« Would Al Gore Make A Great President? | Main | Cyrus »
October 11, 2007
The Weirdness of the Right
Being a pundit, it seemed logical to me to challenge Michelle Malkin to a policy debate on the subject we were arguing about. She said no. Being crazy, it seemed logical to one of her readers to challenge me to a -- I shit you not -- boxing match. This is so we can prove who's really "an internet tough guy."
Can't we just compare penis size or something?
October 11, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
OK. This conservative considers that pretty weird too.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 11, 2007 4:10:06 PM
I can recommend a good trainer, Ezra.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 11, 2007 4:14:43 PM
Who is that guy making fun of? You or himself? Genuinely strange.
Posted by: Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | Oct 11, 2007 4:18:06 PM
Michelle Malkin would win the whole measuring thing, I think.
Posted by: Geoffrey | Oct 11, 2007 4:18:32 PM
Big time LOL
Posted by: Tony | Oct 11, 2007 4:22:33 PM
Well, let's get your penis out there and see what we think.
Posted by: jnfr | Oct 11, 2007 4:26:03 PM
Wow, that dude is really weird looking. I think he is typical of the right wing zealots that worship at the altar that is Michelle Malkin (& Jesse thrown in for free). Talk about not blessed in the looks department, I really hope that is a parody.
Posted by: RealityCheck | Oct 11, 2007 4:27:03 PM
The winner of such a duel would clearly have God and justice on his side. Hilarious. You might remind Matthews in a bit about Zell Miller's outstanding offer of a duel. Share a laugh.
Posted by: Trevor | Oct 11, 2007 4:28:59 PM
That's pretty funny. I'm not sure I'm willing to bet on Ezra in his alternative proposal, mind you, for reasons related to ethnicity.
I understand the concept of chivalry, but there's something about Malkin that seems to inspire conservatives to offer to protect her physically in some really, really creepy ways. Consider this thread...
If I were close to DC, I would be more than happy to stand guard for Michelle. I think my 6′ 235 lb former college athlete frame would give freaks like this chump a reason to think twice before trying something stupid.
Be safe MM. I’ve got a couple of .45’s and a 9mm sig that airiate that sack O crap reaaaaaal nice if he tries anything violent.
The best bet is don’t let anyone get NEAR Michelle or anyone else, until the person is vented, and escorted. No one should be allowed to get to Michelle! Keep them away, and, keep barriers between Michelle and the public, and always keep an escape route for Michelle! Always have a first, second, and third way out should she be cornered.
Those protecting Michelle should be resolved to attack, and disable as quickly as possible, anyone who lays a single hand on her, but beware, the first action could be a diversion, so she should be huddled by those who protect her and moved to a safe location, a location which is guarded to maintain its safety.
I mean, I think Ezra is an awesome health care blogger and all, and he's kinda cute besides, but I don't know that I'd take a bullet for him.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 4:31:09 PM
Gotta laugh.
I was thinking who really wants to see some debate about health care in America, even in some shrubs? But you and Malkin having a video webcast mud wrestling match in speedos while slinging health measure mud. That'd get plenty of hits.
Posted by: Amos Anan | Oct 11, 2007 4:32:19 PM
I thought the thing about "Idiocracy" is that it suggests a timeline of centuries to get to the point that meaningful discourse would be reduced to monster truck battles and grunting.
But hey, whatev. LET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUMBLE!!!
Posted by: Mastodon Juan | Oct 11, 2007 4:32:30 PM
Metaphor for the "charity boxing match":
Charles Barkley challenges Allen Iverson to a game of one-on-one. Allen Iverson ignores it. Concert pianist and Iverson fan says, "if Barkley wants a competition so bad, why doesn't he take me on in a piano-recital-off?"
As far as I can tell, Ezra never said he was, say, strong, or good at boxing, or interested in having a physical altercation with anybody.
Posted by: SDM | Oct 11, 2007 4:32:40 PM
Didn't trial by combat disappear with the Enlightenment? In any dispute, though, I'd put my money on the vengeful, kick-ass God of the Old Testament against the "turn the other cheek" God of the New Testament.
Posted by: The_Question | Oct 11, 2007 4:32:49 PM
"If God wants S-CHIP, He'll save Graeme Frost from this vat of boiling oil we're about to throw him into."
Posted by: Mastodon Juan | Oct 11, 2007 4:35:00 PM
Yeah, well, I hereby challenge Conservative Robbie Cooper to an algebra competition!
(Better that than a pie-eating contest. He'd clearly kick my ass at that. Boy's a little, umm, beefy...))
Posted by: Stranger | Oct 11, 2007 4:37:40 PM
Maybe Robbie is making a brilliant argument by analogy.
Robbie's brawling skillz : Ezra's sissyfists :: Ezra's churning brainpower : Malkin's crippled intellect
Posted by: Mastodon Juan | Oct 11, 2007 4:41:36 PM
Since Michelle is calling in the obese righties to fight her battles, I'd think that decency and honor requires that you get to choose a surrogate as well (in the spirit on picking on some one of their own size).
I'd suggest the opening blow be a full-force against Robbie (isn't that a cute name for a fat pig?) be a kick in his nuts with steel-toed shoes the fearless Robbie - fearless when he's at least twice the weight as his call-out victim-to-be.
The second blow probably shoudl be with a knee to his chin or nose when he bends over in agony from the first blow. They want to play bully, give them something that the schoolyard bullies always remember: mashed nuts and bloody face/broken jaw are a great equalizer.
Notice how all the the slobbering righties refuse to acknowlege that any policy debate would ever be worthwhile to those citizens seeking enlightenment and want to see which side marshalls the evidence and which side just name-calls and makes threats?
These wingnuts are truly obsessed with violence. I'm beginning to think that a double-dose of whoopass is all they would understand, so their bravado must be countered before the brownshirt brigade starts smashing windows and burning books on a daily basis. I'd bet they say uncle real quickly.
Atios calls them assholes. I call them pathetic. Both are on-target.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 11, 2007 4:42:15 PM
Hahahahhaa. That's great. Michelle won't debate on the actual policy, so the only fair thing to do is have some fat biker fight Ezra. It's called logic people.
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 4:52:05 PM
Mr. Klein,
I would love to email you but it seems that there is no way to do that. So, I will attempt to comment here. I am one of those middle class families that you seem to want to protect however, there is one problem. I am a mother of 4. My husband works full time and I work part time and go to school. We have been lucky to be able to have insurance through my husband's company, however, one of my children is extremely ill and we must pay a considerable amount on out of pocket medical bills. We do not, nor ever would want to use government medical care unless that was the only choice we had. I am telling you this because I believe that the Frost family does have ways that they could have afforded the insurance that they needed prior to their children getting hurt. I have seen so many people take advantage of the system and this is why people like me and my family have to pay higher premiums, more taxes, etc. I am not going after the Frost's children, I am questioning the parents for their disregard in looking out for their care in the first place. I would have loved to send my children to a private school or own my own business, but my husband and I would rather pay for the security of our family first and maybe one day we can get the luxuries that the Frost's have seemed to attain. You may belittle me and tell me that you are smarter than me and your probably right, but to dismiss this as a story about going after someone's kids is dead wrong. It is about not depending on the government to help us instead of helping ourselves and prioritizing our families needs ahead of our own desires. Maybe you can print that on your blog somewhere. Sincerely, Jerri Jones
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 4:59:32 PM
A day they don't escalate is a day that reflection and shame might creep in. That would be intolerable, so they will always escalate.
We should be careful that we don't get into the same trap.
Posted by: Megan | Oct 11, 2007 5:00:10 PM
1. Use a trick ruler.
OR
2. Train with Randy Couture, he just quit the UFC so he should have free time.
AND
3. Profit.
Posted by: Glenn Fayard | Oct 11, 2007 5:03:43 PM
I would have made a raunchier comment, but I just directed my Poli Sci prof here.
Posted by: Glenn Fayard | Oct 11, 2007 5:04:19 PM
Didn't trial by combat disappear with the Enlightenment?
Ah, the Enlightenment. An error that generations of wingnuts have been trying to correct for hundreds of years. Witness Ms. Jerri Jones, who, while perhaps well-meaning, perhaps just a troll, seems entirely impervious to the actual facts of the Frost case. And why should she care? The facts don't really matter. What matters is that someone, somewhere, is getting money from the government, and that needs to stop.
Posted by: paperwight | Oct 11, 2007 5:11:10 PM
The boxing challenge is now defended by its author as comedy blog-whoring.
There's no particular reason to believe that the author is the person in the photograph - that's part of the "comedy" - or anything else he says about himself.
