« The Beard That Tamed America | Main | An Answer! »
October 10, 2007
Guess The Author
A typical experience with the individual health care market:
I have commented before on the problems with central planning in health care. I certainly am not convinced that a government-run system is the answer, but I do agree with Krugman that there are serious problems with our health insurance system, particularly in the market for individually-purchased (non-group) coverage.
After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland’s individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that “choice” wasn’t much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.
We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.
With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.
The mystery writer? Michelle Malkin. As I've said before, if a neoconservative is a liberal who got mugged, and progressive is a Republican who got sick. Well, a Republican who got sick, but whose livelihood isn't dependent on generating an unending stream of outrage for a hardcore conservative audience. But can you really believe that the Michelle Malkin who wrote those paragraphs is the same one inveighing against subsidized health care for children of low-income, self-employed parents?
October 10, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
What's even odder is that her husband, Jesse Malkin, is something of an expert on health economics.
Posted by: Isaac | Oct 10, 2007 4:32:12 PM
So, like, what does a Malkin want, anyway? I'd say the French system would solve all her problems .... Maybe she would just move there and try it out?? Please?
Posted by: David in NY | Oct 10, 2007 4:40:15 PM
can you really believe that the Michelle Malkin who wrote those paragraphs is the same one inveighing against subsidized health care for children of low-income, self-employed parents?
Yes.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions about simple minds.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 10, 2007 4:48:15 PM
It's interesting to note that, in 2004, Malkin concluded:
"Given our financial circumstances, that 'choice' wasn’t much of a choice at all."
I have no way of knowing for sure (and no, I'm not advocating an investigation into the Malkin finances), but I strongly suspect that the Malkin family's "financial circumstances" in 2004 were (and have remained) considerably better than that of the Frosts. She was already, after all, an author and nationally syndicated columnist by then (and her dreadful book on internment was only a month away from being published).
Yet when it came to health care, she complained of not really having a "choice" back then.
And what does she say of the Frosts today? What's the "bottom line" for Malkin?
The bottom line remains:This family made choices. Choices have consequences.
Interestingly, Malkin ended up with a rather unsatisfactory "very high-deductible plan", a plan for which the Frosts probably couldn't have qualified anyway (given their pre-existing conditions), and even if they did, one which surely would have put them in the poor house if any of them met with an serious illness or accident.
Posted by: Ken | Oct 10, 2007 4:49:12 PM
More from Malkin's archives, this time on privacy:
Why publish maps and specific street names and photographs of the private (not anymore) homes where the Vice President and Defense Secretary and their families spend their vacations?...
Because the "people" (you know: Code Pink, Fred Phelps, jihadis) have a "right to know," right?
...
I wonder how Pinch Sulzberger would react to citizen photographers trampling his driveway, snapping pics of his vacation home, and splashing them all over their blogs?
Posted by: neil | Oct 10, 2007 5:01:07 PM
I strongly suspect that the Malkin family's "financial circumstances" in 2004 were (and have remained) considerably better than that of the Frosts
While wingnut welfare is the gift that keeps giving, freelance wingnuttery -- columnist work, subbing work on Faux News, Regnery advances and royalty checks, Bathrobe Media ad income -- still generally doesn't come with health bennies.
This isn't even about income. It's about ressentiment. If the Frosts were earning $30,000 a year, the Malkinites would want them to be living in a double-wide trailer with a beater car, and then accuse them of being sponging lazy poor, with no ambition or entrepreneurial spirit. The Frosts are not the GOP Elect, and thus their virtues are meaningless.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 10, 2007 5:01:24 PM
I think the fascinating thing about the post is that Malkin has hinged her complaint about the Frost - after backpedaling significantly on their income and personal wealth claims - on the claim that they could get insurance more cheaply that the "$1200" that Bonnie Frost claimed in the first article... it's odd then, that Malkin herself should know that the pricing is probably right. And it underscores, I think, that a lot of people are not connecting the dots in healthcare - Malkin sees her own problems with insurance as somehow anomalous, and doesn't see the Frosts as dealing with the same issue, and probably - which is key - under circumstances much more dire than her own. I hope, Ezra that you've contacted her about debating - and I hope, as a follow up, or in your invite, you mention this post. I suspect she herself doesn't realize that this is out there.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 10, 2007 5:25:18 PM
Ezra, you're on fire today
Posted by: gregh | Oct 10, 2007 5:27:18 PM
I hope, Ezra that you've contacted her about debating - and I hope, as a follow up, or in your invite, you mention this post. I suspect she herself doesn't realize that this is out there.
If the idea is to debate health care rather than make personal attacks, Ezra probably shouldn't mention it. Of course, there's almost no way he would do so before her, but still.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 10, 2007 5:36:54 PM
If you have any hint of a pre-existing condition, you can't get health insurance at any price.
Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 | Oct 10, 2007 5:45:34 PM
A neoconservative isn't a liberal who has been mugged; a neoconservative is someone who saw a story on the local news about someone being mugged and became very, very afraid.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Oct 10, 2007 5:53:52 PM
SCMT, that is a truly, truly awesome description.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 10, 2007 5:58:32 PM
Ezra, you're right on. Keep hitting this, over and over. It's ironic indeed that someone like Malkin could possibly argue for internment of American citizens as well as better "choices" in a healthcare system. Progressive she is not. Though irony usually has very little to do with ideological fruitcakes.
Posted by: Barr | Oct 10, 2007 6:02:59 PM
Never underestimate the power of intellectual compartmentization. And dishonest, mean-spirited, hackery.
Posted by: DrexelDem | Oct 10, 2007 6:15:00 PM
Ezra, according to Michael Fumento, you've called out the wrong Malkin:
"Never mind that anybody familiar with Jesse Malkin knows that his main interests are health issues and economics, which are just about the only two issues Michelle doesn't write about. "
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/11/night_of_the_li.html
Posted by: ParBear | Oct 10, 2007 6:37:04 PM
But can you really believe that the Michelle Malkin who wrote those paragraphs is the same one inveighing against subsidized health care for children of low-income, self-employed parents?
Of course I can. It's called cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: Jestak | Oct 10, 2007 6:59:09 PM
No, it is not cognitive dissonance, but something deeper and simpler.
"Conservatism" in this country is not an ideology at all. It is about nothing but sheer naked greed. Consequently, these fundamentally dishonest people will use any argument which serves their interest at the moment, without a concern in the world with its consistency with their previous or future utterances.
Thus, five Supreme Court justices threw everything they ever claimed to believe into the trash to make Bush President. Thus, Conservatives use any shift in the economy, positive or negative, to argue for tax cuts. Thus, they will turn their backs on any record of past failure to vote for whoever promises them the lowest taxes. Thus, Bush instantly abandoned his claimed belief in small government and fiscal responsibility when he had a chance to help his friends feed at the public trough.
They care nothing for truth, only for wealth. They will say anything to get it.
Posted by: Carl from L.A, | Oct 10, 2007 8:09:54 PM
One can be against Single Payer or other forms of UHC and still not be happy with what exists today. I don't see anything in what she writes that contradicts a conservative's view. The individual market is screwed because there's not a ton of individual's in it, considering most people get their health insurance through an employee.
This has been a constant bicker of mine. I don’t know her deep feelings on healthcare, so I have no idea where she stands on reform. But I see this often enough when I point out flaws in Single Payer: people automatically assume I’m for the status quo, which isn’t the case
Posted by: DM | Oct 10, 2007 8:11:00 PM
The first comment on this Sadly,No post seems to have explained all of this quite well.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 10, 2007 8:26:49 PM
That is a truly incredible story. What's the Matter with Kansas in spades combined with a convenient onset of amnesia. I wonder if her current insurance provider will cover treatment for that?
