Captain's Quarters -

Deceit Thy name is Democrat.

As a supporter of a Universal Health care system here in America, I must say - I don't believe that a children's health insurance program should be applied to adults. Are adults being covered under SCHIP currently?

How ironic. I was opposed to the S-CHIP expansion specifically because I hate kids. I may have to rethink this now...

Walberg says, "The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants."

---------------------------------

Both of those things are an absolute, flat out LIE so forgive me if I suspect that Walberg is also lying about what is going on in Michigan. The S-chip program does NOT cover illegal aliens. The program does NOT cover people up to $83,000. Repeating lies over and over does not make them true. And however the program is CURRENTLY administered in Michigan would be the fault of the BUSH administration which approves each state's current management of the plan.

I'd also like to know how many of the adults that Michigan covers are pregnant women because that appears to be the eligibilty requirement for adults to get S-chip in Michigan in order that children in utero get good prenatal care.

Remember the Medicare prescription plan that the dems said was a hand out to the pharmaceutical industry. This is no different. The government does not manage these plans!!! Wake Up!

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/25/185410.php

SCHIP: It's for the Insurance Companies, Not the Children
Written by Dave Nalle
Published September 25, 2007
For the Democrats this expansion of the program is an opportunity to get a foot in the door for national health insurance and a number of Republicans are going along because it always looks good to be doing something 'for the children'. But the real driving force here is that those supporting the bill extension get a great many campaign donations from health insurance industry groups who really like the idea of having $35 billion in taxpayer money given to them for a program which is cheap for them to administer and has relatively few claims. What's more, the income they receive is even more than the federal share, because states pitch in billions more for the program and most states also require copayments and small nominal premiums from many of those insured. All told the payoff to the insurance companies is in the neighborhood of $60 billion or more....

If you doubt who this program really benefits, do a search on the web for SCHIP. What you'll find is hundreds of web pages from insurance companies and insurance industry groups touting the wonderful benefits of the program and overlooking the unnecessarily high costs and marginal quality of the service provided to those insured under the program. The truth is that they see it as free money and an opportunity to move health coverage for the poor away from the federal government under Medicaid and towards a government funded but enormously profitable privately managed program.'

My concern IS the free money given to the insurance companies. The more government money they have the less likely they are to 'compete' for my meger dollars. I cannot use other quotes to bargain for lower prices. They simply don't need my dollars so much.

Teresa, it's reading comprehension time again. Walberg was stating what the EXPANSION would entail, not what the program currently covers. Typical leftist behavior, read something wrong and scream about people lying.

Teresa..

Care to site verifiable sources for your statements?

Please no sources like you used from Andrew Sullivan..please

Well I suppose we could assume Walberg is lying ( 0ne of us just did ) but he is from Michigan and an elected representative with access to staff and resources to research a program recently voted on. Or we could assume that he might have access to accurate information on the program, especially as it is being administrered in the State of Michigan, where he is from.

I will admit that I had no knowledge at all that Chip or S-Chip existed or who it might cover or not cover until I heard President Bush vetoed a massive expansion of the program.

Of course its entirely possible that the heartless creature that Bush is, he really hates kids and wants all the sick ones to die. Or maybe he truly believes that the program is fine as it is with a minor expansion, which is what he has been saying for months. We are each free to make the conclusion based on the facts. Somehow, the rhetoric coming from the left does not really lead me to buy what they are selling, but hey Bushitler could really be evil this time, despite however many many times they have cried wolf and been proven to be lying or worse.

Nothing whatsoever justifies the notion that one person should be forced to bear responsibility for the health care of another person's child. NOTHING!

The parents, and only the parents, bear moral responsibility for the care of their children. They, and they alone, have total authority over the decision to bring the child into this world. They, and they alone, must bear responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

Forcing the responsibility for the child's healthcare -- or any part of his care -- onto the taxpayers is forcing one person -- the taxpayer -- to bear responsibility for the consequences of another person's -- the parent's -- actions. Punishing one man for another man's actions is the very essence of INJUSTICE -- and nothing can justify an injustice.

People that cannot properly care for children have no business bringing them into this world; a system that allows and indeed encourages irresponsible parenting is immoral and is a violation of the child‘s right to be loved and cared for by his parents, not become an instant burden on taxpayers that had absolutely no involvement, say-so or influence on the child’s creation.

Mark F says, "Teresa, it's reading comprehension time again. Walberg was stating what the EXPANSION would entail, not what the program currently covers. Typical leftist behavior, read something wrong and scream about people lying.

-------------------------

Wrong Mark. The expansion does NOT cover illegal aliens or people with those income levels. Even the Captain has refuted the illegal alien claim in the past few weeks. The $83,000 claim comes from NY State asking for a waiver under the current program to expand the program to cover families in NY up to that amount last year. That waiver was turned down by the Bush administration. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed SCHIP expansion. It is just a stupid right wing talking point that all the politicians involved know is a lie.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that he would lobby House Republicans to override a presidential veto (Schor, The Hill, 9/28). Grassley said that Bush's objections to the legislation are based on false assumptions, such as his concern that families with annual incomes up to $83,000 would qualify for the program. Grassley said, "In Iowa, you can't call a cow a chicken and have it be true" (Norman, Des Moines Register, 9/28).

Typical right wing behavior, getting all your misinformation from Fox News and screaming that liberals who counter it with actual facts are wrong.

And for all you whining liberals who claim to "love the children": the creation of the welfare state, including the creation of this outrageous SCHIP program, constitutes one of the worst crimes that could possibly be committed agaisnt the nation's children. The welfare state hangs an enourmous millstone around the neck of every child borne today -- the millstone of having to suffer a lifetime of heavy taxes and dollar-eating inflation that will be required to keep the whole rotten welfare state structure afloat in the future. The liberals have looted our children's futures for the sake of buying elections today -- and conservatives have not had the guts to stop them.

Michael Smith,

I'll say this, you have your indignant rhetoric down. But not much else.

theblacksheepwasright says, "Teresa..

Care to site verifiable sources for your statements?"