Posted by: putnam | Oct 11, 2007 5:13:36 PM
It is rather interesting Mr. Paperwight that you can belittle me without knowing me and tell me that I do not know the facts and impervious to them. How arrogant of you to make assumptions about someone who could be your neighbor, family, or friend. I know as much of the facts that you seem to know, I too follow the news stories and many different blogs. It is so much easier to insult me out of hand than to tell me what exactly you found about my argument to be impervious to the facts. I told you my personal facts, now you give me the courtesy to not insult and belittle me and carry on a rational, common sense, debate about how I might have perceived something wrongly about this issue. This SCHIP issue is important to me and is not just a battle between two party ideologies.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 5:18:56 PM
I dunno. The author describes himself as a pro-choice agnostic who loves Natalie Portman and thinks Pat Robertson is "utterly insipid." I sense room for comity.
Posted by: Trevor | Oct 11, 2007 5:20:11 PM
We do not, nor ever would want to use government medical care unless that was the only choice we had.
That's too bad, because there's this great program called SCHIP that is specifically designed to help people like you. You should really look into it.
I would have loved to send my children to a private school
I hear some private schools offer financial aid to people in your situation. After researching SCHIP, you may want to look into that too.
I'm not sure if you understand what exactly SCHIP is, but it's not government run health care. It's private insurance, paid for by a combination of individual premiums and state funds, which come from money granted to those states by the federal government. You don't have to go to a "government" doctor.
Jerri, this isn't welfare. It's a program specifically designed to help people like you and your family. It's designed so that you can afford to send your kids to better schools, or to open your own business. This isn't meant to belittle you. It's meant to tell you that's OK to enroll in government assistance programs. Lots of people do it all the time. Hell, I paid for law school with loans that were offered by the federal government. We're not talking about food stamps, here.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 5:21:52 PM
I appreciate your attempt to correct me in my ignorance however your statement following describes to me a state/federal funded program...i.e. the government.
"I'm not sure if you understand what exactly SCHIP is, but it's not government run health care. It's private insurance, paid for by a combination of individual premiums and state funds, which come from money granted to those states by the federal government."
I did not say that if I was in a position that I needed federal, state, or "government" help that I wouldn't accept it. What I am saying is that people must first be responsible for themselves and their family. I am the one who decided to have 4 children, and believe it is my responsibility to care for them if I have to have 3 jobs to do it. I am NOT putting down the people (especially single mothers) who need assistance. While I enjoyed your attempt to enlighten me, it did not change a thing about what my first comment was talking about...personal responsibility first.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 5:32:33 PM
Jerri, you should really read up on the case. It doesn't seem that you have the facts about it. For instance, you comment about how you would love to send your children to a private school -- an apparent reference to posts on various right-wing websites about the Frost's sending their kids to such a school. What the websites you frequent aren't telling you is that the children attend on scholarships.
Other than that, I politely wonder what you would expect the family to do? When you have two badly injured children -- one with brain damage, one with lasting injuries -- you would go work at Starbucks for health insurance? Who watches and cares for your sick kids, then? How do you pay your bills on that potentially lower salary? There aren't a lot of high-paying jobs for out-of-work woodworkers.
I really don't understand your argument. You say there are things the family could have done -- what are those, exactly? Please be specific. Because from my perspective, they did the responsible thing, indeed the only responsible thing.
Two hurt kids, and you want them to suffer more out of some misplaced pride their parents should have in not "depending on the government."
Posted by: tmv | Oct 11, 2007 5:36:25 PM
Jerri, I believe it is unseemly to dangle your supposed moral superiority over the heads of the Frost family. Furthermore, it is completely inappropriate to do so while distorting the facts of the program they benefitted from.
All I know is that if I were their neighbor, I'd want to make sure that they managed to get health care for their kids without going bankrupt or having to give up their small business.
Nor did I begrudge my classmates in college because they were able to take advantage of federal financial aid programs while my family paid full tuition. You know why? Because several years later, I had to take out a federally-subsidized loan to help me through my last semester of graduate school.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 5:39:35 PM
While I enjoyed your attempt to enlighten me, it did not change a thing about what my first comment was talking about...personal responsibility first.
I hope you're homeschooling your children, as public schools are government supported. I mean, "personal responsibility first" and all. You should only use those government supported schools if you "really need" them. You'd probably be surprised at all of the government services you take advantage of every day.
Though the more I read from you, the more I get the sense that what's really important is your own personal victimhood. The government wants to help. If you choose to ignore it, well, it's your bed. You can sleep in it.
You're entitled to your own choices, and I get the sense that you'd rather not be criticized for them. Probably why I find it incredibly hypocritical of you to criticize the choices the Frosts have made.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 5:42:37 PM
Given the choice between a private insurance plan, and a plan that's cheaper because it's offered through the government, I don't think it's particularly responsible to spend more money just to avoid the stigma of participating in a government program. That extra money could buy some nice things for your kids. I bet your kids would enjoy the extra time they'd get with Mom if she didn't have to work 3 jobs. It's nothing like being on welfare, it's simply buying your insurance through a different risk pool.
I think it's important to teach your kids lessons about personal responsibility, the same way I try to teach mine, but I don't insist on walking to work just because the government built the highway.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 5:43:56 PM
Jerri,
In what way is forgoing offered assistance for your children more responsible than taking advantage of that assistance in order to improve the financial and health situation of your household? When I lost my job I took the unemployment check until I got a new one. It wasn't irresponsible, or admitting some personal failing, to do so. It was just making sure that--among other things--I could afford health insurance and stay in my house. I'm asking in good faith. I don't want to put you down, I'm just curious about your stance on this.
Posted by: justin | Oct 11, 2007 5:46:24 PM
I don't think it's particularly responsible to spend more money just to avoid the stigma of participating in a government program.
Well, that may be true, but if someone has philosophical and moral reservations about doing so, I can't really blame them. There's a lot of value in piece of mind, and if it comes from being able to say, "I never accepted help from anyone, not even the government!", more power to you.
But it's the self-righteousness and sense of superiority that people feel the need to dangle over the heads of the Frost family -- a fine, responsible family if there ever was one -- that I find rather repulsive.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 5:46:32 PM
Dr. TMY,
Does anyone on this blog actually ever read what others post. I would have wanted the Frosts to have provided insurance for their children BEFORE this horrible accident. And all of you stop trying to make me out like I am some horrible person who thinks their children should suffer...READ my posts. Also, I understand private schools and how they run very well. I have 4 kids remember and have studied the private versus public school issue for many years. I for one thought that people should support their neighborhood public schools, but geez, that wouldn't be something that is right to some of you.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 5:48:34 PM
"I'd suggest the opening blow be a full-force against Robbie (isn't that a cute name for a fat pig?) be a kick in his nuts with steel-toed shoes the fearless Robbie - fearless when he's at least twice the weight as his call-out victim-to-be.
The second blow probably shoudl be with a knee to his chin or nose when he bends over in agony from the first blow. They want to play bully, give them something that the schoolyard bullies always remember: mashed nuts and bloody face/broken jaw are a great equalizer."
Ah, I see you know Scottish Fu. May I also suggest the haggis technique? It's pretty much the same as what you described, only replace "kick to the nuts" with "headbutt to the nose."
Posted by: Joe | Oct 11, 2007 5:55:05 PM
I find it so disheartening that we can have a debate about the issue, instead it has to be about how can be nastier to whom. Maybe all of you need to look at yourself about being "self-righteous" because I am not the one who is insulting, belittling and being sarcastic to strangers. I have never EVER said anything personal or negative or hold any sort of moral superiority over anyone in this blog or of the Frosts.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 5:58:03 PM
I mean "we can't"
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 5:58:29 PM
Mr Sietz,
Criticism is one thing, down right nastiness is something entirely different.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:02:38 PM
I find it so disheartening that we can have a debate about the issue, instead it has to be about how can be nastier to whom. Maybe all of you need to look at yourself about being "self-righteous" because I am not the one who is insulting, belittling and being sarcastic to strangers.
Says the person who showed up here specifically to criticize the Frost family, and the parents specifically for their "disregard in looking out for their [childrens'] care". You should really maybe go back and re-read your first post.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 6:02:54 PM
Mr Sietz,
Criticism is one thing, down right nastiness is something entirely different.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:03:18 PM
Lowtax had the balls to accept.
Posted by: Senescent | Oct 11, 2007 6:05:20 PM
Jerri,
I appreciate your desire that others exercise personal responsibility - believe me, I'm all in favor of that. However, the Frosts appear to have execised enormous personal responsibility - they are devoted to family, the father owns his own business, and they seem to have made all the right decisions. There is nothing that indicates that they have lived extravagently or wastefully. However, health insurance is incredibly expensive on the private market for a family of 6, even before the accident (there are of course uninsurable now). Without government assistance, I can't imagine them getting adequate coverage for less than $1,000 a month, which would eat up at least than $12,000 a year out of an annual income of $45,000 (which may have been even less at the time). With a mortgage to pay and 6 mouths to feed, that just may not have been possible. Thankfully, there is a program available to help quality American families like the Frosts - S-CHIP. As a well-paid attorney, I'm glad I have gold-plated coverage through my firm, but I realize that's not possible for everyone. I'm glad to have a portion of my tax dollars go to help families like the Frosts, who hold down the kind of working-class jobs (like woodworking) this country needs.
