CNN Takes Dictation From GOP

So now we know why CNN got the Frost family story wrong. They were taking dictation frpm the GOP:

On Monday morning, Don Stewart sent an email with the following text to reporters:
Seen the latest blogswarm? Apparently, there’s more to the story on the kid (Graeme Frost) that did the Dems’ radio response on SCHIP. . . . Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?

CNN dutifully regurgitated this line:

A CNN political analyst then placed the blame squarely on the Democrats’ shoulders: “I think in this instance what happened was the Democrats didn’t do as much of a vetting as they could have done on this young man . . .

Maybe CNN should be worried about its own vetting thank you very much. It is clear that they counted on the GOP to do the vetting for them.

< Colorado schools searching students' cellphones for text messages | Obama's Latest Criticism of Hillary Over Kyl- Lieberman Amendment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    CNN incompetence (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    At last Rush and TalkLeft agree on something.

    Nice try (none / 0) (#7)
    by glanton on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    But no dice.

    Competence isn't the issue.  

    To paraphrase a familiar campaign slogan, "it's the agenda, stoopid."


    Yep (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    They're not stupid at all. Lazy, perhaps. But overall they look at the legitimate torrent of bad press the Bushies are getting and decide that in order to meet some fairy tale definition of "Objectivity" they have to balance it with a bunch of shameless right-wing propaganda.

    Not stupid. Just hacks.


    Let CNN KNOW this isn't journalism (none / 0) (#2)
    by MSS on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    Please let CNN know this is not "journalism." Make a comment at:

    Please let CNN know this isn't journalism (none / 0) (#3)
    by MSS on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    This is the page for feedback to CNN. Click on the TV News link and indicate the name of the reporter, CNN's John Roberts


    (sorry ... couldn't figure out how to post the link before)

    Done (none / 0) (#21)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:01:44 PM EST
    Told them how worthless and lazy they are.

    MSM = MPM (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lora on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    Mouth Piece Media

    I send CNN e-mails calling them on their parroting (none / 0) (#5)
    by kindness on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:26:41 PM EST
    Republican Talking Points all the time.  I never get any feedback.

    I suspect that the only way we can make them actually take notice is to go after their advertisers.

    It's so sad, while Ted Turner was eccentric, at least he had a good idea of fair & right.  The dolts running the show there now seem to think they just need to act like Phaux News.

    So...How bout drumming up an Advertising revolt?

    Attack them Personally would help (none / 0) (#23)
    by RedHead on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    The right wings constantly attacks the media as biased.

    Limbaugh used to attack CNN as the "Clinton news network" and as so called "sinners."  Boy, that's rich.

    Tom Delay attacked CNN as the "communist news network

    After 40 years of abuse (starting with Spiro Agnew) they cower like a battered spouse before the right wing.

    Two weeks ago, a reporter from The New Republic was whinned about Hillary Clinton working the press.

    This is why Hillary Clinton is running so far ahead in the national polls right now, that she has really learned how to control the press.  That campaign is become notorious among my friends who are reporters for pulling things like this, not quite as heavy-handed, but for working the refs constantly, calling editors, calling reporters.  They are very aggressive much more than anyone expected.

    And I think that her ability to control the media is a big part of that.

    I`m constantly hearing stories about how aggressive her staff is, about working reporters and editors to make sure that, you know, they`re getting the kind of coverage that they want.  I think it`s been very effective.

    A lot of reporters say it reminds them of the Bush administration.

    Michael Crowley on Dan Abrams

    To me, what REALLY stood out wasn't their objection to Clinton working the refs, but rather the complete silence to the way Rove has bludgeoned the media.  

    Why are they willing to cry FOUL at Clinton, but never at Bush?  Cause they're scared of being labeled biased by Bernard Goldberg et. al.

    Until we work the Refs as intensely as they do, we will constantly be slimed (ie "al gore invented the internet").


    How can anyone disagree (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:34:14 PM EST
     with the point that the Frost family is far from one of the better examples to highlight in making the argument we need government subsidies to  help needy people get health insurance?