---------------------

You can read the entire text of the bipartisan compromise bill that was voted on in the House and Senate right here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR976:

Please find me within the bill either where it covers illegal aliens or families up to $83,000.

Captain said:

The federal government should not be subsidizing health insurance for adults, let alone middle-class children.

Captain, the federal government cannot subsidize anything. All it can do is take money from one citizen, pay itself a salary for doing so, and then deliver what's left to another citizen. Or, alternatively, it can inflate the money supply by printing new money to give to one citizen, thereby decreasing the value of the money held by the other citizens. But in both cases, a single fact remains true: the government cannot confer a benefit on anyone without conferring an even greater amount of harm on someone else.

This is a fact that the left is anxious to evade. We should not help them do so.

Teresa, I repeat, you were criticizing Walberg's statement of what the program extension would entail. We can argue about whether or not his details of the expansion are correct, but you attacked that statement by saying how the program is currently run. And congratulations at dumping responsibility for all possible problems with the administration of the program in Michigan in the lap of the Bush administration. It's convenient to forget that Governor Granholm is a Democrat and the Dems have solid control of the lower house of the Michigan state legislature. It apparently matters not in the least that the state's department heads were appointed by Granholm. It's all Bushitler's fault.

Think of the disproportionate impact on women, minorities and children (up to age 25). Oh, the humanity!

cycloptichorn said:

Michael Smith

I'll say this, you have your indignant rhetoric down. But not much else.

I'll take that as an admission that you have no argument to offer for the injustice of punishing some people for the actions of others.

Micheal Smith,

It isn't an injustice in the slightest. You don't seem to understand the governmental setup of the US.

I guarantee that each and every day you profit off of services provided by the pooling of tax dollars; that these dollars are collected at differing rates based upon the income of the individual is certainly not 'injustice' at all. I don't even know how you could claim that it is.

As this is America, I would propose to you that you either A) work hard to get people elected who will repeal the current tax system, or B) keep on enjoying the perks without complaining so much.

I'm self-employed and my own private health care insurance cost will be rising an additional $715 per year. I don't have a problem investing in my own health insurance however if my NYC tax, state tax and federal income tax are going to rise in order to pay health insurance for people making more money than I then I won't be able to afford paying my own health care insurance.

When this happens who is going to provide for my health insurance; perhaps Teresa would like step up to the plate and help a sister out?

Insurance to cover catastrophic and random health issues would be one thing, but the "government pays for anything you can come up with an excuse to get" Universal health care is entirely different. Any expansion of government provision of health care will only make things more expensive, and that isn't even accounting for the increase in inefficiency and corruption.

Frankly, this kind of thing should be left up to private charities, not forced upon everyone by the government.

Cycloptichorn said:

I guarantee that each and every day you profit off of services provided by the pooling of tax dollars; that these dollars are collected at differing rates based upon the income of the individual is certainly not 'injustice' at all. I don't even know how you could claim that it is.

I haven't "claimed it" - I've proven it.

Justice demands that one be held accountable for one's own actions, not the actions of others completely outside one‘s control. Punishing some people for the consequences of other people's actions -- actions which the first people have no control over, did not participate in, cannot influence, and never agreed to be responsible for -- is the very essence of INJUSTICE.

Replying to this by asserting, "No it isn't, no it isn't" without supplying any support for your claim is not an argument -- it's just an empty assertion.

And I certainly do not "profit" off anyone else's tax dollars. I'm paying three times the national average per family, which means that there are people "profiting" off me, not vice versa.

The fundamental point remains: nothing justifies the notion that one person should be forced to pay the doctor bills of another person's children. Neither you nor any other liberal has provided any justification for such a notion, and you never will for the simple reason that nothing justifies an injustice.

Count to 10 wrote:

Frankly, this kind of thing should be left up to private charities, not forced upon everyone by the government.

Exactly.

Michael,

If you drove or rode a bicycle on a public road, you got a profit off of the services provided by pooling money. If the police and fire departments protected you today (Which they did) then you profited off of a public services. These profits are not financial but they exist nonetheless.

This is incorrect:

"Justice demands that one be held accountable for one's own actions, not the actions of others completely outside one‘s control."

Justice demands that the law be upheld and followed. What you have written has nothing to do with 'justice' at all but with your own personal beliefs about life.

Our current laws include Tax laws, necessary to the survival of our nation as a whole. Justice demands that these laws be obeyed. It does not demand that the laws are fair to everyone involved.

You say:

"Neither you nor any other liberal has provided any justification for such a notion, and you never will for the simple reason that nothing justifies an injustice."

You are caught in a tautology. Intellectually weak argument. I suggest you study up on what 'justice' means before responding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

As this is America, I would propose to you that you either A) work hard to get people elected who will repeal the current tax system, or B) keep on enjoying the perks without complaining so much.

Or do like the illegal aliens do...work for cash under the table, pay no taxes, buy no insurance and get free medical care paid for by the schlubs like me who work for a living.

dpw,

Or that, thanks; I forgot the option of becoming a criminal and foregoing any hope of a normal life. Generally it's safely assumed that those who rant about justice wouldn't consider such an option to be an honorable one.

Cycloptichorn,

Not that Michael needs any help, but...

"Justice demands that the law be upheld and followed."

So if congress passes a law that says I can have your house because I'm poor and I need a place to sleep, to you that is justice.

Justice does not come from the law. Go buy a moral compass.

Nate,

As every person's moral compass points to a different direction, we only have that set of morals which is agreed upon by the body politic of the US to go by in instances such as this: the law.

You may personally believe that, morally, you owe no income taxes. Your moral compass may assure you that this is true. But it is not an injustice when those taxes are taken from you; merely, you are being held to the same standards as everyone else in the society which you elect to be a part of.