The Frosts have done NOTHING wrong - they are just the sort of people conservative ordinarily go out of their way to praise. Sometimes, though, personal responsibility just isn't enough.
Posted by: The_Question | Oct 11, 2007 6:05:59 PM
Wrong again, Mr.Seitz.
I came here to ask Mr. Klein his opinion and to have a discussion of the issue. So, none of you believe in personal responsibility first????
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:07:14 PM
I for one thought that people should support their neighborhood public schools, but geez, that wouldn't be something that is right to some of you.
Glad you're not being sarcastic, Jerri. (But as you can see, I am.)
Now you have me totally confused. I thought your whole beef with the Frosts was that they were unnecessarily (in your view) utilizing government-subsidized services, but you mean you actually think public school is OK, even preferable? Well, I think you can see why some people are struggling to take your concerns seriously.
Posted by: Glenn | Oct 11, 2007 6:07:42 PM
Jerri Jones, even if we accept the premise that the child's parents were irresponsible to not have adequate insurance before the accident, the point is they need schip now that they have been disabled. People make mistakes, we can't always plan ahead for every catastrophe, that shouldn't mean these children should go without proper care.
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 6:12:19 PM
Sigh.
Jerri, I wasn't being unpleasant to you. I don't know what kind of health insurance, if any, the Frosts had prior to the accident. But I also don't see how that pertains to their situation now. If they made a mistake, well, people do that -- that doesn't mean their kids should suffer or their lives should be ruined. I know I've gone without insurance during a six month stint of unemployment -- I was lucky not to get hurt. But sometimes you take the chance when you're low on funds. My feeling is that in a country as wealthy as ours, we should be able to get our priorities straight and make sure that losing your job doesn't mean you'll lose your life if you get sick.
Let me give you another example, then, since you're so set on the idea that the Frosts didn't have health insurance, right or wrong. My father has a high-school education. He worked all his life, very hard, for a tiny, few-person real estate company that went out of business when the idiot son took it over from the father. Now, surprisingly, few people have good-paying jobs for 50-something guys with high-school educations, so he makes a living and pays the mortgage on his small house in an inexpensive city by running his own property management business -- dealing with tenants, helping landlords, etc. He works so hard at that that he rarely even takes a weekend off.
He can't afford health insurance. What should he do, in your perspective? He didn't commit the crime of not having earlier insurance -- he lost it with his job. So tell me -- what would you have him do?
And as for your complaint about no one reading your post, how about you respond to my question about the alternatives you say the Frosts have?
Posted by: tmv | Oct 11, 2007 6:13:05 PM
Reminds me of an episode of THE OFFICE, british version, whcih I can't locate on youtube. When David Brent and his crony Chris Finch lose the trivia contest to the 2 young guys, Finch responds by challenging them - if he can throw the object of their choice over the roof of the building they win. He does and then he & brent act like complete a-holes to the "losers."
Posted by: brian | Oct 11, 2007 6:14:45 PM
Thank you The Question,
I appreciate you talking to me rationally. Trust me, I wasn't thinking that the Frost's are not good people. I understand the situation they must have been in, believe me. When I was a single mother of 3, I had to make those hard choices also. I wonder how my children will be able to handle those issues in the future, which is why I wanted to discuss it. I guess at the core of this is that I believe that sacrifices have to be made if you decide to have a big family.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:16:59 PM
I came here to ask Mr. Klein his opinion and to have a discussion of the issue.
I'm sorry, but I think this is not an accurate representation of your initial post. Dare I go so far as to call it a lie?
I ask again, re-read your post. You posited no question to Ezra. In fact, there are no questions anywhere in that post. It's a recitation of your family's sob story, combined with a mix of self-righteousness. The only "question" in the entire post consists of your questioning of the way the Frosts chose to raise their children, and their "disregard" for their well-being.
Good lord, you were pre-emptively accusing Ezra of belittling you and calling you stupid. Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised so many of us gave you the benefit of the doubt.
So, none of you believe in personal responsibility first????
Well, I know I do. And I thought it was tremendously responsible for the Frosts to find a way to both spend time with their children, provide a nice (though nowhere near extravagant) home, explore the educational options that were both realistic and made the most sense for their family, and found a way to provide health insurance for their children with a little help from the government. That's about as responsible as you can get.
I really wanted to believe you at first, but you now have me pretty well convinced that you're just trolling at this point.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 6:19:13 PM
Jerri, precisely what are you advocating? The Frosts legitimately qualified for the program. At their income level, they would qualify for the program even if their kids did not have pre-existing conditions (what remains unclear to me is whether the accident caused the pre-existing condition for both kids or whether one of them had some other pre-existing condition beforehand that would have precluded them from getting an individual policy before the accident, which your first post seems to be implying they should have done.) Yes, "personal responsibility" is a lovely mantra but it is not a cure-all. You feel that you have exercised good personal responsibility by buying into your husband's employer health insurance, an option that, as much as I grouse about health employer-insurance procedures, is far less work to acquire and afford than individual policies that you advocate the Frosts should have gotten.
In your first post you also seem to be implying that the Frosts are taking unfair advantage of the program. "I have seen so many people take advantage of the system... They *qualify* for the program. Legitimately. How is that unfairly taking advantage? Even Dubya himself is not in favor of eliminating this program. This whole debate fundamentally is about a program that already exists, has been shown to work, that has bi-partisan approval and Republican governors galore singing the praises of. So what is *your* policy proposal? Is your stance that the current Republican-approved policy is too generous?
One side note about your story: you indicate that your family's medical expenses even with insurance have been high despite your personal responsibility-taking actions, and your resentment of this program is that the people like the Frosts thru this program are taking tax dollars away from you. Your insurance is doing the *same thing* to the healthy people in your insurance program for you. That is, if your family's healthcare bills are that high, the insurance company is likely losing money on you currently, outlaying more cash than the premiums from you, while outlaying practically nothing for the healthy 25-year-old at hubby's work who is paying premiums. That's how insurance works; some pay more and get less, all in an effort to hedge bets against bad health luck.
Posted by: random | Oct 11, 2007 6:20:27 PM
TMY,
Thanks for your comments. Believe me, I understand about mistakes. And to all of you...no, no, no...I did not think that the Frost's shouldn't utilize the system now for their children. I was wanting to understand why they didn't have insurance in the first place. I understand the costs, I had to pay Cobra for awhile when I became unemployed while I was single and it was almost impossible, but I couldn't of even thought about not having insurance for the kids, it simply scared the heck out of me. What alternatives they may have had is not clear but I certainly would like to know if they did have them.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:28:06 PM
Does anyone actually KNOW that the Frosts enrolled in S-CHIP after, as opposed to before, the accident? Because I don't know of any sort of insurance, government -sponsored or otherwise, that will let you wait until after you're injured to sign up. (COBRA, I guess, but that's a special case.)
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 6:28:18 PM
I have seen so many people take advantage of the system and this is why people like me and my family have to pay higher premiums, more taxes, etc.
Congratulations on being on the receiving end of 'divide and conquer'. Since Charles Barkley has been invoked, I'll quote him in a better light:
America is divided by economics strictly. You know, people always talk about race, and we have racial problems in this country. Of course we do. But the real issue is the rich against the poor. We've got to get poor white people and poor black people and Mexicans to realize they are all in the same boat.
You are in the same boat as the Frosts, Jerri, so why are you responding to people who say 'make them walk the plank', when those people obviously don't have your best interests at heart?
The appropriate idiom is 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 11, 2007 6:33:10 PM
I don't know what I have to say to you Mr.Seitz, except that if you took my first post as some kind of radical anti Frost statement you are wrong. I came to have a discussion and to be sincere about it I added some of my background and where I was coming from. That was obviously not the right thing to do. It seems that no matter what I say you can't take my statements or comments for what they are and that is discussion of a topic that I wanted to understand. No more and no less.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:33:23 PM
What alternatives they may have had is not clear but I certainly would like to know if they did have them.
This is, I must say, a silly argument. When there's a disturbance on the street, do you call the cops or look through the yellow pages for a private security firm? After all, there are alternatives.
SCHIP has been in place since 1997. It is there to be used. It is not offered as some kind of dangerous moral temptation. Some people might like the Calvinist glow of declining it, but that and a dollar-fifty gets you a cup of coffee. No-one in Congress (or even the White House) is arguing against its continued existence.
