Posted on 10/09/2007 5:21:39 AM PDT by radar101
ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: With debate raging in Washington over children's health insurance, congressional Democrats found a new way to make their case for an expansion last weekend: Rather than have a senator or a congressman respond to President Bush's weekly radio address, they decided to have a child who was helped by the program speak directly to the public.
But the 12-year-old boy whom Democrats chose as their poster child is now at the center of a firestorm in Washington and beyond. Conservative bloggers who uncovered some details of the family's finances are blasting the family, calling the fact that they rely on federal insurance an example of how the State Children's Health Insurance Program has expanded beyond its original intent.
According to Senate Democratic aides, some bloggers have made repeated phone calls to the home of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, demanding information about his family's private life. On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused GOP leadership aides of "pushing falsehood" in an effort to distract from the political battle over S-CHIP.
"This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, D-Nev. "Instead of debating the merits of providing health care to children, some in GOP leadership and their right-wing friends would rather attack a 12-year-old boy and his sister who were in a horrific car accident."
Manley cited an e-mail sent to reporters by a Senate Republican leadership aide, summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Manley's charge that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about Frosts.
In making the case for a proposed expansion of the S-CHIP program, Democrats found a boy who seemed like an ideal poster child in Graeme Frost, a Baltimore native whose family does not have private health insurance.
When Graeme and his sister were seriously injured in a 2004 car crash, their parents relied on S-CHIP coverage to help them recover. After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office became aware of the Frosts through a healthcare interest group, FamiliesUSA, Democratic leaders turned to Graeme to deliver the party's weekly radio address Sept. 29.
"If it weren't for CHIP, I might not be here today," Frost said in the address, which was written by Senate Democratic aides. "We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don't have CHIP, and they wouldn't get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt."
But after a largely positive story about Frost appeared in the Baltimore Sun, conservative-leaning bloggers began focusing on details of Frost's family situation. They suggested the family makes the conservative argument -- that the children's health insurance program has strayed from its original purpose by subsidizing healthcare for middle-class families, not just poor children.
A blogger on FreeRepublic.com discovered that Frost and his sister, Gemma, attend a private school where tuition costs $20,000 a year. Their father, Halsey, is a self-employed woodworker, meaning that if his family doesn’t have health insurance, it’s because Halsey Frost -- as his own boss -- chooses not to purchase it for himself.
"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business . . . maybe money can be found for other things," a blogger with the handle "icwhatudo" wrote on FreeRepublic.
That posting was widely circulated in the blogosphere, making great fodder for conservatives who argue that President Bush was right to veto the Democrats’ bill expanding S-CHIP.
"People make choices and it's clear the Frosts have made choice to invest in property and a business, but not in private health insurance," Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner, wrote on his blog.
But Manley say conservative bloggers didn't dig deep enough. It turns out that the Frost children attend Baltimore’s Park School on near-full scholarships; they pay roughly $500 per child per year in tuition, he said.
Like many small-business owners, Halsey Frost can't even afford to provide health insurance to himself, Manley said.
"Last year, the Frost's made $45,000 combined," Manley said. "Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined depending on Halsey's ability to find work."
The Frost family did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Thanks for clearing that up. When I first read this story it wasn’t clear that they were involved in a single-vehicle accident.
Instead, he has a vanity business as a hobby. Plain as day he has good assets.
He could be a non-union, low-skilled residential carpenter and make what he makes and have his base health insurance covered according to Davis-Bacon federal surveys.
This fellow might be a fine person in other regards, but as a provider for his family, he is not rising to what he is probably qualified to do with his proported skill-set.
LLS
The only way the numbers work is if they’ve owned the home for a while, in which case they have loads of equity to tap into to pay for health insurance. They could also sell the house and afford insurance by living modestly. Any way you slice and dice this story, the taxpayers are getting bilked big time to pay this middle class family’s bills.
Which leads me to ponder, if this family was the worst case the Dems could come up with, I think the whole “poor, pathetic 40 million uninsured” meme the Dems are always trying to foist on us is crock.
Except for health insurance because, like Dad said, why waste money on something that'll probably never happen and if it does we can get someone else to pay for it.
The main reason why I'm working at a corporation, rather than freelancing, is for the health insurance. As a parent, you do what you have to do.