Posted by: robert paehlke | Oct 10, 2007 8:30:25 PM
Amazing. In the older, more decent, traditional Republican Party circles, hateful harpies like Malkin and Coulter would never be invited or allowed to represent the party in public. DECENT society wouldn't be caught dead in public with her, simply because she's an incredibly TACKY human being.
Malkin and Coulter remind me of the high school cafeteria girls: only happy when they're trashing someone else, perpetually stuck in the immaturity of one-liner put downs as "superiority."
Pretty much the same reason Nancy Reagan couldn't stand being around Barbara Bush.
THIS is what the Republican Party has become.
Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by: Mary | Oct 10, 2007 8:33:28 PM
The really funny thing about these righty-blog berserker episodes is that one never sees them coming. Who would have predicted, beforehand, that an item on the back page of the mostly pro-war New Republic, or a gimmicky Dem response to the weekly presidential radio address, would be the occasion of a right-wing flash mob? It reminds me of descriptions I've read (not a gamer myself) of World of Warcraft "raids", such is the disparity between the provocation and the vehemence of the response.
Posted by: kth | Oct 10, 2007 8:48:30 PM
I've said it before to many of my contemporaries. Many of these right-wing "hacks" do more than likely do not believe half the things that they say. It's a very simple equation: Look at what these people do and not what they say. For all of O'reilly's lamentation(s) over the "far left's" ways of living, we all know at least some of the way in which he lives his personal life. Malkin in this iteration becomes much more discriminating about the private market "offerings" when her family's personal money is involved, and seemingly can then see past her ideologies.And please, let's not even start on "El Rushbo". See, ultimately, these people are just appealing to a market. They know what keeps the ears and the eyes glued, they specialize in red-meat to red-meat eaters. I don't blame them, I blame the regressive tards who have yet to see that they are being played for suckers. Selah.
Posted by: onlinesavant | Oct 10, 2007 9:07:12 PM
I live in British Columbia, one of the two Canadian provinces that charges its citizens directly for UHC, rather than taking it out of general tax revenue. The premiums are $54 per month for a single person, $96 per month for a couple, or $108 per month for a family of three or more. If your income is below a certain amount, you get financial assistance -- up to 100% if necessary. I don't have to pay the full amount because my employer covers half. Anyone is free to buy additional insurance for the services not covered by the provincial plan. So I also have what's called Extended Health Care, again subsidized by my employer.
Posted by: mijnheer | Oct 10, 2007 9:13:48 PM
THIS is what the Republican Party has become.
Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by: Mary
When was it better? In the 1980s, when the Reagan administration was selling weapons to both Iran and Iraq at various times? Or maybe earlier, during the Nixon administration? Yeah, those aren't exactly analagous to the two minutes' hate we're seeing today, but still, if there was every anything admirable in the leadership of the Republican Party, I think it was before I was born.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 10, 2007 9:19:36 PM
Ezra, you're on fire today
^^
Posted by: Korha | Oct 10, 2007 9:27:34 PM
Thanks Ezra, but could please tell my irony meter to stop hitting me over the head? It sorta hurts.
Posted by: David W. | Oct 10, 2007 9:33:38 PM
Is it that the Frost family told it's story in support of something the Democratic party was doing that drove MM around the bend? It is truly weird.
Posted by: J | Oct 10, 2007 9:41:01 PM
I live in British Columbia, one of the two Canadian provinces that charges its citizens directly for UHC, rather than taking it out of general tax revenue. The premiums are $54 per month for a single person, $96 per month for a couple, or $108 per month for a family of three or more.
$54 is only a small fraction of what Canada spends on health care per person per month. So if you (or your fellow Canadians) are not paying the rest through "general" taxes, you're paying for it through some other tax. Or through private insurance. Or out of pocket. By the way, what happens to someone in British Columbia if they don't pay their premium?
Anyone is free to buy additional insurance for the services not covered by the provincial plan. So I also have what's called Extended Health Care, again subsidized by my employer.
So in Canada, the quality of health care you get depends on how much money you have or how good your job benefits are. Gee, that sounds a lot like the U.S.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 10, 2007 9:49:48 PM
Malkin and Coulter remind me of the high school cafeteria girls: only happy when they're trashing someone else, perpetually stuck in the immaturity of one-liner put downs as "superiority."
Mary, you aren't far wrong. When I was a kid, I was picked on... a lot. And the rightwing attack machine reminds me of the kids who picked on me. What mattered wasn't the truth, it was whether the attack was fun or not. It often seems like the same thing is true today, only the value of "fun" has changed slightly. An attack that can be clearly factually countered isn't "fun", but one you can make hateful insinuation about (without knowing the truth) is just fine.
And I do remember a time when the Republicans would be shamed to have a Coulter or Malkin pretending to support them... it's a shame, playing to hate got them results (especially in Gingrich's day) and they decided to keep playing the game.
Posted by: Longhairedweirdo | Oct 10, 2007 10:00:19 PM
So in Canada, the quality of health care you get depends on how much money you have or how good your job benefits are. Gee, that sounds a lot like the U.S.
...except for the humongous difference, that everybody in Canada gets basic health care.
$54 is only a small fraction of what Canada spends on health care per person per month.
Which is still a lot less, IIRC, than what the U.S. spends on health care per person per month, while failing to cover everybody.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 10, 2007 10:23:03 PM
Jason R. "Anyone is free to buy additional insurance for the services not covered by the provincial plan. So I also have what's called Extended Health Care, again subsidized by my employer.
So in Canada, the quality of health care you get depends on how much money you have or how good your job benefits are. Gee, that sounds a lot like the U.S."
This is a perfect example of a nutter's alternate universe, Jason R. Let me explain a few facts to you. First off, in the US, only 60% of employers provide health benefits to their employees. Therefore a lot of Americans (around 45%) have no access to health care until they are half dead. And then they only are entitled to as much health care as needed to keep them breathing, not necessarily functioning. In 2004, 18,000 people died because they had no health insurance. Just a month ago, the American Cancer Society came out with statistics proving that uninsured people with cancer have a 50% greater chance of dying from the disease. In Canada, you may have to wait for a knee transplant, but you'll get your chemotherapy. In Canada, everyone has access to health care.
Last year, Toyota decided to locate a plant in Canada instead of the US because the cost of health care was not a corporate responsibility, making it much cheaper to produce cars there.
So, you can have a universal coverage, single payer system in place while preserving the best of capitalism, individual choice, and competition.
I guess inventing lies to sneer about is the best you can do. Give it up, you are irrelevant.
Posted by: Poverty Outlaw | Oct 10, 2007 10:23:59 PM
You know what we need? Fewer young libertarians with health coverage trying to stop the drive towards UHC and more underemployed, uninsured middle aged diabetics with heart disease to argue against programs to increase health coverage.
Lots of people like to talk about a willingness to die for their beliefs, but few people, given the chance, are willing to follow through.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 10, 2007 10:45:07 PM
Ezra, you're on fire today
^^^^
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | Oct 10, 2007 10:49:34 PM
This controversy is producing perhaps the finest blogging you've ever done, Ezra. Bravo.
Posted by: Zach | Oct 10, 2007 11:45:08 PM
...except for the humongous difference, that everybody in Canada gets basic health care.
Everyone in Canada may be "covered" for basic health care, but that obviously doesn't mean they actually get the care they need when they need it. And everyone in America is also "covered" for what might be called "basic" health care.
Which is still a lot less, IIRC, than what the U.S. spends on health care per person per month,
Yes, we spend more in the U.S. and we get more. But my point was that Canada spends much more than $54/person/month, and mijnheer and his fellow Canadians are paying for it one way or another, even if it's not through "general" taxes.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 10, 2007 11:58:57 PM
Poverty,
First off, in the US, only 60% of employers provide health benefits to their employees. Therefore a lot of Americans (around 45%) have no access to health care until they are half dead.