I guess at the core of this is that I believe that sacrifices have to be made if you decide to have a big family.
Please name them. I'm not being snarky. Should they have sold their fixer-upper and moved into a trailer? Should the parents be working 60-hour weeks? What, precisely, is so wrong with the Frosts' lives, other than that they apparently aren't in sufficient penury to be considered worthy of your pity?
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 11, 2007 6:44:44 PM
Jerri, Please re-read your first post and maybe you will see how it comes across as anti-Frosts. You resent people like them raising *your* taxes and health insurance premiums, you resent them sending their kids to a private school (on scholarship) you resent them for owning their own business (not anymore - his shop closed up in 1999) and you resent them for their "luxuries." (what luxuries?) Yes, you used that term. Re-read your post. It's not a radical anti Frost statement, but rather it's a perfectly banal anti-Frost statement. That is taking your comments for what they are.
Posted by: random | Oct 11, 2007 6:47:58 PM
Jerri Jones, I don't know, I just think it's irrelevant to question why they didn't have insurance in the first place. They were never wealthy, so apparently they couldn't afford it. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to be fully prepared to deal with any catastrophe that comes along. They weren't prepared for that one, and they needed help, and they got that help. That's what a good society does for the less advantaged among us.
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 6:50:12 PM
I'd take him up on that Ezra. Or better yet, tell him you'll gladly box him just as soon as Malkin debates you. Or even better, better yet, tell him you'll debate Malkin early afternoon and then box him about 7ish or so-- do both in the same day.
Super tough guy Robbie no more wants to step into a ring than Malkin wants to step up to a podium. That guy wouldn't last two minutes in a ring. He's about as out of shape as Limbaugh. I don't care what that guy says about his past, or how many fights he's been in or how many people he's punched in the face, the last thing Robbie wants is to be in a ring where he has to burn calories.
I'm sure by writing this he'll challenge me next. But oh well. I don't have a blog and I sure as heck don't take to extreme a political debate.
Posted by: Barr | Oct 11, 2007 6:56:41 PM
Pseudonymous in nc,
I don't know even how to qualify you last statement. I could give you a long list of sacrifices that can or must be made if you are a lower middle income family with children. And I am not being snarky either. Sometimes working for someone else is more beneficial to caring for your family than attempting to start and run a small business. I'm not against anyone who wants to have their own business, I just find in difficult to understand that when you have 4 fairly young children at home that you don't make sure that some medical coverage is provided. I am not aware if this program is available to families before anything bad happens, if that was the case and they provided for them that way then I get it. What is not clear is if they did infact make insurance provisions for their children before this accident. It seems we do not have an answer to that question. Unless someone here can say?
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 6:56:41 PM
For those of you attacking Jerri, please stop. You are really making yourselves look bad.
Instead, look at what she is saying and take it seriously. It is important to understand why some honest and decent people come to be against programs like S-CHIP. Like most, I believe her conclusions are wrong, but I trust she speaks to what she honestly believes.
Jerri,
I have a pet theory that all honest, decent people have basically the same base values, but we prioritize them differently. I believe strongly in personal responsibility, but I also believe strongly in helping other people and community. Ultimately, helping other people is more important then personal responsibility. I take it you have the priorities reversed.
But why? I'm guessing it all boils down to "I have seen so many people take advantage of the system." Ultimately, fear of being taken advantage of outweighs the need to help.
If we were discussing some forms of welfare I might agree, more than many on this list, but we are talking health care. How exactly do you think health care gets abused? Surely the rewards of healthy children outweighs the risk of abuse?
Lastly, I think responsibility goes beyond 'personal'. I think all of us has responsibility for ourselves, our family, our friends, our community, our country, our species and our planet. I can't draw the line between 'us' and 'them' anywhere on that list and claim our responsibility ends at one of the commas.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 11, 2007 7:03:39 PM
I think Michelles problem with debating you is you haven't shown all your cards. Just how many children do you plan to bring to the debate? How many sob stories, that turn out to be fake, is she going to have to sit through? Will she be allowed to bring children who's parents make far less then yours but still manage to pay for health insurance.
Wll you be bringing crippled children? Just what is the liberal strategy this time?
I guess the bottom line is, are your stunt children going to have any real substantive knowledge of the S-CHIP program , or will this be just another photo op?
Posted by: Patton | Oct 11, 2007 7:04:23 PM
Sometimes working for someone else is more beneficial to caring for your family than attempting to start and run a small business.
I understand what you're saying here, Jerri. But you know, if the difference between someone being able to realize their dream of starting their own business and having to work for someone else is a government programs that helps people get insurance for their kids, then I see that insurance program as a good thing. Small businesses and entrepreneurship are what America is all about, and you only get one life and one chance to do what you love. I think it's a perfect example of how government can provide a little helping hand so that people can enjoy the fruits of success.
I wonder how many people are making millions of dollars today through good old-fashioned capitalism who never would have gotten off the ground without some sort of government program, be it a government-subsidized loan program or whatever. No one should expect government to do everything for them, but sometimes that little extra bit of help means a lot.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 7:04:32 PM
"Can't we just compare penis size or something?"
Since when did liberals start having penises?
Posted by: Chris40 | Oct 11, 2007 7:05:33 PM
Random,
You are correct, at first I was comparing them to myself and my family, and I don't believe that their is anything wrong with that. And secondly, after re-reading my comment it does come off different than I intended it to. That was my attempt to make it short and get to the point which I am obviously not very good at. I have already told you why I wanted to understand, in my ineffectual way. Why can't American citizen's demand that people take personal responsibility for themselves? Helping people in dire need is one thing and I for one couldn't not turn away from someone who does need help, but helping people who wanted to have a big family (as I myself chose to do) and wondering if those people took responsiblity prior to catastrophe is two different things. And NO, I do not think it is irrelevant mad6798j, it wasn't irrelevant for me and my family and I don't want it to be irrelevant to the rest of society.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:07:45 PM
Putting it that way is interesting and I must say I can agree with some of that Steve.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:12:03 PM
And beyond the Frosts children healthcare, I would like another answer from Ezra.
What else of the Frosts family do you believe should be paid for through a government program that DOES NOT ASSET TEST like in Maryland.
Should other tax payers pay for:
The parents healthcare? If not why not?
The childrens food? If not, why not?
The childrens private school? If not why not?
The childrens clothes? If not why not?
What if Mr Frost decided not to go to work, should we pay for his Mortgage? His business building? make his car payments? If not, please give me a good reason why you want to hurt the Frost children so...
Posted by: Patton | Oct 11, 2007 7:13:10 PM
Sometimes working for someone else is more beneficial to caring for your family than attempting to start and run a small business.
And sometimes it's not.
except that if you took my first post as some kind of radical anti Frost statement you are wrong.
Radical? No. But it's definitely anti-Frost. You've openly criticized the way those chose to raise their family. What else would you call that?
Why can't American citizen's demand that people take personal responsibility for themselves?
You have yet to show how the Frosts, or anyone else for that matter, have failed to take responsibility for themselves.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 11, 2007 7:14:45 PM
Don't have a penis size contest with coulter. I hear it's huge.
Posted by: Robert | Oct 11, 2007 7:15:38 PM
Mark,
And I thought I was the only idealistic person on this blog. Sometimes my idealism gets me into trouble. I believe alot of the same things that you do, I just think that if I take care of my family as best that I can then I won't have to be one of the people needing as much help,,,but one of those providing it.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:18:00 PM
But here is the good part; just because you are the one receiving help now doesn't mean you can't be one of the ones giving help later.
It can't all be about idealism. We have to be practical about how we go about implementing any change we make. We can't actually snap our fingers and make Utopia. But we can take steps. Our grandparents went to great lengths to make the world a better place for us. It is our duty to do the same for our grandchildren. As long as each generation does its part we get the wonders of compound interest!
"Affordable health care for all" may sound like boring politics (and it is), but ultimately it is all about our morals and ideals, with a pinch of practicality in the implementation.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 11, 2007 7:25:46 PM
Steve: ""Small businesses and entrepreneurship are what America is all about, and you only get one life and one chance to do what you love. I think it's a perfect example of how government can provide a little helping hand so that people can enjoy the fruits of success."""
Yeah, I remember something about that in the Constitution, that certainly the government should decide who gets the money, at gun point if necessary. Afterall, Mr Frost has a dream....but I guess he just forgot he also has responsibility for 4 kids. Perhaps they just showed up one day unexpected like.
Liberals never seem to see how many dreams get crushed by the tax money they confiscate to make others dreams come true.
And can't Mr Frost sell his building, pocket the equity and rent space for his DREAM?? Does everyones dream require them to purchase a building?
