Tuesday, October 09, 2007

The Dems' "Poor Family" Needs SCHIP??

Just another example of the Dems' perversions of truth--and we reminisce about a Wisconsin (D) legislator who also, ah, had a prioritization problem....

You may remember two weeks ago in which the Democrats decided to make their case for spending $35 billion more on the SChip program by having Graeme Frost, a 12 year old boy who was in a car accident with his sister and still requires physical therapy, to give the response to the President’s weekly radio address.

Well, the Democrats and, especially the MSM seemed to have been hoisted on their own petard because [t]he Frost’s [sic] were portrayed as a family living on a $45,000.00 year combined salary - with Dad being a woodworker and mom working for a publishing company. Neither employer, the story went, provided health insurance and if the President didn’t sign the bill, they would no longer be eligible for SChip.

A fawning press story on them lamented how they couldn’t afford private insurance because it would cost $1,200 a month

Turns out Mr. Frost actually owns the woodworking design firm, as well the commercial property in which it operates out of - and where he also rents space. The Frosts live in a 3,000 foot square foot house, on a block where a 2,000 square foot home just sold for $500,000. The Frosts also send both children to a $20,000 a year private school (that’s $40,000 a year for those of you who are math challenged.

Further, Insure Blog did a little investigation and found that good coverage for the Frost’s could be purchased for as little as $450/month.

What gets me though is that the story said that insurance wasn’t available to the Frost’s through their employer. Um, Mr. Frost is his own employer. And it appears that up until last year, Mrs. Frost worked for her husband.

So what's the priority? The house, the private school ($20K? wow!!!) or the health insurance?

And they want OTHER PEOPLE to pick up the tab?


HeatherRadish said...

If you have a family business, you can define your income all kinds of creative ways. Half of the kids who got free lunch at my high school got brand new cars on their 16th birthdays--the cars were vehicles purchased by the family farm (and they filled the tanks with the tax-free gasoline purchased for said farm). Their houses were farm assets, the utilities and insurance were farm expenses, etc. The official family income was the mother's part-time wages from working in town, and that number would go on the free lunch form (and be used to justify not paying my father when they called him after hours to set a broken bone, but I digress).

So I readily believe this family has more than $45k income; that's probably the smallest number they could justify with the mother working for a non-family employer.

But if you have to pay for your health care, you don't have as much money for granite countertops.

M.Z. Forrest said...

The investigation consisted of an Internet quote for a healthy family of six. The family has one child that is premanently disabled. They have another child who had been severely injured by the accident. (per Malkin.) "Insure Blog" is just making wreckless accusations.

There are many other problems with the counterfactuals. I say this even though I believe that the Democrats use of this family is probably dubious and not particularly helpful to the debate.

Dad29 said...

Umnnnhhh...are you saying that the family CAN NOT obtain health insurance?

Or did they, perhaps, DROP their health insurance?

What's with the $500K home?

M.Z. Forrest said...

I'm saying the case for a lack of personal responsibility is strong, but the proof has been plagued with exageration and some downright false information.

If you are claiming that a $500K (I have seen estimates as low as $250K on the home) home on a $45K income is irrational, I would agree. Either the family is living beyond their means and not necessarily culpably or their stated income is not reflective of their actual income situation.