Good grief. What utter nonsense. 45% of Americans have no access to health care until they're half dead? Where do you get this rubbish?
In 2004, 18,000 people died because they had no health insurance.
Yes, and around twenty times that number died from tobacco use. And a further twenty times as many died from poor diet and exercise. And around 30,000 died from motor vehicle accidents. And so on and so forth. Doesn't this suggest to you that we should be focusing on those other things instead of health insurance?
In Canada, you may have to wait for a knee transplant, but you'll get your chemotherapy.
In Canada, there are waiting lists for important and potentially life-saving treatments, such as cancer treatment and heart surgery, as well as elective procedures.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 11, 2007 12:07:23 AM
Malkin responds!
“Debate” Ezra Klein? What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded.
I... think she forfeits?
Posted by: Dave | Oct 11, 2007 12:19:13 AM
Yes, Michelle, how awful for you to participate in a forum where Americans are presented with intelligent dialogue about how our health care systems could be made more fair and more efficient.
A laughable waste of time. Why it could take Michelle away from what she does best: harrassing families and endangering the welfare of college students.
Posted by: jimmmm | Oct 11, 2007 12:44:06 AM
Yup - Malkin punked out like a scared little bitch.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 11, 2007 12:53:19 AM
Nice job of selective quoting. Funny how you leave of the end of Michelle's post:
"In the end, we decided to purchase a very high-deductible plan (sold by Golden Rule Insurance Co.) coupled with a tax-sheltered Medical Savings Account (MSA). We couldn’t qualify for the preferred rate because Golden Rule says I am underweight. Hmph! In any case, while Krugman and most Democrats don’t seem to like MSAs, in our case we were glad they were an option."
So she complains a bit about the individual market, but in the end she did the responsible thing and bought a policy.
How exactly is this inconsistent with her opposition to expanding SCHIP?
What exactly is your point?
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 1:01:39 AM
That was a remarkable rant of self-justification by Malkin.
Note that Ezra requested a debate without any ad hominem attacks, and it is this that she claims is a waste of time. Telling.
She will of course respond that she doesn't believe Ezra would actually stick to the merits of SCHIP and problems with our current private system. But I haven't seen her go two paragraphs without launching into personal attacks and sneers, whereas Ezra routinely writes policy pieces that are without invective and ad hominem attacks. The reason Ezra is respected on both the educated left and right while she is respected by neither is the reason why she won't debate him.
Posted by: jd | Oct 11, 2007 1:04:37 AM
Nice job of selective quoting. Funny how you leave of the end of Michelle's post
You guys sure jump whenever you're told to. Gosh, Michelle says she was selectively quoted, we must express outrage at the selective quotation!!!
For the rest of us, the fact that after lamenting the subpar options available to her, she actually CHOSE one of those options, doesn't change the point one tiny bit. Of course she made some choice, no one said she's still dithering to this day. The point is that she, like most normal people who aren't playing at faux outrage, recognized that if you don't have health care through your employer you don't have a lot of good choices. That's all there is to it.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 1:07:54 AM
What Ez refuses to tell you about is his dishonest omission of the most important part of the cited entry. I wonder why he's addicted to such selective cut and paste editing.
What Ez is hiding:
"In the end, we decided to purchase a very high-deductible plan (sold by Golden Rule Insurance Co.) coupled with a tax-sheltered Medical Savings Account (MSA). We couldn’t qualify for the preferred rate because Golden Rule says I am underweight. Hmph! In any case, while Krugman and most Democrats don’t seem to like MSAs, in our case we were glad they were an option."
As Malkin correctly observed:
"Grown-ups, on the other hand, will be able to grasp effortlessly that if I had decided not to buy private insurance and then demanded that the government cover my medical expenses and insure me after a catastrophic accident, then, yes, why, yes, you could flap two HYPOCRISY! cards up and down in each hand until your feet lifted off the ground.
In fact, I advocated MSAs and noted approvingly the Wall Street Journal’s suggestion that the cure for limited market choices was less government intervention. Not more."
Posted by: Karen Schell | Oct 11, 2007 1:09:16 AM
Adam,
Strictly speaking there isn't a contradiction, but that is because Malkin's situation and that of the Frosts were different. The Frosts had (by every indication) less income than the Malkins and more mouths to feed. Insuring an entire family costs over $10,000 a year, and that's for group rates. In the individual market it's probably ridiculously high in most states. On an income of $45,000 a year for 6 people, do you really think it's a good idea for a nation to force that family to choose between health insurance and poverty? Because that's what buying a family policy in the private market would have done, reducing their after-healthcare-income to not much more than $30,000. For 6 people. And that's if they don't get sick.
For someone in the Frost's position it is a rational decision to go without health insurance. You simply have to take the chance that nothing catastrophic will happen when don't have employer-subsidized or government-subsidized insurance and are earning at that level. It is our failure as a nation that this is the rational choice for families in that position.
Posted by: jd | Oct 11, 2007 1:16:37 AM
"The point is that she, like most normal people who aren't playing at faux outrage, recognized that if you don't have health care through your employer you don't have a lot of good choices."
I don't think she would disagree with you. I certianly wouldn't. The health insurance market in the US has some major problems, and I don't know of a single prominent conservative who would disagree.
Now how exactly is this relevant to the question of whether SCHIP should be expanded?
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 1:21:26 AM
Now how exactly is this relevant to the question of whether SCHIP should be expanded?
What non-governmental solution do you imagine would provide health-care for the people who need it? Volunteer insurance men? A lower-profit-margin voluntary code of conduct?
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Oct 11, 2007 1:29:38 AM
"In fact, I advocated MSAs and noted approvingly the Wall Street Journal’s suggestion that the cure for limited market choices was less government intervention. Not more."
Rah! I get headaches from this stupidity. Firstly, tax preference IS governement intervention, its subsidizing certain choices. Secondly, only more government intervention in the meaning of regulation could force insurers to offer coverage to high risk groups like the Frosts (with two handicapped children) and Malkin (underweight) at prices that those customers could pay. Without regulation, the insurer simply calculates the risk and the potential costs and sets his prices accordingly. Devide et impera. Only if the insurers would be forced to take every customer, they would have to calculate differently. But in the totally unregulated market that Malkin is dreaming of, there is no way she could get affordable insurance. That economics 101.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 2:48:32 AM
Now how exactly is this relevant to the question of whether SCHIP should be expanded?
It's relevant to the question of whether Malkin is being untrue to her own experience facing bad and worse choices for health insurance, all for the sake of ginning up a wingnut storm against some American-as-apple-pie parents who have suffered through a terrible accident to two of their children and the resulting difficulty in paying for their medical care.
Like, what part of 'faux outrage' didn't you understand? You 'don't think Malkin would disagree with' her portrayal as a purveyor of 'faux outrage' ... did you not read that part or did you just not understand it?
Posted by: D. Aristophanes | Oct 11, 2007 2:55:07 AM
"if I had decided not to buy private insurance and then demanded that the government cover my medical expenses and insure me after a catastrophic accident, then, yes, why, yes, you could flap two HYPOCRISY! cards up and down in each hand until your feet lifted off the ground."
HYPOCRISY! What are those MSAs IF NOT government paying for health insurance? There is no difference between the government taking all of Malkin's taxes and then paying for insurance, or the government taking less taxes and Malkin paying for insurance. The result in the end is one and the same. Less money for the administration to spend, but coverage for Malkin, instead of more money in the coffins, but Malkin uninsured.