Posted by: Patton | Oct 11, 2007 7:27:11 PM
Seitz,
Did they have insurance for their family or not? And if not, why not? It is not a personal attack, it is a question.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:30:35 PM
Jerri, it's irrelevant at this point in time. Maybe the parents made mistakes in the past, but now, today, those kids need that program, that's my point.
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 7:31:06 PM
Mr. Patton,
Are you hear to have a genuine conversation? Because frankly it doesn't appear that you do. No wonder everyone here is so quick to be defensive, it is because of people like you.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:34:43 PM
My final point. If the left believes this is such a great idea, why haven't they set up a PRIVATE charity to do this say in the last 100 years?
Their are tens of millions of liberals, many billionaires, millionaires and many who think this is better then sliced bread, why does it have to be a federal government program, why couldn't you start a foundation and raise this money?
Or do you fear people won't support it unless they are forced to??
Posted by: Patton | Oct 11, 2007 7:36:51 PM
"The parents healthcare? If not why not?"
Yes. But I believe in universal health care.
"The childrens food? If not, why not?"
If they are below a certain income. This is already a government program. The maximum income is much lower, though, as food is a more predictable (and cheaper) expense than healthcare.
"The childrens private school? If not why not?"
We already have publicly subsidized schools, so in a sense the government is already doing this. The government will pay for private schooling for special needs kids when the local public schools cannot accomodate them.
"The childrens clothes? If not why not?"
See the food answer.
Posted by: The_Question | Oct 11, 2007 7:37:03 PM
mad6798j,
It is relevant now because it has been put out there for debate by the Frost family itself. I am supposed to blindly agree with a program where people make public statements and then not understand how or why they needed this program?
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:37:03 PM
"Since when did liberals start having penises?"
Liberals are all about free love - sex is a good thing to us. The old joke about scandals was that if it was money, it was Republicans, if it was sex, it was Democrats. I guess you can add "closeted sexual behavior" to the Republican side these days.
Posted by: The_Question | Oct 11, 2007 7:39:23 PM
Well I already said, I don't think they could afford it.
But anyway, what if they could. What if they made a gamble on trying to gain more wealth by forgoing insurance. If that were true, would you say their children should not get the care they need now through schip?
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 7:39:47 PM
Yeah, I remember something about that in the Constitution, that certainly the government should decide who gets the money, at gun point if necessary.
I remember that in the Constitution, too. Specifically, the Sixteenth Amendment. Glad you've been reading your copy.
Liberals never seem to see how many dreams get crushed by the tax money they confiscate to make others dreams come true.
You don't seem overly concerned by all the tax money being spent to rebuild Iraq, which is magnitudes beyond the dollars devoted to the likes of S-CHIP. Strange. Do I have a legitimate gripe about the government "taking my money at gunpoint" for that?
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 7:41:53 PM
Hi all... if you'll forgive a newbie butting in: "Jerri Jones" is almost certainly a concern troll. Note the sexually ambiguous screen name, the bland, generic details about "her" family and the general obliviousness. It's unlikely that anything "she" says is true.
Posted by: Medium Dave | Oct 11, 2007 7:42:55 PM
Note the sexually ambiguous screen name...
You see "Jerri" as sexually ambiguous? What a super-sensitive troll detector you must have.
Also, you need to look up the definition of "concern troll." You seem to think it means "someone who disagrees in a pleasant manner."
Posted by: Steve | Oct 11, 2007 7:45:11 PM
mad6798j,
That is a good question. If they made a gamble that is scary stuff. But it is important to the discussion of this program. Will that program leave it open for many others to gamble at the expense of others in society. Which is what I am trying to say about how I feel about personal responsibility of your family (especially if you decide to have a big one). I hope that the Frost children are always well taken care of by whatever means.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:48:09 PM
Jerri,
Regarding why it is irrelevant if they had other non-S-CHIP insurance for their family, purely hypothetically:
- If they had an individual policy for the family, odds are pretty high that by now that the insurance company would have weaselled its way out of renewing their coverage by either increasing premiums to an unaffordable level or cutting benefits; it is after all an individual policy, likely up for renewal with altered terms on an annual basis.
- If they had a policy through the dad's now-defunct business: well the business is gone, so would the health insurance.
- If they had S-Chip before the accident: they'd be where they are now.
- If they had nothing before the accident: they'd be where they are now.
In each of these scenarios, they would be in the same situation where they are now. That's why it is irrelevant.
Posted by: random | Oct 11, 2007 7:48:54 PM
But if you hope they are well taken care of, they need schip to accomplish that.
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 7:51:03 PM
Okay, Now I am laughing. Geez, I am idiot enough to put my real name and Medium Dave thinks I am being ambiguous.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:53:32 PM
Hmm random,
I understand where you are coming from on the private insurance end and luckily I have not been put into that position yet with my own situation. I don't think I will change my mind on the relevancy issue but I have to say though, that having a discussion with everyone here has definitely be relevant to me.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:59:16 PM
""Since when did liberals start having penises?""
[looks down] - Oh my god! Where did that come from?!
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 11, 2007 8:02:31 PM
My final point. If the left believes this is such a great idea, why haven't they set up a PRIVATE charity to do this say in the last 100 years?
I'm just waiting for the inevitable examples of such charities. You actually don't think there's a single private charity devoted to children's health care?
Or do you fear people won't support it unless they are forced to??
Yes! Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I do fear that the cause of poor children's health and wellness would be underserved if it were left entirely up to the altruism of the upper classes, and that's simply an unacceptable risk. So unacceptable that it's quite justifiable to "force" taxpayers to shoulder the burden.
As for all of your other points, I think it's cute how you think you're making a reductio ad absurdum argument when you're actually describing the way things ought to be.
Posted by: Mike B. | Oct 11, 2007 8:03:32 PM
Didn't trial by combat disappear with the Enlightenment?
Actually no. It just fell into disuse in the middle ages but was never officially abolished. This because clear in 1819 in Ashford v. Thornton when the defendant tried to start a trial by battle.
Posted by: Jacob | Oct 11, 2007 8:09:32 PM
While I enjoyed your attempt to enlighten me, it did not change a thing about what my first comment was talking about...personal responsibility first.
Personal responsibility...so, are you personally responsible for getting clean water to your faucet? For the paved roads you drive on? For the traffic signals working? For making sure letters you mail get to the recipient? For educating your children? For making sure the medicine they need isn't tainted?
Because if you were personally responsible, according to your logic, you'd be doing all these things. I think we can be personally responsible for some things, but there are other things the government does well. Health care is one of them. My brother, an air force doctor, and hence a government doctor, is damn fine at his job. Why not make his services available to civilians? How would that make me less "personally responsible."
Sheesh.
Posted by: Karl Steel | Oct 11, 2007 8:15:27 PM
Karl,
I wish I had the energy left to discuss you post, I am about out. I was talking about a specific issue. But come to think of it, citizens pay for their clean water, traffic signals, and Mail last I heard. And to say that the goverment does SO many things well seems to be a rather naive thing to think. Better to watch our government and how they do the things they do and question how and what they legislate. In some things, I sometimes tend to be a sheep, in others not so much.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 8:26:04 PM
Will that program leave it open for many others to gamble at the expense of others in society. Which is what I am trying to say about how I feel about personal responsibility of your family
That is true and is ultimately why private health insurance doesn't work very well. If everyone is required to buy into the system (preferably through normal taxes) then it stays fair. All insurance ultimately boils down to those who don't need it (at the moment at least) paying for those that do. Insurance companies only want to insure those that don't needed it (as much as they can get away with) and people are mostly motivated at the time they need it the most.
Supply and demand breaks down as well. How much is the life of your child worth? Of course, there is no answer to that question.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 11, 2007 8:26:05 PM
Dude, it's called a joke.
Posted by: Adam | Oct 11, 2007 8:45:32 PM
Why can't American citizen's demand that people take personal responsibility for themselves?
SCHIP was designed specifically to help responsible families get help with one of the most important, irreplaceable things that a family needs-- health insurance.
How is this family not responsible? They had a business that provided them with a moderate income. They bought a house that was within their means and maintained it, improving the overall neighborhood.
This is as responsible a family as you're ever going to meet. They did everything that the self-righteous prophets of personal responsibility demanded of them. And they get nothing but grief. Why? Because they advocated for a policy that was opposed to what George Bush wanted.
Millions of people don't have health insurance, and I'm in favor of anything that helps people get it.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 8:52:34 PM
Dude, it's called a joke.
No it wasn't. Jokes are funny. Like funny, ha ha.
Though I suppose it could be taken as a self-parody of right wingers. The problem is that parodying right-wing bloggers is difficult, because it is almost impossible to keep up.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 8:53:42 PM
Jerri:
SCHIP is not a catastrophic program. Its implementation varies from state to state, but it's not just 'post car accident healthcare'.
I am supposed to blindly agree with a program where people make public statements and then not understand how or why they needed this program?
