Posted on 10/09/2007 5:21:39 AM PDT by radar101
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.That's just a huge coincidence.
Which part don't you get sitetest?
You've got that right!
And it is not "selfish" of me to want to be able to use the money that I work for and earn to care for my own family and expect other people to do the same for the families that they chose to have.
It is not "selfish" of me to not want to be forced to pay for other people's lifestyle choices. You make the choice to have kids, you also choose to pay for them until they reach the age of self-sufficiency. Sacrifice is a big part of having and raising kids. If you're not willing to make the sacrifices, and sometimes difficult choices, then don't bring the kids into the world.
To the Frosts and others like them: stop trying to extort other people for what you should be paying for, and stop offering up your children as tools for congressional socialists.
On the bright side, nobody heard them. What are they up to now? 3....4 viewers?
A couple of comments on this.
I’ve read through every single one of the 344+ posts on this thread and see that no one mentioned the fund-raising website the Frosts also had for their children’s medical expenses.
The revenue from that wasn’t mentioned. The website was shown on the earlier thread from a day or so ago.
This story that leads the thread claims that the little boy recorded a *radio* rebuttal for the DNC.
As a TV-watcher sitting at home, not knowing about this in advance, I saw what appeared to me to be a regular public service announcement (PSA) with this child on-screen, saying much more than what is written in the story.
In fact, he ended the spot with either “we need to get rid of this President” or “we need a different President.”
It went on to run at least a half-dozen or more times over about a 2-day period in our local market. (It’s TX, not the family’s home area.) I was shocked each time I saw it and never paid attention to the “fact” that it was sponsored by the DNC and was a paid political ad - it seemed to be about the medical fund itself.
I thought it was reprehensible that it was even on TV, but at least now I “get” where it came from. It’s still reprehensible to have an injured child say that!
(Also pretty stupid under the circumstances of this being Bush’s last term!)
Let’s face it. The Dems inadvertently chose the perfect “poster family” for their propaganda. A typical middle class family that is more than willing to “play” the system to their advantage, just as many lower class families have played the system.... and just as many MORE families will be willing to do under this program. I mean, who wouldn’t use “free” health care if it were available?
The Dems have just illustrated why their campaign to extend benefits to those that least need it is just another Democrat Party ‘bad idea’... in order to garner more votes.
Frankly, the “but” makes what you write a little confusing for a poor soul like me.
The first part of your sentence is, “I don’t think it is ever moral to visit the sins of the father on the son,...”
This suggests to me that your view is that if the parents are unable to provide, even due to their own fault, it would be wrong to visit that failure to provide on the children. The conclusion of that, in my mind, is that it is then correct to provide health care to the children of those who have failed to provide it from their own resources.
The second part of your sentence, coming after the “but,” is, “I do think it is good public policy and Christian to ensure proper healthcare for the children of the ‘working porr.’”
Which seems congruent with the first part - that it is appropriate for a society to provide health care for the children of the working poor.
So, since the second part of the sentence doesn’t seem to negate in meaning the first part, it’s a little confusing to seem them joined by a “but.” I’d have expected “and” or “thus” or “therefore,” or something similar.
Making me wonder whether I’m not parsing your words finely enough.
Which makes me ask the more specific, less ambiguous question, “Do you think that it is appropriate for government, at any level, to pay for, or to heavily subsidize, the health insurance costs of the children of the working poor?”
sitetest
Well, my post #241 was more of some thinking out loud. I decided that the Frosts, while idiotic for joining up with Pelosi, were simply pawns. But pawns of whose chess game? Well, the article states that Pelosi was informed about the Frosts by FamiliesUSA. So I decided to do a little digging into FamiliesUSA. Let me tell you. FamiliesUSA has some interesting bedfellows. They get grants from Soros. They are directly intertwined with the Wellstone Fellowship for Social Justice. And I am sure if I keep digging, I won’t like what I find.
Sounds like Families USA is part of the Clinton Chinese Mafia. Wonder if this family will get a nice little bump to their checking acct?
Pray for W and Our Troops
Amen, brother.
It's funny, sitetest, because I am not saying that even if I had been given the opportunity I would never have chosen to insure my children off the dole so that they could have more or nicer things or so that I could have worked less, it's that I would have been ashamed to make that choice. I really don't understand where you're minus the outrage that this man has chosen to do the less honorable thing and then he turns around and uses his son to brag about it and claim they NEED it.
