a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkPolitical Chicken SCHIPS
Through all of the thoughtless nonsense about how the “meanies” and “hypocrites” have reacted to the Democrats pimping out Graeme Frost there are a couple of good observations made by, you know, the usual “meanies” and “hypocrites”. Mark Styne posts an email:
Look, the Democrats put forward a 12-year-old, not because he could best deliver the message, but because they considered him a compelling messenger. In effect, they said that the messenger is the message. At that moment, discussion of the messenger is perfectly appropriate.
Paul Mirengoff makes some really important points:
The Democrats’ use of Frost for this purpose was cynical at many levels. First, it’s ridiculous to have a 12 year-old go on national radio to deliver advice about policy. Second, Frost is already covered by SCHIP and would continue to be covered under legislation that Bush is prepared to sign. Thus, the particulars of his situation, which he set out for the audience, are irrelevant to the policy debate. Third, the particulars of a given child who actually would obtain coverage through an expansion of SCHIP are also irrelevant. The expansion proposed by the Democrats would bring at least one million middle class kids into the program. The individual circumstances of their families will vary widely. Thus, hand-picking one child to discuss his or her situation adds nothing to the debate.
But once the Democrats hand-picked a kid, it became fair (though not terribly germane) to flesh out the details of his family’s circumstances to see how difficult and onerous it would have been for the family to purchase health insurance for its children. This required an analysis of, among other things, how much income the family earns and what its assets are. Undertaking such an analysis hardly constituted an “assault” on Graeme Frost’s family. Neither did our contribution, a link to two such posts. In claiming otherwise, Dionne is up to his usual “preemption” tactic — cheerleading for liberal Democrats when they present selected facts and condemning conservatives when they present facts on the same subject that seem to cut the other way. (In this instance, it appears that some of the facts presented by some conservatives were incorrect, though even their “defenders” agree the Frosts own a house worth approximately $260,000 plus a commercial property valued at $160,000 that produces rental income. Getting facts wrong is always a bad thing, but it doesn’t make one a “meanie” or a “hypocrite”).
[...]
There are serious issues associated with the SCHIP expansion debate. They include the “crowd-out†of private insurance and the dubious approach the Democrats have selected to finance the expansion. These issues have been our focus. To my knowledge, Dionne has not engaged them. He prefers to focus on a kid who is already covered by SCHIP and the “mean-spiritedness” of those who wanted to talk more fully about that kid’s circumstances.
[Update:] Wulfgar thinks I’m a complete f-cking asshole for using the word “pimping” in describing how Democrats exploited young Master Frost. Gosh! How should have I referred to the behavior of Democrats? Brokers of truth?
[Update II] Shane accuses conservatives for hypocrisy. Well, there’s enough to go around.
I’m not really sure what to make of the recent uproar surrounding SCHIP and the 12 year old Graeme Frost who read a message for the Democratic Party. I certainly haven’t followed every twist, but I see Ezra Klein condemnning the Right for “travel[ling] to their home, insinuat[ing] that the family is engaged in large-scale fraud, mak[ing] threatening phone calls to the family, interrogat[ing] the neighbors as to the family’s character and financial state”.
[...]
also note with some amusement that Lefties defend their initial use of the kid by pointing out that Republicans brought out a kid to help sell the Social Security in 2005. Joan Walsh claims “Atrios notes that nobody went after nine-year-old Noah McCullough when Bush made him a poster boy for privatizing Social Security.“
Well, funny you bring that up, because that’s not the way I recall it. There was…
- Jesus’ General and TBogg, who made sexual references to the kid…
- Kewpie, who called him “a budding young fascist” and “dumb”…
- DadaHead, who said the kid was “in desperate need of a good ass-kicking…”
- Democratic Underground, where commenters wrote quite a lot of things that I don’t care to reprint…
- Salon’s What Would Dick Think, Daily Kos and Atrios, who called the kid “Cousin Oliver”
- And, at Ezra Klein’s own blog, Melissa McEwan said his appearance was “indicative of a desperation reserved for policy proposals that are ready for the graveyard”…
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
Wulfgar missed the mark as usual. That sometimes happens when he goes off on one of his rants.
He left out the ‘hypocrite’ part. I just did a search on here and didn’t seem to find a word about this.
For the love of God, can you just stop calling yourself a libertarian and be up front with the world?
For the love of God, can you quite being such and idiot. Just because I align myself with Republicans on this issue doesn’t mean that I’m with their party. Get a grip. It’s always refreshing when some moonbat tells me I’m not libertarian enough.
Oh, and the little kid that Bush brought out didn’t ask anyone “why won;t you give me…” False argument.