You are free to save up money, purchase a small island (there are many available for sale) and impose whatever 'just' laws you see fit; or emigrate to some other country whose taxation more closely mirrors your view of justice. But you are not free to ignore the laws we as a society have agreed upon, and it is not injustice for society to uphold and enforce those laws.

now millions of half crazed wingnuts will think that Frost family has been scamming the government when it just isn't true. The Frost family qualified for the SCHIP program under the government's rules. They qualified for the program that Bush himself says he supports. (It's the new money he opposes.)The Frosts support a program that has helped their two kids get medical care after a terrible, life threatening accident and so they spoke out about it, as they have every right to do as Americans. For that they are being lied about and smeared as con artists.

The sanctimonious right wing vultures will determine whether they "deserve" to eat at Applebees once a month with their four kids or whether they are "cheating" the benevolent tax payers by having a television set or a cell phone since their catastrophically injured kids need help from the government. They will say that Mom and Dad should work two jobs or maybe they shouldn't have had kids in the first place or started their own business. There will be no sense of "there but for the grace of God go I" or no recognition that sometimes life throws you a curve ball and that you need the help of others to get you through.

The Frosts can now expect that they will be bombarded with judgment from smug jackasses who will poke around in their private lives and tell them they are at fault, even though they both work, because their family couldn't afford to pay the huge premiums for a family of six or the catastrophic costs associated with major injuries and the ongoing care necessary for a special needs child. And when these critics say this about these people they will also be saying it about millions of working poor and middle class families who are crumbling under the burden of the runaway health care costs that are breaking the American economy and the American family. They will all be told they are bad parents, bad citizens, bad people.

Yet it is Americans like the Frosts, who make 45,000 dollars a year trying to run a small business and raise a family who are the backbone of this country. They don't deserve to be swift-boated or smeared or stalked just because they need some help when their kids are hurt and the costs for caring for them runs into the millions of dollars --- or for speaking out about it. This sickening smear campaign against these people is unamerican, unchristian and inhuman, which actually isn't all that surprising considering the people it's coming from.

digby

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you drove or rode a bicycle on a public road, you got a profit off of the services provided by pooling money. If the police and fire departments protected you today (Which they did) then you profited off of a public services. These profits are not financial but they exist nonetheless.

Nonsense. If government services, like police and fire protection, cost an average of $1 per person per year, and I'm paying $3 per year in taxes while two other people are paying $0, I certainly have not "profited" by this "pooling" -- I'm simply footing the bill not only for myself but for two others as well.

Furthermore, the actual situation is much worse than this because of that $1 per year per person the government is spending on "government services", only about 10 cents is going for things like police and fire. So the bulk of the money stolen from me doesn't even go into something as legitimate as police protection -- it just goes into the bottomless bucket of the welfare state.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is incorrect:

"Justice demands that one be held accountable for one's own actions, not the actions of others completely outside one‘s control."

Justice demands that the law be upheld and followed.

You are conflating justice with the law. The Nazis passed laws sending Jews to the gas chambers. Did "justice demand that these laws be upheld and obeyed"? Certainly not.

The southern states in 19th century America passed laws making blacks the property of whites as slaves. Did "justice demand that these laws be upheld and obeyed"? Certainly not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you have written has nothing to do with 'justice' at all but with your own personal beliefs about life.

What you have written is an attempt to evade the issue by changing the subject. You've said nothing to justify the notion that some people should be punished for the actions of others. Justice can have no meaning if punishment and accountability are switched from the person that took the action to other people that did not. You've said nothing to justify that switch.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Justice demands that these laws be obeyed. It does not demand that the laws are fair to everyone involved.

Thank you for admitting that what you advocate is certainly not fair to everyone involved. You’re admitting that on a fundamental level, your programs depend on the unfair treatment of some to provide benefits to others.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You say:

"Neither you nor any other liberal has provided any justification for such a notion, and you never will for the simple reason that nothing justifies an injustice."

You are caught in a tautology. Intellectually weak argument. I suggest you study up on what 'justice' means before responding:

Please, don't insult my intelligence by implying that the Wikipedia is some sort of authority on the meaning of justice.

Either give an argument why it is just to punish some people for the actions of others -- or admit that your programs are unjust.

I submit that the Kelo case clearly demonstrates that the "Law" clearly often has no morals or compass merely a desire by activist Ginsburg, Souter and a few other vain cronies to pilfer the property of others regardless of the Constitution's protections. A long hop towards Marxism where all property is the State's.

One could also discuss law versus moral or law versus just in Nifong's circus or Clintoon's practices as Arkansas AG yet for those who aren't lawyers here throwing the usual bar association sales pitches the Kelo case should be enough.

To my friends justice. All others the law.
-Benito Juarez

MarkF-- Teresa, I repeat, you were criticizing Walberg's statement of what the program extension would entail. We can argue about whether or not his details of the expansion are correct, but you attacked that statement by saying how the program is currently run.
-------------------------------------

No. In my first post that you said was wrong, I criticized him based on the lies he is telling about expansion -- that it would cover illegal aliens and that it would cover people up to $83,000.

WALBERG says in his statement, "The Democratic legislation takes a program originally meant for children of low-income families and expands it to cover some families earning up to $83,000 and illegal immigrants."

I said both of those claims are untrue in my first post. Now who is having reading comprehension problems?

Cycloptichorn,

"You are free to save up money, purchase a small island (there are many available for sale) and impose whatever 'just' laws you see fit; or emigrate to some other country whose taxation more closely mirrors your view of justice. But you are not free to ignore the laws we as a society have agreed upon, and it is not injustice for society to uphold and enforce those laws."

I made no claim to a legal right, or even desire, to ignore the law. Your inference that I did is the typical intellectual dodge I have come to expect from all liberals. My obvious point, which I must now restate, is that your carefully nuanced view of justice is hardly different from "mob rule."

Germany, as a society, elected to exterminate the Jews. How dare the Jews protest, since their society had agreed upon the act, and it was therefore just!

Justice, to you, can be anything at all. This shows that you lack the same common sense gene as all the other liberals in the world, your excellent prose not withstanding.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But you are not free to ignore the laws we as a society have agreed upon, and it is not injustice for society to uphold and enforce those laws.

Indeed, the Jews were not free to ignore the laws that German society had agreed upon, the laws that sent them to the gas chambers, and the Germans were not committing an injustice in enforcing those laws.