Really, Karen, can't you see that?
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 2:58:30 AM
"Now how exactly is this relevant to the question of whether SCHIP should be expanded?"
MSAs are just another program where governement is subsidizing healthcare insurance. The difference is, SCHIP is for families who are hard pressed financially, while MSAs is for all taxpayers. Malkin is for government support when it helps her, but against it when she can't take advantage of it. The commenter at the start of the thread, who said something like 'Republicans don't care for ethics, it's all about greed' is totally right. There are no values, no morales on the right, only self interests.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 3:07:01 AM
I look forward to the Dan Riehl post decrying stay-at-home dad Jesse Malkin as a simpleton and a loser.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/10/alright-thats-e.html
Posted by: Urbaniak | Oct 11, 2007 3:08:25 AM
"What non-governmental solution do you imagine would provide health-care for the people who need it?"
I like what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, though I would can the surcharge on employers who don't offer coverage, and I think the minimum coverage mandates are excessive. Something like the MA plan with the two improvments I mention would make insurance affordable for people like the Frosts (who, it looks like, can already afford it, anyway).
Do I advocate complete deregulation? No. I don't think any prominant conservative does. That doesn't mean socialized medicine is the answer.
In addition to reducing minimum coverage mandates and other state level regulations that make insurance expensive, there needs to be an individual coverage mandate to eliminate the adverse selection problem. There also has to be sliding insurance subsidy that gradually tapers off with incomes and assets.
Asset tests are missing from too many state SCHIP plans. I resent my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies for someone who owns a $300,000 home and another $100,000 in commercial property.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 3:09:07 AM
"I would can the surcharge on employers who don't offer coverage"
Why? Those employers are just free riders. Of course, not paying for healthcare is financially more attractive for companies. This results in more and more companies dropping out of insurance (this trend is evident in statistical data), and so the market pressure on their responsible acting, but financially handicapped competitors grows. What the surcharge does is levelling the market again by taking away the incentive from employers who left their staff without insurance. Only if there is no advantage for not offering insurance can employer paid coverage survive. So, actually, this is and very important part of the MA program.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 3:15:42 AM
The difference between Medical Savings Accounts and SCHIP is that with an MSA, the government gives more money to rich people than to poor people, while with SCHIP, it gives money only to poor people. A rich person, obviously, can put a lot more money in their tax-free MSA than a poor person can; the government subsidy to the rich person is thus much larger than the subsidy to the poor person.
Which is why the political party that is the tool of the wealthy likes them so much.
Posted by: brooksfoe | Oct 11, 2007 3:17:07 AM
Malkin wimped out on the debate like the chickenshit she is. No surprise there. If she can't have husband Jesse feeding her health care facts as she types, all she has left is her pathetic cheerleader crap and her sociopath followers...neither of which are much use at a one-on-one debate.
The woman is a coward. Heck, she can't even handle having comments on her blog!
She is the definition of a WATB.
Posted by: Nylund | Oct 11, 2007 3:20:29 AM
Just read her rant, that is one seriously disturbed woman
Posted by: eric k | Oct 11, 2007 3:21:24 AM
"who, it looks like, can already afford it, anyway"
Where did you get that idea? What income do the Frosts have, less than 45k for a family of six? What did theright wingers find this insurance would cost, 1500 a month (and they wee ignoring the fact that no insurer would like to over coverage for two handicapped children)? So, the family would have to spend 18k for insurance, out of less than 45k income.
HOW DOES THIS COMPUTE?
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 3:23:32 AM
"WATB"?
Uh? Whiny a**hole, total b*tch???
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 3:25:21 AM
"Why? Those employers are just free riders."
I see no reason why an employer has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to offer insurance. The only reason why it has become the norm is because the favorable tax treatment employer-sponsored coverage receives. Under the MA plan, however, individual plans get the same tax treatment as employer plans.
So why, then, does it matter whether insurance is purchased via employer or individually?
"Of course, not paying for healthcare is financially more attractive for companies."
For the most part that's not true. Because of the favorable tax treatment, it usually makes the most financial sense to put as large a fraction as possible of an employee's compensation package into the form of benefits. However, the IRS puts limits on how high benefts can be relative to cash wages. Thus it ceases to make financial sense to provide expensive benefits as the level of compensation an employee can command in the labor market goes down. That's why, surprise surprise, most low skilled jobs don't offer health benefits, whereas most high skilled jobs do.
"This results in more and more companies dropping out of insurance (this trend is evident in statistical data),"
Part of that has to do with group policy rates going up due to increased regulatory coverage mandates. Another part of it has to do without our insane immigration policy of importing masses of low skilled laborers.
"and so the market pressure on their responsible acting,"
No company provides insurance because it's the "responsible" thing. They do it because it makes financial sense for them to do it, though some might say they do it because they are responsible so as to fool gullible leftists like you.
For most companies it makes financial sense to provide health benefits, for others it does not. It depends the kinds of workers they employ.
"Only if there is no advantage for not offering insurance can employer paid coverage survive."
I'm not sure why employer-paid coverage is so desirable. If not for the favorable tax treatment of employer based plans, and for the serious adverse selection problems in the individual market (which an individual coverage mandate can fix), I would prefer my employer give me the cash it spends on my insurance so I could go out and buy a cheap high deductible policy and pocket the difference.
"So, actually, this is and very important part of the MA program."
Nonsense. A $300 per year surcharge per employee doesn't make any difference. It's just a stupid symbolic attempt by the left to get back at a perceived class enemy.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 4:18:51 AM
How fitting that the ad by Families USA at the top of the page is a dishonest representation of the S-CHIP issue. I suppose it's to be expected that any responses to criticism of the plan would involve more dishonesty, such as the out of context quoting applied in this post, but enough has been said about that by Malkin herself and others commenting here.
I get the feeling that a lot of the animus over the Frost story from those who favor expanding the program comes from the fact that their story and subsequent commentary cuts off at the knees the strategy of portraying the expansion as simply helping poor kids get health care. Now that the story is getting wider exposure, people who weren't really sure what it's all about won't be as easily fooled into believing that Bush's veto means he doesn't care about poor kids.
Posted by: Bill B | Oct 11, 2007 4:48:50 AM
"I see no reason why an employer has any obligation, moral or otherwise, to offer insurance."
But, of course, regarding jobs qualified personel is scarce, it's in the employers own best interest to assure those specialists have insurance and don't gamble with their health.
"For the most part that's not true."
Well, tell that to General Motors...
"Because of the favorable tax treatment, it usually makes the most financial sense to put as large a fraction as possible of an employee's compensation package into the form of benefits."
Yup, agreed.But,like you say, in businesses where wages are so low that a single job family can't live on it, employer paid healthcare is still very much the exception, not the rule. so, this isn't really contradicting what I wrote, right?
"I'm not sure why employer-paid coverage is so desirable."
Well, imho it's just one way to help citizen getting better insurances than they would get by bargaining on their own. Economies of scale. The larger the group who is collectively negotiating with healthcare providers and the pharma industry, the better the deal they get. It hasn't necessarily to be the employers who are the representatives of the customers. In fact, the big problem with employer based insurance is that the customers can't take their contracts with them when they leave the company. That has become a huge problem for many families.
"Nonsense. A $300 per year surcharge per employee doesn't make any difference."
Ok, got me. I didn't know the details. $ 300 is ridiculous, right. Of course, it only makes sense if it's about the same sum heathcare would cost them.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 5:10:12 AM
"any responses to criticism of the plan would involve more dishonesty, such as the out of context quoting applied in this post"
Again, Bill, look at what Malkin said, it only makes her look even worse. But why should Ezra fisk every singlesentence that she wrote? He made a strong point by focussing on the core of her posting.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 5:14:48 AM
"It's just a stupid symbolic attempt by the left to get back at a perceived class enemy."