      If you are going to stoop to using children to evoke sympathy it's obviously a good idea to pick a really really sympathetic one.


    As opposed to just (none / 0) (#8)
    by aj12754 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    a really sympathetic one?

    What a tool you are.


    Here's what I don't get (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    Why do right-wingers pretend as if the Democrats said "Vote for SCHIP or these kids will die" (i.e., the 'If you don't give us this terrorists will kill you!' GOP approach) when they really said "SCHIP saved this kid's life."

    They're not looking for sympathy. Just acknowledgment that the program helps people. Evidently, though, the right-wingers would rather heap scorn upon badly injured children.

    Keep it up, 28%ers. Seriously. Keep flogging this story right up until election day. Put yourself on the front pages, bashing sick kids.



    Did they really say that? (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:44:33 PM EST
    they really said "SCHIP saved this kid's life."
    Or is that just your own personal outlandish and untrue statement?

    Also (none / 0) (#17)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    Check out this heartbreaking testimony from a needy family:

    After my husband quit his job earlier this year (to become a full-time stay-at-home dad), we had a choice. We could either buy health insurance from his former employer through a program called COBRA at a cost of more than $1,000 per month(!) or we could go it alone in Maryland's individual market. Given our financial circumstances, that "choice" wasn't much of a choice at all. We had to go on our own.

    We discovered that the most generous plans in Maryland's individual market cost $700 per month yet provide no more than $1,500 per year of prescription drug coverage-a drop in the bucket if someone in our family were to be diagnosed with a serious illness.

    With health insurance choices like that, no wonder so many people opt to go uninsured.

    Choices? Let's talk about the horrible choices made by this irresponsible individual. They deserve to die of appendicitis if they get it, because they're so monumentally... wait, sorry, that was Michelle Malkin.

    Would you like a clown nose now?


    What a tool. (none / 0) (#22)
    by 1980Ford on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:03:58 PM EST
    Like those mass produced tools, clones of each other, cheap and simple.

    Just tell who your freeptard pal Icwhatudo is.


    Brilliant retort (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:57:38 PM EST
      Why not trying to defend the decision to pick this family out of all the possible families enrolled in CHIP to make the poster child for the program?

      Even with Dad evidently chronically under-employed by choice they still live in a nice house in a middle class neighborhood and  own commercial real estate. did no one ask Dad "uh, why don't you look for a job because you know a lot of them offer health insurance?"

      Why not use a family where both the parents work  hard at jobs that don't provide health insurance (and  own no property they could sell to purchase insurance) and it can be shown that they have no practical opportunity to get such jobs. That would seem to just be common sense, even evident to a tool.

    Yet again (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    There is no need to offer rebuttal to you.

    Just a shake of the head at what you are saying.


    Protecting the middle class is important (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Aaron on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    I think that the Frost family is a good example of a middle America family, who at first glance appear to be doing pretty well, but upon closer inspection their financial accomplishments are not nearly as substantial as one would initially suppose.  I think they are representative of many in America who on the surface appear to be relatively well-off, but in reality, are just one accident away from having to start liquidating their assets and everything they've worked for their entire lives, in order to get proper medical care.

    Is this really the America we want , where anyone who is faced with catastrophic medical problems that create lifelong or chronic problems, must cannibalize their assets until they reach a level of poverty that qualifies them for assistance? That's just ridiculous, and destructive to the entire economy because it helps destroy the middle class, the people who drive the economy.

    Tens of millions of Americans are faced with this problem every day, pay for health insurance, or pay the mortgage on their home and property, pay for health insurance or make the car payment, pay for health insurance, or let some of your employees go etc.

    In all of these scenarios, people are going to dump their health insurance, especially when that insurance provides so little actual coverage for the money you put into it.

    The entire system is configured in such a way as to make health coverage a luxury item, for those with sufficient disposable income, and everyone else is left out in the cold, and you become a member of that group the moment you have a serious illness or a major injury. Just pray you're not the one that picks the black bean.

    The ability to access quality medical care should be a right in this country, not a luxury item that excludes those who have been priced out of the market, or those with a pre-existing condition, or those who are sick, or those who were injured.

