digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Right Wing Launches Baseless Smear Campaign Against 12 Year Old

thinkprogress.org — The right wingers are personally attacking a 12-year old boy who appeared in pro-sCHIP ads with completely erroneous misinformation.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -16/+122"Mr. Hypocrisy, meet Mr. Libel. I believe you two are acquainted."

    I sense the boy is soon to become several million dollars richer after his parents sue Malkin and her kin into the ground. Politicians are fare game. But you don't make up ***** about injured kids for political gain. Wingers crossed the line a long time ago, but this make swift-boating look like weekend watersports.
    • razor150, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24This is what Republicans do, they excel at twisting facts into a lie to make other people look bad, and they do it well.
      • notthemama, on 10/10/2007, -22/+4Oh please. Both sides practice it and have for years.
        Frankly, the left has put fake faces on these stories before, so I'm not surprised the right wingers went after him.
        The whole idea of giving an example of someone hurt or helped by a political decision is itself prime politics as well as easily ripe for dishonesty. Such an example doesn't make the subject right or wrong.
        • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24You must be referring to that whole "fake" George Bush Didn't Serve in Vietnam story. Or that time Kerry got some medals for valor it turns out he really got for valor. Or all those "phony soldiers" who don't support the war...

          Maybe you have an actual valid example of where "the left" orchestrated a fake story?
          • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4This had my attention, until I saw it was from thinkprogress.org
        • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The Left? Hmm, the Democrats aren't very left so you must be talking about the Greens, but they're not even involved!
      • jcusano, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Correction: This is what "NeoCon" Republicans do. Keep in mind there have also been great men (such as Abraham Lincoln) who were Republicans. I say this without bias as an Independent without loyalty towards any party. It would also seem that most of the current crop of politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) are equally insidious, with only a few exceptions; when you look at the poll numbers for those exceptional candidates, one would almost think this kind of poor behavior is REQUIRED to take part in our government. It's all become just another form of Reality TV.
        • Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Sure, Lincoln was a great Republican, in a time when the roles and positions of the Democratic and republican parties were completely reversed.
        • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The whole Republican party is now NeoCon. Pointing back to the anti-racist founder of the Republican party 150 years ago when the current Republican party is now the home of racists is transparently dishonest and makes the point you are trying to counter.
      • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Indeed, it is also what democrats do (remember Joe McCarthy). I personally don't put much credence into pathetic partisan slams.
        • Crazyviolinist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Clearly not a historian...or even paid attention to history. Joseph McCarthy was a REPUBLICAN from Wisconsin. Don't believe me? Check Wikipedia.
        • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Watch Fox News a lot do you , usually when Repukes crap on themselves badly , they turn around and call them Demorats !
        • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0a) McCarthy was a Republican. b) "did" isn't "do". c) That you don't put credence into it increases the likelihood it's true.
    • steelese, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Sorry, no libel case. He is a public figure according to the supreme court tests for libel. The information is fair comment, and probably protected speech. I hate to say it, but the damn right wingers can say just about whatever the hell they want. I can dig up the actual case law, but it's late and I am going to bed.
      • eridius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Sure there's a libel case. The public figure aspect simply means they have to prove that the author of the false statements acted with malice, and I think it's safe to say the right-wingers are deliberately distorting the facts to harm this kid.
      • isaactwito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3But you have to wonder if the family has the money to sue.
        • ShadwDrgn, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Are you serious? they're ***** rich. The dewds house is worth half a million dollars. If they're so desperate for money they could sell and move in to a reasonable house. They're not though. The father owns the office his business is based out of and even rents business space to another company. The children have attended that school since BEFORE the accident implying he could afford to pay $40,000 in tuition a year for them before it was being paid for him.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You should probably read the whole article before commenting. Repeating the false claims that are refuted in the article don't make you look very credible.
          • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3LOL
            Way to make sure everyone knows you didn't read the article.
            ***** moron.
          • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What is with these morons who think that someone who owns a house worth $400,000 is rich. In NYC, $400k will get you a studio. Not to mention that "owning" is a misnomer when you're still paying off your mortgage. The only way to extract that value is to either take out a 2nd mortgage or sell the house, which requires you to BUY another house at inflated prices, meaning NO PROFIT.

            For anyone who owns a house, you'll realize that the only immediate result of values going up is your taxes go up too. Until you can move somewhere cheap and/or downsize, the gains are entirely virtual.
      • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think you should actually look up the case law to refresh yourself. Eridius is right.

        Plus, I'm not convinced that appearing in one commercial truly makes one a public figure, at least outside of the scope of the original political statement.

        In other words, it would be fair for the Right to say, "No, kid, SCHIP didn't save your life" assuming they had any facts to back that up.

        But calling the kid + family liars when that statement itself is a lie is libel. It's meant to damage their reputation, as opposed to assert any actual political view.

        Not protected speech, I'm afraid.
    • anonimuso, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Not to mention the fact that they are asking legitimate questions about the family's economic status. If you put yourself on t.v. or in the middle of a political debate (and why these idiot parents put their child in such a heated situation to begin with is beyond me anyway) saying how poor you are and can't afford health care, I for one, am going to ask, well how poor are you really. So you own a 400K house, send your kid to private school for 20K a year? As they say where I come from "Negro please".
      • annaoverseas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+81) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

        2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

        3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
    • ShadwDrgn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3wait this is the best:
      1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.
      Yet the child attended school before the accident which allows her to attend for such a low price.

      2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.
      Actually they attend the same school and the girl was attending said school BEFORE the accident. The parents could afford the tuition then. The state didn't pay for it at THAT time.

      3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
      And redecorated it with granite counter tops and glass cabinets doors. I certainly can't afford that. The home is worth over $500,000. What it was once worth doesn't matter. Obviously they have the money to afford to redecorate and upgrade.

      4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.
      This is their reported income from their main jobs. They also rent business space out to another company in their $160,000 owned building that the husband runs his company out of. (he owns the building)

      5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.
      Irrelevant. The point here is that they can OBVIOUSLY afford to pay for health insurance without the governments help.
      • diggimator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Re 1-2: Let's say I believe they started the same school with zero scholarships. It's possible they could've been paying high tuition fees before the accident, but that doesn't make them rich back then or after the medical costs. It would just mean they were paying alot.

        Re 3: say if I pay $10 for home improvement which causes the value of the house to go up by $20, it would make economic sense to spend that kind of money at any level of wealth.

        Re 4: You say they own a building (twice), but the $160,000 price tag doesn't mean they earn that much per year from renting it, so saying that they earn "no more than $50,000 combined" still sounds plausible.

        Re 5: They are taking advantage of a public service they are eligible for. I've known a minority who didn't accept scholarship aid which he qualified for because of his political belief. It's fine to refuse government aide based upon political belief. However if their political view isn't anti-CHIP, then there was no problem participating in it.
    • AngelaQ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ShadwDrgn

      I have a slab of granite on my countertop that I had done for $100 at the stoneyard. If you're so poor that you can't afford that, maybe you should be buying food for your family instead of internet access.
  • iching, on 10/10/2007, -14/+34"We don't torture"
    They just lie, don't they and torture the truth.
  • iching, on 10/10/2007, -9/+84Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme:

    1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

    2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

    3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

    4) Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

    5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.
    • ozroy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+256) And one day I saw him picking his nose in public.
    • andrew1193, on 10/10/2007, -30/+6So how is it a "baseless smear campaign" to point out that the Frosts are in fact, not poor at all, given that they own two properties and probably have a net worth well in excess of $500,000?
      • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14andrew1193, could it be that you're just making that up, and that even if you're not, those properties are not worth over $500, 000. Could it also be that they don't own at least one of those properties? The problem here is that we don't know at this time, but people like Malkin don't wait for the truth to come out, they hunt for "the truth" so that, in the end, the truth is mixed with falsehood.