On the question of what the income limits on the program, apparently they vary by State. I note the following:

“It depends on what the state of New York decides to do.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked if, “families making $80,000 or $83,000 a year in New York State, for example, would their children be eligible for the SCHIP?” (CNN, 9/25/07)

“New Jersey would still be allowed to cover families with incomes three and one-half times the poverty rate – $72,275 for a family of four.” (AP, 9/26/07)

Doesn't look like a lie to me, The Speaker of the House seems to answer "yes".

Teresa, I'm getting a bit tired of this. You said that it was a pack of lies because the current program doesn't cover income levels up to eighty-three thousand dollars or illegal aliens. Walberg said, adn I pointed this out, that this would be the outcome of the expansion of the program. Again, we can debate the accuracy of the projection, but that does not change the fact that you were trying to deny something claimed in a future expansion of benefits by the current administration of the program. Drink some more coffee, rub your eyes, splash some cold water on your face, then look again. Perhaps Walberg is wrong on his projections, but you have to work away at those details, not what exists now. All sorts of benefits have grown far beyond the intended purpose, range and size. We see illegal aliens getting in-state tuition that is not available to American citizens of other states and we see Park Avenue millionaires collecting huge farm subsidies. The devil's in the details, my friend.

sashal,
so, is it a smear, if the allegations turn out to be true?

the point being raised is the Frosts seem to be living pretty darn well, yet did not buy health insurance for their kids. questions have arisen as to whether they've hidden assets in order to qualify for SCHIP, all the while living a middle class life.

In any case, it's disingenuous to use this family to claim that Bush is "cutting" SCHIP when, in fact, he in proposing an INCREASE of 5 billion $$. The real smear being done here is for Dems insinuate that his administration is cruel and heartless, because he has carefully vetoed a HUGE expansion!

Similarly on the expansion of the program to Illegal Aliens, currently , States are required to seek proof of U.S. citizenship before they provide Medicaid coverage, except in emergencies. The states now require applicants to show documents like birth certificates or passports in order to prove U.S. citizenship and nationality. The bill would allow applicants to submit a Social Security number instead.

“Michael J. Astrue, commissioner for the Social Security Administration, said that matching a Social Security number with an individual does not allow officials to verify whether someone is a U.S. citizen.” (AP, 9/26/07)

So he is lying or are the Democrats trying to make it a lot easier for non-citizens to slip through the doors of coverage? I report, you decide.

Apparently Michigan is not alone in allowing adults in on the program. Something like 700,000 adults nationwide have coverage under The Childrens Health Insurance Program ( CHIP). the estimate I have seen of unserved children nationwide is about 500,000. So if we only let children into the Childrens program we could cover them all without any increase? So why do we need to expand the program again?

viking01 wrote:

I submit that the Kelo case clearly demonstrates that the "Law" clearly often has no morals or compass merely a desire by activist Ginsburg, Souter and a few other vain cronies to pilfer the property of others regardless of the Constitution's protections. A long hop towards Marxism where all property is the State's.

You are correct. The legal and the just are two different things.

The laws at one time in this country held that blacks could be the property of whites -- and here in these comments we have a liberal arguing that justice demands that such laws be obeyed and enforced.

It is certainly true that many services provided by government engender no negative reactions by conservatives, even those of a libertarian bent. And those services represent transfers to varying degrees. The use of tax dollars to provide for police protection is a type of transfer payment because, it is generally assumed, the poor benefit relatively more than the wealthy, while the wealthy certainly pay more of the cost of providing it.

There are a couple of things to bear in mind here, however. First, the fact that some transfer payments are acceptable does not logically lead to the conclusion that all transfer payments are acceptable. So, my willingness to accept spending on national defense even though people who pay nothing will reap some of the attendent benefits does not necessitate free food for everybody.

Secondly, there is a perfectly logical reason why the government would provide public goods, or near-approximations of public goods. Non-rival and non-exclusive goods like national defense will not be provided by the markets, so government must supply them if they are to be had at all. Health care, alas, is not one of those goods, and requiring the governmnet(i.e. people who pay taxes) to provide it makes no more sense than having the government provide free food, transportation or entertainment. it is neither an economic nor a moral obligation of government.

"Or that, thanks; I forgot the option of becoming a criminal and foregoing any hope of a normal life. Generally it's safely assumed that those who rant about justice wouldn't consider such an option to be an honorable one."

"To live outside the law you must be honest." -- R. Zimmerman.

And these days, it's about the only place you can...

MARK -- Teresa, I'm getting a bit tired of this. You said that it was a pack of lies because the current program doesn't cover income levels up to eighty-three thousand dollars or illegal aliens.
----------------------

No, once again, I said it was a pack of lies because THE EXPANSION does not do this. Walberg says the expansion will do this. IT WILL NOT. READ the legislation.

Rereading my first post, I see that I wrote the "Schip program". Perhaps I should have added the word "expansion" to that, but I think it was clear what I was referring to the expansion since it was in direct response to Walberg's claim that I quoted.

I do not support expanding the program as much as the Democrats want to, because I think taxing smokers an additional 61 cents a pack is not really fair.

However, Teresa is right about one thing, there is no reason to believe this program has anything to do with illegal immigration. In fact I think it will work against conservatives if they use that as an argument.

It sounds like demagoguery. Of course the Democrats acting as if Bush wants to kill sick babies because he does not support expanding a government program as much as they do is demagoguery too.

Neither side is covering itself with glory here. But then anymore they rarely do.

Michael,

Your reference to Nazi Germany, per Godwin's law, loses you the argument. Sorry. But, as you are in need of an education about justice and its' relevance to taxation, I'll continue talking to ya.

Question: How are tax rates determined?

Answer: By an approximation of how much one can afford to give.

The United States exists as a collective of all the effort and resources of those who or operate companies within it combined. As there are certain functions which we have determined as a society to be both necessary for our society's survival and prosperity, it behooves us as citizens to contribute to the Government which manages those services and acts as our proxy when dealing with foreign countries.