    A market-driven health insurance industry, by its very nature wants to insure as many healthy people as possible, because the odds of actually having to pay off on that insurance or very low. They also want to exclude the people who really needed health insurance, because they are seen as nothing more an element which is counter to the primary goal of every insurance company, profit.

    Personally I don't have a problem with even the very wealthy receiving free medical care, I don't believe anyone should have to pay for it directly.  As far as I'm concerned, the American people pay taxes and are citizens of this country, and in my book just one of those should be enough to qualify for the very best medical care this country has to offer.

    The disgusting reality is that even people who pay for premium health insurance are not getting what they pay for. The whole system is one giant revolving conveyor belt of money, where far too many unnecessary entities are gorging themselves from the trough that everyone is already contributing to, but far too few get their fair share of benefits from.

    One example are largest public hospitals in the most demanding and fastest-growing urban areas which use our tax dollars to expand, building new wings and state-of-the-art facilities, but which amazingly cater to cash customers only.  They don't except any insurance whatsoever in these reserved sections, the only way you can get into these wings is if you pay before services are rendered, actually provide the hospital with cash or secured collateral before you receive your surgery or care.

    Wealthy people, non-US citizens, fly into the United States from all over the world to have their surgery in wings of public hospitals that are off-limits to US citizens who are uninsured, and even those who have premium insurance, even they are excluded.  And these hospital expansions have been largely paid for with US taxpayer dollars.  In my book that's theft, every US citizen is being ripped off by a number of corporate entities which have colluded among themselves to create privileged access for the wealthy, while the remaining resources, the older poorer quality facilities and the less capable  less qualified doctors, are rationed to the rest of us.

    This information comes directly from people who work in these hospitals, doctors and nurses, who are afraid to speak out openly because they know they'll lose their jobs and be blackballed in their profession.  It's an extremely demoralizing experience for people who have worked in the health-care profession for decades and watched as conditions have continually worsened for patients over the years, even in some of the very best most highly rated hospitals in the US.

    S-chip expansion is just a small last stand in a war that the American people are losing, and losing badly.  If we cannot get our representatives in Congress override the president's veto on this extremely conservative step in the right direction, then the war may be lost entirely, and our children and our society will continue to suffer as a result.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#15)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    I love the right-wing advice, too:

    Sell your house and live on the street. Then start working three jobs so nobody cares for your disabled child. Pay for it all out of pocket, and then when you're destitute... the Republicans will still bash you because you will then be a lucky duckie seeking even bigger government handouts via Medicaid.

    Actually, it's kinda like their advice to congressional Democrats about "bipartisanship"...


    To keep refering to the "using (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    of children" and "stooping to", seems to automatically assume some low, nefarious motive othern than genuine concern for the well-being of children at work; some "agenda" -- to use the favorite Right term of self-disclosure. As if children weren't being hurt by not having the kind of medical access they need.

    Screw 'em; it's all about self-interested "agendas". Law of the jungle.

    Digby and others point out Michelle Malkin (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    prevously wrote about her own or her family's difficulties obtaining health care insurance, but Malkin is now on the attack re this kid and his family.

    Also, I was surprised to be reminded S-CHIP is a program initiated by the Republicans.  


    Clinton did it! (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    Also, I was surprised to be reminded S-CHIP is a program initiated by the Republicans.  

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.


    Now I'm really curious; where did I hear that? (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    Assuming Wiki is accurate, S-CHIP was (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:54:08 PM EST
    "founded" by Senator Ted Kennedy and then First Lady Hillary Clinton in 1997.  

    Hey Moses, where's ya Family Values now? (none / 0) (#20)
    by RedHead on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:00:08 PM EST
    Remember in the first Bush-Gore debate how Bush used the phrase "fuzzy math" to mock Gore?  Gore took the phrase, made it his own, turned it around and used it to smack shrub.

    There are many examples of  taking away the opponent's weapon and using it against them.  Since 2003 average, everyday liberals have shoved the phrase "why do they hate America" right down the wingnut's throat.  