And by transparency, I mean that the public has a right to know the net worth and all income sources that the family has, both taxable and non taxable.
I already said to you previously that I thought it was wrong of him to have politicized his family’s tragedy.
However, considering what happened to two of the children of this family, and having a tiny bit of inkling what they’ve been through, any outrage I might feel is significantly ameliorated by my sympathy for their tragedy.
Whether the father and the mother are good, upstanding, decent people, or scum of the earth, they’re a dad and a mom who almost lost two of their children. My heart goes out to them as a mom and a dad.
Sorry it that’s insufficiently conservative.
sitetest
Sitetest, it’s not a matter of conservative or liberal. I also have had children in lifethreatening situations. Depending upon how you look at it, I have two or three adult children who have lifelong disabilities. I’m not without compassion for these people. I understand what could make a family choose CHIP. I could even see a point where, if it would have been available to me, I would have swallowed my pride and allowed my family on it, and whether or not it would have been the moral thing to do would have to have been between me and God. The thing that outrages me is that this family is saying they DESERVED it, and that they had no choice. That simply was not true prior to the accident.
That I think that they were wrong to politicize their plight doesn’t reduce my sympathy for their situation.
That’s all.
sitetest
And now it's discovered that A to Z Services is leasing/renting some or all of the commercial building. Frost is not listed on the corporate papers for A to Z. A different entity has 100% interest.A to Z Services
I find it nearly impossible to believe that a grown father of 4 in his forties is making below the median income level for Baltimore as a self employed man with real estate.... Betcha their combined income is more like 90 grand prior to deductions. and wouldn’t be surrised if his company finances much of his lifestyle and he writes it off as a business expense.
“You’re thinking way to much.”
I don’t usually get accused of that. ;-)
Okay, well then it isn’t intrinsically immoral for government to provide assistance with health insurance to families in need. I’m glad we agree on that.
Which comes back to my emphasis on what is legal.
I’m going to take a leap of faith and assume that you don’t believe that the Frosts are deserving of this assistance.
I agree with you. I don’t think that they were sufficiently without resources that I think that the government should be paying for their kids’ health insurance. Not before the accident, nor after the accident.
I know very well what good health insurance costs in Maryland. I know that it would be a burden for the Frosts. I also truly believe that if the government weren’t paying for their insurance, they’d find a way to get it done.
Government assistance shouldn’t be going toward folks like that.
I also believe that Mr. Frost is a bright businessman who has used his investment in his commercial property to reduce his taxable income significantly, making him look less well-off than he actually is. Based on the purchase price of the property, I figure he’s likely reducing his taxable earned income by $20,000 - $30,000 per year, through the payment of mortgage interest, depreciation, and modest but regular capital improvements.
Businesswise, it could prove very sensible. It also vindicates him of accusations that he’s lazy, or not using his talents and resources to make enough money. No, rather, he IS likely making a good bit of money, but he’s using it in a way to reduce his tax burden AND to increase his commercial assets, and thus, his financial well-being.
I have nothing but praise for him, if that’s what he’s up to.
But that’s a choice he’s made, and if he were to re-direct the revenue stream that’s currently going toward building up that asset, his earned income would probably be closer to $70,000 or $80,000 per year than $45,000 per year.
However, ironically, even if he showed that much taxable income, I think he’d still be eligible for SCHIP in Maryland, where I think that the eligibility limit tops out at over $80,000 per year.
The thing is, though I don’t think he should receive this assistance, I’m not unsympathetic to him seeking it. I own my own business. I’ve had this business for over 15 years. There have been years when I made a mint, and years when I didn’t make anything. All-in-all, it’s averaged out pretty well, but during bad years, I often wished there was a way of reducing some of my costs. It would have been nice to off-load part of my health insurance obligation during the tough years. Heck, I was probably eligible in some years.
I didn’t, though, and that’s because of other beliefs I have.
The first belief that prevented me from doing so is that I didn’t really need it. At least not in the long run. The fact is, my income may vary a lot from year to year, but I’m moderately well-off.
But that belief assumes a couple of hidden premises, or other beliefs that I have.
The first premise in which I believe is that a system of private health care is preferable to a government-sponsored and government-controlled system. Thus, individuals should strive to participate in the system on a private basis. Folks should avoid government assistance, in part because it makes things better for everyone, it’s what’s good for society, for our country.