Uh, excuse me, pls, since when is Romney "the left"? Left of Tancredo, or what?
:P
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 5:17:15 AM
Actually I see no hypocrisy by Malkin. Nobody on the right is claiming the current situation with health insurance is wonderful. Maybe we should look at the root causes. Like Overcharging by all the JEW Doctors.
Posted by: Dennis D | Oct 11, 2007 7:15:23 AM
1) Malkin never once begged for Government help.
2) Malkin solved her own problem as she suggests others do.
Posted by: Mike B | Oct 11, 2007 7:22:58 AM
Folks, Malkin is against government help for families like the Frost's, but she is for tax deductibles (just another form of government help) for families like her's. And you say, this isn't hypocrisy??? Now, come on...
Posted by: Gray | Oct 11, 2007 7:29:27 AM
Much to your surprise, I'm sure, Ezra, Michelle has just turned down your offer.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Oct 11, 2007 7:36:36 AM
1) Malkin never once begged for Government help.
No one involved in this story "begged" for government help. Malkin took government help when she needed it, in the form of the MSA, just as the Frost's took her from SCHIP.
2) Malkin solved her own problem as she suggests others do.
By taking government help. Similarly, the Frosts solved their own problem by enrolling in SCHIP.
The Frosts were not eligible for the plan that Malkin took, due to their children's pre-existing conditions.
Posted by: DivGuy | Oct 11, 2007 7:50:40 AM
Malkin solved her own problem as she suggests others do.
So you think taking advantage of a Medical Savings Account with a government-sponsored tax shelter is "solving your own problem"? My, the rugged conservatives of today!
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 7:52:46 AM
Wait a sec-- Malkin claims her family income was 25k/yr. After the child tax credit and personal deductions for her and her spouse, how much money is an MSA really going to save her? That's what makes HSA/MSAs such a waste-- they only help people who pay a lot of taxes. And, in the end, she opted for this form of health insurance that was only available to her because the worst health problem she faced was being underweight, while the Frosts were turned down for coverage multiple times. And, she adds "no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured." Gee, if only there were some way to avoid going uninsured yet still have access to good coverage for your children, who are not in this mess through any fault of their own... let's see...
Anyway, this all shows me what's so loathsome about Malkin. I think it's becoming clear, over time, that Ann Coulter doesn't really believe all the crap she spews. She doesn't really believe that all liberals are godless (though she might not care about that) traitors. It's a piece of performance art that she knows appeals to a certain demographic. I'm sure it's fun.
Malkin, however, really does believe all the crap she's saying (first, claiming that liberals wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it "bit them in the lip" and next claiming that a debate on SCHIP would be "a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time."). It seems that she really is that irrational, lacking in empathy, and downright mean. This is likely why she's left muttering to herself, screaming, "yeah, I never wanted to participate in these policy forums in DC anyway" and why Ezra, for all of his faux policy credentials, gets to be someone that (some) people actually listen to when it comes to health care issues.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 7:54:43 AM
That's what makes HSA/MSAs such a waste-- they only help people who pay a lot of taxes.
This is not so.
The savings of an HDHP insurance plan and HSA is that the monthly premiums are much lower than a similar PPO plan. Even after you factor in having to invest the high annual deductible into an HSA, many people can still come out ahead.
In my case, I saved around $1500 this year on an HDHP plan over a PPO plan for the same coverage, and have $3000 in my HSA to cover my deductible. My family income is under $100K a year, so we don't exactly pay ridiculous taxes, but the savings was still worth it.
That may not be the case for everyone, but it sure worked for my family.
Posted by: John S. | Oct 11, 2007 8:52:12 AM
Malkin's reply to Ezra's debate offer runs 2,163 words.
Shorter Malkin: No.
Posted by: Jim E. | Oct 11, 2007 9:14:26 AM
My family was in the same situation as the Frost's when my husband left his full-time job to start a cabinetry shop. We could choose the expensive 18 months of coverage through COBRA or a high deductible ($3000/year), catastrophic coverage plan that cost our family of three at the time $149/month. We chose the high deductible plan so that in the event of a catastrophic accident (like the Frost's accident), we would have continuous coverage when shopping for a more traditional plan as the business improved.
We were fortunate to have no such bad luck and when the business began making money and we needed to entice good employees to stay, we found a plan more suitable and easier to administrate. By the way, like the Frost's, I was the bookkeeper for the business for many years.
The point is this: the Frost's have many assets that my husband and I don't, even with our successful business. Our house is worth twice what we paid for it 16 years ago (good on us), yet we do not own a commercial property with additional equity. We made choices that were conservative financially - not buying an expensive home, not owning the building that houses my husband's business, so that we would have protection against unforeseen events, which fortunately we have not needed. The Frosts chose a different path and have paid dearly for that. However, that their choices are different from ours does not mean that my family should have to pay higher taxes to subsidize their choices. This is exactly the point that Michelle Malkin was making. It's not hypocritical to state that she was unhappy with her insurance choices, but chose to protect her family's future. That is what my family did as well. We chose peace of mind as a more important investment than a commercial building.
What Malkin is advocating is personal responsibility and choice. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
Posted by: Robin | Oct 11, 2007 9:28:51 AM
YOU NOT READY, KLEIN. FALL BACK!
Posted by: pimp hand strikes! | Oct 11, 2007 9:34:11 AM
What Malkin is advocating is personal responsibility and choice.
That's a good point. People should take personal responsibility to avoid having pre-existing conditions in order to ensure that they don't get turned down for insurance.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 9:36:11 AM
What Malkin is advocating is personal responsibility and choice.
This is such an empty slogan. Malkin chose to take advantage of one government program, the Frosts chose a different one, therefore Malkin is the archetype of personal responsibility?
It's like you're complimenting yourself for choosing the best option from a menu of bad choices, not noticing that some of us are trying to make better options available. I also think you should take a look at the Frosts' house before deriding them for "choosing an expensive home.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 9:42:10 AM
not buying an expensive home...
If you need any more evidence that Malkin's fanbase is ignorant, unread, and does not follow any of the issues at hand, this is a fine example. If they knew anything about the Frosts, they wouldn't have written anything like this. Instead, they're just engaging in ignorant spewing and mindless repetition of talking points shoved drown their throats by angry, vituperious propagandists like Malkin.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 9:48:05 AM
They come in waves, bearing quivers full of phony, untrue, long-discredited talking points.
It's like the Iranian "human wave attacks" in the Iran-Iraq war, except with handfuls of feces instead of pointed sticks.
Posted by: Captain Goto | Oct 11, 2007 9:56:34 AM
Empty Slogan? Are you kidding me? There is freedom in personal choice that is not available to those dependent on government programs. Notice the word "dependent" used here? When you are dependent on something, you limit your choices.
Yes, I am proud to have made good choices that have made it possible for me to protect my children from the public limelight that the Frosts thrust their children into. I'm glad that we took a very financially conservative route, despite the lesser potential payoff. I don't believe that what you are advocating is a better option, particularly if the government is going to be involved with administering it. See Katrina, Social Security, Medicare, Canada's and Great Britain's socialized medical system, for examples of why I might be opposed to government limiting my choices.
You missed my point. The Frost's family and my family have a similar story, yet we took different routes when we started. My husband's family is well to do and he too has a degree from an exalted west coast college and his family (as did mine) offered a lot of advice and some financial assistance, as I'm sure the Frost's family did as well when starting the business. It was the choices we made in how we spent our money. They choose to eliminate health insurance from their family budget and we chose to have it in some form. They paid a high price for the risk they took in not paying less money out in the beginning. We chose the less risky route of paying something ahead of time to eliminate the chance that a pre-existing might occur during that time we were on a catastrophic plan.