    Using slogans to sell politics is as old as "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too."  The dems used to be really good at this - JFK used a whole host of slogans from "getting this country moving again" to "the new frontier" - but they haven't been very good at it, in some time.   Sometimes I think Dems are intellectually offended by slogans  - in 2004 Maureen Dowd labeled the phrase "flip flopper" as "comic bookie."  Of course it was.  Yes, slogans are as superficial and as empty as a Twinkie, but for goodness sakes,  just do it. I only wish Kerry had seized that phrase and used it to exposed the real opportunistic, amoral, immoral, and unprincipled Flip-Flopper candidate in the race.  

    In 1992 the GOP coined the phrase "family values" as part of their coded and subliminal campaigns against Clinton's personal life.  They use red meat,  and some code ("dred scott") for the base, but mostly subliminal marketing for suburban-swing-independents who generally dislike strong-sales-pitches.  

    Anyways, I think this would be the perfect opportunity to take "family values" away, make it our own, and smack them in the mouth until they spit their teeth up in every suburban precinct in the country.

    I'm betting you're a freeper plant (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:47:55 PM EST
    Anyways, I think this would be the perfect opportunity to take "family values" away, make it our own, and smack them in the mouth until they spit their teeth up in every suburban precinct in the country.
    masquerading as the typical progressive so as to roil up anti-progressive sentiment. Part some Grand Rovian Plan, I'd imagine...

    From TNR on this subject (none / 0) (#26)
    by Aaron on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    SCHIP lawsuits (none / 0) (#28)
    by diogenes on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    Any state is welcome to insure all of it's citizens in any way it wishes; the issue is in a demand for a federal subsidy.  Ask Mitt Romney how it's done.

    I don't (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:04:20 AM EST
     the idea of USING children to fight political battles such as was done here. I do consider it "stooping" to crass tactics. However, if one is going to do it, it obviously should be done a lot smarter than it was done here as we have essentially seen the debate diverted in part to a discussion over the tactics and in part turned on its head with arguments the program is open to attack first, because it not only subsidizes people who are not so needy as to be a priority to subsidize with scarce dollars and second because there is a degree of arbitrariness in terms of the means testing that determines which among the less then truly need receive help and which don't.

      I don't see any basis for asserting that the choice of the Frost family was dubious and has not worked as intended.

      On the merits of the issue, I personally don't think the "insurance model" is the long-term answer to health care provision in this country. Insurance is essentially gambling on risks of loss and is more suited to events such as accidental injury or death, date of death, or property, casualty loss. the  Need for medical services is variable but really only "catastrophic" injury or disease requiring extraordinary care is something for which we should consider perpetuating an insurance model.

      Realistically though we are going to continue the "insurance model" becauuse the vested interests control the debate. Hospitals, health insurers, doctors, etc.  have made vast fortunes and aim to keep that ability.  We don't see many office holders or candidates attempting to address the issue of prices for services and profits because the the ones profiting are ones from whom the politicians want  support. So long as the issue remains how do we meet costs rather than how do we control and reduce costs we will have a perpetual crisis because the costs will remain highly burdensome on anyone who does not profit from them.

      I accept that practically speaking we must tinker around the edges by making insurance more readily available to more people. but, in an in an insurance system if the total amount of premiums does not exceed by a substantial margin the adirect cost of claims the system fails. Not only does the insurance model necessarily involve pure  profit, it necessarily involves large administrative costs.

      The ultimate answer lies in both restraining the prices of medical services and eliminating or greatly reducing the indirect costs represented by insurance profits and administrative costs. There are multiple ways of addressing those factors and I'm not prepared to assess the relative merits of those but that is where we need to start moving the debate if we want to see it 20 years from now.

      For the time being, I support S-chip or similar subsidy programs and i have no problems with people such as the Frosts benefiting from them. I was just pointing out how from a persuasion standpoint that family was not the one to place in the forefront as an example of why we should do it.


    You may not like the policy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    but your disdain for mentioning children to defend a policy designed to provide health insurance to children is simply absurd.

    Argue the merits if you like, but your argument about mentioning children to defend the policy is as absurd an argument as one could see.