Once my kids are grown, more options will open for me. This guy couldn't get a job with health insurance? You're right. Why bother when someone else will pick up the tab.
Well, it’s not quite half-price, but the HMO is significantly cheaper than the PPO - more than 25%.
However, the PPO has its advantages.
On September 21, our son was diagnosed with a brain tumor. His surgery was September 26. We were able to have doctors for our son who are among the very best in the world.
If we’d have had the HMO policy, we’d have:
- needed a written referral for the MRI that discovered the tumor;
- needed written referrals to the neurosurgery team, the pediatric team, to Johns Hopkins University Hospital;
- once the neurosurgeons decided that surgery was indicated, we’d have needed a written referral for that.
If we had Optimum Choice’s HMO (a part of United Healthcare that’s big in Maryland), we likely wouldn’t have been able to get the MRI done at Hopkins, we may not have even been permitted to go to Hopkins at all, as their network of diagnostic centers, doctors and providers isn’t as robust as that of our insurance company. But we'd have saved another hundred bucks or so per month on premiums.
With an HMO, we certainly wouldn’t have gone from MRI to surgery in five days.
As well, my previous experience with HMOs suggests that the insurance company would have used the bureaucratic requirements to essentially deny benefits, by making it so difficult to meet bureaucratic requirements in the middle of the medical crisis. I’ve had that happen before, leaving me with large, unanticipated medical bills, because I opted for the medical treatment without getting through all the bureaucratic entanglement.
No, I’m very happy that I paid the extra premiums for the PPO (essentially fee for service with few penalties for choosing any provider I wish, anywhere in the United States). I’m very happy to have paid roughly $7,000 deductibles and co-pays out of my own pocket for world-beating medical care for my son at the best hospital in the United States, with world-leading pediatric neurologists and neurosurgeons, for whom my son’s tumor was a routine, boring case.
And my son's in case, in a number of ways, illustrates some of the inherent contradictions regarding the issue of medical care and costs in the United States.
sitetest
Yeah, meanwhile, taking the little extra money that I have so that I am unable to save any “for a rainy day.”
It all boils down to selfishness and greed...not wanting to save, but wanting others to pay your bills so that you can save more.
I have seen a photo of the vehicle post-accident. It slammed into the tree broadside and the driver side middle door area was driven way into the interior of the car. I would love to know what speed would be necessary for such an impact to result.
It was a a new model silver Ford Explorer.
“These are people who have the ability to take care of their own, regardless. They did not do that.”
Actually, they did that very well, apparently.
They just did it using other people’s money.
Barring evidence of fraud on their part (and I don’t see much evidence of that), they seem to have done it legally and above-board.
The question isn’t whether these parents were taking care of their children. They were.
The question is whether the law should be written to make it possible for them to take care of their children at taxpayers’ expense, especially of folks who likely would have managed to find a way to afford health insurance if this program hadn't been available.
sitetest
Reporters like to say that "bloggers don't do the hard work that reporters do." Actually, Freepers are doing the work that leftists reporters don't want to do.
Bingo...but the dems are still hiding behind the child.
One scam at a time, please ;-)
Well of course it is.
In that number, if it is even close to being accurate, are:
1. The wealthy who choose not to have insurance because they can pay for their own health expenses,
2. Single people who choose not to shell out for insurance very month (as I used to do when I was a twenty-something),
3. And people like this couple, who simply choose not to pay for insurance even though they should and are able to do so.
How many does that leave who are actually physically or mentally unable to care for themselves and or/their children?
Yes, we should take care of the disabled. These parents do not qualify.
So Graeme wasn’t given a scholarship because of problems he now may have due to his injuries. Just want to clearly establish that point.
Let’s see, I can’t qualify for disability.....my wife grosses $24,000....we can’t get S-CHIP for my son(14)...but we DO have medical and dental insurance because we CHOSE to afford it !!!
I’m tired of these cry babies on the left....and, unfortunately,some on the right.
the best line Ive heard so far...from Mark Steyn...
“And, if the Democrats don’t like me saying that, next time put up someone in long pants to make your case.”
They most certainly did not take care of their own. They simply enrolled their kids in a government funded program that allowed other people to pay their bills.
If you think that is taking care of your own, you and I have very different opinions of what it means to be conservative.
Paid in full by the Parents of these socialists... probably.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.