The second second premise in which I believe is that it doesn’t take a village. My children aren’t the responsibility of my neighbor, my village, the wider society. God gave them to me to care for. Not to my neighbor or the village or what-have-you. This comes from my belief as a Catholic that my vocation on earth is to be a husband and a father, that being a good husband and father is part - heck, the principal practical way that I will work out my salvation in this life.
Thus, for me, use of this welfare program undercuts my strong preference for private markets in health care, and undercuts my vocation.
But I know folks who believe that the best thing that we could do for health care is to nationalize it, go to single-payer, the whole nine yards.
I think they’re nuts.
But I don’t think that they’re insincere, or evil, or sinful, or what-have-you, for thinking that way. Just nuts. Misguided. Wrong.
I also know folks who don’t view their parenthood in quite the same way as I do. They want to be good parents, but they see parenthood as just another attribute of themselves, like being a Republican, or an alum of some prestigious university, or being a lawyer or an accountant.
For these folks, the way that they think about things is that there are “trade-offs” to be made, and that sometimes, the thing that gets “traded off” is some interest of their children. That’s a fundamental feature in the rise of divorce in our culture - everyone knows it’s bad for the kids, but folks “balance” their own happiness with their kids.
Frankly, I think that sort of thinking is obtuse. I don’t remember being promised happiness in this life. I don’t remember being promised that everything would be all roses and honeysuckle in married life, or in raising children. Marriage and the rearing of children is an ordeal. One hopes that by accepting one’s vocation that it will be a happy ordeal in this lifetime. It has been for me - a continuous overflowing source of joy. But an ordeal nonetheless.
The other way of thinking about it strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
Yet, lots of folks who are decent, well-meaning people trying their best to do their best think like that.
That these folks should think that if it becomes difficult to pay for their kids’ health care, everyone else should bear the burden, is not surprising to me.
I have no doubt that the Frosts believe that they have acted morally and uprightly. I also suspect that they are, all things being equal, good and decent folks - at least, not any worse in that way than most folks who work for a living, support their families, and get by.
I assume that they have stayed within the guidelines of the law. I also assume that THEY believe that if the law permits this, it must be moral. The law IS a moral teacher, whether folks want to admit it or not. We’ve already determined that the fundamental concept - government helping folks who aren’t well-off with their kids’ health insurance - isn’t intrinsically evil. Thus, it’s just a matter of judging who is sufficiently needy.
Given that the Frosts may honestly believe that government should play a wider role in providing health care to individuals, given that they may not have quite the same understanding of parenthood that you and I share, and given that they are likely within the parameters of the law, which itself is a moral teacher, I can’t condemn the Frosts for what they’ve done.
I don't think that the Frosts are evil, or scummy, or consciously trying to evade their responsibilities, or anything like that. I believe that they think that they've made good and moral choices, and given their misconceptions and false beliefs, subjectively, I think that might be true.
Even though I think that what they’ve done is objectively evil.
sitetest
On the other hand, in medical care, often, the difference between good, very good, and absolutely great is life and death. In my son’s case, it may well have been the difference between life and death.
This is the main point I wanted to address. I didn't do a very good job of it last time. Hopefully I'll do better this time.
Consider the fact that it is impossible for everyone to receive care from the best doctor. Under any medical service compensation system, a single (or class of) physician is limited to treating a fixed number of patients. To be blunt, a certain number of "locked out" patients will face a relatively premature death. But this is true under any economic model. Someone will get better care than someone else, and the reason for that difference will come down to money. The important question is, Which system is the most just?
A great doctor may abandon the current payment system and be paid cash by very wealthy patients. In this case, only the very rich will receive the very best healthcare. The benefit of this form of compensation is that such doctors will receive compensation that is highly motivational. Additionally, such a wealthy doctor may be inclined to work on poor, but very sick and more needy patients, voluntarily.
It is also possible that, under our current, largely private, third-party system of care, a great doctor may choose to work "within the system." He will not be paid as much, and will have less of an economic performance incentive. The benefit of this system, however, is that great doctors will, overall, provide care to a more needy class of patients.
Finally, under a socialized regime, doctors will have no economic incentive to provide above average, or even adequate medical care to anyone, and medical care for everyone will decline, even if more people are covered.
I think the blend of the first two systems works reasonably well, and can work even better with your suggestions. But even under this system, some people will get better care than other people, and the reason for this will almost always be economic. Life and death decisions will always be necessary, and these decisions will justly be made on an economic basis.
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.