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding what not supporting embryonic stem cell research has to do with SCHIP. It’s the most stupefyingly idiotic analogy I have ever seen someone make, especially Mason, who has a long and voluminous corpus of idiocy to fall back on.
At what point do parents shoulder some share of the responsibility for their children being “protected and defended?” That’s what this entire debate is about. No one is advocating throwing the Frost’s, or as far as I can tell, anyone else currently enrolled in SCHIP off the rolls. In fact, the president actually pushed for an increase in SCHIP funding.
The ideological battle over “need†and “want†is what is at issue. Of course the middle class wants SCHIP. Why not? It’s free, isn’t it? But no one is asking if there is a better way to insure those who don’t make a million dollars a year. No one is asking if this expansion of federal largesse at the expense of other taxpayers is a good thing or not – certainly no one has asked those taxpayers who are going to foot the bill for families like the Frosts whose situation, while complicated, is not desperate or hopeless where no one would begrudge them the benefit.
Mike, I’ll keep this really simple:
Using children to make a political point.
But if you want to get into idiotic statements, let’s do go there:
Yes Mike, they have. It was called the election of 2006 and that will be reaffirmed in about a year. Let’s see, where else have they been asked? Polls maybe?
You are right thou, this is a matter of want vs need and most people see this as a need. Looks like someone did ask taxpaying voters and you are way out on the fringe on this one.
Dave, I didn’t accuse conservatives of being hypocritical, I accused you of being a hypocrite. I stand by that accusation.
As your your supposed ‘libertarianism’, for so long you played the ‘I am not one of them’ card ad it made for some pretty good rogerian arguments. Quiet impressive really. As you become more and more angry though, it shows through quiet clearly that you are not a disinterested third party at all. You are as partisan as they come and that should be pointed out.
Shane, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t need to defend myself.
That said, my guess is that you don’t even know what libertarianism is.
You mean using children to make a political point like Democrats did only a few years ago? Something like that or completely different?
It was called the election of 2006 and that will be reaffirmed in about a year.
Maybe it will be maybe it won’t. I really enjoy taking note of the juvenile smugness that seems to permeate most of your arguments. You can’t debate policy or philosophy, unless it’s provided for you in one or two mouse clicks, so you throw polls up as defense. Just assume for the moment the worst case scenario for the Democrats: unconditional disarmament and detente in Iraq. What do you think happens to the poll numbers then? Not to mention the “election of 2006″ seems hardly to have solved FISA, NCLB, and the myriad of other “problems” it was supposed to.
this is a matter of want vs need and most people see this as a need.
And therein lies the debate. Not whether the Frosts have too much money to enjoy the coverage supplied by SCHIP but whether any family can make choices that force other families to pay for them. Yes, in order to afford insurance for their children the Frosts at the very least may have been forced to sell their rental property and perhaps even have one or both parents get a job where an employer provides health coverage. But there are thousands and thousands of families who are faced with those choices all the time and choose to make sacrifices so their kids are covered. Now those families are being told that, in effect, they’re a bunch of chumps for making those sacrifices because others who may even be better off are “smart†enough to avoid the responsibility and get coverage via SCHIP.
Where is the left’s outrage at this injustice? Where’s the hand wringing about the inequality of this situation?
The liberal answer to this unfairness is to not try and make private insurance more affordable via targeted tax breaks or vouchers, or come up with some other private alternative but to expand the program even further thus trapping more people into a dependency that prevents them from keeping the benefit if their income exceeds a certain amount. The disincentives in the program are obvious. It may make for good politics but it’s lousy policy.
Looks like someone did ask taxpaying voters and you are way out on the fringe on this one.
That’s an odd statement coming from someone from Georgia. I bet if you had polled your parents or neighbors in the 60′’s, taxpaying voters all no doubt, they may have been “way out on the fringe” if they supported civil rights legislation, or didn’t support it as the case may be.
Do you not see the inherent danger of governing by polls or majority rule? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You guys spent years rallying around the supposed tyranny of the majority when the Republicans were in charge of Congress. I used to know because I was there, donating tens of thousands of dollars to the cause. Now that the pendulum has swung in the other direction you want to replace the so-called tyranny with another one of your own making? That, Shane, is why you’re side is so ideologically vacuous and repulsive to me.
It is such a pleasure to sit on the sidelines and watch the Republicans hang themselves with their own philosophical rope. Of course the market cannot provide health care to poor children, by definition. Of course Republicans are in market denial. Of course they oppose government subsidized health care for children. I’m laughing all the way to the bank on this one. It’s way too funny – Dave and Mike – keep on truckin’! I’m McLovin it.
Um, we’re not talking about “poor children” in this deebate, Mark. “Poor children” are covered by Medicaid.
Ah yes, the sound of the rope whistling in the wind … a lonely desert, somewhere in the distance, a coyote howls…
Nice, Mark. Nonsense becomes you.