Each of us is expected to pay money to the level which we can afford. There are certain conditions, usually referred to as 'credits,' which we recognize affect one's ability to pay taxes. There are other conditions which force one to pay additional taxes.

You have stated that you pay three times the median in taxation. Yet, someone else who uses the same police and fire protection and roads and national defense as you, pays less. This leads you to believe that you are being screwed; but you're not being screwed in the slightest. You are paying what you can afford to pay without significantly reducing the quality of your life, just like the guy who pays 1/3rd of what you do, just like the guy who pays 3 times what you do.

Here's a 'flat tax' scenario.

Citizen 1 makes 40k per year; if we 'flat tax' everyone at 20%, then he pays 8k per year in taxes. That represents a serious cramping of this person's ability to have a normal and sustainable life. They have to scrimp each month. They have a hard time saving for the future. They can't deal with losing their job, or a catastrophic car wreck, or with cancer in the family without wiping out their savings. It's a precarious situation. It limits the person's ability to purchase NECESSITIES.

Citizen 2 makes 400k per year; if we 'flat tax' everyone at 20%, then he pays 80k in taxes. This does not represent a serious cramping of this person's ability to have a normal or sustainable life. They don't have to scrimp each month. They can easily save for the future. They can easily deal with losing jobs or medical bills. They aren't limited in any way except for their ability to purchase LUXURIES.

I'm not concerned in the slightest with limiting people's ability to purchase luxuries. And the gov't shouldn't be concerned with that either.

So; we create graduated tax rates, figure out what level you can tax someone without seriously infringing on their ability to purchase necessities, and that's that. In fact, the rich have it far, far better; tax rates can and have been much higher in the past then they currently are. As it is, current taxes upon the wealthy barely infringe upon their ability to buy luxuries at all.

So, when you state that it isn't fair that others pay less then you do for the same services, you are incorrect. It is fair. Everyone is required to pay what they can afford. It is just that everyone pays what they can afford instead of an arbitrary figure. It would be unjust to demand that the poor pay your tax rates, so what makes you think it would be just for you to pay the tax rates that a poor person does?

For many here, justice seems to equal 'not paying a dime for anyone else that I don't have to.' Many here seem more concerned with saving their money then keeping our nation fiscally solvent, which is selfish in the extreme.

And please - when you can reign in the Republicans as well as the Dems on their wild spending sprees, come talk to me about lowering taxes.

The conflation here between tax law and Justice is truly amazing to me. That people would compare Jews being murdered in Nazi Germany, to their having to pay higher tax rates then a poor person, is indicative of a twisted mind. There is no comparison to the two.

"those who or operate companies" should read "those who live in or operate companies", sorry.

As a TRUE conservative, I'm so glad the Republicans are going mental about this issue. As the neo-cons gained more power since the mid-90's, and the real conservatives got pushed out, I actually thought this was a really smart bunch. However, this single issue is bringing out the height of stupidity.

The fact is, you can't justify spending billions on a preemptive war (that most Americans are currently against), then say, "We're not going to give kids health care because we're fiscally responsible". Americans just AREN'T that stupid. There is NO argument that you can make to a country full of parents that justifies "not giving kids health care". Maybe... just maybe, if Bush and Congress had been truly conservative (fiscally as WELL as socially) this entire administration, he could offer a reasonable justification. But now, trying to justify not passing it is a losing battle.

It's my sincere hope that this clears out all the intellectually lazy yahoos, and let's the Republican party once again become the Grand Old Party.

sashal wrote:
The Frosts support a program that has helped their two kids get medical care after a terrible, life threatening accident and so they spoke out about it, as they have every right to do as Americans. For that they are being lied about and smeared as con artists.
So then why are the dems bring out this family as their test case. THey've taken advantage of the program, and since Bush is not advocating ending the program but expanding it, (just not to the extent that the dems are suggesting) they most likely would similarly be covered.
Dragging out this family ony proves Bush's point that the program is being used to give health care insurance to middle class families and adults and not to the people who need it most, namely genuinely poor people.
SOrry, but a family of four that gets 40,000 a year in education benefits, owns a car, has a 3000 foot house with built in equity, owns a separate property being used for a business, sorry but these are not the characteristics of poor people.The fact that this family is being "attacked", is because the dems tried to use the boy as a political attack on the conservatives, they assumed that because it was a 12 year old speaking that somehow their argument was unassailable and unimpeachable. They shouldn't put a child into the meat grinder of politics as a political stunt if they're worried about the boys feelings.

Cycloptichorn said to Michael,

Your reference to Nazi Germany, per Godwin's law, loses you the argument.

Actually Cycloptichorn, your favorite online resource says differently.

---------------------

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons. The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable.

---------------------

So, since the topic of the discussion is justice and injustice, there are few if any more appropriate examples of injustice than the Germans exterminating Jews. Again, you have used an intellectually dishonest dodge to avoid having to deal with a valid point.

You have claimed that justice is derived from adherence to, and enforcement of the law. Thus it follows from your claim that the Germans were acting in a just way while exterminating the Jews. If you don't like the analogy, go back to the less inflammatory one I gave you about the government confiscating your house (which you also dodged). But for your own dignity, stop with with the typical liberal cowardice. Its boring.

Nate,

It's commonly understood that Godwin's law is a form of Appealing to Extremes; a logical fallacy.

You say:

"You have claimed that justice is derived from adherence to, and enforcement of the law."

Actually, what I said was:

"Justice demands that the law be upheld and followed"

And it does. Justice, on a national scale, isn't based upon your personal moral compass, Nate.

I am completely uninterested in insults; if you find it boring to converse with me, then do not persist in doing so. I assure you that I will not be stung in the least by your choice.

Truly excellent prose. Such a shame.

Howard C wrote:
As a TRUE conservative, I'm so glad the Republicans are going mental about this issue. As the neo-cons gained more power since the mid-90's, and the real conservatives got pushed out, I actually thought this was a really smart bunch. However, this single issue is bringing out the height of stupidity.