The state of Maryland determined that. Take it up with the state of Maryland and the people who voted for SCHIP back in 1997.
You appear to be upset because they don't appear to have suffered enough. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. You appear to think that state assistance should only kick in when people are in desperate need, tugging their forelocks to their masters. You appear to think that 'your money' is being stolen. It's not. Look up 'ressentiment' and see how well it fits.
Oh, and 'Patton' is here? Damn. Still cracking jokes about Wade Edwards, Charlie, you pathetic piece of shit?
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 11, 2007 9:00:15 PM
Didn't trial by combat disappear with the Enlightenment?
No, but I bet Aaron Burr wishes it had.
Posted by: Jay Andrew Allen | Oct 11, 2007 9:19:51 PM
Another thing I've noticed-- we've gone from a story about Graeme Frost having been covered under SCHIP at the time of his accident to somehow having morphed to a bunch of public scolds complaining that "the Frost's didn't have health insurance for their children during the accident." Obviously, that isn't true-- the parents made sure their kids were covered through SCHIP, which was especially important since the parents couldn't get coverage for themselves. The children were insured under SCHIP at the time of the accident. Sounds like some responsible parenting there.
But I guess that goes out the window when you publicly disagree with Bush on a policy issue. Not only do they stalk you, but they make stuff up about you, as well and feed those falsehoods to gullible followers.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 9:24:02 PM
I don't understand why there's any confusion over what insurance the Frosts had before the accident. Did anyone read the Frost kid's speech? THEY HAD CHIP.
"We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program."
That's the whole point of putting the kid on the stage. He is a CHIP success story.
Also, the private school bullshit just KILLS me, because the Frost's are doing EXACTLY what the Religious Right is sobbing for in SCHOOL VOUCHERS, only their doing if WITHOUT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY.
Posted by: WTF | Oct 11, 2007 9:40:35 PM
Well Jerri's point is that she doesn't think the government should have been providing insurance to the Frosts before the accident.
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 9:49:42 PM
pseudonymous in nc,
Your attack on my motivations concerning this issue is really beyond the pale. I do not want to see anyone suffer. I have explained indepth why I feel the way I do and frankly has nothing to do with any policy by Bush or anyone else. Your saying they were insured at the time of the accident? That is what I have been trying to find out. Call me a public scold if you want atleast I am trying to find out all the facts and attempting to ask others their opinions, that is more than I can say for many.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 9:55:37 PM
Your saying they were insured at the time of the accident? That is what I have been trying to find out.
You sound a lot like you just took it for granted that they didn't:
I would have wanted the Frosts to have provided insurance for their children BEFORE this horrible accident.
They DID. They got them insurance through SCHIP.
I have to say that I admire Mark for having more patience with you than lots of other people have, but your self-righteousness is really, really grating and your haste to paint the Frosts as irresponsible parents just isn't acceptable. Do you look down on anyone who gets need-based financial aid from universities or gets aid from first-time home-buyer programs?
atleast I am trying to find out all the facts and attempting to ask others their opinions
Where did you ask any of us our opinions? You offered yours, based on erroneous information, and we explained to you that you didn't have your facts straight.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 10:06:15 PM
Your saying they were insured at the time of the accident? That is what I have been trying to find out.
I am saying that if they were earning the same amount at the time of the accident, they qualified for CHIP. (Even President Bush would sign a bill that would have them still qualifying for CHIP.)
Their children were insured. CHIP was their insurance policy.
Just as they qualify to receive protection from the police and fire service. Just as they would qualify to receive provincial care if they moved to Canada. Just as seniors qualify for Medicare.
You're the one attacking their motivations, Jerri. The program passed a Republican-majority House. It was there for them. They took it. Are you saying that they should have tried harder to earn the extra $10,000 or so that would have put them above the SCHIP threshold, and then have to pay $15,000 in premiums? Would that make them more worthy? Or just more dumb?
I just want to gauge what you think they have done wrong here. The cliché line is: "What do you want from them? Blood?" In this case, it's nigh-on literal.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 11, 2007 10:12:52 PM
Jerri--
I'm still a bit unclear on why you feel it is somehow immoral for the Frosts to have participated in a government program to subsidize their healthcare costs. If you can do it without state assistance, that's fantastic-- but the Frosts demonstrate that it is quite possible to have demonstrated no great personal negligence and still be unable to afford the rising costs of healthcare. These are not people demonstrating personal irresponsibility or representing a moral hazard.
I believe that a group of good, hard-working Americans should not need to sell their (reasonably modest) home to afford insurance for their children, and that a program that prevents that from happening is a good thing. Why do you seem to disagree?
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Oct 11, 2007 10:23:23 PM
Maybe I'm a little crazy, or maybe it's the influence of Markos, but I will seriously fistfight any of these guys, anytime, anywhere. Any crazy conservative commenters live near columbus?
Posted by: Matt | Oct 11, 2007 10:25:35 PM
Jerri,
Other than touting your moral superiority to the Frosts I'm really struggling to see exactly what your point is.
They have 2 children with brain damage who can only be insured by SCHip. As far as I can tell you would agree that they should now be eligible, even if they went without insurance before the accident the children shouldn't be punished for their parents mistake. Correct?
What do you want? That they wear sack cloth and ashes and beg for forgivness for being too poor and/or stupid to get insurance before their car wreck?
I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and find your larger point beyond government assitance is bad and people should take responsibility for themselves, but I really can't find it.
The setinment is fine as far as it goes, but what makes most fo us liberals is the recognition that many things are beyond peoples control, some people get cancer some people get in a car accident and their children end up with brain damage. As a society we should have a shared responsibility for these things that are random events and the government is the best method for doing it. The market is best for some things, but others shoudln't be based on a for profit model. Very few people argue that the Police and Fire Department should be private for profit activities, we see Health care as the same type of thing.
Posted by: eric k | Oct 11, 2007 10:30:08 PM
I would love to email you but it seems that there is no way to do that.
I'm not sure how seriously I should take the arguments of someone who can't even find the "Contact" button.
Got comments (sure you do), criticisms (I know you do), or compliments (I hope you do)? E-mail me.
The bottom line here is that those of us who think SCHIP is a good thing tend to be against people going bankrupt or being forced to liquefy all their assets due to medical bills, or even to pay insurance premiums. No respectable financial advisor would recommend doing so, either. We want people to own houses, start businesses, find the best available schools for their kids, and so on; from the tone of recent debates, it seems pretty clear that the right wants more of a company-store model in which there's much less hope of stability and advancement because access to the essentials is restricted.
No surprise, but I think I owe Conceptual Guerilla a virtual apology for my initial skepticism about his Cheap-Labor Conservatism thesis.
Posted by: latts | Oct 11, 2007 10:53:31 PM
Other than touting your moral superiority to the Frosts I'm really struggling to see exactly what your point is.
Well, eric, I'd say there's a very simple, very good reason why you would struggle to find other reasons.
There aren't any.
Jerri has pretty much agreed with everything that everyone has written, except that she still concludes that the Frosts were wrong. The most reasonable explanation is one that looks back to her comments about how hard she and her husband work. Bonnie Frost only works part-time, while Jerri works part-time and goes to school. Mr. Jones stays at his company for the insurance while Halsey Frost lives out the dream of owning his own company.
The Jones' are simply more moral than the Frosts, and Jerri came here to state that. If we'd only showered her with praise for how hard she and her husband work to never, ever accept government assistance for anything then this thread would be quite a bit shorter.
You know Jerri, if your family does qualify for assistance in any way, you should go ahead and take it. Maybe you wouldn't have to work part-time, or your husband could switch to a better job. Certainly your kids could do with less bitterness and whinging. Or at least we could.
PS - In case I hurt your feelings, please understand that I don't care. You're just here to troll around and complain about how hard your life is compared to those awful Frosts. If you don't have 2 severely injured children, one of whom will never live a normal life, then shut the hell up.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 11, 2007 10:59:02 PM
Where are you people getting this idea that I think I am morally superior. I have long ago in earlier posts told you that I am nearly in the same position in some ways as the Frosts. And Anthony Damiani, I have not ever advocated they sell anything (although, I appreciate your being civil). And Tyro, I don't know how many times I said that I wanted discourse from everyone here and for you to say otherwise is very dishonest. I do claim to have all the knowledge and information all of you seem to have...and have stated I want people to give me more information about this program. I was sincere and have not NOT once called anyone a name or been nasty and do not understand how or why you cannot have a discussion without you insulting me. No wonder America is so split, when anyone attempts to understand both sides they are massacred for it.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 11:07:32 PM
aimai has one rather good (no surprise) response to the personal responsibility argument in a nearby thread - scroll down to Oct 11, 2007 12:06:54 PM.