    Are Grahem Frost's circumstances germane? Yes they are. The LYING was the issue.


    They didn't merely "mention children" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:05:09 AM EST
     they used a particular child to deliver a political message. I don't like that and it is absurd for you to suggest that I or anyone else should not express dislike for that. If you like such tactics more power to you I won't say it is absurd for you to like it.

    I think you've been spun (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:05:06 PM EST

    The only thing not smart about the Democrats using a child to make their point for S-CHIP, was their not anticipating the right-wing machine "stooping" to a smear campaign on a child and the child's family. The Dems should have learned better by now.

    As Paul Krugman says in his NY Times Editorial today.

    All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they're "phony soldiers"; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he's faking his Parkinson's symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he's a fraud.

    Were their better candidates for the Dems to focus on? I'm not sure it would have mattered given the morals of this long entrenched right-wing smear machine in place in the corporate media. They would go after any child that spoke against their policies without remorse. That is what is despicable, in my opinion. I agree wholeheartedly with Krugman on this one (not necessarily a surprise since I agree on much, though not everything he says).

    Politics aside, the Graeme Frost case demonstrates the true depth of the health care crisis: every other advanced country has universal health insurance, but in America, insurance is now out of reach for many hard-working families, even if they have incomes some might call middle-class.

    And there's one more point that should not be forgotten: ultimately, this isn't about the Frost parents. It's about Graeme Frost and his sister.

    I don't know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices -- a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side -- only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.

    Peaches, is this statement true? (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    I don't know about you, but I think American children who need medical care should get it, period. Even if you think adults have made bad choices -- a baseless smear in the case of the Frosts, but put that on one side -- only a truly vicious political movement would respond by punishing their injured children.
    Graeme would not have gotten medical care if not for SCHIP?

    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:59:50 PM EST
      The Frosts have made dubious choices such as neither of them seeking employment which provides health insurance. These are able bodied and evidently capable  adults who have children. One can certainly question whether they are doing everything possible to provide for them through their own efforts. Dad wants to revive his failed business,  but in the meantime maybe he should get a full-time job. He doesn't sound as if he is unemployable and has no option but to rely on part-time free-lance work.

      Second, the boy is not the injured child. The daughter injured in the auto accident is undoubtedly covered with a state medical card through programs that long pre-date S-chip and the family probably also receives SSI benefits because she is disabled.



    What is the truth? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    That is often the point of the right-wing smear campaign. I have not been following the issue at all. Lately, I've been a bit of a recluse and not paying much attention to campaigns or politics. From the Krugman article has states the Graeme was, in fact, severely brain injured in a 2004 car crash along with his sister. He continues to need physical therapy, according to Krugman.

    The only reason to doubt this is because of many people in the media stating the opposite and forcing everyone to go uncover the truth, whatever that is, or just split it down the middle and say politics as usual you can't believe either party. Score! The right wing machine has succeeded.

    But, to answer Decon, Would I be in favor of a death penalty advocate using a child relative of the victim of a capital crime being part of a campaign to endorse capital punishment. My first reaction to this was thinking about the recent Pro-iraqi ad campaign featuring veterans and the relatives of veteran casualties stating their support for the war. Obviously, political ad campaigns make a lot of people uncomfortable and if the ad is opposed to our viewpoint we we be particularly bothered. Likewise we will be less bothered by an ad campaign for views we support.

    Placing children in the ads only multiplies our discomfort. Am I uncomfortable with it? Absolutely! But, I am also uncomfortable about children not having access to treatment for serious illness or injury due to the financial conditions of the parents. I think that is a problem and so do most Americans. The problem is that there are very powerful lobby groups representing the health and insurance industry who are not in favor of universal health care and the see the coverage of children as a step in that direction. Therefore, they will actively fight the passage of bills such as SCHIP. Then the question becomes one of how do the majority of Americans get congress to abide by the  majority of citizens versus the privileged few.

    Desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures, so I don't find the democrats use of Graeme Frost to counter the Presidents veto of SCHIP to be egregious.  


    Peaches, (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    I hear you, but...what is vicous, imo, is Krugman's lies, er, bending of the truth.

