Rebutting The Rebuttals On SCHIP

After the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio asked a number of pointed questions -- questions the MSM neglected to ask or verify -- about the Frost family yesterday, the left-wingers went nuts (I even got a comment about it on my own humble little blog).

Michelle Malkin posts a wealth of information regarding the point-counterpoint of the arguments. Here are some key excerpts:

The New York Times:

...what on the surface appears to be yet another partisan feud, all the nastier because a child is at the center of it, actually cuts to the most substantive debate around S-chip. Democrats say it is crucially needed to help the working poor — Medicaid already helps the impoverished — but many Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means to help themselves.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme [Frost] as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off, glad to let bloggers take the heat for attacking a family with injured children.

"Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have risen to the Frosts’ defense, saying they earn about $45,000 a year and are precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help."

Malkin:

That’s what should concern every fiscal conservative left in Congress. And it is exactly why the Frosts’ financial situation is so germane–i.e., because Democrats are holding them out as "precisely the type of working-poor Americans that the program was intended to help."

The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets. Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.

The public trough is not Halsey Frost’s last and only resort [referring to previously reported assets and wealthy family members]. The accident was horrible. The children deserve much sympathy and compassion. But this family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them.

The Free Republic member who first scrutinized the Frost case concludes: "This is not a family of renters, they own not only a 3,040 SF home [originally purchased for $55K and now worth almost $300K] but a commercial property as well. I’m not faulting them for it, I’m not trying to say they are rich, I’m trying to make people aware of what types of families are CURRENTLY covered by S-CHIP so we can honestly debate if the income ceiling should be raised."

The bottom line remains: This family made choices. Choices have consequences. Taxpayers of lesser means should not be forced to subsidize them.

Much, much more on Malkin's website, so go check it out. The Frosts are but the latest in a line of horribly deprived families who desperately NEED government help. The irony here is that Bush's veto won't change the fact that the Frosts are covered by SCHIP. This is the reason for the debate - if this is the kind of family that is already covered by SCHIP, we should all be asking if the program really needs to be massively expanded.

Regardless, many previous examples of the 'need' for government assistance have been outright frauds, so the right is justifiably skeptical; thus, the in-depth examination. By allowing themselves to be paraded by the left, the Frost family has chosen to play in the big-time. They cannot realistically expect NOT to be put under such scrutiny. Once again, it seems to me that the real losers in this instance are the kids who are being used as pawns to score political points.

The veto override vote is scheduled for October 18th. Contact your Representative, as well as House Minority Leader John Boehner (202-225-6205) to stand firm against this unnecessary and dishonestly advertised legislation.

There's my two cents.