Jerri, I think your presence here is a good thing:there are two rather different ways of thinking about family and society involved (whether we talk about Lakoff's "Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent" frames, or Doug Muder's "Inherited Obligation" vs. "Negotiated Commitment" family models) which makes figuring out how to communicate across that gap pretty important, given the seriousness of the issues. But I want to return to something you wrote in your first comment:
" I would have loved to send my children to a private school or own my own business, but my husband and I would rather pay for the security of our family first and maybe one day we can get the luxuries that the Frost's have seemed to attain."
Now, the idea that the Frosts were positively affluent played a major role in the response from the right. While some confusion on this point might be understandable, one should also note (and in fact, folks have) that there was very little of a critical or considering attitude here. It's not just that there appeared to be an immediate rush to prove that the Frosts were downright wealthy (look, their kids go to expensive private schools!), but also that there was an apparent disinclination to consider alternate explanations ('We're told the family's income is about $45,000, but they go to expensive private schools - they must be lying!' rather than 'hey, there might be something fishy here! - but we should look at other possibilities too: maybe they have a Gilmore Girls situation, or are being helped by private charity/scholarships, etc.").
Granted, some of it is plain old partisan bias - we're certainly not immune, either - but it goes deeper than this. Jerri, why might the folks forming this narrative have emphasized this aspect so much? And why did it strike such a responsive chord in their audience?
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 11, 2007 11:11:53 PM
Stephen,
For you to pop in after hours of discussion and to make a awful statement like that is incredible. I have done nothing to you for you to make the assumptions that you are making. In fact, As I have stated, I too have a very ill kid, Oh, I guess you didn't read that post. PLEASE, find where I said that anyone was wrong? I was attempting to understand the issue and the program. PLEASE people...can you not have a civil discussion?
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 11:12:30 PM
Where are you people getting this idea that I think I am morally superior.
Statements like "I believe that the Frost family does have ways that they could have afforded the insurance that they needed prior to their children getting hurt." tend to be a dead giveaway.
Bringing up the woulda shoulda coulda at this point isn't the slightest bit constructive and is really quite snotty.
Is that direct enough for you?
Posted by: Dr. Squid | Oct 11, 2007 11:17:32 PM
Jerri,
PLEASE, find where I said that anyone was wrong?
From your first post:
I am telling you this because I believe that the Frost family does have ways that they could have afforded the insurance that they needed prior to their children getting hurt. I have seen so many people take advantage of the system and this is why people like me and my family have to pay higher premiums, more taxes, etc.
Posted by: k | Oct 11, 2007 11:18:28 PM
Dr. Squid,
Stating that millions of people who are in the same position as the Frosts but still find ways to get insured before a catastrophic event is saying something morally superior why? and for you to call me snotty is really morally reprehensible of you but I am sure that you do care less otherwise you would be discussing the issue instead of calling me names.
And k, misrepresenting my comments is not very productive to the discussion.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 11:27:28 PM
Jerri, they have been civil for hours. I've tracked this thread from top to bottom, and frankly my dear, it looks to me like you don't give a damn. Or, can't.
I've seen this in an array of other "family traumas." Columbine comes to mind. There are always folks who simply MUST believe (and, I use the word 'belief' deliberately) that it has to be the parents' fault. Somehow, some way, it just has to be something for which the parent can be held justifiably responsible. I call it the "cult" of personal responsibility. Because, if the parents didn't somehow fail at being responsible, then that would mean there is randomness in the world. Things that cannot be prevented. It would mean this cult like adherence to the mantra personal responsibility would fail to protect, insure, and deliver the cultists from harm.
There is no convincing you because this isn't an intellectual exercise for you. It's an emotional one. Words will fail. Logic will fail. Analytics will fail. Because it is your belief system that's driving this discussion. And, you will not give up your beliefs without risk.
Your responders have done a yeoman-woman's job of explaining. You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to integrate what they're saying. It's understandable. You absolutely have to believe that all your efforts at personal responsibility will hold you free from harm. Or, that you can control the harm you face.
In short. Jerri, you got an issue.
Posted by: mk | Oct 11, 2007 11:30:36 PM
can you not have a civil discussion?
Answer Dan S.'s comments first-- why were you so quick to adhere to the right-wing's narrative about the Frosts?
Also, your version of "civility":
I am questioning the parents for their disregard in looking out for their care in the first place.
Will that program leave it open for many others to gamble at the expense of others in society.
That's not very civil, is it? If it were my family, would you say that to my face? (getting your children insured through SCHIP is gambling "at the expense of society"? whoah!)
You remind me of many of the people in the community I grew up in. They all came to America with nothing and worked hard to have a better life, and they stuck together. However, within only 2 or 3 generations in America the stopped acting like they were all part of the same team, and they quickly became judgmental and engaged in catty, competitive behaviors with each other and with regard to their children. When people and their children had problems, the first question asked was no longer, "what can we do to help?" but rather, "can you BELIEVE what is going on with that family?"
I think they all thought they were good people. They were all well educated and had nice homes, but anyone who didn't fit the mold of a perfect, problemless family was held in suspicion or gossiped about. And I'm sure all these people were convinced that they were only "trying to understand the issues and problems" just like you're convinced of it. And I'm not sure they or you are going to ever realize how they were acting.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 11, 2007 11:33:24 PM
Jerri,
There are many people who pay much less for health insurance and have better coverage than you or I do because, for example, they work for a big corporation that provides this coverage. One could argue they are taking advantage of the system and that we have to pay higher premiums as a result. I suspect you are unwilling to make that argument but you are more than willing to castigate the Frosts for being on a government program. I, for the life of me, cannot see the difference between the two situations. The system is unfair, but it isn't the fault of people who are simply trying to live their lives as best they can.
Posted by: k | Oct 11, 2007 11:33:42 PM
Jerri,
Your lack of separating yourself from your comments is your moral failing, not mine. Because you refuse to do so, you refuse to have any kind of good faith discussion, which is why you are getting the comments you are getting.
I stand my my words - your comments were snotty. If you take that as "You are snotty", that's your own problem, and your personal failings are of no concern to me.
Good-bye. Been a waste of time trying to say anything to you.
Posted by: Dr. Squid | Oct 11, 2007 11:37:53 PM
C'mon, Jerri. You have to know what you're doing here.
You came into this thread condemning the Frosts for making bad decisions and explicitly compared them to you and your husband and the sacrifices you make for your kids. It's in your first comment, go back and read it yourself if you can't remember. You made a moral judgement about people you don't know, based upon what little information there is about them.
I've read every comment you've made here, and what I've seen is that you'll agree with everyone about pretty much anything except the idea that the Frosts have accepted assistance. I understand that some people can't stand the idea of them or anyone else accepting government assistance. And with the Frosts it seems to have really upset you that they also receive help from a private school.
Over and over again you bring the discussion back to you and the sacrifices you have made and are making. You would never accept government help unless it was a last resort - and without any proof at all you decided that the Frosts weren't in that position, so they were wrong.
This entire thread has been about you and how put upon you feel. I am sorry you have an ill child. No child should ever be sick. Should I ask if you did all the right things while pregnant with this child? Should I ask if you could have done anything to prevent this illness? Are there doctors you should be seeing, perhaps really far away and not covered by insurance, who are experts on the illness your child has, yet you haven't seen them?
That's what you've done with the Frosts. They were in a car accident. It wasn't their fault. But you've made comment after comment "asking" if there was anything they could have done differently before and after the accident to better care for their children. People have responded that obviously the Frosts got the help they needed and have been confused as to why you won't accept the answers. The reason is that you think it's morally wrong to accept government help, so that option, in your opinion, is closed off to the Frosts if they want to have your approval.
If you think that people who accept help from government programs and scholarships from private schools are immoral and bad parents, be honest about it. Don't hide behind loaded questions and a bunch of whinging about the way you're treated.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 11, 2007 11:38:47 PM
Jerri,
How did I misrepresent your comments? All I did was quote you directly and accurately.
You asked,
PLEASE, find where I said that anyone was wrong?
I quoted from your first post:
I am telling you this because I believe that the Frost family does have ways that they could have afforded the insurance that they needed prior to their children getting hurt. I have seen so many people take advantage of the system and this is why people like me and my family have to pay higher premiums, more taxes, etc.
Please explain how this is a misrepresentation of your comments.
Posted by: k | Oct 11, 2007 11:41:14 PM
Jerri,
How did I misrepresent your comments? All I did was quote you directly and accurately.
You asked,
PLEASE, find where I said that anyone was wrong?
I quoted from your first post:
I am telling you this because I believe that the Frost family does have ways that they could have afforded the insurance that they needed prior to their children getting hurt. I have seen so many people take advantage of the system and this is why people like me and my family have to pay higher premiums, more taxes, etc.
