hope you can reform your elections, ensure that the candidate the people vote for gets in, and clean up your act. Most people in the US want that, and while I get pessimistic about it, I truly hope you can do it. There has been a canker at the heart of US government since Nixon, and it needs to be cleaned out, but – your country functions. If you look at countries without government, you can see the difference: you still have, at local and national levels, a working government. Don’t despair and think it’s impossible your country can never get better from the conservatives.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Wow, this has been an interesting post, shocking in some respects. I always love that liberals like government run services, while conservatives like self reliance. I love how liberals love to tear this country down, yet think government is the answer. While I have not liked all the spending the Republicans have participated in, I do continue to think this is the greatest country in the world. One of the reasons is that we can make our own decisions regarding where we work, what we want to be when we grow up, post on blogs or choose to purchase health insurance. The unfortunate issue with the Frosts as I see it, is that they chose not to have health insurance, with having kids does seem a bit of a foolish decision, but nevertheless, they chose not to have it. I don’t have issue with protecting the children, but do have issue with families making $85,000/yr being covered. Why should I work, when I can bring our income to this level and then apply for S-CHIPS so you that want to make more money can pay for my 2 kids? The bottom line is that somebody has to pay for this, and I suspect while you are so supportive of this, that when it starts coming out of your pocket, you would be less than supportive. If you want to know how government run anything can fail, just look at Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. This has been run by Democrats (mainly) and recently Republicans and ask any recipient what they think of how well it is run. They want more by the way for less.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:58 am
>I always love that liberals like government run services, while conservatives like self reliance. I love how liberals love to tear this country down, yet think government is the answer.
Honestly, is this type of crap even worth responding to anymore?
Especially considering that it took Gail only three sentences in to start questioning people’s patriotism.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Mike; Honestly, is this type of crap even worth responding to anymore?
Nope. Gail obviously gets her political nous from Ann Coulter.
But: If you want to know how government run anything can fail, just look at Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Delendo italica!
October 16th, 2007 at 7:55 am
You know what I love? How when half of every tax dollar collected goes to the Pentagon “conservatives” still want to lecture people on self-reliance and “free markets” (don’t tell pgwarner… but that’s how the government subsidizes corporations and their “research”)
October 16th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Digby at Hullaboo makes a good point: it’s conservatives and wingnuts (the mad “government haters”) who are spitting on the troops.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Gail: I love how Republicans bathe in the blood of innocent children!
Fer chrissakes…
October 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Matt> it’s definitely a point that you have to keep pounding into people’s thick skulls; that it’s a myth that the United States is a free market economy and all the niceties we enjoy are the products of capitalistic ingenuity. I’ve spoken about it several times within my “Market Discipline Is For Suckers” posts on this blog if you care to do a search. But these beliefs are so internalized it’s extremely difficult to overcome them even when the reality is staring you right in the face. One can glean a good example from this very thread. Stateside pharmaceutical industries are protected from the free market by way of government programs that subsidize their research through the university systems and trade laws that prevent cheaper drugs from other countries being sold here so risk is brought down to a minimum. How the hell does that resemble free market capitalism? And the list goes on and on… Computers, biotechnology, agriculture, the Internet. All were, or still are, heavily subsidized through the government. And the article J links to has got a good point as well; the military is a government program, are we to assume then that it’s wildly inefficient and needs to be scrupulously criticized? I think happen to think so considering the amount of money that goes into it, like Matt said HALF of every tax dollar, but don’t hold your breath waiting for Gail to start giving a shit. She’s content lamenting who gets the table scraps that are left over.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Guys, insults are NOT arguments. Please, if you are capable of a well turned, polished insult you should be capable of a decent argument. I guess if it doing that bolsters self esteem it has value.
J, again, I was not talking about who is running the government, I was talking about the form of government. The UK has had a functioning form of national health care for over thirty years I believe. I also believe that other European countries have had theirs longer. So please explain to me how it is the Republicans fault that we don’t have one now. Bush was not in office in 1970. Good job of changing the subject again though. All discussions with you turn into “Bush Bad†or abortion rants. Oh yeah, some become Bush Bad about abortion. Besides, the Democrats are not doing what you want now anyway, that wont change.
Of course it is Mike!
Please cite that for my edification, cause this hillbilly believes you are wrong (though there is nothing “free†about the health care market, I agree). Research AT one of our public universities is not ALWAYS government subsidized. In fact large amounts of research are done with private funds; either corporate or charitable. Capital improvements are also in large part done through private endowments. Chairs at private and PUBLIC universities are funded privately.