This is about personal responsibility and choice. You seem to believe that people shouldn't be responsible for the choices they make as long as YOU approve of those choices. I believe that we have the right to make the choice and live with the consequence - both good and bad. That is freedom.
Best to you.
Posted by: Robin | Oct 11, 2007 9:59:57 AM
Malkin's reply to Ezra's debate offer runs 2,163 words.
It's becoming easier and easier to sort the Jesse parts from the Michelle parts.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 10:12:33 AM
From Malkin's response:
"'Debate' Ezra Klein? What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded."
Yeah Ezra, your challenge to debate her on the merits of health insurance reform is nothing but an attempt to distract our attention away from the merits of health insurance reform so that you can foist your agenda of health insurance reform on an unwitting public with no discussion of the merits of health insurance reform.
Sneaky sneaky sneaky shit.
Posted by: RW | Oct 11, 2007 10:13:30 AM
Robin, when the consequences of a choice are physically debilitating injuries and economically debilitating bills, it turns out to be no choice at all.
The Frosts are a success story of a program. They were turned down for health insurance that they applied for, many times. As you points out, many health insurance plans are simply unaffordable to middle people a modest income. That's why there are so many tens of millions of uninsured people, and SCHIP closed the gap for them.
See ... Social Security
America's most popular program that guarantees dignity in retirement for the aged?
Medicare
The program that provides health care coverage for the demographic for which no provide insurer would give them coverage? And the consequences of the UK's and Canada's health system are high life expentencies and lower infant mortality rates. Your point is...? And Katrina? WTF was that all about? You're just repeating empty slogans.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 10:16:10 AM
However, that their choices are different from ours does not mean that my family should have to pay higher taxes to subsidize their choices.
Shorter Robin: Because I was too dumb to research what assistance may have been available to my family, other people should not be allowed to benefit from those programs.
It's like a grad student bitching about having to work two jobs while going to school because they were too dumb to look into getting financial aid.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 10:21:15 AM
You seem to believe that people shouldn't be responsible for the choices they make as long as YOU approve of those choices.
Could you clarify exactly what you mean when you say they "should be responsible for the choices they make"?
I mean, I know you think they should have made a different choice in the first place, but they didn't. So what should happen? Their kids were seriously injured in a car accident, surely you aren't saying the "consequence" is that they should be left to die, right?
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 10:21:44 AM
Robin - Like Malkin, you seem determined to make this a "my choices are better than yours" discussion that faults anyone who lacks the... I suppose "personal fortitude" you have to "take risks and accept responsibility." It seems almost pointless to observe that your case, despite some similarities, is not the Frost's. You point out that you have not, in fact, had anything like the catastrophic event that the Frosts had, yet you assert, as confidently as Malkin, that subsequent to that catastrophic event, it should be as easy for the Frosts to obtain a family policy as it was for ou and your husband. As with Malkin, I think you actually have to show this to be the cas, and no one, actually, has.
This suggestion that "personal responsibility" can substitute for policy solutions on serious issues is indeed empty. Personal Responsibility alone will not solve the challenges facing individuals, parents and kids who cannot find affordable health insurance. S-CHIP programs across the country have helped a lot of kids, and their parents, get health care. Not every example is Graeme Frost - indeed, in some ways, the Frosts as an example is part of the problem here, because their story is in many ways so unique. But even so, after being soundly debunked on charging that the Frosts are "too rich" for S-CHIP, conservatives have fallen back on the "they could have gotten other insurance" argument without backing up any such claim, and even more on "this is not a good use of my tax dollars" argument that's really useless. Our tax dollars, really, are by themselves quite small. I don't want my tax dollars being used to by weapons for the Defense Department. Oh well.
I'd be more persuaded by these suggestions that the problem with the Frosts is about personal choices if the complaints weren't infused so much with classist assessments of who they are and how they live - you talk of "exalted west coast college" in a way that drips with sarcasm and anti-elitism that's a hallmark of conservatism these days, a simultaneous dismissal of the value of elite schools and a tacit acknowledgment that some people are, really perceived as better than others. I don't really care where your husband went to school or where the Frosts went; I think both families should be able to find affordable health insurance, as should I, as should pretty much everyone. That isn't the case now, and S-CHIP is a program that makes affordable insurance more possible for more people. That seems like a good thing, and with insurance, it strikes me, parents can then take the "pesonal responsibility" to make sure their kids get proper health care. At the very least, if you have proof of a cheaper private policy for the Frosts, show it. Don't just fall back on easy assertions of "personal responsibility" and value judgements. Thats not cutting it.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 11, 2007 10:24:19 AM
And, P.S., we are discussing insurance for children . Assuming every single parent of every single uninsured child had put them there due to their bad choices, you would not be anywhere near a moral case for denying those children health insurance.
Posted by: RW | Oct 11, 2007 10:32:27 AM
"Asset tests are missing from too many state SCHIP plans. I resent my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies for someone who owns a $300,000 home and another $100,000 in commercial property."
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 3:09:07 AM
I'm no Economics expert, but I think you, Adam, are unfairly equating wealth with income. Does't it bother you that Mr. Frost is a small business person paying a mortgage on both of these properties? His family income is under $50k, that's the bottom line.
Are you insinuating because their family was in a devastating car accident, the Frosts should abandon their home and their business rather than rely upon Govt. Assistance in order to weather the financial storm?
When the Malkins rely on a govt. tax shelter in order to get the lowest insurance they could find, that's perfectly okay. But, for a family with grave pre-existing medical conditions to accept the helping hand offered by society in order to avoid bankruptcy, that's terrible?
You know what I resent? People like you who judge folks like the Frosts as lowlife, malingerer panhandlers simply because they refuse to move under a bridge in order to avoid govt. assistance, but at the same time uphold hateful harpies like Malkin as paragons of self-responsibility after she expends about 2500 words grasping for a logical reason to run away from a reasonable (sorry, "Reasonable") request to debate the real issues intelligently, without shallow rhetoric and rancor.
Posted by: jlo | Oct 11, 2007 10:34:19 AM
"Nice job of selective quoting."
You prefer random quoting instead? You must loove spam.
"We made choices that were conservative financially - not buying an expensive home"
$55,000 in 1991 was expensive?
"That's a good point. People should take personal responsibility to avoid having pre-existing conditions in order to ensure that they don't get turned down for insurance."
Just right. Especially if you've be so careless as to get a genetic predisposition to breast cancer or have Tay-Sachs or something like that. Hey - didn't Malkin get her break writing for Vdare?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Oct 11, 2007 10:42:42 AM
I read Robin's comment, "We chose peace of mind as a more important investment than a commercial building," and chuckled. I have a special needs kid -- a ten year old with autism -- and can tell you, if there's anything that plays havoc with your "peace of mind," it's having a kid who will probably never be able to fend for himself -- and that certainly seems to be a real possiblity with the Frost's daughter.
And when you're not worrying about what's going to happen to your kid when you're gone, there's the day-to-day scrambling, which includes but is not limited to, finding doctors and therapists who can help your kid -- and hoping they have openings in their schedules that fit yours (and if one therapist has to change your standing appointment time, then you have to change all the others, too) -- and then taking your kid to all those appointments, week in and week out, and doing all the "homework" they assign, year after year.
There's finding the right school situation, and going to IEP meetings, and consulting with the teachers about dozens of various things, also week in and week out, because every kid with a disability has different issues and as the parent you know more about them than anyone else. It's hughly time-consuming and you can't blow it off because your child's whole life and future depends on it all.