The fact is, you can't justify spending billions on a preemptive war (that most Americans are currently against), then say, "We're not going to give kids health care because we're fiscally responsible". Americans just AREN'T that stupid. There is NO argument that you can make to a country full of parents that justifies "not giving kids health care".

Is that what Bush is saying though? Why mischaracterize the argument? Bush isn't against the program of SCHIP hes against the expansion of S-CHIP as proposed by the democrats. This program was running under Bush and Bush in fact wanted to expand it by 5 billion. Why are you trying to demagogue this as if somehow the evil republicans just hate the kids and want them to deprive them of health care?
Stop demagoging this.
And it was the dems who brought up the 12 year old purely for political purposes. If its a program that is supposed to go to poor people and the family owns a business a 3000 square foot home, bought for 55,000 but now worth something shy of 400,000, a separate building for their business, rich grandparents, free private school education that they don't have to pay for, maybe this family is not the ideal candidate to show how the evil republicans are trying to deprive poor people of their health insurance.

To Cycrapticon: Every time I see a posting on this blog by you, I can't imagine why you post it, let alone write it. You keep confusing laws with justice, and announcing that everyone who disagrees with you is so mistaken, stupid and immoral, because they don't agree with you. Why aren't you posting at Kos, or one of the other lib outlets? Why do you continue to post the same tired, childish, immature nonsence that anyone who reads these items can quote from memory.

to deb and jr.
remember snowflake kids ?
Anyway smearing a child and his family because that child was fair game -- he and his family spoke of their experience receiving health care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program. For this, right wingers travel to their home, insinuate that the family is engaged in large-scale fraud, make threatening phone calls to the family, interrogate the neighbors as to the family's character and financial state.

This is the politics of hate. Screaming, sobbing, inchoate, hate. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to drive to the home of a Republican small business owner to see if he "really" needed that tax cut. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to call his family and demand their personal information. It would never occur to me to interrogate his neighbors. It would never occur to me to his smear his children.

The shrieking, atavistic ritual of personal destruction the right roars into every few weeks is something different than politics. It is beyond politics.
This is not politics. This is, in symbolism and emotion, a violent group ritual. It is savages tearing at the body of a captured enemy. It is the group reminding itself that the Other is always disingenuous, always evil, always lying, always pitiful and pathetic and grotesque. It is a bonding experience -- the collaborative nature of these hateful orgies proves that much -- in which the enemy is exposed as base and vile and then ripped apart by the community. In that way, it sustains itself, each attack preemptively justifying the next vicious assault, justifying the whole hateful edifice on which their politics rest.

Ezrah Klein

Here is the actual speech from the kid.
Go on, investigate.

“Hi, my name is Graeme Frost. I’m 12 years old and I live in Baltimore, Maryland. Most kids my age probably haven’t heard of CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But I know all about it, because if it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today.

“CHIP is a law the government made to help families like mine afford healthcare for their kids. Three years ago, my family was in a really bad car accident. My younger sister Gemma and I were both hurt. I was in a coma for a week and couldn’t eat or stand up or even talk at first. My sister was even worse. I was in the hospital for five-and-a-half months and I needed a big surgery. For a long time after that, I had to go to physical therapy after school to get stronger. But even though I was hurt badly, I was really lucky. My sister and I both were.

“My parents work really hard and always make sure my sister and I have everything we need, but the hospital bills were huge. We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program.

“But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. Their parents might have to sell their cars or their houses, or they might not be able to pay for hospital bills at all.

“Now I’m back to school. One of my vocal chords is paralyzed so I don’t talk the same way I used to. And I can’t walk or run as fast as I did. The doctors say I can’t play football any more, but I might still be able to be a coach. I’m just happy to be back with my friends.

“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program.

“I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening.”

jr565.
SCIP programm exists, and Frosts used it legally.
Or should have they sell their house? To pay for exuberant medical bills, become homeless, start renting ? What is your problem?
How would you behave in the similar situation?
45 000 is not enough especially with small children.
As far as dragging out 12 year old kid.
You mean like when the Democrats rolled a nine year old out to sell the dismantling of Social Security? Or when they used a young girl who lost her mother on 9/11 to help Bush get re-elected? Or when they shoved a bunch of "snowflake children" in front of cameras to score points on the stem cell debate? Yeah, those Democrats are ALWAYS using kids to do their dirty work, aren't they?

Funny, I don't remember anyone going to those folks' homes and harassing them, or posting their addresses online.

Sashal,
The dems made the family fair game because they were using the child as a political attack. They should have picked a better test case. But the dems were the ones who brought this kid out and had him speak for them. ANd that opens him and his family up to scrutiny. SOrry if you want to have your unassailable propaganda mouth piece, but it doesn't work that way especially in politics.

As for your assertions, I don't know anyone terorizing the family or making threatening calls to them, and certainly that's beyond the pale, but who is supportive of that? What are you referring to though, and who is doing that? And what about reporters looking into the story to get background info. Is that part of the terrorizing of the family you're referring to? How is that different than any other news report?

The whole point of this is that there are already people gaming the system. This is a program that's supposed to be used for poor kids and yet more than 100,000 adults are using this program. So in a discussion of a program its right and necessary to look into whether their are flaws in the program, and whether it justifies expanding the program even further if there are so many abuses.
But when its your side that brings out the test case, why don't you find a better test case, that isn't so easily assailable.

B

I just read the bill. Thomas H.R.976. Note that you will have to refer to both the House and Senate versions from the Conference version to find some of the stuff.

Teresa is correct about the illegal aliens. Section 605 states explicitly and catagorically that there will be no Federal funding for illegal aliens.

Teresa is incorrect about the income level. SCHIP would cover (in Illinois, for example) people at 400% of poverty level (e.g., $83,000). This is not in one section, but in many.

One big issue with the wording of S-CHIP is that the limits are tiered to per-state limits. So a generous state means a generous Federal Government, and a miserly state means a miserly Federal Government.

S-CHIP also mandates a study of high income families (greater than 300% of poverty line) replacing their private health insurance with S-CHIP coverage, but doesn't mandate any actions to prevent this. So, the Frosts continue to get their free ride.