        If it turns out, in the end, that this family has been taking advantage of the system, I'll be the first person to burn them at the stake. Either way, I'll wait for the truth.
        • andrew1193, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4A smaller home on the same street as the Frosts went for $485,000. If it is true that they purchased the home for $55,000 in 1991, it's likely that they have either paid the mortgage off, or have significant equity. Mr. Frost also owns a commercial building worth $160,000.
          • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Nothing of the sort is likely. 15 year mortgage? Doubt it. And as Iching says below, even if they owned the house 100%, it means nothing if they sell it and have to buy an equally expensive one. Perhaps when they retire and move to Florida, they'll get some of that equity back. But two kids means no downsizing till they grow up. And that isn't cheap.
        • razor150, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16So I guess what you are saying is that they should sell their how and business so they can get all this money you say they have? Is that what you are saying? 45,000 as year is hardly extravagant, even if you have your house paid off.
        • notthemama, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5I'm curious. They own two properties, make 45-50k a year, and can't afford health insurance? If you have kids, not having health insurance for the family is just asking for trouble.
          • alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The article is about getting insurance to those people. You are just reinforcing the need to an overhaul of the insurance industry.

            If they're making 50K a year, that's about $4166 a month, If you apply taxes over that (~25%) they're left with about $3,000.00/Month, for a family of 4, in CA to buy an individual policy for a family like that, would easily cost $600~$800, and I'm talking HMO, high deductible, high copay, onlyworthgettingifyouthinkyouregonnadie type of insurance, but let's say for argument sake that it'd cost the family $500/month for health insurance, now they're left with about $2,500/month - that's about $21/day for each member of the family.

            They have $21 (day/family member) to pay for the roof over their heads, food, utilities, and all.
          • ianam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"curious" is not a synonym for vile and stupid.

            "If you have kids, not having health insurance for the family is just asking for trouble."

            Indeed, which is why SCHIP needs to be expanded.
        • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -19/+4Answer: It's not a smear campaign. Pointing out facts is not a smear campaign.

          Good gosh were such pampered assholes. We're putting kids in political ads and then trying to hit the opposition for punching holes in the argument.

          I ***** hate Think Progress. How do you kill this organization?
          • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1"Pointing out facts is not a smear campaign."

            According to the Democrats, it is. They call it "swiftboating".
          • Crazyviolinist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yup. Then when it happens to the Republicans, they call it......oh wait.....its called hypocrisy.

            In the real world, its called "truth".
          • calinazaret, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2According to wikipedia, A smear campaign or smear tactic is a deliberate attempt by an individual or group to harm another individual's or group's reputation. Part of a smear campaign is only presenting some of the facts and not all. That is what is happening. Unless we have a copy of the families' taxes in front of us and detailed information on the community there, we don't have all the facts.
          • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Pointing out facts is not a smear campaign."

            Intimidation is not "pointing out facts", and lying is what right wing scum like you do.

            "I ***** hate Think Progress. How do you kill this organization?"

            Of course you do. Talk to the Pentagon -- they're experts at waging the sort of "democracy" you seek.
        • jaxcs, on 10/14/2007, -5/+7You can kill Think Progress by not supporting bloggers who make ***** up. You don't seem familiar with the concept of paper millionaires. That is someone who is a millionaire if every asset owned was sold. The problem is that there is no guarantee that anyone will pay top dollar for your assets and in this case, since it involves a home, does not take into consideration where they will live when the home is sold. If they are lying about their income, that would be one thing, but if the central point is that they could sell their home, it starts to loose focus. The largest bit of stupidity, however, is the focus on this family. Rather than debating the issue, you debate the merits of the family. Even if this family is found to have lied, does this mean that every family that requests aid doesn't deserve it?
        • SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10why should he have to sell his house or his business just to recover from a child's injury?

          Sad, some people are so sickenly cut-throat that they think lives should be ruined by stupid luck.
          • alex7575, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They say that until it hits them in the backside.
            Wasn't Reagan a Republican? Wasn't his family pleading for stem cell research? I wonder if Reagan hadn't had Alzheimers, if they would had been pursuing in favor of stem cell research.

            How much do you think it would have cost the family to pay for all those medical bills? A few grand? I'm willing to bet it was well over $100K.

            I hate to get so personal, but last year my wife and I lost our second baby at 5 months, after all was said and done, none of the doctors were able to tell us what had happened to us, so we were left with no answer, no baby, and a $8,000.00. Do we have insurance? Absolutely, but our deductible is high (for my wife and baby, on a PPO, with really high deductible, we're paying $400/month). We're not 'poor' per se, but we're not exactly comfortable to the point that $8,000 would go missing unoticed.

            I have a feeling that most people posting negative comments are not one of the primary "bread winners" in the family, or else they need to see a financial consultant
      • iching, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22You sell the house and then you can't buy a comparable one in the community you are from, it is a zero sum game so it is immaterial on the amount of equity in today's housing bubble.
      • boflaade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Property rich and money poor. It happens to the elderly as well. They work all their lives and pay off the mortgage. The property gains value and the taxes go up, just when they are on a fixed income with medical bills.
      • MadKennyP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Maybe Michelle Malkin expects them to sell their home (in Bush's horrible housing market) to pay for medical treatment for their son. Then, they could simply purchase some sort of shanty in which to live. That seems to be a fair outcome. Their simply son shouldn't have got in that car accident. Selfish bastard.

        /sarcasm
      • Cattrin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm pretty sure these claims were listed to defend them, not to prove anything the conservinazis were trying to say. Yes they claimed he went to an expensive school, BUT the parents aren't rick enough to pay for the entire or even a large fraction of it. And they cant cover any of Gemma's costs for school. It's a lavish home, BUT at the time it was purchased wasn't so great. NO they do not bring in a lot of money, and are simply eligible for the program weather you think so or not.


        I think that's more the point these facts were listed to mean.
        • clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg up for correctness, but holy CRAP you need to proof what you type! Sorry!
    • 808kick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Since when is 50K a year rich?
      • ShadwDrgn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2He's actually worth significantly more than this. If I had millions of dollars worth of assets and money in the bank i wouldn't need to make much per year either. Lets not forget their recently remodeled house is worth half a million dollars, and they could afford to send their children to that school BEFORE they were being paid out of MY pocket. that's $40,000 a year.
        • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What makes you think they have money in the bank?

          "Lets not forget their recently remodeled house"

          Let's not forget your misrepresentation -- new countertops aren't "remodeling".

          "they could afford to send their children to that school BEFORE"

          Document that, please.

          "they were being paid out of MY pocket"

          How many millionths of a cent are we talking about? It's social insurance, and benefits society, you vile self-centered cheapskate.
      • Razster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I alone with my $15hr pull in a fraction due to my rent, school bills, medical insurance... 50k a year for a family that size is poor here in California. I some how manage to save only to end up spending it on Car repair/insurance and taxes.

        When me and the misses are married we will both be pulling combined 48k, but we have no kids, so we can keep our head above water.
        50k isn't much for a family anymore.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So a few asshats = the Right Wing? No, it's just a few asshats.
      • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Malkin, Coulter, The National Review, Powerline, the Weekly Standard, and a whole lot of freepers?
        That's the right wing.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, that's a relatively small subset of the right wing.
        • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not when they represent right wing thought and most of the right wing agrees with them.
    • Schauvin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Lucky Dog, I make under 20 k a year, live on my own and attend college all at my own expense. The Govt' Dosen't help me because why? IM WHITE IN DETROIT~! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA (Truth)
      • MacGruber, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Considering that the $50K figure is for BOTH parents of TWO children, your comparison means *****.
        • Schauvin, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3Well, Considering its NOT REALLY 50K I guess it does :P
          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/p ...
          • MacGruber, on 10/14/2007, -3/+1How typical to refer to an article that uses factual information to draw blatantly fallacious logical conclusions. Your inductive leap is a mile wide.
          • jaxcs, on 10/14/2007, -1/+0@schauvin
            How easy it would at this point to make the issue about YOU - which is exactly what is happening here to this family. You make a claim that you make under 20k and, live on your own and attend college at your own expense. How much of that is true? Do you get money from family or friends? Is all your income declared? How much financial aid do you get? Do you have assets that could be sold? Could you accept a higher paying job or do you CHOOSE to make under 20k a year? Are your courses directed toward a higher paying position or are you taking fluff courses? Where do you live - could you move to a lower income neighborhood? Prove everything! Not so funny now is it?
  • shawnfassett, on 10/10/2007, -19/+44I guess Coulter was wrong, once again.
    Coulter - zero; Facts - 756,423
    June 2006 -

    LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

    "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." Because they dare to speak out?

    COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No-No-No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.

    LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?

    LAUER: What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.

    COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.
    • dtd00d, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Is she still at it? I haven't heard about her in months come to think of it.
      • hcl40u, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Coulter? Yes she is very much active with the latest appearances on NBC's Today Show and numerous times on Fox News(of course). Its like they have forgotten everything about her and started anew.
    • lowlywrm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I don't like Coulter any better than the rest of us, but I don't see what this has to do with SCHIP. Buried for being off-topic.
    • martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You obviously have to be careful about what you say to grieving widows - anyone knows that as much as the next guy. But I think the point that Coulter makes (and she expands on it in her book), is that these woman went beyond "public grieving" to making political attacks and giving knee-jerk-reaction military advice. Which again, is fine - but at that point what someone say is open to criticism... yet how can you criticize a grieving widow without seeming heartless? The way that certain media outlets fed off of their emotional pleas and cries was a classic example of an emotional appeal, rather than presenting a sound logical point of view.

      I think that Coulter went overboard in her discussion of these woman... it was too personal. However, I do expect the mainstream media to show a little more class, as opposed to televising sobbing widows for every last sympathetic mind it can get.
    • AngelaQ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The point Coulter was trying to make was that it is considered indefensible to brutally attack grieving widows by disseminating lies and slander about them. Since this is the only method of discourse Coulter is capable of, she feels that they are taking unfair advantage of her. She didn't make that point successfully. Saying that they had ordered her to shut up sounded much more like the lie it is than the hyperbole she wants to claim it is. Plausible deniability?

      As far as she's concerned, nobody in the country has a right to an opinion that disagrees with hers. Everybody is a target - not of disagreement and reasoned arguments, but of lies, slander, straw men, and red herrings. Clearly she has no use for the truth, so it bothers her when others use it -successfully - against everything she stands for.

      Nothing would please her more than if she could shut them up and take away their right to free speech. But it sounds really bad for her when she says that grieving survivors don't have the right to speak the truth. It's a good thing she doesn't care what other people think, otherwise it might bother her that they think she's the Paris Hilton of right-wing punditry.
    • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'll be more blunt, instead of debating the issue, which we should all do, debate the messenger, challenge anyone that presents a human face to the issue and shake that tree until something falls. Coulter, feeling penned in by the moral authority of the 911 widows (not their words but their moral standing) attacks them as interlopers who have no right to speak out. If we were really interested in the words, then the messenger shouldn't matter, but politics and sound bites are driven by personal commentary. Coulter, resentful that she is unable to debate the person, refers to the 911 widows as claiming undeserved special rights. This, of course, is what is taking place here since we debate this family rather than the value of the program. Of course there is no outcry when Bush challenges critics of his Iraq policy with a back drop of soldiers. Bush isn't trading on their moral authority, nope, not at all.
  • jdoe562, on 10/10/2007, -25/+18As much as I disagree with Bush's vetoing of the SCHIP bill, and think that it is ***** that these people are attacking this boy, does anyone else get the impression that this kid is being used? I think he may have been coerced into writing that and saying it. I'm not saying it's bad that he told his story, I think his story is important, I just don't think that a 12 year old is going to care about this as much as he claims.
    • AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37A 12yo is old enough to care that he and his sister could be dead. 12yo's are still kids, but they're also smarter than given credit for.
      • jdoe562, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Audiophile stated my thoughts exactly when he said:

        "I tend to agree with you. Yes, a 12 year old is old enough to care for his own, and sister's, wellbeing. But do you really think he's old enough to spend a fraction of thought about politics?"

        Yes, I know and am 100% sure that a 12 year old is capable of caring. Do I think that a 12 year old is going to want to use his story to try and help a political party? It's possible, but it's definitely unlikely.
        • Schauvin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I wonder how he got his scholarship :P
          "Hey, come say some stuff on TV in a year or so and well pay for your school!"
        • ianam, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0Help a political party? It's about helping to get the *bipartisan* SCHIP extension passed, moron.
    • Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -10/+612 is too young to understand you would be dead if it wasn't for the CHIP program? Yes the democrats could be using him as a tool but he could also just want to get his story out and help other people that may end up in a similar situation.
      • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What's this BS about "the Democrats"? Grassley and the rest of the Republicans who support the SCHIP extensions and oppose Bush's veto aren't Democrats. Even if not a single Republican supported it, it still wouldn't be about "the Democrats", it would be about children, families, and health care.
    • audiophile8706, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8I tend to agree with you. Yes, a 12 year old is old enough to care for his own, and sister's, wellbeing. But do you really think he's old enough to spend a fraction of thought about politics?

      Sounds to me like he was put up to doing it. "This is what saved you... now these mean nasty guys are gonna take it away... what do you want to say to them?" *cue mic*
      • notthemama, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I've got a feeling that any disagreement about the story is going to be buried by people aghast at the republicans, even if the dissent is done by non-republicans.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1712 year olds are perfectly capable of critical thought. Don't discourage them.
      • aliashandle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7there is nothing really critical about this at all. It's life or death. Family can't afford healthcare without S-CHIP, health care saved his and his sister's life. Nuff said. Even George Bush can say it.
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7He was coerced? People are quite imaginative with their language. Sure, the Democrats should not have brought a child to speak, because of the difficulty of refuting a child's word, but he was hardly "re-educated at Guantanamo."
    • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4"I think he may have been coerced into writing that and saying it."

      He wasn't coerced into writing it. The speech was written by Democratic congressional staffers.

      As far as being coerced into reading it, perhaps so. His parents, from all appearances, are left wing parasites living beyond their means and having children they can't afford, but expect me to pay for. I'm sure they were quite willing to volunteer their kid as a sock puppet for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
    • Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If the republicans had made a 12-year old do something familiar to this, all of digg would've been pissed off at it. But since he says what digg wants to hear, 12-year olds are suddenly "perfectly capable of critical thought." Obviously some people here need to spend more time with 12-year olds. They do not know much about politics, and when they do, they typically only knows what their parents want them to know, which is heavily politically biased. They do not have the experience or knowledge to critically evaluate a political claim.

      To be honest, using kids in political propaganda sickens me. It is so obvious an appeal to emotion that decent people ought to be ashamed of their party for using such measures.
    • weebit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't believe he was coerced. The wording lacks specifics that they would of made sure were in there. Figures, etc. It was a simple letter. Just so you know many kids get drilled every day on how it could be. Some learn how bad it could be because they have been though it before, others through their friends. Children are not as innocent as they use to be.
  • kent1146, on 10/10/2007, -20/+11Against a 12-year old? Next thing you know, you'll start seeing Digg headlines about how Right-Wingers start attacking 12-year olds for calling them n00bs in WoW.
    • Roryking, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Don't worry, we've already got that one covered
  • addicted68098, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2What a load of crap, Billy O'Reilly Says this is a hate site, for the hate speech, who knows. The only thing I know is that I better damn well love appealing to authority if I ever want to get with Coulter.
    • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Wha...?
      If you want to get with coulter you need help, buddy.
      Go look in the mirror and say "I deserve to be happy".
    • OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Bully O'Reilly?
  • whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5I really wish you guys wouldn't link to blogs when posting these things.
    • lowlywrm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If we were to limit ourselves to standard media, a lot would be missing.
  • sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -44/+9That kid's a ***** FRAUD.
    • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Where's your proof?
      • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Well, for one thing, his fonts are all wrong. In fact, I'm not even sure the kid exists.
      • userini, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You can't handle the proof!
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe if you keep repeating that Malkin will find you on the internet and come to your ***** and hold your hand for a while, you pathetic troll.
  • elfprince13, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1anyone else think S/CHIP-8 when they saw the description? O_o

