The Democrats wrote a response to the President's radio address where he told us why he was vetoing the badly written SCHIP bill, and they handed that response to a 12 yr old kid to use as a shield to hide behind, Graeme Frost, believing that if they hid behind a child, they could avoid having to explain why they didn't fix the problems in the original bill, but expanded on those very problems, making it so that people with considerable assets and equity could have their health insurance paid by us, the American taxpayers.
With the SCHIP program, parents with assets accessible to do so are not legally obligated to protect their minor children’s health by providing them insurance. As this Kaiser 2006 survey of all the states details, in all but three states a family’s assets are not considered at all in determining eligibility for SCHIP. (As I pointed out here Maryland, home of the Frost’s, and California, my home, do not consider assets in qualification for SCHIP.)
When Right Wing bloggers did the homework that the Democrats and the media didn't bother to do, they found that the poster boy's family has both equity in their home and assets, but chose not to get their children health insurance and instead enroll them in the state funded health care.
The politicians, the ones that used this child as a shield, then make a big fuss accusing us nasty right wingers of attacking the family and the child when the focus should have been on three other specific points:
#1. It was not the child nor his family that was attacked, it was the "process" which allowed that family, with the means to pay for their childrens health insurance, to bypass eligibility and put them on a state paid insurance plan.
#2. The child and his family made the perfect point for the original critics of the bill itself who said that a family with the means to buy their own health insurance could do an end run around the eligibility process using state law (MD does not take assets into account)to bypass enrollment requirements and turn a program meant to cover low income children into a program where people with the means to cover themselves can use that program to cover their children... with us footing the bill.
#3. The Democrats deliberately hid behind a child so that they could change the subject and distract from the basic point that the original bill had problems that needed to be addressed and instead the politicians expanded the bill, never addressed those problems and shielded themselves by a 12 yr old, hoping to avoid the accountability for their actions.
Today I see that CNN, whom I am not a fan of, actually told the truth for a change and called the Democrats hand on not vetting this family properly before rushing to hide behind him and Think Progress is whining that CNN told the truth.
This morning, CNN aired its first report on the right-wing smear campaign against 12-year old SCHIP recipient Graeme Frost. CNN pinned the blame on Democrats for assault on the Frost family.
CNN’s John Roberts reported: “Some of the accusations [against the Frosts] may be exaggerated or false. But did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?” 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, his situation, his family. […]
More and more, Congress is acting less like a deliberative legislative body, and more like a political campaign. We’ve been seeing the politicization of every aspect of government.
First off, despite this false outrage from Think Progress, nobody smeared the Frost family. Since when is legitimate fact checking on someone that the Democrats put in the spotlight to prove the original points about the bill, a smear?
No one accused them of doing anything except what a poorly written bill, allowed them to do.
That is simply Think Progress's way of trying to distract from that one fundamental point because they cannot argue it on its grounds so they have to try to keep their narrative that a "child is being attacked".
The politicians, from both sides of the aisle, need to stop hiding behind children and start writing bills that accomplish what the SCHIP program is supposed to accomplish and that is providing healthcare to low income children. PERIOD.
In 2006, 118,501 children and 101,919 adults in Michigan received health care from the S-CHIP program. Incredibly, this means that 46 percent of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults.
It is unfathomable to think that Democrats want to expand a program that currently does not meet the full objective of covering poor children, and expand it to try to insure single adults. I’m not sure what part of “children’s health care” liberals in Congress do not understand.
Not families that have the means to provide health insurance to their kids but would rather have the state provide it.
The Senate SCHIP bill also grandfathers in New Jersey's program at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, which includes children in families with incomes of $72,000 a year.
Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "Corzine added that the state, which covers about 122,000 kids in its program, known as FamilyCare, 'will continue to provide health care to children in families with income up to 350 percent' of the federal poverty level – or $72,275 for a family of four. He also wrote that he is prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the new rules." (Christopher Lee, "N.J.'s Corzine to Defy New Health-Care Rules," The Washington Post, 9/14/07)
LOW INCOME CHILDREN.
What others are saying around the web.
Flopping Aces puts it perfectly:
But that wont stop the ad because this is all they know. Spreading innuendo, mis-characterizations, and lies as fact in their attempt to get the White House in 2008. This time they try to spin the yarn that Republicans don't care about the needy when in fact this bill increase helps people whom were never intended to be in this program (adults), who make up to 80 grand a year, and who are here illegally. They chose to add all this money to it because they knew Bush would veto and the Republicans would not override the veto.
And in the end the only people who are going to get hurt are those this program was intended to help.
I’ve not a problem at all with going on the record as I have with checking the facts of their circumstances. I wish them and their children well in the future. But as we go forward we also need to understand that it’s not about the Frosts, but about stopping the mega monster of Universal Health Care that the Frosts were sent by Democrats to sell.
Malkin points out Hillary's last attempt at using a child as a shield and that it didn't turn out so good for Hillary.