Note the above paragraph, which indicates that S-CHIP is designed to allow coverage of people above the 300% mark. Another indicator that $83,000 may not even be the upper limit. So, if NY State, for example, wants a 500% limit, they just have cover state medicaid expenses to that level and the federal SCHIP level adjusts to cover.

And Sachal, this ain't just any low income family -- it's a family which owns a business (and an LLC, no less), whose parents had their wedding announced in the society pages of the NYT, and who are quite active in politics.

When you enter politics, be prepared to have your life scrutinized. The Frosts should have known this up front; if they didn't, they were used.

Sashal wrote:
“I don’t know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP. All I know is I have some really good doctors. They took great care of me when I was sick, and I’m glad I could see them because of the Children’s Health Program.

“I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me. This is Graeme Frost, and this has been the Weekly Democratic Radio address. Thanks for listening.”
This is obviously a political hit piece written by the democrats designed purely as a political attack. And they use the kid to LIE about Bush's intent in regards to this program. "I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP." What a disingenuos bit of propaganda that is. ANd the dems use a little kid and think they can get away with that? That's text book race card, classs war far card, and is as disingenous as they come. Bush is not out to wreck the program,so the noton that he's trying to stop kds who really need it from getting help is bunk. He actually wanted to expand the program. what he dind't agree to was expand the program in the manner that the dems want which is reckless and irresponsible. ANd of course rather than argue that debate they bring out the little kid as a political weapon and have him suggest that Bush is trying to deprive kids of health care.
what's shameles is how the dems used this kid. They shouldn't be shocked when people delve into their talking points, uncover some discrepencies and then call the dems on it. If that means the kid got hurt in the process, that' both the kids parents fault but also the democrats fault for putting him into that situation.

thank you uncle..and thank you Teresa for the link..

While the statements in the bill clearly states no illegals...

One then needs to consider the legality of asking the legal status of the individual..

Are we in a Catch 22?..wherein it is forbidden to receive funding but also forbidden to ask status?

Merely questions

uncle and jr565

Do we love the tax cuts, because it will unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that makes us Americans.

Well, Mr. Frost is an entrepreneur and small business owner.

And the tax cuts for the wealthy did not provide him with the financial security to afford health insurance for himself and his family. Nor did it do anything to reduce the cost of health insurance.

But the family has been able to get by, despite suffering unexpected medical expenses, in part because we have collectively pooled our resources to provide health insurance for millions of kids.

Without SCHIP, the Frosts' entrepreneurial spirit may well have been crushed, literally and figuratively.

All of a sudden, our patriotic love of entrepreneurship in pursuit of the American Dream has vanished.

Instead, modern conservatives are fine with making it a choice between being an entrepreneur and having health insurance for one's family.

Have you guys tried to live on 45 000 a year.

Between me and my wife we are making more then twice as Frost family, and I still would not be able to buy medical insurance on my own( My wife's job at big corporation brings the needed benefit)
Mortgage,equity loan, taxes,car payments, etc, etc

One thoughts just occured to me..

Is the income factor..

adjusted income

or

gross income

The purpose of my question is anyone with any knowledge of those who are self-employed, or owner of LLC etc... run almost all their bills through the business. As much as is legal..

Wonder who the registered owner was of the SUV or if it was used as a deduction?

Yes my wife and I live on less than 40K (gross) in California.. pay a mortgage, have paid for college educations for the kids the past 8 years.. and provided insurance for everyone.

We don't own an SUV..nor do we own investment property other than our home.. We have no jet skiis, nor have we had a vacation in 11 years. Nor are we owed those things...

Nor have we sought ways to have the government pay for what we feel is our responsibility... that of taking care of our children...

Sashal,
Again you're arguing a straw man. Bush wasn't suggesting that the program end.HE was suggsting that the program be expanded by 5 Billion. THe dems tried to use this program though as a trojan horse to start up the dems socialized medicine plan, and used a really bad means of fudning it namely through cigarette taxes. Just because Bush doens't want to follow the dems off the cliff doens't mean that he wants poor kids to not have health insurance, it simply means that he doesn't agree with how the dems hijacked the existing program.

you write:
Well, Mr. Frost is an entrepreneur and small business owner.

And the tax cuts for the wealthy did not provide him with the financial security to afford health insurance for himself and his family. Nor did it do anything to reduce the cost of health insurance.

But the family has been able to get by, despite suffering unexpected medical expenses, in part because we have collectively pooled our resources to provide health insurance for millions of kids.
Owning a business is not a guarantee of success.the govt doesn't step in and make every small business succeed. This is a risk that his family took which required him to make the choice not to take the job in the company that provides the insurance and instead continue working on a business that isn't netting him a lot of money.Maybe his business plan isn't an especially good one and he should throw in the towel and join the corporate world. Maybe he should use his property that currently houses his business as a rental property, or maybe he should sell off his residence and have the family move to a cheaper home. These are the kinds of choices that adults have to make all the time.

Cycloptichorn: Your explanation of taxation sounds quite Marxist with your terminology of a "collective" and your justification of resdistribution of the pooled monies as "from each according to his ability (to pay) and to each according to his need (to take). Just saying...

Regarding health insurance itself: Somewhere along the line people have become lulled into thinking that every medical or prescription bill must be paid through insurance. I thought that insurance was a protection against insolvency brought on by a catastrophic situation; eg., accident, chronic disorder (such as MS, diabetes, etc.), or cancer. Premiums for limited coverage for such protection are most probably affordable for middle class people.

The Frosts, given their assets, assuredly fell into the category where such insurance could/should have been purchased.

Choosing to purchase insurance or not is a calculated assessment of risk and of cost/benefit to a family. Spending one's income on other priorities at the expense of providing a family safety net is a matter of choice. Having made a choice, the adult response is to live with its consequences.

The Dems and the Frosts made a poor decision in portraying the family's situation as one needing a bailout through expansion of a program designed for the working poor.