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIP-8
  • sallos, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3"The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere."
    "The story is slowly working its way into traditional media outlets as well."
    So some stupid blogs made comments and now this other blog is making a huge deal about it with a headline that doesn't fit the story and its number 1 on digg? Buried as lame lame lame.
  • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4It's doesn't matter if you are grandma, or a 7 year old girl, they'll treat you like the evil hard-bitten traitor scum you are......
  • nouns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"smear attack" and "12 year old". Sheesh. Talk about garbage wrapped in skin.
  • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -7/+32It's like these republicans really hate America.
    • annienyc4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13They like the country, they hate the people. They like the natural resources and the freedom, and most of all, the $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
      • razor150, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9They're to busy detaining and spying on people to love the freedom, but the rest is spot on.
  • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34And on top of all this crap from the right wingers, they claim to be pro-life and christian. Seems like they have no idea what these things mean.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3THEY USED A CHILD AS A TOOL FOR THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

      And you're crapping on "right wingers". Grow up. Just say no to using children as political stooges.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Oh wow you're stupid. The political agenda here is to help this child, nobody would benefit except those covered under SCHIP. Just say no to being an idiot.
      • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Er...the bill is focused on children. Did you really think that both parties wouldn't try to come up with examples and counterexamples of how well this care works? Nice try, though.
    • Arcesius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called Newspeak.
    • MoneyShot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As George Carlin says "Conservatives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistent. They're obsessed with fetuses from conception to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool, you're *****!"
    • AngelaQ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?
      • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It was always just a marketing slogan.
  • metric7, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
    /Boner, hahahahaha
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Oh, these Republicans are cracking me up with their wide stances and boners.
  • UltraPenguinX, on 10/10/2007, -17/+12It looks like their just attacking the family, not the child. But of course, Digg doesn't blow ANYTHING out of proportion or use sensationalism, so my suspicions are obviously unfounded.
    • aliashandle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7why don't you place your suspicions on how the Republican's swiftboat the ***** out of anything. Digg is not a political party last time i heard.
      • notthemama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1People who want to believe in a story, doesn't matter what it is or who they are, will digg it up. People who are curious may dissent but will get buried. People who vehemently disagree will either get buried themselves or just ignore it, knowing fighting about it won't help them much.
        Tends to make any subject and slant a bit more sensationalized than necessary.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Swiftboating == telling uncomfortable truths about Democrats.
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2they're
    • SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3so what.. attacking a hurt/sick kid's family is better then attacking them?
  • syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6its sad that adult politicians have to resort to making fun of little kids in order for them to feel better about all the ***** they cause in this country. and the country lets them get away with it. ***** america. ***** us all.
    • Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's sad to use kids in political propaganda.
  • Poovey, on 10/10/2007, -23/+18So the Democratic Party brings in a 12 year old as a shield,so those who disagree with socialized medicine can't rebut. How freakin typical.
    • chmeee, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4And you're surprised by this? Remember Elian Gonzalez?
      • Poovey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Thank god we sent him to the best system of government on the face of the earth. He is more free in Cuba than he ever could be in the USA. /sarc
    • razor150, on 11/06/2007, -4/+12Kind of like how the President likes hiding behind Generals and the soldiers. I bet you highly offender over the Betray Us add.
      • Poovey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3What the hell are you talking about and how does it relate to this discussion?
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're criticizing a political party for using sympathetic characters associated with their political agenda to spread their message. Either you don't know what you're talking about, or it's ok if you're a republican. In my mind, at least the kid can say no. Soldiers are under orders.
      • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22 wrongs make a right I guess.
    • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He is someone affected positively by the program. So yes, he can speak to it's efficacy.
    • annaoverseas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1One can disagree about socialised health care without attacking the people who support it. Talk about how it's wrong - don't tell me how horrible and awful the people who support it are. If it's a bad idea, it shouldn't be too hard to express that.
      • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"socialized medicine" is a meaningless mantra that triggers the control centers of Manchurian Stepford right wingers. Funny that they don't talk about "socialized roads" or "socialized war" or "socialized police" or "socialized education", or mention that SCHIP was a *Republican* program, part of the "contract with America" created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
    • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You do know that most states use the federal dollars from SCHIP to purchase private health insurance, right? Not capitalist enough for you?
  • raybury, on 10/10/2007, -17/+21Look, no one is smearing the 12-year-old, but rather those who would cynically use him to promote something disingenuously. Indeed the premise of the broadcast was doubly disingenuous: 1) That Bush's veto means SCHIP would go away, when he in fact favors a $5 billion per year INCREASE, and 2) that without SCHIP he would not have received the treatment he needed, when hospitals and doctors do a great deal of pro bono work.

    I was surprised that iching found so much information, as usually the "MSM" does nothing to examine these Democratic responses. (The first three points are compelling, but you are being uncharacteristically credulous about the profits of the woodworking business the father owns, and a determination by the state of Maryland means jack to me.) When they used a Raleigh, NC waitress for the response back on August 18, 2007, her speech was carefully written (using phrases such as "people like me") so as to avoid the fact that she could not have benefitted ONE CENT from the minimum wage increase she was lauding as a full-time minimum wage "fast-food waitress" and that, if she is a tipped worker, she could be LOSING about $1400 per year because of it.
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Ooohh, we should rely on hospitals and doctors doing pro bono work! Why didn't anybody mention this before, it's a fantastic plan! Millions of uninsured children in this country, don't worry about getting healthcare, just get ready to beg. Try to make really sad faces, you'll be more sympathetic. But don't let a camera get anywhere near you! That would be cynical promotion of something that is disingenuous.
      You suck.
      • ianam, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1"Why didn't anybody mention this before, it's a fantastic plan!"

        Actually they did -- Bush said all Americans have access to health care, because they can go to the ER at any hospital.

        It's bad enough that right wingers are devoid of ethics, but they are so atrociously stupid and ignorant too.
    • rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes they are did you even read the article?, they are suggesting the family fraudulently claimed CHIP assistance when they are well off. If that isn't libel/slander what is?
      • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Now that is an interesting question.
      • raybury, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0I think any attention to the family is a waste of time, but what I see is not so much saying the family is guilty of fraud, but that they seem to have different priorities from most parents. Almost all of us know a responsible parent who has taken a lower paying job so that their kids are insured.
  • Poovey, on 11/06/2007, -21/+10When all is not as it appears to be
    Rick Moran

    Do you remember 12 year old Graeme Frost from Maryland? He's the young man who gave the Democratic radio response to President Bush following the veto of the children's health care program SCHIP.

    In that heart tugging speech, Graeme pleaded with Congress to pass SCHIP and extend coverage to the middle class because without that program, he and his family would have been in a lot of trouble following a car accident the young man was in last year.

    Following up on the story, the Baltimore Sun reported that the two income family could not afford health insurance on their own and didn't receive any through their employment - the mother working in a medical publishing firm and the father as a "woodworker."

    It turns out, that's not entirely accurate.

    A poster over at Free Republic found some additional information on Mr. Frost that calls into question why the family couldn't afford insurance. Kim Priestap at Wizbang summarized the information: *

    First, Mr. Halsey Frost, Graeme’s father, owns his own woodworking design studio, Frostworks, so his claim that he can’t get health insurance through work is shockingly deceptive. He chooses not to get health care for his family. Second, Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the very exclusive Park School, which has a tuition of $20,000 a year, per child. Third, they live in a 3,000+ square foot home in a neighborhood with smaller homes that are selling for at least $400,000.


    (Hat Tip: Mark Steyn at The Corner)

    I know of several independent business people who have excellent health insurance coverage for their entire family by purchasing it through group plans at associations like the National Association of Independent Businesses (NFIB) or other small business groups. In fact, most people join those organizations just to get the benefit of being able to purchase health insurance in a group, which lowers the price considerably. I daresay that If Mr. Frost can afford a $400,000 house he could easily find private health insurance to cover his family.

    But that's not the point. The blatant dishonesty of the Democrats in using a 12 year old as a prop in a political soap opera whose family's financial situation was misrepresented should be exposed for the cheap trick it was. If the President had dared to be that dishonest, the press would have been all over him. Instead, the media has played along with the Democrats and will make it appear that the President and Republicans are heartless monsters for denying little Graeme and his family the benefits they deserve.

    A pretty low maneuver by the Democrats.



    * I originally neglected to credit Ms. Priestap with summarizing the post at Free Republic. I apologize for that oversight.
    • john2kx, on 11/06/2007, -2/+12You didn't RTFA.

