What is Digg?73 Comments
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Today, the New York Times adds more to the story, reporting that Sen. McConnell’s office was preparing to issue a press release to attack the Frost family, but pulled back once the progressive blogosphere revealed the malicious campaign:
- SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Those guys are always smearing little kids with stuff.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18McConnell has always been one of the most smarmy members of the Senate. He's truly a douche bag.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17But c'mon that family makes an outlandish $40 G's a year... combined. The $750 a month it probably costs to ensure the whole family should be easy to pay for if they you know, don't eat or drive a car or pay rent n'stuff.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Hmmm - the kid has a scholarship so they don't have to pay for it because people were nice enough to help out a kid with brain damage. I don't think that 20k counts as income.
- pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11They actually priced insurance and found it would be $1200, more than their mortgage. It's a family of six, with kids who have preexisting conditions like cancer and brain injury.
But since the house they bought for $55,000 is now assessed at $260,000, the wingnuts are shaming the parents for not selling their home to pay for health insurance. - pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Yes, one kid has financial aid and pays nothing, the other has a scholarship and pays $500. Really, take a look at the facts:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-grae ... - pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Please provide a link to the source of this $1mil net worth claim. The closest I could find to this with Google was people claiming the Frost family had a net worth in the neighborhood of $500,000 because of a single Free Republic post -- which Rush Limbaugh repeated on the air and which circulated all over the right blogosphere as "fact" -- falsely speculating that their house "cost $485,000." It actually cost $55,000.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Oh, of course. And that means the house he bought 20 years ago, and then the neighborhood god nicer - he should just sell that and live in a metal box. His business he spent years building up to support him and his family - save that he can't afford health insurance because of the expense - well, he should just sell that off as well so he can work at Wal-Mart.
But hey, he'll be able to afford health insurance then.
Or - maybe it would be nice if we lived in a country where people didn't have to bankrupt themselves just to pay for health care. Where like other nations that somehow figured it out, we could have public and private health insurance programs - the latter to keep people in good enough shape to keep working and producing goods and services, the latter for those who can afford more than basic services (aka - cosmetic surgery or want a special specialist).
I know, I'm asking for too much, like we not spend billions on military contractors and use it to actually do something useful for the citizens. What was I thinking? - linuxrebel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+640K a year isn't much. In fact around here it's below the poverty line for a family of 3 ... let alone 6. My insurance for 3 healthy people (wife and kid + me) runs about 850 a month. and thats' with a HMO 1200 a month for PPO.
- pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7As opposed to US healthcare, where there are no such problems, and nobody goes to other countries for operations and medication.
- pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5National Review: "The boy is fair game."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzgyZWFiO ... - pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Dude, SCHIP insures children. Nobody disputes that. They had a child say SCHIP insured him. How is that despicable? It just focused the debate on the people affected.
- pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Because one of his own aides said so.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I agree! How dare that child and his sister have brain damage from a car accident, and his family be unable to afford the very expensive therapy and surgery! How dare that family and their 12 year old boy say "Hey, please don't cancel this program - we depend on this so we don't have to sell our house and business just to keep our children healthy!"
Damn them for actually being effected by this measure, and daring to speak up about it! - pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5You seriously think Democrats were "baiting" Republicans to smear the kid? I'm pretty jaded, but even I was surprised anyone would do this. The Democrats just put a face to the program. The program insures children, so children are the face of the program. If Republicans don't like how that looks, that's kind of too bad.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Oh, I agree! After living in the house he had hoped to own for 20 years, he should just rent instead! Kind of like serfs - remember, they didn't get to own anything either. Great life, I'm sure.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Exactly. People effected by laws and policies should never speak out. They should just keep quiet and not let people know that something is going to effect them in a negative manner. Only those who are not effected at all - such as rich people when we're talking about health care costs - should speak about anything.
- amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I think the story of your ignorant outrage is well covered by Bill O'Reilly and the Free Republic.
- mawginty, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Remember that with a growing population (with proportionately more poor people) a program that doesn't "expand" will contract. As I understand Bush's position, he wants to increase funding in the program but not by enough to cover everyone who is covered now.
And for the record, yes I would like you, your wife, and your two children to get "free" (that is public) health care. Health care is one of those things that the private market is bad at. I don't want economic efficiency, I want to make sure that if I get sick I can get better. If it costs me 50 cents more per dollar to make sure that everyone has that luxury, so be it. - pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Also, facts:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-grae ... - pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's in the story.
- pdxuser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Graeme Frost is the new Terry Schiavo. Ugh.
- Habemus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Anyone can pull "facts" out of their ass.
Their scholarship is not enough to cover all but $500. It is a $500 scholarship. The the family pays the rest. That's a fact.
My facts are just as verifiable (or not) as yours. - geoffp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't know; I think having your family harassed and accused of all sorts of ***** things must be pretty distressing, and getting to be on TV (voluntarily) to talk about why your family doesn't have to sell their house to pay a hospital would be pretty cool.
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Trying to smear the boy was despicable. Using the boy and his misfortune to further political aims was equally despicable. Obviously, his story was meant to tug at some heart strings. Whether or not he is an expert or whether his anecdote actually represents the situation is disregarded (which was their intent) because people don't want to be "heartless." What is actually heartless is exploiting the kid and his family.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Oh. Uh - thanks!