From the last summary (passed Senate amended):

Title III: Reducing Barriers to Enrollment - (Sec. 301) Amends title XIX to give states the option to verify a declaration of U.S. citizenship or nationality for purposes of Medicaid eligibility through verification of name and Social Security number.

Does this not provide a way for at least some illegals to participate?

sashal,

If the Frosts really needed the care, that would be one thing. But what we have are people who made choices, and one choice was to invest in property (more property than just their home) and not to invest in healthcare for their kids.

That decision came home to haunt them, and us, via a selfish diatribe from their 12 year old son, who, to his credit, probably doesn't know any better. But his parents do.

I pay for my own healthcare and that of my family. I don't expect the Frosts or anyone else to do so.

I'd rather spend my money on people at the poverty line than the Frosts, who are quite well off by anyone's standards, and better off than me.

Mr. Forst is a taker -- an embezzler if you will. I don't care that he's an entrepreneur. He's like the boss who orders twice as much food for the company barbequeue than is needed so he can freeze the remainder for family use -- and take the corporate tax deduction as well.

sashal, you've made the choice, like Mr. Frost, to be your own boss. That decision comes with consequences both good and bad. I don't want your bad consequences, nor Mr. Frost's, pushed onto me. That is grasshopper behavior toward the ants.

Unclesmrgol,

The Frosts were part of the group who S-Chip is designed to help - well below the $55,220 Maryland limit for families of 6 under the original SCHIP program, yet unlikely to be able to afford full coverage. This is the un-expanded plan that the Pres. Bush would reportedly support.

My Church in CT. pays $11,000 per year for our Pastor's family health coverage & my own Hospital employer pays an average of $9000 per member with family. In both cases, the employers is trying to change coverage to reduce costs.

We may guess at all things about the Frost's lifestyles & choice of occupation, but the $45,000 averages out to $10.82/hr for 2 full-time working adults, not wealthy enough to please some critics who think they should have chosen more promising careers (ones with the 60% of employers who offer insurance), yet not desperately poor enough to please other posters.

Are you a taker if you take the legal Mortgage, child or Charitable Deductions on your income tax & pay less Income Tax to the Federal Government than the Renter down the street, with a similar income? What if you live a long life with a few hospitalizations and use up far more in Medicare Benefits than you pay in? Are you a taker if you transfer assets to children years before possible nursing home age & possibly shift a future burden to Gov't? Medicaid doesn't "count" home value in its eligibility determination -should SChip?

Maybe the Frost's selfishly thought of using the Property Equity to help pay for their 4 kids to go to college & switched to using the SChip program when Healthcare premiums hit 20% of their gross income. On the plus side for local taxpayers, maybe they expected to save the local gov't at least $8K/year by keeping their kids out of the public schools- that plan is gone with a daughter who needs special schooling.

What if the young Frost child had spoken on Mr. Bush's radio address, instead of the Democrats? The details of the Frosts income and lifestyle would not be on blogs...but on the front page of the New York Times. I can see the headline now..."Rich Republicans Steal Healthcare From The Poor!" You think we're being mean? HAR! If these were Bush supporters they would have been Keith Olbermann's "Worst Persons in the World" and libs would be demanding a Federal investigation. Spittle from Christophers lips sting the cameraman as he shouts "these people claim they don't get insurance thru their work WHEN THEY OWN THE BUSINESS!"

"Have you guys tried to live on $45,000 a year."

Are you kidding me? I would swear but I might get keel-hauled. Maybe they should sign up for free school lunches too. Face it. The Frosts set their own priorities, and buying health insurance for their own childern was not on that list.

Teresa

Here is where the 300 percent of poverty level is authorized which for a family of 4 runs to 83K.

Otherwise what are you trying to say that they want 35 Billion more to fund a program that is not being expanded in any way?

Obviously that much additional funding has to be going somewhere.

Yup and they are adding in now pregnant women will be covered.

Wow I thought all the dems say it's just a blob of tissue till it gets born.

Don't we already have a number of other programs for funding pregnant women.

SEC. 114. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-

`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.

`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.

Folks on the left, it still boils down to this, in 1999, while having at least 2 young children, and maybe all 4, the Frost family purchased a $160,000 commercial building. Now at 8.5%, 10% down, a 25 year mortgage generates a monthly payment, principal and interest only, of more than $1,100. I would speculate that insurance and taxes adds at least another $500 a month.

They made a choice to either 1.)drop insurance and pick up this monthly payment or 2.) not buy the health insurance they could with over $1,100 month of cash flow, so that they could invest in the property. In either instance, you can not justify the taxpayer covering their basic needs to enable them to own commercial property.

The taxpayers are subsidizing their purchase of commercial property, by paying for their health insurance.

Tom,

If I take a credit on my tax form for taxes I would pay, I'm not a taker -- I'm a keeper.

If I receive money I have not earned from the federal government, I'm a taker.

A taker takes what is not the fruit of his/her labor, but is the fruit of another's labor. A taker is a grasshopper.

A keeper keeps what is the fruit of his/her labor. A keeper is an ant.

When the charitable deduction was in place, I definitely used it -- because to do so enhanced my ability to give to the charities of my choice. Now that the charitable deduction has been gutted, I still give to the charities of my choice -- but I give less, because the federal government is taking more from me for people like the Frosts, who, I submit, made choices as to whether they would have healthcare coverage versus becoming "land wealthy", driving an SUV, having a fancy kitchen, etc.

I have a fixed budget. I would like as much of my earnings as possible be discretionary, not earmarked as things stand now. The smaller the federal budget, the bigger my budget.

To put it bluntly, Master Graeme Frost stands to inherit my money when his parents are gone.

Here in California, if I use MediCal, I get a lien on my house. The state is determined to recover their money should I die. Would that Maryland had such laws! Not that I will, because I've made the choice to work for a company which still does matching medical after my retirement, so the bill will be half of what it might otherwise be -- but I will be paying the bill from my retirement savings, unlike the Frosts. That's why I have a kitchen not nearly as fancy as the Frosts -- because I understand the need to save for a rainy day.