Mike, when I go for therapy today it will be at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Phillip Anschutz Outpatient Pavilion. The inpatient hospital at CU, as well as the cancer center has his name on them. They are next to the Rocky Mountain Lions Eye Institute. Are you starting to get the picture? Tomorrow Mike, I will be going to a private rehabilitation hospital for therapy. I promise you they don’t want nationalized health care.
Thank you for making my point. The government-private health care system is a deformed, bastardized entity that is terribly inefficient. Having the government more involved is not an effective solution. What, you think that MORE government involvement will HELP straighten out the drug companies? Please ‘splain that to me?
Right, that statement along with your “Markets Suck†argument have finally swayed me! I am not a socialist because I am dumb to comprehend it! The people who post here always summarize their thoughts by declaring anyone disagrees with them as stupid. Can you guys spell “projection�
October 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
pg> Jesus, I get off work and I gotta come home to this?
I honestly don’t follow. I thought I was talking to Matt about people and some of their overall free-market fantasies but I’ll try and patch together a general response:
1) I went to college and live in a university town. I’m quite aware that charitable individuals and corporations give to colleges. I don’t remember saying that they didn’t. If that is the impression I gave then I apologize. Nevertheless, private companies still benefit greatly from the work of the state sector. I think I gave a few general , obscure examples like the Internet. As far as citation, well, would my wife do? That’s a piece of research that she did in dental school at University of Iowa under the auspices of Dow Chemical and God knows they didn’t pay her market wages to do it. I was co-signer on our lease so I would know!
2) I’m glad that you recognize Phillip Anschutz’s philanthropy. Whether or not he wants nationalized health care is of no concern to me. Nice anecdote, though. Want to hear one of mine?
3) I don’t recall saying that “Markets Suck”. Is that how that came across? Or was I simply saying that those who chant “free market” mantras benefit directly from modern niceties that are a direct result of the state sector? I thought it was the latter but you’re free to interpret what I write whichever way you please.
>The people who post here always summarize their thoughts by declaring anyone disagrees with them as stupid. Can you guys spell “projection�
Huh? I’ve never called you stupid, pg. In fact, I’m glad to have you post here.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
The UK has had a functioning form of national health care for over thirty years I believe. I also believe that other European countries have had theirs longer.
No – the NHS is actually the oldest national health care system in the world, I think. It came into effect on July 5 1948, from an Act passed in 1946. Sixtieth anniversary next year. All the other developed countries in the world – except for the US – have since adopted some form or other of national health care system.
So please explain to me how it is the Republicans fault that we don’t have one now.
Did I say it was “the Republicans” fault? You were the one who was so cynical about your government: I was just being sympatheric, because I agree, you currently have an administration that is corrupt and inefficient. At a guess, I’d say the reason why you have never made your health care system effective and efficient is because the current rotten system is hugely profitable to the health insurance companies, and your current rotten system allows corporations to lobby successfully against any whole-hearted attempt at reform.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
ummmmm. that’s what I gathered anyway from what mike meant. I didn’t think you were referring to health care.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Wow, sure stirred a hornets nest. I’m in the healthcare profession and am well versed in how it is run. I also have family in the UK who have experienced the “wonderful NHS” system. I have one cousin who is a nurse, that was laid off recently. Why would that be? Because THERE WAS NO MONEY IN THE SYSTEM TO PAY HER. Her mother had to wait 18 months to receive a hip replacement. Her father has high blood pressure, but the “precious ever functioning NHS” only covers less than effective prescription drugs and oh by the way, his diabetes is poorly controlled for the same reason. Sorry, I’m living in my precious fantasy world and happen to work in the best healthcare system in the world. I’ll just keep on living in my happy place taking care of all you people with the best equipment and medicine. Oh by the way, hope you don’t have to wait TOO long for your open heart surgery. That is on a waiting list in most countries, too. I don’t mean to acuse anyone of naivete, but please do your research before you start blasting other people for their opinions.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Gail> my parents are from England and I have dual citizenship. Appealing to your own authority wont get you anywhere around here. My aunt, grand-mother, and niece were/are all involved in the UK health care system and are damned proud of their professions. Granted, there’s a lot to complain about and they certainly do vocalize it, but they’re also quick to say that in their system they at least have some representation by way of their union stewards and that they care enough to make sure that if their local unit/prefecture has issues they’ll be there to remedy it the best they can. And with the good Lord as my witness I assure you that at my sisters wedding this past August they told me “God help us if we get sick or hurt in America” because if they’re not independently wealthy or can hobble onto that 747 and make it home they are most assuredly fucked.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Great, same here. Still prefer America and mean no disrespect to my family or yours.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Nice language. Go unions-they work well. I’m tired of this blogging stuff. It’s too draining…..live in your world if you must.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
>I’ll just keep on living in my happy place taking care of all you people with the best equipment and medicine.