      Graeme's (and his sister's) tuition is almost completely covered.. His family pays about $500 per year for them. Not quite $40K.
      "They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe."
      "Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined."
      • Poovey, on 11/06/2007, -8/+3Yeah, I did, I just didn't believe what "think *****" had to say. If they still had a 400,000 dollar house that is still a lot of equity. Maybe health insurance just isn't that important to them. Either case, why is it my responsibility?
        • enki25, on 11/06/2007, -0/+7I read your post, I just didn't believe what you were parroting had any credibility, especially because you don't seem capable of addressing the criticisms of the claims you are making. You were able to call the source of the criticisms a name though, good for you! Really it's not your "fault" because you're a dumb *****. Just having a 400k house with some equity doesn't mean they can sell that house after fees and taxes and then buy something in their area without a crippling mortgage payment. But this is something it would take brains to realize, and you apparently let Malkin do your thinking for you.
          It's your responsibility because you're a part of society. You could just as easily ask why it's your responsibility to pay for a war in Iraq.
      • minoss, on 11/06/2007, -4/+5Exactly, if your house is worth $400k, it doesn't matter how much you paid for it initially, you can afford health insurance. Plus, I find it odd how they are even able to afford living in a house of that value. There is still a small thing called property tax and for a house of that value it could easily be $10k per year.
        • wiskers69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They bought it for $55,000, are the property taxes not assessed at this value?
        • minoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As the value of your house increases, so do property taxes. It's initial worth means very little.
        • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Your argument makes no sense. Because you have a non-liquid asset you should necessarily be able to afford large monthly health insurance payments? WTF are you talking about. They probably are paying property taxes on the house, which simply makes their situation more difficult.
        • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Exactly, if your house is worth $400k, it doesn't matter how much you paid for it initially, you can afford health insurance."

          This follows how, exactly?

          "Plus, I find it odd how they are even able to afford living in a house of that value."

          So it's possible that they couldn't afford to live in the house, but not possible that they couldn't afford health insurance?

          "There is still a small thing called property tax and for a house of that value it could easily be $10k per year."

          Does that make it easier, or harder, to afford health insurance?

          You're a very stupid person, it seems.

    • enki25, on 11/06/2007, -0/+6The right wing smear machine works. This could be Santa Claus and one Malkin or Freep post and suddenly every wingnut across the country is posting hate messages about them. Way to follow orders loser.
  • tubular, on 10/10/2007, -12/+18Republicans are greedy selfish kids. They hate our troops, and they don't give a ***** about you or your kids.
    • Eleo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Which explains why a number of then were in favor of the expansion?
      • SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2a number of them are only doing it because they're in tight reelection races. They've spoken against it in the past, but voted on it now because they are in trouble.
    • raybury, on 10/15/2007, -0/+0Nope, they just think that you give more of a sh*t about your kids than a bureaucrat.
  • crapmatic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I'm bothered by the dangling modifier in the description. To grammar school with you, front page poster!
    • Nanite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No one likes a grammar nazi. If you can't contribute something that people actually care to read, then don't bother.
      • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Nonetheless, crapmatic has a point; the description is ambiguous, with two opposite meanings that reflect both sides of the debate.
  • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -23/+18Yes, attacking the kids is dumb and typical republican BS. However, stop pretending the democrats are any better using this 12 year old for their own political agenda.

    The parents made $45,000 combined? Maybe they should get better jobs. What ever happened to self accountability? If someone doesn't make enough money to support themselves and their family, why is it my responsibility to do it for them? Ok, so I may concede that life or death medical care for children is worth it for the government to spend my tax paying dollars on. However, the $25k tuition after the fact is not.
    • lordmike, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Typical Republican response... should get better jobs... Maybe, if your great president didn't ship all the "better" jobs to Asia there would be better jobs for them to get... Not everyone can be a CEO... If health care was actually affordable, then you could actually do well earning $45,000 a year... like the old days... Consider yourself lucky that you lucked out and got a good life... not everyone gets the same advantages as you...
      • notthemama, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9Typical Liberal response. You assume he's a republican, that he supports our president, and that minoss lucked out and has a good life or any advantages, and your argument is full of pointless inaccuracies.
        Our president can't ship jobs to Asia. That's entirely controlled by the people who choose to outsource.
        Health care isn't affordable because of the federal interference with health care. As much as I'd like to pin it on our president, it's not his fault either. This was a problem well before he became president.
        It doesn't take a ceo's pay to get health care, but if we eliminated the personal income tax then 45k a year would be hella plenty. Actually, it's enough to afford health care now, considering the family was already mostly covered, at least according to john2kx.
        You didn't even bother to argue about the 25k tuition that minoss mentioned. Why not? Because you can't argue it.
        So now go ahead and whine about me and how I must be a republican too (I'm not), that I must have lucked out and gotten advantages (I didn't), and that I must have a good life (I don't).
        • lordmike, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8"Health care isn't affordable because of the federal interference with health care."

          Give me a break... That's great GOP talking point and is total BS... Exactly how does government "interference" make health care cost more... perhaps you would like to go back to the days when they had patent medicines that had arsenic in them... that would surely lower the cost of health care... lots of people will be dead...
          • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6When governments mandate that health insurance pick up the cost of chiropractors, homeopaths, acupuncturists, and other assorted quacks and mountebanks, you damn betcha government interference makes real health care more expensive.

            Also, when government mandates that people may not buy insurance from carriers in other states, that increases the cost significantly by reducing competition.

            Finally, by countenancing a system of "jackpot justice" designed to enrich trial lawyers at the expense of blameless hospitals and doctors, the price of health care is raised astronomically high due to the combined costs of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine.
          • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3lol @ shadowmerch
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4None of the studies of the costs of our healthcare system have been attributed to government interference. Stop saying that or find something that backs it up.
      • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Yea, I paid my way through college, have tons of loans for what I couldn't cover, and still managed to land a $40k per year job with full insurance (as well as declining 3 other offers). I was far from handed anything. And the president doesn't ship jobs overseas you moron. Companies do. Plus, the unemployment rate is actually extremely good at the moment.

        Also, stop making assumptions about me. I am neither republican nor do I like our president. I am simply a tax paying american who would like to see my 30% of my income spent more frugally than it currently is (yes, this includes the middle east).
        • lordmike, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Ah, you're one of the , "I picked myself up by my bootstraps and everyone else sucks" republicans... Congratulations... not everyone is so lucky, even when they work as hard as you... your situation is very precarious, my friend... one lawsuit, a serious illness or disability, or a false arrest will have you homeless on the street in no time... before you throw out the safety net that you hate so much, make sure you won't need to fall in it at some point...
        • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7There's a difference between making someone a safety net and making someone a house. I tell you what though, give me 30% of my income back and I'll be able to make one hell of a safety net all for myself.

          And once again, you refuse to actually attack my argument and instead attack me. My money should never pay for anyone's $20k private school tuition, ever. If it's going to pay for minors emergency care I can live with that since minors don't have the choice. However, it shouldn't be used to keep the same person on welfare for years either. The great thing about this country is that absolutely anyone can do nearly anything they want with their life. Making $20k per year is a choice. It even says in the article for the last 3 years they never made more than $50k combined. That is their choice. Nothing is stopping them from making more.
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5minoss, is it your preference to deliberately ignore facts? They are NOT paying that much for private school, they get a scholarship. Your other comments can't be argued with because they are asinine on their face. The only thing stopping somebody from making more than 20k per year is choice? HA! There are tons of things that could get in the way of somebody willing to work hard (poor market for their skills, poor social network for them to find other opportunities, fear of risk of losing a stable position in exchange for a higher paying but less stable position). You can't criticize people you've never met just based on their income. Frankly your willingness to do so is disgusting.
        • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The sister's tuition is being paid for entirely by the government.
        • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And were you in an accident that damaged your brain? Something damaged it.
    • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2- "Maybe they should get better jobs."
      Maybe they need to go to school to get better jobs, and don't have the time or the money to do that on their own.

      - "What ever happened to self accountability?"
      It was transformed by neocons into a self-righteous excuse to turn your back on your neighbors.