It's constant worry and second-guessing yourself and advocating with people who may or may not agree with you about what your kid needs and what they can/are willing to provide. And whatever your insurance covers, there are still many, many more other kinds of expenses that come out of pocket. It all adds up to a lot of stress and one proof of that is that families of special needs kids have very high divorce rates.
Given everything, especially the fact that they have not one but two kids with big, big needs, I'm amazed the Frosts had the energy and wherewithal to get involved with advocating for SCHIP. I mean, I really admire them.
Posted by: Ohio Mom | Oct 11, 2007 10:44:31 AM
I resent my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies for someone who owns a $300,000 home and another $100,000 in commercial property.
Tough shit. I resent my tax dollars paying subsidies to Con-Agra and ADM.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 10:49:06 AM
Michelle Malkin does not believe what she writes (Jesse might as he it has been proven he writes on numerous occasions for her). However she is paid well to spout her racist hate filled bile and is willing to be an acceptable mouth piece for GOP white males. She makes a good living from it, it won't help her much when she goes to hell for it however.
Posted by: RealityCheck | Oct 11, 2007 11:07:20 AM
So a family should have to give up their jobs and sell everything they own in order to get MEDICAID.
SCHIP is a program for middle class families to buy affordable insurance in order to not become destitute.It should be expanded to cover middle class families period. It is not a free program, it is affordable and for families burdened with illness a relieve to not have the financial burden also.
The Malkins of the world are welcome to call it socialism, who cares if it works.
Posted by: Renate | Oct 11, 2007 11:08:47 AM
Robin, you are the epitomy of what is wrong with regressives and regressivism. By your own account you said that your "Husband is from a well-to-do family", and has a "degree from an exalted west-coast college". And "his family (and yours) offered financial advice and help". Well to qoute Clarence thomas, "Whoop-te-damn do". See, as I said, the problem is, you regressives were born on third base and you think that you hit a damn homerun. I've come to the belief that you people actually believe that everyone's situation is just like your's, (Well-to-do college, family financial assistance.).Or, that if its not, it's that person or family's own damn fault always (Calvinist.). Do you really think that the Frost's wanted their children to be in an horrific car accident, or that they could prepare financially for every contingent that may ensue from doing what you hypocritical regressives think they should do by being good little Christians and having as many children as possible anyway? I thought having children, and owning a business, AND owning a home was everything they were suppossed to be doing to satisfy their membership in the good little "Merican's" club. Well, now we all see, that its not.
Posted by: onlinesavant | Oct 11, 2007 11:10:04 AM
This is about personal responsibility and choice.
This is about ressentiment.
I've come to the belief that you people actually believe that everyone's situation is just like your's, (Well-to-do college, family financial assistance.).Or, that if its not, it's that person or family's own damn fault always (Calvinist.).
It's not just Calvinist. It's antinomianism. That is, if you consider yourself elect, then everything you do is virtuous, and the ostensibly virtuous lives of those you consider damned are hollow and worthless.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 11, 2007 11:58:06 AM
" I thought having children, and owning a business, AND owning a home was everything they were suppossed to be doing to satisfy their membership in the good little "Merican's" club."
No, obviously not. To be a good American, you have to agree with Leader. If you do, you can molest bunnies while wearing a rubber diaper, high on oxycontin and you get a pass. If you don't, regardless of your other personal qualities, you are almost literally sewage.
Posted by: NickM | Oct 11, 2007 12:00:56 PM
Many of the commenters here are being unduly harsh. Michelle Malkin is a thoughtless, self-absorbed self-promoter. Would you want to be like that? Of course not. So have some sympathy.
Posted by: Drake | Oct 11, 2007 12:33:27 PM
After 15 years, very few people with mortgages own even half of their homes.
But what struck me as particularly vicious about "Robin"'s attack was her inability to recognize how lucky she and her family had been not to suffer any serious illness while they were on a lower-cost, high-deductible plan. They gambled that they wouldn't be out $10-20,000 a year and ever after ineligible for decent insurance, and they won. How foresightful.
Posted by: paul | Oct 11, 2007 1:46:22 PM
Hmm, this is a very good thread:
First, to "Mijnheer", I too came from British Columbia and you are misleading American readers if you claim that your employer-sponsored, extended health benefits in Canada "supplement" the government system in a meaningful way. Yes, if you rupture your Achilles tendon your extended insurance will pay for a plastic knee-high walking cast, but it is illegal for private insurance to compete against what the government "promises", e.g. it cannot pay to fix the Achilles tendon faster.
Also, as some commenters note, Michelle Malkin was not shopping for individual health insurance in a deregulated, competitive market. Maryland significantly over regulates private health insurance and she is forced to pay the cost. If she moved to Virginia she'd do a little better, but to really reduce the cost she'd have to move to Iowa or Utah!
The burden of government over regulation of health care is described, state by state, in the Pacific Research Institute's U.S. Index of Health Ownership.
Posted by: John R. Graham | Oct 11, 2007 2:49:18 PM
Wait a minute. Malkin is married? And reproducing? [shudder]
Posted by: ckelly | Oct 11, 2007 5:50:46 PM
Asset tests are missing from too many state SCHIP plans. I resent my tax dollars going to pay for subsidies for someone who owns a $300,000 home
Golly, Adam sure has his talking points all lined up in a ducky row. So you're fine with the middle class having to sell their homes to afford medical care? And that this is only a temporary kick-the-can down the road stop-gap solution till the money runs out for families with heavy medical expenses? So they sell the home then what? Where do they live? And let's talk specifics...what is the equity in the 300K home? Just where is this 300K home located?. Because if it's California or the East Coast - 300K buys you a shanty, a fixer-upper, a shack - and you can't find anything less expensive unless you live under a bridge. I'm sick to death of you ignorant bastards. Go ahead, run with this concept, build a platform, target middle-class America...I hope the Republican party is reduced to dust.
Posted by: ckelly | Oct 11, 2007 6:05:45 PM
Kelly wrote:
"Golly, Adam sure has his talking points all lined up in a ducky row. So you're fine with the middle class having to sell their homes to afford medical care?"
If they were irresponsible and decided to gamble and not buy health insurance before they needed it (which is the whole point of insurance), yes. That appears to be what the Frosts did. They made their bed, they need to sleep in it.
"And that this is only a temporary kick-the-can down the road stop-gap solution till the money runs out for families with heavy medical expenses? So they sell the home then what?"
Move into a smaller, cheaper home, and invest the difference into a cashflow generating investment, like an anuity. Or keep the house, have the kids share rooms, and rent the rest out the rest to outsiders. Or move into a cheap apartment and rent the place.
When you've got a $300,000 dollar home, you always have options. It's not hard to generate income from valuable real estate.
"And let's talk specifics...what is the equity in the 300K home?"
The leftist blogs report they bought it for something on the order of $50,000. Hence their equity has got to be pretty substantial. Unless they already tapped it to buy some nice goodies before, which wouldn't surprise me, though it gets them no sympathy.
"Just where is this 300K home located?."
Baltimore; not exactly a high rent area.
"I'm sick to death of you ignorant bastards."
I'm sick to death of irresponsible greedy bastards trying to pick my pocket in order to escape the consequences for their actions.
And BTW, it's not just people like me with six figure incomes whose pockets get picked. Middle class people who do the right thing and get insurance instead of blowing their money on Suburbans and the like also get screwed by people like the Frosts.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 7:25:53 PM
"I'm no Economics expert,"
Well, I am. I have a Ph.D. in finance and hold a tenure track position at a major research university.
"but I think you, Adam, are unfairly equating wealth with income."
As I say in one of my first lectures, wealth generates income if invested properly.
"Does't it bother you that Mr. Frost is a small business person paying a mortgage on both of these properties? His family income is under $50k, that's the bottom line."