    Krugman, cannily, creates a false construct by strongly implying that w/o SCHIP these kids would not have gotten health care for their injuries, knowing that many, like you, won't look into it any further and will merely parrot his falsities, er, false implications.

    He then builds on his false construct and brands all those who don't flock to his gvt-provided health care ideal as a vicious movement of people who would deny medical care to horrifically injured kids like Graeme and his sister, and who, further, want to punish the kids of parents who can afford health insurance but choose not to get it.

    Pure propaganda, man. Brilliant actually.


    Thanks Sarc (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    I'm glad you are more proficient at determining the truth from the lies than I.

    You the man!


    Hardly more proficient, (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    I'm merely not being a recluse and/or ignoring campaigns or politics as you state you are.

    I was happy to see you "return" recently, but if your input is going to consist of such willful ignorance, well, OK, I'm still happy to see you back...


    First, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:19:13 PM EST
      a large part of my point is that what is an obvious mistake not to have anticipated such a response which magnifies the error of noit making a shrewder selection if it was felt necessary.

     But, even if no one else on the face of the planet objected I would still object to crass manipulation of a child for politcal purposes. I'll grant you that the right-wing smear jobs are worse than the decision to use the boy but that doesn't lessen my dislike for using the boy in the first place.

    Look (none / 0) (#34)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:36:55 PM EST
      I have a family and I am also a small businessman. I spend about $30,000 a year to provide insurance for my family and the families of my employees. To me that is a lot of money and I still have out of pocket costs for care my family needs that is not fully reimbursed by the coverage.

      My life would be a lot easier if the government did more. But, I would still be not a good example to use to make the point the government needs to do more and there is no way in Hell I'd have my 11 year old foisted center stage to make a political argument.

      How would people react if some pro-death penalty group got the 11 year old brother  of a murder victim to go on a national broadcast advocating the death penalty because it made him feel better to see the killer executed and he wants all the other kids related to victims to have the same?

      Would no one here criticize the parents and other adults involved for using a small child and not suggest the adults should be capable of making their case without resorting to such crass manipulation and exposing the child to the inevitable scrutiny?

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:21:13 PM EST
    Glad to be back...Sorta,

    I'm ignorant about most things, whats new?

    I don't have access to the most recent Frost family tax statement, nor do I know anything about Maryland S-chip program. Just another ignorant person with limited knowledge, but an intuitive grasp of a believable story - and that's really all we can go on these days. The rest is propaganda.

    What is believable?

    1. Well, I assume your line of inquiry over whether or not the Frost children would have received treatment for there injury falls under the fallback emergency room, but IO have know way of knowing, because you won't come out and say it but prefer to be baiting me towards I don't know what... But, if it is the emergency room argument, I suppose they would have been treated at tax payers expense. But, follow-up care would present more trouble.

    2. Choice? Yes, the parents made a choice and likely a wise one since risk factors were in their favor that they would not be involve in a accident where their family would not be involved in an accident. They did not beat the odds and the children were hurt. But, choice? Some choices are tough and I'm not in the Frosts shoes. I've gone without health care before when my own finances have been precarious. I lucked out.

    3. the frost story may be verifiable or it might turn out to be completely false. The fact is that there are many uninsured children out there who are not receiving health care because they are not covered under any policy. Likewise, adults. So, I find the story believable.

    4. finally, like any insurance pool, the more people in the pool the more efficient it is. Costs are spread out and the healthy pay in to subsidize the unhealthy. Just like SSI where the working subsidize the nonworking. Simple transfers of funds. Then we can factor in preventative care versus the profiting off of the sick and unhealthy. The US is missing the boat on this one, like many issues. Most other COuntries have figured it out. Do I lose sleep over it? No, because I am currently working on building up community networks to take care of local needs including the health of the people in our community. We not only won't get it right as a nation, I'm afraid we no longer can get it right. Our system is broken beyond repair because of greed and selfishness and the misunderstanding of the meanings of freedom and choice.

    5.) like most people (and certainly more my problem than yours) you probably have no idea what I am talking about. I'm working on it.