      - "If someone doesn't make enough money to support themselves and their family, why is it my responsibility to do it for them?"
      It's the responsibility of those who are more financially capable to help those who are less so, because that's what produces a healthy society.

      - "However, the $25k tuition after the fact is not."
      Then maybe y'all should STFU about vouchers and rebuild our public schools.
      • TrentDeux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank goodness our founding fathers didn't whine like this.
    • allenwrench, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"However, stop pretending the democrats are any better using this 12 year old for their own political agenda."

      Sorry, I don't see why you or anybody else should really give a rats ass about that.
  • Eleo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You know, I think it's an odd way to advertise an expansion by saying you already got the care that you needed. Wouldn't it be more effective to say you didn't have any health insurance at the time of your injury?
  • Turnar, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9I don't know which disgusts me more.

    The fact that the Republicans are using a smear campaign against a kid...
    ...or the fact that the Democrats used the kid in the first place to push an agenda.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Which came first?

      Just say no to using kids as political stooges.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31 child dies for every Republican vote.
    • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The "agenda" is health care for kids, asshat.
  • mingdamerciless, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11Why should we be forced to pay for raising other people's kids? When one person is forced to labor for another, it's called slavery. That is what socialized medicine and all other forms of welfare are about. Perhaps we would like to wait months and months for treatment for heart disease and cancer as the Canadians and British do, or have hospitals that don't change the sheets between patients to save money. If the Democrats succeed in forcing their universal coverage plan on us, we will have the same dismal care that our vets get at Walter Reed. No thanks.
    • 1of42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Canada and Britain both have better health care systems than the United States at all levels of care except the very most expensive hospitals. The waiting time issues are very much overblown by a lot of private health care advocates.
      • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Yes, by private health care advocates and British and Canadian citizens that travel to other countries because they can't afford to wait for the systems' their paychecks are looted from to finance.
    • wiskers69, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14arse and bald faced lies. Get a clue you *****. Canada and England have both private and public insurance. If you don't like the public health care just buy the supplemental insurance you miserable *****.

      Slavery.... you really are a ***** pig ignorant *****.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Actually, England has a pretty decent private system, but under the Canada Health Act a doctor is forbidden to accept private payment instead of the Queen's shilling. There are a few rogue private clinics, but they are all risking closure and fines.
    • SaintStryfe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Dude, you... do realize that Walter Reed was a public institution and then Privatized, and once it was privatized it became the crap hole we saw on the news not long ago?

      Do you wake up and try to find new ways to be ignorant every morning?
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Good point. And when my neighbors house burns down, why the ***** should I be forced to help pay for it to be put out? Or when somebody across town who lives in a violent neighborhood is killed, why the ***** should I be forced to help pay for the investigation? All of this is socialism and it's preventing me from building a huge pile of money that I can sit on, poop in, and feel good about myself and how much better than everybody I've become.
      /douche
    • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So, to sum up: if you insist on being a self-centered, ignorant dick, my countrymen and I would like to *force* you not to be a self-centered, ignorant dick, thus making you a SLAVE. :)
  • phillymozart, on 10/10/2007, -16/+12This boy should have never been used in the first place. If the argument for SCHIP is so great, then gimmicks are not needed period. The same goes for Cindy Sheehan, the 9/11 widows, and any other politically-correct person/group the Left trots out. Debate on the facts and let the best man win. Time and time again, Dems show the weakness in their positions and ideas by bullsh*t like this.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Politicians that insert children into ads for their causes are awful people. These kids don't know any better. They don't know they're being used as tools to get people elected and other people voted out of office.
      • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So, Bush should apologize and set a good example, right?
    • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's a child insurance program.
      Graeme is alive because he was insured child under the program.
      What is the problem?
      • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem was that Bush would be happy to sign a bill that still covers this kid. He doesn't want to extend it into those who really don't need the help.
        • sakul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How about bush NOT extending tax breaks to those that really 'don't need the help'.. hypocrite.
          • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Are you ***** kidding me? They were and still are being taxed unfairly high.The "poor" in America do not pay ***** for taxes, and get all the services. I'm in favor of a flat tax.
    • TrentDeux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's all about the children... is so much easier to say then an actual lucid argument on the merits of a program. It strikes a chord with likes of many on Digg. No depth of thought needed.
  • GabrielS, on 10/18/2007, -14/+7I didn;t know the Democrats used a 12 year old child to deliver their weekly radio address, but that is some real twisted ***** right there. Stop drafting children unwittingly into the political game. This is despicable behavior.
    • amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7You mean like Bush used kids for a stem cell photo op?
      • minoss, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4OMG that like totally makes this ok and despicable in the least. Funny how when you bring this up the absolutely only argument democrats have is "Bush did it to."
        • amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21) I'm not a democrat.

          2) Your partisanship blinds you and those who stand with you. Your irrational hatred based on party 'loyalty' leaves you hiding behind willful ignorance and insults to defend your indefensible position.
    • niczar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yeah, it sure is twisted to show a child to prop up a child insurance program ... whatever.
    • MadKennyP, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6Yeah, that stupid kid shouldn't never been a victim of that horrible car accident. He's a selfish bastard.
  • fafaforza, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1For the love of God, will someone *please* think of the children?!
  • Schmapdi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0erroneous misinformation = completely true information no?
  • dinorama1234, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27Never underestimate the Neocons' collective ability to divert attention away from the issue at hand.
    Some blow-hard right winger casts aspersions about this boy's credibility, and every free thinking, compassionate person in America fumbles over their own heels to respond. Listen: this boy and his family ARE NOT THE ISSUE. Who cares whether they make 45,000 or 50,000, or whatever.

    "Oh, the Dems are so wicked, they used a child to further their agenda!" Well, Bush just said "***** You" to thousands of kids in need. The real issue here is Bush's continuing disdain for everyone but his rich cronies and their wellbeing. He vetoed a bill that would have helped A LOT of children in need. He's an *****. At this point, after all that's happened, anyone who still supports him is also an *****.
    This should be self-evident. Let's not get bamboozled into arguing a stupid non-point just because the conservative propaganda machine decided they would be more comfortable if everybody worried about this boy's family and their credibility instead of Bush's ongoing one-fingered salute to America.
    • bluesnowmonkey, on 10/18/2007, -7/+5You're right. Both sides are arguing about the wrong issue. The real issue is that programs like SCHIP are wealth redistribution, morally reprehensible.
      • an0nymous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Never help a dying child, never feed a starving man?
        That is what you're saying, right?
        Great Depression? ***** them. No soup for you.
        • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He's not saying that. There's a difference between private charity and government redistribution of wealth.
      • clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You make me ashamed to be a monkey
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Neoconservatives don't care about health care. If a Republican is pushing the Wolfowitz doctrine it's safe to accuse them of neoconservativism, if a Republican is attacking children to deflect support from a domestic policy, neoconservativism has nothing at all to do with it.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Right you are. I'm a paleoconservative and I don't care about health care either. Pay for your own filthy brat's upbringing, or get the ***** out of here and go to the socialist ***** hole of your choice. I'm tired of being the sugar daddy for every baby-factory welfare-sucking slut in this country.
        • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks for your honesty.
          Have you considered a run for the house of representatives on the Republican ticket?
    • RabidAngel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I couldn't agree more. Well said!
    • TrentDeux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You hit all the proper slurs for conservatives but your argument is pretty weak.

      If the boy is not the issue, why are the democrats pushing him into the limelight? Why not just argue the merits?

      About Bush not caring for the kids, he did of course want to INCREASE funding for this program by $5 Billion, although you didn't mention that in your diatribe. Thats a lot of money for a group you don't care about, isn't it?