If everything I read on the leftist blogs is true (i.e. he only paid $50,000 for the house), then no. Provided he did not irresponsibly borrow against the appreciated value of his house, he can easily generate more income from it. If he did borrow in such a manner, then I have no sympathy.
"Are you insinuating because their family was in a devastating car accident, the Frosts should abandon their home and their business rather than rely upon Govt. Assistance in order to weather the financial storm?"
Yes, because they were irresponsible and did not insure against this accident. I'm all for a saftey net for the poor, but such a saftey net needs to be a last resort. Clearly the Frosts have options other than picking my pocket.
"When the Malkins rely on a govt. tax shelter in order to get the lowest insurance they could find, that's perfectly okay."
Actually, the Malkins get less favorable tax treatment than people who get insurance from their employer. Hence on net, they are not getting a hand out. The MSA's were designed to try to reduce the tax disadvantage of buying insurance individually, but the tax disadvantage was not eliminated.
"But, for a family with grave pre-existing medical conditions to accept the helping hand offered by society in order to avoid bankruptcy, that's terrible?"
They should have bought insurance before they got that condition. That's the whole point of insurance, to insure against something that might happen. It's no longer insurance if you only pay for it once it does happen.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 7:37:17 PM
"Tough shit. I resent my tax dollars paying subsidies to Con-Agra and ADM."
Wow. We agree on something.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 7:40:07 PM
Malkin quoting Bob at InsureBlog 10/8/2007
“$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays. Adding a deductible of $750 (does not apply to doc visits) drops the premium to $452. That’s almost a third of the price quoted in the article. Doesn’t anyone bother to check the facts?”
Malkin 8/27/2004
We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland’s individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage–a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.
Do your own math/research into premium cost escalation to equate $452 in late 2007 to $700 in 2004. Does anybody else besides me find it incredibly offensive that 1/3,1/2,2/3 (you're doing the math remember?)of what is not good enough for her family is plenty good for someone else’s, regardless of their income or who is paying? Who had the misfortune of more that one in their family being diagnosed with a serious illness?
Posted by: mle | Oct 11, 2007 8:53:16 PM
It's funny how the comments from both the left and the right reflect how successful the wingnuts are in changing the debate. The Frost's are alredy enrolled in SCHIP. Their son didn't go on the radio to whine that his family wasn't covered. They were grateful that they got the help, and would like to see others have the same benefit. Yet the debate rages on about whether they should be eligible for the program, as if that's the issue. They already met the requirements for SCHIP, but the right obfuscates this point as a smokescreen to justify their vicious peronal attacks.
The right wing blogosphere is so desperate for another Rathergate that they respond to every liberal initiative with their "investigative" reporting (like Malkin driving by their house, which is certain to provide all of the information a reporter needs, or talking to someone who's not even a family member, then treating everything he says as gospel). What is particularly digusting is the rationale that the Dems are to blame for this firestorm, because they "thrust" the Frost's into the spotlight. So I guess what the right wingers are saying is "You should have known what horrible people we are."
One point I will concede. When the Frost's talk about not being able to afford health insurance, they made that decision before the accident. I don't doubt that it was financially onerous, and perhaps impossible. But it only muddies the waters to keep bringing up the pre-existing conditions. Those weren't in place when they originally decided not to insure their family.
But the bottom line still holds: they could have made the worst choices in the world, and it still means absolutely nothing in the debate about SCHIP.
Posted by: ChrisO | Oct 12, 2007 12:15:20 PM
It should be noted that Malkin only allows her children-hating friends to comment on her blog.
Posted by: piglet | Oct 12, 2007 3:05:52 PM
Adam sniffs: "Provided he did not irresponsibly borrow against the appreciated value of his house, he can easily generate more income from it. "
Actually they did borrow against the equity, so their house could accomodate their handicapped children.
How irresponsible.
Posted by: zuzu | Oct 12, 2007 4:17:36 PM
Adam
Should Graeme have bought health insurance? Why should she bear the consequences?
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2007 4:26:05 PM
Like a poster far (far!) up this thread, I live in British Columbia, Canada.
I think most Canadians would look at this debate and wonder WTF is wrong with these people? Could they design a more dysfunctional system? How could ideology blinker them so badly?
We have had universal health care for generations now, via government insurance. It's no big whoop. It's not perfect, but it's a far sight more palatable than navigating the minefield of private insurance -- whose interest isn't to see that people receive the health care they receive -- and the moral quandry of denying basic care to those who need it, or worse thought they had it but were denied coverage by their insurance company.
I think most Canadians recognize that and there's little mainstream debate about this general framework. There is some movement to more direct pay services -- if you want to jump the queue for arthroscopic knee surgery, fine, but you'll pay. But any government that would try to shift the fundamental framework of our system to one like yours would be nuked into the ground.
In most provinces there is a premium to pay (like BC) but it is pretty reasonable -- a few hundred a year. Often it is an employer paid benefit. Failure to pay does not result in lack of coverage, rather premiums will be collected as a debt. If you don't have means to pay, the government subsidizes those on a low income.
The basic coverage is pretty robust -- JasonR is talking out of his ..er.. hat when he attacks our system on ability to pay. Nonsense. EVERYONE IS INSURED FOR ESSENTIAL HEALTH CARE. The extended health coverage that the previous poster referred towould cover things like vision care, chiropractors, psychologists, physiotherapy, hospital room upgrades, speech pathologists and the like. You can also direct pay for such things if you want. We have complete freedom of choice in health care providers, and can shop for a doctor that we prefer.
In the aggregate we get better health outcome for less money than the "efficient" private system you folks have. The "socialism is evil" crowd are sacrificing clear benefits for the sake of ideological purity -- cutting off everyone's nose to spite their faces. It's just plain irrational -- look at the outcomes and cost effectiveness in other countries with "socialized" medicine. It's kicking your free market *sses.
Universal access to health care is a non-debate here, and I'm thoroughly puzzled that it would continue to be a debate in any country that purports to be developed.
Posted by: puzzled | Oct 12, 2007 5:40:38 PM
Adam seems to be the quintessential Republican. "I am a winner, and you're asking me to subsidise losers".
You know what makes a country great? Everyone pulling together for a common purpose and being there to help those that need it. Not consigning those who had shitty luck to the scrap heap.
So the Frosts took a punt and failed. According to Adam no help for them. Screw them. They are losers and how can winners strive to be winners unless there are losers to spur them on.
There's a sickness in America. And Adam is a symbol of that sickness.
Here's in Oz once you spend $1000 or more on health in a calender year 80% of your costs are covered by and large.
That would probably cause Adam's head to explode Scanner's style.
Let's hope his coverage can cover that.
Posted by: Mikey | Oct 13, 2007 8:55:16 AM
Wow. What a spiteful, whiney lot of critics the unfortunate Frosts have attracted.
No matter the problems and complaints I have towards our NHS, at least it spares us this sort of mean-spirited debate.
Posted by: Geoff103 | Oct 13, 2007 11:17:55 AM
And by the way. We see your TV hospital drams, 'ER', 'House', 'Grey's Anatomy' and the like. Why is it they NEVER mention insurance, billing or the like?
The latest 'Grey's featured some pretty neat -- and obviously expensive -- tongue reconstructive surgery for a cancer patient. The patient didn't appear to be super-wealthy, just your average middle-class person, But there was no discussion of Medicaid, insurance, Cobra, S-SCHIP or whatever. Whys is that? Just too embarrassing for a TV drama to show how a patient might be denied treatment for want of insurance or how they might be bankrupted by it?
Posted by: Geoff103 | Oct 13, 2007 12:25:10 PM