You’re much too literal.
Excellent points, Dave. That kid’s family was certainly subject to harassment in the form of online jokes. And that’s the equivalent of how Michelle Malkin has handled this incident.
This does explain your thin skin, though. Online jokes constitute “going after.”
Last I checked, none of things you link to call for the child’s death. They just say that he was being rolled out as part of a desperate act by an Administration on the brink of a policy defeat. That turned out to be true.
Mike, your assumptions are silly. Look it up friend, my town was not segregated in the 1960’s, or the 50’s and 40’s for that matter. The town full of trail-of-tears and refugees and Scottish immigrants welcomed the first African America family to move there in the 50’s. They attended schools and ate at the restaurants. A dirt poor mountain town, no one there was concerned about what went on south of Warwoman road. You’ll have to forgive me for not knowing all the details, I was not alive in the 60’s.
“I was not alive in the 60’s.”
I knew you were born yesterday.
Furthermore Mike, I would think with your far superior philosophical underpinnings, that you would know better than to first make an appeal to the masses with a statement like:
And then turn right around and tell me how stupid and dangerous the masses are in the same breath. Of course, what right would I have to debate with one so intellectually superior? Do you and Dave ever tire of telling people how smart you are?
As an example of the ‘danger of the masses’, you point to segregation in the south. I get the fun implication that my side are the bad guys here. Yay. Have you considered the
possibilityprobability that history will consider your view on this as the inhumane stance?I’m not sure that history will judge my view as the inhumane stance any more than you do, and the last time I checked I’m also not so sure I even bother to consider how I view myself any smarter than anyone else. And for the record, I’ve never referred to my “far superior philosophical underpinnings.” That’s envy on your part. I was mainly trying to make a gentlemanly effort to not call you dimwitted lickspittle, or a shmendrik as the case may be.
Just continue playing Santa Claus while painting conservatives as Scrooge. Damned effective politics, that. Whether it’s the right thing to do as far as maintaining our liberties is concerned just never seems to enter into the discussion. And I have no doubt, we will rue the day that we stopped weighing the consequences of what we give up in freedom for what we gain when abrogating our responsibilities to live as independent, self reliant people who can make intelligent and informed decisions for ourselves.
You are so filled with vitriol, aren’t you?
You are so filled with vitriol, aren’t you?
Not so much. I just know a shmendrik when I see one.
Discussion? This is a discussion? I would call it bitter angry rantings.
As the webmaster of Montana’s most soundproof echo chamber for the left you are certainly an expert at fostering discussion. No wait, thus far every one of your attempts have failed. My bad.
Bitter angry rantings? Where? The attempt to bring to the table the idea of ‘want v.need” or targeted tax breaks or vouchers for health insurance were an attempt to foster discussion. Don’t blame me if you don’t bring the requisite skills to the debate. Perhaps I am at an advantage though and should have provided you a handicap of some kind, not that nature didn’t already. My wife has a Ph.D./D.P.H. in health care policy and spent 18 l-o-n-g months consulting with the Govt. of Saskatchewan in reforming their health care delivery system. You know, the kind of reform that improves patient care and outcomes without raising the cost that the provincial and federal governments must pay. When I have a question, or want to make sure something I promote is accurate, I just yell out the door of my office…no Googling required.
I will compare daily hits with you anyday, just as I will compare comments and discussion. You are welcomed to comment there, as it anyone else, it isn’t sound proof. If it makes you feel better to call it a failure, so be it.
As for your school yard name calling, I will point out that it comes off as immature even if it is in Yiddish. Additionally, first hand knowledge, I am less than impressed with your liberal use of discredited references.
Thanks for reminding us that universal healthcare systems do work.
I am not going to debate you on this anymore Mike. I am done with this thread until you choose to start treating me with at least an appearance of respect.
I am less than impressed with your liberal use of discredited references.
I’ve noticed that is a continuing problem when you can’t debate the policy, deny the allegedly “discredited references” without citing what makes them discredited.
Thanks for reminding us that universal healthcare systems do work.
Actually it wasn’t working. Overhead and bureaucracy were quickly ruining an already doomed system, it’s just that the Province realized what was happening before they got to where BC and Ontario, and to a lesser but growing degree, Alberta is. The solution, or part of it? Introduce competition and free market competitiveness. Oh my.
I am done with this thread until you choose to start treating me with at least an appearance of respect.
Stop being a mewling pussy for crissakes. You entered this discussion by throwing a few bombs yourself…like calling someone a hypocrite, attepting to divine the nature of our libertarian host, and referring to references not obtained within a click or two on Google to be discredited, so save me the fucking lecture on treating someone with the appearance of respect.