- laxidasical, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But what you and all of the Republicans are saying is that a person should have to liquidate all of their assets, which will effectively fund their retirement and hopefully help their children when they're older to pay for health insurance? Is that what you are REALLY arguing for? That normal working Americans, who have children (remember, we have a declining population here if you take out illegal immigrants) should have to provide health insurance at great cost instead of helping to provide a stable presence in the community and provide to the tax base, but instead should become wage slaves to big HMOs. Is that really what we want?
- amoirae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You have no conscience, do you?
- jimmyn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Would that be the coverage that was passed 69-30 (veto proof, 69.9%) in the Senate and 265-159 (not quite veto proof--though close, 62.5%) in the House. Funny how majorities in congress passed a bill that was a sure veto by the President--they must all really hate this kid.
- kylesellers, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5It's despicable because they imply that he will no longer receive those benefits, when in fact, he will continue to receive the benefits. The program just won't be EXPANDED to cover all middle class children in addition to the poor children already covered.
- Klydethegreater, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They don't give a damn about facts.
- chukd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4all politicians are smarmy and douches
- kylesellers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Good point. Except this kid ISN'T affected. He gets his sCHIP benefits, and still will after the veto. This isn't about cancelling the program, it's about not expanding it to all middle income families.
The program is for poor people, and I agree that it shouldn't be expanded to cover middle class families. - shupy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By the way, my parents are dead. And I really resent having my tax dollars go to support the medicare program your parents and grandparents depend on. So add them to YOUR insurance plan and get their lazy butts off medicare.
- SiNN4R, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Yeah constantly... what?
- chiggah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I didn't call you and ask permission to give my kids educations. Why do you continue to contribute for it anyways?
- shupy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1When you have a little life experience and can see beyond your own selfish nose, you see that there is a health care crisis in this country. This family tried to buy health insurance. They couldn't. I have a friend who is 54 and has been paying $2000 a month for insurance because of an auto-immune disease. She is too sick to work, but does not qualify for disability. By next year she will have lost her home and all of her savings. She will then qualify for medicaid, but by the time she qualifies for social security, she will have lost everything she worked for in her entire life and is hoping she can get section 8 housing.
Do you have parents on Medicare? Why should I be paying for that? I can't get it, and I don't have living parents. How about your grandparents? Mine are dead, if yours are alive, I resent a single dime of my tax money going to pay their health care.
I am astounded how judgmental and downright mean people have become. However, life will humble us all. You too may face financial hardship, and for sure you will face old age. I hope you think long and hard before you apply for your government hand out in the form of medicare. - hawkeye17, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Stories like this one are exactly the kind of stories that are going to get shoved up the Republican's collective asses with candles on them in the 2008 elections.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The democrats should only use children to argue their points so nobody would ever be able to argue back. It's the perfect plan.
/sarcasm - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, if you contact those against government expansion, you might have a chance. But the oddsof being featured by supporters of the expansion is 0. Good for you, though.
- linuxrebel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1skews13 ... why are you shouting... There's no draft......
- philipl411, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Several months ago there was a story on digg about a family that had 12+ kids. The family was a christian family and was able to not only raise them, but also pay for their needs, as in health care. (Oh, they were also christian and no doubt republican.) But the liberal digg community said what a shame it was this family kept growning. Yet here is a family of four and its obvious the mom and daad can not afford the kids they created, why isnt the digg community calling this mom and dad names? Why is it not ok to have a large family at you can afford, yet loser (this couple) can not affford their kids and its ok?
- shupy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There was also a very well publicized story about a Mormon family where the mothers and children were on welfare. Not as a single family, but as separate families. Daddy wasn’t taking care of his wives or children. They considered themselves Christian.
If you believe people should not have children they can’t afford, where do you stand on abortion? What happens if that Christian father dies? Would you criticize the wife for having children she can’t afford?
Those who rant and rave about how these people can’t afford their kids have never shopped for health care. A single pre-existing condition will rocket your insurance costs to over 1,500 a month. If one of the kids you think you can afford develops diabetes or a congenital defect you may loose your insurance, and you will not be able to insure them at any price. This program does not hand out freebies, it help families BUY private insurance.
You are either astonishingly ignorant or you are foolishly young.
Those against these programs, do you have parents or grandparents on medicare? Do you consider that a handout? I hope you fully intend to turn down the medicare option when you are old, since you are against government supported healthcare. Tell your parents to get their lazy asses off medicare and pay for their own health insurance. - philipl411, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1different issues
- stepnw1f, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Right wing pencil dicks going after a 12 year old. Real tough guys...lololol. How low can you go?
- jimmyn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I sincerely hope not, but do you, your wife, or your two kids have a preexisting condition that would SIGNIFICANTLY affect your health care premiums? If not, the equivalence to the Frost family is missed.
- johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Got a link? I'd be interested in that.
- withears, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Democrats - it's time to take the gloves off.
- cavsct94, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0I wonder how many Diggbots actually make an effort to find out the truth of anything. If you look at this family's financial circumstances and their decisions, you might wonder why other people should have any obligation at all to provide for their health care.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is