      And of course you don't touch the obvious point, how about that poor downtrodden US taxpayer? Does his/her needs ever come into focus? Or are the kids always at the very top of the foodchain...
      • dinorama1234, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know if you're a republican, democrat, or an independent, so I'm not going to make an assumption. But I always wonder where the "downtrodden American taxpayer" fits in with those self-labeled conservatives who support Bush's catastrophic foreign policy of preemptive wars we can't afford. Such individuals seem to recoil in horror and disgust at the suggestion that we should spend some time and money investing in our own citizens in need, but get nauseatingly self-righteous if the poor taxpayers' money is being buried in the Iraqi desert. How about this: since it seems only policy enforced at the point of a gun is worth our tax dollars, maybe we can just shoot money at kids in need. We might as well, as long as we're just pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars anyway.
  • emaz985, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0A 12 years old vs a 12 years old (age of their sick brains)
  • SaintStryfe, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16I can't believe people are accusing this family of not working. "Get a better job", the guy owns his own business! That's the back-bone of our country, not big business, the small businesses that employ more people, create more wealth and move more money then anyone else in our economy. Closing your business because of a personal tragedy hurts lots of people, and shouldn't be the result of an accident.

    And to those saying "Sell the house" - get real. Home Ownership is the goal of millions, and also creates the wealth we need. People with houses buy big ticket items made by American companies. Everyone who has a tragedy in life should give up not only the American dream, but their personal wishes too? Sorry, we live in too wealthy a nation to live that cut-throat. We should be helping more people get more, not acting like we're too poor to help people.

    Personally, I think EVERY PERSON under the age of 25 (about 1/3 of your life) should have full, government paid health care. If you are under that age, you should be able to go into a clinic/hospital/whatever and get health care at no additional cost. After that, you can start working and have your own opportunities in life, but before that you should have every chance to succeed. The bonuses seem clear to me: Healthier younger work force, less business spending (if your business doesn't need to cover your worker's kids, that's less you need to pay), better school performance, fewer children dying. It doesn't seem to be a bad thing at all to me. The cost is minor compared to the wealth generated.
  • enki25, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15SCHIP is just a way for Americans to ensure that American children are raised with healthcare in the least expensive way
    possible. This is the kind of country I want to live in, even though it means I'm paying a very small amount for children I will never see and who aren't related.

    I say ***** you to the assholes in this thread that whine about it not being their problem. They are miserly egoists who, instead of being thankful for their blessings, use them as evidence that they are better than everybody else.

    I don't care what religion you are, but thinking in this way is an insult to god. No man is an island, those who were successful got their standing on the shoulders of geniuses and taking advantage of infrastructure paid for by the ancestors of their community. Not everybody has the same opportunities, and it's pointless to judge this family based on what little we know.
    • TrentDeux, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Ok we get it. You are a communist and want to live off of my hard work.
      • enki25, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I understand what society means. You do not. And most likely, you do not work as hard as I do. You probably work a lot dumber as well, as evidenced by your calling me a communist.
  • biseor, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Fun fact of life: If Republicans tried the same stunt putting a little kids face on a right wing issue, you'd all be howling and screaming at them for 'nazzy' propagandizing. But of course, it's ok if the left does it..
    fackin' tools
    • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3WTF are you talking about. They do this ***** all the time. Seen a pro-life rally lately?
      It largely goes uncommented. but now that you klnow about it, I am sure you will go complain.
      Right? Right?
      Nice faux-outrage.
      Sick Kid saved by government insurance program speaks oput on behalf of governemnt insurance program. What's the problem?
      • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The problem is that the kid isn't the issue, but the Democrats are trying to say he is. The kid was already covered under the program. The Democrats wanted to expand the program, and Bush vetoed it. I'm sure if they pass something sensible Bush would sign it.
        • clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wow, lotsa people missing the point in here... They had the kid speaking because CHIP helped him, he is still around despite what happened to him, thanks to the program. The point was that the program helps children who might not otherwise have the protection that they need, and he is an example of it working. Also, it was to highlight the children who need that help but are not getting it.
          • TrentDeux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"he is still around despite what happened to him"
            So you are implying that without the CHIP program, his parents would have held on to their $400k house, not paid for proper medical treatment, and the kid would have died?
    • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here you go:
      http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bush+photo ...
      Be sure to write an angry letter to the White House.
      Toolbag.
      • biseor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Thanks for proving my point for me numbnuts. ;)
  • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Extreme tactics always smell of desperation;
    conservatives and fundamentalists know their ideologies are dying, and they're willing to do anything to hold on to whatever scraps of their backward culture they can.
  • cashman57, on 10/18/2007, -7/+8Would you like to have all of your health decisions made for you in DC?
    That's what happens when the government pays for your health care.
    Imagine you have a twelve year old kid who is dying and there's a solution which will allow him to live but the government doesn't like the solution.
    Your kid dies.
    It is just that simple.
    The federal government was not designed to make medical decisions.
    The most dangerous place to live in America is public housing and you want to turn your medical decisions over to them??
    ARE YOU NUTS???
    • FranTaylor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4You heard about the guy who lost multiple fingers in an accident, but he had to choose which ONE of them to get reattached because his health insurance would only cover one? Who's making whose health decisions?

      If what you say is the case, then we should just drop the VA and all the free health care for government workers, too.

      • cashman57, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3If you turn your health care decisions over to some insurance company bean counter you have gained nothing.
        When I look at the VA I see Walter Reed and the terrible conditions there.
        • clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So it's better not to have health insurance? WTF?
    • annaoverseas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That doesn't really mesh with my experiences in socialised health care. My doctor and I make my health decisions. Ottawa wasn't really a part of that in Canada, and Westminster had nothing to do with it when I was in Scotland. Now that I'm living in Australia, I still haven't got anyone other than my doctor and I making my medical decisions. Why do you think it'll be different?
    • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Err...all the socialized medicine schemes I've ever heard of are designed to cut the payor (the government, or in the USA, your HMO or insurer) completely out of the decision-making process...unlike the American system.

      Besides, private insurers are profit-driven, and have every incentive to deny you care once you're too sick to keep paying them without getting any service in return. Are YOU nuts?
    • sakul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Thats a load of crap.. I would much rather have someone in government (who would be a doctor or medical professional you dimwit) deciding on a course of action in regards to my HEALTH and not how much PROFIT they can get out of me.... and it doesn't even happen that way, see 2 posts above.
  • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6the real question is: what entitles children to special healthcare treatment in the first place?
    • preisler, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Common human decency
      • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Then you pull your money out of your pocket, and pay for some children's healthcare. I actually don't mind having this program around, but it really isn't government's role.
        • offspring06, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Americans need to open their corporate eyes and see that health care is not a luxury but a necessity. Its a human rights issue. America will be left behind while other countries continue to setup a universal health care for their people. America is the "***** you, look after your own self" nation.
          • TrentDeux, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That's all very well to call health care a "necessity" and a "human rights issue". You can call anything that. But using fancy terms like that doesn't get around the fact that someone needs to pay for it.
            Who is gonna pay for it? You offspring06? You seem to be in favor of helping the children, how about you personally pay for it? And I mean all of it. Bueller?
            Personally I think a lap dance and a good blow job for myself every friday night is a "necessity". Heck even a "human rights issue", let me get on the government dole also.
    • preisler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Double comment.
    • RandomGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well, they must be healthy before slaughter and consumption!
    • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Other than the fact that they are our future and unable to take care of themselves. Nothing entitles their parents to healthcare, but only a self absorbed moron would deny innocent children, that's right innocent, the use of a doctor because of said child's screw up parents. I do not support socialized health beyond that for children. Why do you hate America, and more precisely in this case, America's future?
      • clothmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I was with ya up until you mentioned hating America. What a loaded, yet semantically vague phrase.
  • phatt-matt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Retarded liberals get this straight. Bush did not veto SCHIP. He voted an expansion of SCHIP. Bush wanted a 4 million dollar expansion and the Congress came up with a 10+ million dollar expansion including the possibility of adding children whose families make 60-70K a year. I know, you want to close your eyes and cover your ears and believe that Bush took away this program, but it just isn't true. Stop listening to stinkprogress and start thinking for yourself.

    • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Given that our dollar is now in the toilet, thank you very much, that 60K a year is starting to look a lot like the old 30K a year. And if you believe the inflation numbers are true, well, you are being amusing at best.
    • Crazyviolinist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And given how our President has done nothing but "spend, spend, spend" at the expense of a huge debt to China for a war that is rapidly deteriorating, and given how health care costs are rapidly rising by a program you probably did not support in 1993-1994, then I think that the neocons are beginning to shoot anything they can find, even small children--simply to make themselves look good.
    • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"the possibility of adding children whose families make 60-70K a year"

      The possibility already exists, asshat -- the extension doesn't change anything there. And the possibility must be approved by ... the Bush administration.
  • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Shame on both parties for using children for political means. Neither party has any principles.
    • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah, they should have used the kid's handicapped sister, instead. I mean she's the one receiving the bulk of the care. So, do you think the boy has a stake in seeing that his sister is cared for properly? I guess not. I know, change the child labor laws so he can go to work and support his sister! Then they wouldn't need to raise the taxes on cigarettes. Brilliant plan. Simply brilliant! Because we all understand that if you can't vote, you should keep your mouth shut, because things people vote about simply don't concern you.
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You really think the boy said "Hey momma, I have definite, well thought out, clearly defined opinions on this sCHIP program. I want you to contact the Democrat party and put me on the air for the weekly speech so I can share my opinions."

        Or, do you think it happened more like this... Politician: "Well, we have to find something to hold up to show how heartless Bush is." Politician #2: "Hey, this family wrote to one of my aides about their sob story; it goes like this...." Politician #1: "That's a hell of a story. It'll make Bush look like a monster. Lets do it."

        In other words - you missed my point.
  • Cattrin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2People who keep claiming "It's not my job to pay for their children", try and remember some facts here...

    The plan was to fun the program through a 60 some odd cent tax on cigarettes. As it is now smoking is expensive, especially the more addicted you are. If you smoke, though, chances are you have the money to spend on cigarettes and a less-than-a-buck tax wont do much to hurt you. This encourages light smokers to quit, discourages people too poor for healthcare from smoking, encourages heavy smokers to slow down.... In this sense it encourages people to make healthier choices with cigarettes. At the same time, this small bit of change is given to poor children who did not chose to be ill and cant afford to make themselves better. It's a win win, smokers get a bit healthier, poor children get healthier.

    I thought cigs are supposed to calm you people anyways ;) heh. I'm not condemning smokers... I don't but I have no problem if you do. I just realize it's expensive, unhealthy, and if it's going to stay in the society we may as well create something positive from it.
    • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Smokers are 3x more likely than others to be poor. So you want to tax the poor, to pay for the poor? That's fantastic.
    • Tweekster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And how about the cigar tax?
      50 percent...
      Something that does not have the health issues.
  • Nanite, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Sheesh, the freepers are in here en masse. All complaining that they don't want to pay for someone else's kid. That just confirms my suspicions that freepers are poor selfish bastards with no care in the world for anyone but their own sickening brood. You can all go to hell, society is better off without your type around.
    • Leomarth, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1freepers? I would tend to think that would apply to those greedy bastards who want everything handed to them for free. Thats the real greed!
  • martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Look - I'm a right-winger - but hear me out ;)
    I don't think the issue here is really whether or not Graeme Frost is 'legit' or not. The fact is that there are many kids represented by what Graeme said, whether he's one of them or not. The fact is that CHIP helps lots of kids, and there's lots more kids that would be much better off on the program. We agree so far?

    Here's what I think the average right-winger is reacting to: Bush vetoed the bill on the grounds that it redefined 'poor children' loosely. Under the new bill, middle class 25 year olds would still be eligible for state funding. I'll willingly pay taxes for all the Graeme Frost's out there... but under this program I'd be paying to help 'kids' out who are older and better off than myself. Soo... Bush proposes less funds, tighter restrictions, and vetoes the bill.

    At this point the proponents of the bill produce their rebuttal via Graeme Frost. Let's just take for granted that Graeme Frost's story is legit and that his family overwhelmingly qualifies for the program. The rub for me is that kids like Graeme Frost are the ones that Bush's compromise still proposes to cover. I think a fairer rebuttal would be a 24 year old law student struggling to pay off college loans, and he needs our money to pay for his twisted ankle from soccer night. At least then we'd be seeing the face of someone who was being 'denied' healthcare coverage.
    • chall2001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Those 25 years olds would have to be legal dependents of their parents. The purpose of the bill was to increase the cutoff so parents who were above the poverty line but still unable to afford health insurance could provide care for their children.
      How many 25 year olds are LEGAL dependents (living in your parent's basement doesn't count)?
      • aikimann, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3The proposed bill would have raised the income cap to $80,000 / year. Meaning, the government would be paying for the healthcare of people who can already afford it. THAT's why the president vetoed it. Educate yourself people.
        • ianam, on 11/07/2007, -1/+0"The proposed bill would have raised the income cap to $80,000 / year."

          That's a lie.

          "Educate yourself people."

          Says someone merely repeating disinformation talking points.
      • martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3That's a valid point - the dependency constraint would rule out a lot of potential abuse of the program, but there's still the issue of where the new bill expands the covered financial bracket. Bush is saying that he wants to add an extra 4-5 billion to cover more of the *low income* children. Both Hillary and Pelosi have affirmed that the new bill is intended to cover *middle income* families as well though. Encouraging families who don't absolutely need government aid to participate in the program is a step towards a socialized healthcare system. I'm a die hard fundamental capitalist - I want to keep healthcare privatized to the greatest extent possible. If people NEED government help, that's one thing... but this new bill, was something else.
    • Crazyviolinist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Agreed, but the health care costs are rising like crazy. Finally, a conservative who reasons stuff out rather than screams it out. You sir, I can respect.
    • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Don't come in here basically apologizing for being a right winger.
      • martinjd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"It's like these republicans really hate America."
        "Republicans are greedy selfish kids. They hate our troops, and they don't give a ***** about you or your kids."
        "This is what Republicans do, they excel at twisting facts into a lie to make other people look bad..."
        "They're to busy detaining and spying on people to love the freedom..."
        -- Just a few examples from this thread on the general view of us 'right-wingers.' I don't have anything to apologize for, but I'm not above being mindful that I'm writing in a generally biased comment board.
    • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The extension, supported by Republicans as well as Democrats, deals with changing financial reality. But Bush lies about it, falsely claiming that it raises caps to $80,000/year. If you really want a rebuttal to Bush, talk to Sen. Grassley.

      Of course, none of this has anything to do with the subject of this article, which is the rabid smear of the Frost familiy.
  • TRMitchell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Buried for repeatedly calling them the "Frost's". I'll Digg it when someone covers it who can write.
  • right75, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3No, I think we're attacking the phonies on the left who framed this 12-yr-old kid to be something he's not.
    • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He is a kid from a lower middle-class family who was saved by the SCHIP program.
      So what is he not?
  • smacksaw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The thing about Malkin is she says the family could/should pay for it.

    They do.

    In taxes, to the state of Maryland. They aren't getting SCHIP for free. How much are the property taxes on that 400k house? Or the sales tax on that 40k Suburban?

    Now are they getting more than what they pay for? I don't know. Maybe SCHIP is worth more. Then again, if your employer pays part of your health insurance costs it's worth more than what you pay anyway.

    If she said that the free market and free enterprise could do a better job or something like that she might have a point, but in the end she's wrong due to hypocrisy. These people pay taxes and in an indirect way paid for SCHIP. They may have even paid far more than their fair share at their income bracket. I'd like to see her researchers figure out the value of the the plan vs the amount of the tax budget that goes to fund it divided by the # of people paying taxes and ratio of said taxes being paid.

    Maybe I'm totally off on this. If I had some facts I might know, but as it stands my opinion is that these people paid for the health care.
  • pogfreak, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3***** that kid and ***** government hand outs. After reading how much of state money they are getting while his father pulls in < 50K makes me think of one important lesson that needs to be nailed into every single Americans head: don't have half retarded children that require special care if you can't afford it!
    • offspring06, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Than why did your parents have you?
      • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They were wacked out on booze and pills. He also dodged the coathanger.
    • ianam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How about fully retarded children like you? The Frost kids are accident victims, you foul cretin.

      "while his father pulls in < 50K"

      Perhaps if you weren't retarded, you would understand what you just wrote.
  • ronaldst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Thinkprogress.org? Isn't that a site for extremists, rednecks and radicals?
    • chall2001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Was that sarcasm? Its hard to tell these days.
    • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Rednecks?
      Really?
      That's new.
  • Schauvin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/p ... haha