Do you remember Jennifer? Probably not. First Lady Hillary Clinton, who helped turn Jennifer into a national political prop for health care reform in 1994, must be very grateful that we've all forgotten the poor little girl from Coral Springs. Jennifer's story, which took a shocking but largely unnoticed twist last week, is not merely a case of legislation-by-anecdote run amok.
It's poster child abuse.
Six years ago, Jennifer's mother wrote a widely-publicized letter to the White House. "Do you know what it is like to choose between purchasing groceries for the week to feed your family or buying needed medications for your chronically ill child?" Kathleen Bush asked.
And now the final piece of the story that didn't make it onto the front page of USA Today or into the First Lady's talking points: Last week, Kathleen Bush – Hillary Clinton's once-proud and loud sister in arms -- was sentenced to five years in prison on two counts of aggravated child abuse and one count of fraud. She also pled guilty to a separate count of welfare fraud for misrepresenting $60,000 in assets on Medicaid forms. "There was probably more abuse in this single case," lead prosecutor Bob Nichols noted, "than in all of the child-abuse cases I've prosecuted in my life combined."
Riehl World View:
The moonbats are out in full swarm over the S-CHIP debate. As is becoming their common practice, they disingenuously put victims, even children who have experienced a tragedy, forward with no shame at all. That's because they need to make the debate about something else. Whenever Americans actually understand what the libs are up to, their ideas are always rejected. Their victim pimping is nothing more than a sad tactic to try and prevent their positions from being challenged. But challenge them and their tactics we must.
Adding in QandO here because he states the exact point I have been making for days:
As for the theatrics claim, let's review what it was that Graeme Frost delivered, shall we? Oh, yes, the Democratic response, written by Democratic Congressional staffers on the SCHIP legislation. A political response.
Are they really going to pretend there were no cheap theatrics involved in that little move?The CNN report disturbingly suggests that Democrats are to be faulted for daring to a put a human face on the SCHIP program — a health care program for kids."Disturbingly suggests"? Yeah, it would have been much more accurate to say Democrats exploited a 12 year old for political purposes, wouldn't it? Again, to the adults out here, that's precisely how it appeared. But the Democrats, in another giant political miscalculation, thought they could play the "Absolute Moral Authority" card without consequence if they got a kid to carry their water.
The Frost's aren't the problem, the system which allowed the Frost's to originally enroll their children into a state funded healthcare program is the problem. As well as the Democrats using a child, hiding behind a child, thinking they could be shielded by the child, from the ramifications of their actions.
For once CNN spoke partial truths, the Democrats didn't do their homework before shoving the 12 yr old and his family, into the spotlight and using him as a shield against criticism.
[Update] On the 9th I titled my post "SCHIP-Democrats Use Terrorist Tactics: Hiding Behind Children" and today I see I am not the only one that sees the truth in that very basic fact.
Right Wing Nut House:
Where does the smear of little 12 year old Graeme Frost come in? Did anyone question his injuries? Did anyone say he was faking it? Did anyone anywhere on conservative blogs write anything that could possibly be construed as an “unsubstantiated accusation” – or any accusation at all – directed against Graeme Frost?
I’m serious about an answer because even today, I’ve gotten several emails and have seen several headlines on liberal blogs that are accusing the right of “smearing” a 12 year old kid when my investigation yesterday revealed not one single conservative blog had said one single word against Graeme Frost.
So far, no one on the left has bothered to explain how conservative blogs are smearing Graeme Frost. They use the term in their headlines and the body of their posts. They use the word in comments left far and wide on righty blogs. They use the word as if it is simply a given, as if “the smear of Graeme Frost” exists naturally in the universe and needs no explanation – sort of like the sun coming up every morning.
This would be mindless stupidity – if there wasn’t a purpose behind it. And since the intent all along was to cut off debate on the fact that the Democrats wish to expand SCHIP eligibility to include adults and people who by any stretch of the imagination would be seen as middle class (or even upper middle class), it has worked like a charm. The Democrats set a trap and the right has fallen into it. They used the Frosts as human shields and for exactly the same reason that terrorists use them – to make sure that any attack against them would also hit the civilians (Frosts). As I have said, it was a brilliant political ploy. I’m only sorry that the Frosts weren’t informed of the strategy prior to their becoming embroiled in the debate. They may have had second thoughts about becoming involved.
Read the whole thing....
Exactly the point I have been making for three days now. [End Update]
[Update] More from Amy Ridenour:
There's more involved in the Frost case, of course, namely the fact that the family itself put its financial condition in the public square by agreeing to serve as the public face of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's $35 billion public health expansion. Once you let your son go on a national broadcast to ask Americans to consider your financial situation, you ought not be surprised if a few of your fellow Americans do just that. Nor should you be surprised if some of them conclude that in some ways your life seems more prosperous their own, and they don't expect other people to pay for their health insurance, so why do you?[End Update]