Please explain how this is a misrepresentation of your comments.
Posted by: k | Oct 11, 2007 11:46:40 PM
Sorry for the double post.
Posted by: k | Oct 11, 2007 11:49:41 PM
Seriously, Jerri: Tell us what, in your opinion, the Frosts did wrong. What should they have done differently? They qualified for their state CHIP program; they took it.
Were they not meant to take it? Was it some kind of test of moral fortitude, like a fifty dollar bill glued to the sidewalk with a candid camera rolling? Does the SCHIP policy come in the form of an tasty fruit proffered by a serpent?
Until you express your complaints in an objective way, we're pretty much forced to assume that it's all about you feeling somehow 'ripped off', and that's a very thin argument.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 11, 2007 11:52:58 PM
What should they have done differently?
They should have foreseen the patch of black ice and gotten health insurance beforehand with the money they weren't earning yet, you silly goose.
There is of course no guarantee that they would not have been dropped post-accident even if they had bought insurance through someone other than the state of Maryland.
Posted by: Dr. Squid | Oct 11, 2007 11:59:17 PM
Can't we just compare penis size or something?
Probably not. Gun toting assholes tend to lose that challenge. Malkin's probably got him beat.
Posted by: TR | Oct 12, 2007 12:01:54 AM
(Anyway, what Digby said.)
Charity robs the recipient of the dignity and personal liberty to which all people have a claim, rich, poor or in the middle. Using government to act as the safety net instead of the good will (or good mood) of those of means allows that. Citizen pays in, and someday, god forbid, if he needs some help, he won't have to kiss the ass of some rich busybody or self-righteous hypocrite who thinks he or she has a right to dictate his behavior on the basis of a couple of bucks.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 12, 2007 12:02:16 AM
I love the irony that the Malkinites think that they were perfectly alright to stalk the Frost family, but when Ezra offers to debate Michelle, they think they need to break out the pistols to protect her.
Wooooolverrrrriinnneeeesss!
Posted by: Frank | Oct 12, 2007 12:02:37 AM
"Very few people argue that the Police and Fire Department should be private for profit activities"
It's true, few people understand the problems caused by socialized firefighting. Certainly the truly desperate should receive government assistance in paying for fire fighting, but beyond that it merely undermines the ethic of personal responsibility, and don't you believe in personal responsibility? If someone decides to own a home, I believe there are certain sacrifices that one should have to make - like working two jobs and relying on readily available cardboard boxes rather than furniture, to say nothing of utilizing cheap space heaters, and not splurging on fresh batteries for smoke detectors - so that one can afford firefighting services without relying on the government. When I think about how some people take advantage of the system -and my tax dollars! - to instead put aside money for their kid's college fund, or just eat out every now and then, my marrow turns to ice and my bowels to water; also, I get a funny feeling in my chest, as if something was shriveling.
And of course, I haven't even addressed the moral hazard issue! This just leads to people to consume unnecessary firefighting interventions, causes costs to spiral upwards, and encourages bad habits like smoking in bed, not performing proper fire extinguisher upkeep, and leaving the house.
[soundtrack: "We Didn't Start the Fire", by Billy Joel]
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 12, 2007 12:03:45 AM
I don’t know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices — a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side — only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 12, 2007 12:11:12 AM
Oh please Tyro, atleast acknowledge that what I said about gambling was in response to someone else's post to me.
Here is how it read:
"Well I already said, I don't think they could afford it."
"But anyway, what if they could. What if they made a gamble on trying to gain more wealth by forgoing insurance. If that were true, would you say their children should not get the care they need now through schip?"
Posted by: mad6798j | Oct 11, 2007 7:39:47 PM
And this was my response as you well know to a specific question:
"That is a good question. If they made a gamble that is scary stuff. But it is important to the discussion of this program. Will that program leave it open for many others to gamble at the expense of others in society. Which is what I am trying to say about how I feel about personal responsibility of your family (especially if you decide to have a big one). I hope that the Frost children are always well taken care of by whatever means."
Seems your enjoy making sinister what was said in sincerety to understand.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 11, 2007 7:48:09 PM
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 12, 2007 12:14:13 AM
Who will give me 3:1 on Klein?
Step up you Malkinites - your heroine
is a lean, mean, fascist machine
while Klein sits around all day smoking dope.
I am also looking for action on the
penis thing. Will lay 1:2 on Klein
flacid or even money for erect.
Posted by: I want odds | Oct 12, 2007 12:17:15 AM
Stephen,
You comments are exactly why real people with real opinions and real curiousity do not want to discuss issues on blogs. Your accusations would be laughable if they weren't so wrong. I am defending myself because you have mischaracterized everything that I have said. AS I have stated, I do not have a problem with anyone who needs public assistance, never said anything like that and never will!!! As I have stated, my first post obviously came out in an way that was totally unintentional and I explained why. Why mischaracterize my points instead of discussing SCHIP so that both of us go get a better understanding. Also, why has my comments about personal responsibility become such a nasty thing?
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 12, 2007 12:23:55 AM
Wll you be bringing crippled children? Just what is the liberal strategy this time?
We were going to bring the nine-year-old boy Bush used to promote Social Security privatization and all the "snowflake babies" he trotted out for the stem cell research veto announcement, but it seems they were booked for a Rudy Guiliani 9/11 Exploitathon.
Such a shame.
Posted by: Otto Man | Oct 12, 2007 12:25:52 AM
"Will that program leave it open for many others to gamble at the expense of others in society."
Of course, one of the gambles that's been stressed was Mr. Frost's past and present attempt to make a go of running his own business, the kind of thing that might well provide jobs for others in society . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 12, 2007 12:31:12 AM
Dear Dan S,
I found your post and the links very interesting and if I had the time or inclination I would discuss how steretyped those groups and the names given to them were. I understand frames and memes quite well and have done research on all of those topics in the last five years. What is really surprising to me is how you and others on this blog seem to know what affliations that I have. So basically, since I am not agreeing with some of you, I am of another party affliation. If that is not stereotyping and framing me then exactly what is it?
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 12, 2007 12:35:43 AM
Anyway, I think we need to act more like the WWII vets upon returning to the States went to college and bought houses without taking advantage of any (non-desperate) assistance from the government. Talk about the Greatest Generation! Why, I bet that if you had even suggested such a thing, well,
. . . oh.
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 12, 2007 12:36:16 AM
"I found your post and the links very interesting"
Cool - I rather like the Muder piece (anybody who was interested,Unequal Childhoods by Lareau (?) is also very neat)
"if I had the time or inclination I would discuss how steretyped those groups and the names given to them were.
You really think so?
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 12, 2007 12:44:22 AM
Jerri--
I'm now unclear on your basic point. You say you have nothing against those accepting public assistance, and don't feel they ought to have sold their house to finance their childrens' insurance. So-- what, behavior of their, precisely, are you objecting to? Bear in mind, that they were insured at the time of the accident (not gambling by going without insurance) -- but only because the CHIP program made it possible. Perhaps you could clarify your position?
As to comments on personal responsibility being characterized as a nasty thing-- Many liberals tend to see "personal responsibility" as a buzzword used by the right to conjure ideals of cowboy independence as a mask for destructive public policy. Further, it implicitly calls the Frosts irresponsible, because they needed public assistance to afford healthcare for their children.
Yours in good faith,
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Oct 12, 2007 12:48:10 AM
Anthony,
I definitely was not using that as any kind of point. I was just talking about how I was looking at the issue from my own albeit confused way of thinking. That was just the point, I thought that they didn't have insurance before the accident. Which is why I was asking the questions. That is when the gambling analogy came up, by another poster and I was still unclear on it. I as said as much many posts ago that if they did have insurance then I get it.
I appreciate your kindness, Anthony.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 12, 2007 12:58:16 AM
Sorry that didn't come out right. I wasn't trying to make some polictical point when I was discussing personal responsibility. Is what I meant to say.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 12, 2007 1:03:16 AM
It seems to me that Jerri came into this thread with a strong opinion, but also with a willingness to listen to what people had to say, and somehow a few folks think that she simply must be arguing in bad faith because they didn't manage to change her mind with a single comment. That's not how the world goes, folks.
Posted by: Steve | Oct 12, 2007 1:08:19 AM
Jerri--
Thank you for your patience and your willingness to conduct an honest, constructive dialog under sometimes skeptical and hostile conditions. It's good to know that's still possible, every now and again.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Oct 12, 2007 1:16:39 AM
Dan S.,
I just went back up in the posts and read your comments on "socialized firefighting." It had me laughing so loud that my husband wanted to know who I was chatting with. Your killing me here.
And thanks for your comment Steve, not only did I listen by I also learned alot about how my comments when I write come out in a manner that I do not intend.
Posted by: Jerri Jones | Oct 12, 2007 1:24:14 AM