Um…all of us? Sorry, I can’t afford the best equipment and medicine and I’ve done everything that I was supposed to do. First off, I live in America. Secondly, I went to college, I got a corporate job, I work an 8->5, forty + hours a week job (I’m an insurance adjuster), I’m enrolled in my companies BCBS health care program, I have a 401K, I’ve got a savings account, I own two cars which are paid for, and on top of all that I still find the time to butt heads with the folks on this blog. YET, I still can’t afford the type of health care that folks like you continuously brag about and glamorize.
Honestly, Gail, I work a lot. Partly because I grew up very poor in rural Iowa and I had to pay every cent of my college tuition with government subsidized (OMG!) student loans. That means I’ll be paying them off for the next twenty years. So yeah, I need the money. In fact, when my immigrant/friend of ten years Singh Luong (who owns his own cleaning business, yet has to rely on his corporate working wife for family health insurance b/c small business plans are prohibitively expensive) calls during the standard week (Monday through Friday, Singh has to work every weekend) when one of his no-account employees doesn’t show up (which is more often than I’d like), I take off my shirt and tie, put on an ugly, beige colored “All Clean Janitorial” t-shirt, and push a vacuum for some extra brass in pocket.
So yeah, Gail, I guess I live in my own little world. No doubt waiting for good Republican folk like you to tell me what’s what in this confusing world of ours while I sit comfortably in that big, lustrous ivory tower, no?
Please, tell me how good I got it.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Gail: I have one cousin who is a nurse, that was laid off recently. Why would that be? Because THERE WAS NO MONEY IN THE SYSTEM TO PAY HER.
Yes: I believe there have been 22 000 redundancies recently, across the whole of the UK – all four NHSs. NHS in England, the largest one, employs over 970 000 people. I don’t have the figures for NHS in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but what that adds up to, Gail, is that out of well over a million employees, the NHS just recently made less than 2% redundant. Sorry your cousin was one of them, but it’s not exactly a sign of ill health in the health service. We’re still more efficient that in the US.
Her mother had to wait 18 months to receive a hip replacement.
Yes: this is a perennial problem with the NHS – the system tries to focus resources so that people who can wait – the problem won’t get worse or kill them while they wait – have to wait. And that applies to hip replacements. Which is a big problem for the people who need them, because a hip replacement is a big quality-of-life issue.
Her father has high blood pressure, but the “precious ever functioning NHS†only covers less than effective prescription drugs and oh by the way, his diabetes is poorly controlled for the same reason.
Depends on the individual, actually. I have a friend with diabetes, and she finds the NHS system works for her very well – but then she watches her diet, exercises regularly, and takes care of herself. Same with friends with high blood pressure.
Sorry, I’m living in my precious fantasy world and happen to work in the best healthcare system in the world.
You work in France? Cool.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Mike,
I can certainly understand your situation as I have had similar experiences. My family wasn’t poverty stricken, but couldn’t afford to pay for my college, so I had to do that all by myself. Only had 1 student grant, because back in the Carter years, the interest rates were outrageous, and my parents “made too much money.” Nevermind, that I was living out on my own. Put myself through school with working full time most of those years as well as supporting myself. But I graduated, went into the healthcare profession and have maintained a nursing job for the past 26 yrs. Working in the USA has allowed me to maintain a job, regardless of “redundancies” in our healthcare system. I suppose all these problems will be solved soon, since most of the comments I have read tend to bash Republicans, President Bush for being such an idiot, etc. I really don’t think that the people who post blogs on this site or others are interested in hearing and being receptive to alternative ideas. Their only purpose is to gather together to bash conservatives. Oh well…have a great day. And oh by the way Jes….I live in Kansas. France is cool, probably better with Sarkozy. But only like visiting
October 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
. And oh by the way Jes….I live in Kansas. France is cool, probably better with Sarkozy. But only like visiting
Ah. You were claiming to work in ” the best healthcare system in the world” – and that’s in France. Long commute from Kansas, no?
If you work in health care in the US, that means you work in the health care system that’s 37th in the world. (The UK health care system is 18th.)
October 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Mike, sorry if I came across too harsh. Looking back at #42 it does appear that I might have phrased things better. Certainly seems I was guilty of calling the kettle black.
I appreciate the posting welcome; I will take advantage of it. Please know that the reverse is true at ConClub . We are always looking for Liberal views, we have members that are to the left, but new input is very much welcomed. This is especially true if it is from well informed bloggers.
I have a few more ideas about our current subject that I want to relate here as soon as I am able.
October 17th, 2008 at 8:37 am
[...] called a stalker for looking up the Frost family and seeing what sort of house they live in. We had bloggers screaming that anyone questioning the meme about the Frost family must be a pitchfork waving [...]