Adventures in Callousness
Mark Steyn just won't give up. Having spent the last few days spreading false information about a twelve-year old and his family, he returns for one last round of factually-challenged callousness. He writes:
But beyond the blatant factual distortions, the whole thrust of Steyn's condescending post is off-base. He seems to be suggesting that the Frosts were irresponsible and the rest of us shouldn't have to foot the bill for their bad choices. But the Frosts were responsible. They signed up for and purchased S-CHIP insurance for their children. And when their children were badly injured in a car accident, that insurance covered the bills, thereby protecting the family from financial ruin. That's the whole point. That's why this family was trotted out as an example of why S-CHIP works.
If President Bush and Mark Steyn have their way, families like the Frosts won't be eligible for this kind of insurance. And given that two of the Frosts children now have severe pre-existing conditions, it will not be possible for them to find private health insurance. It takes a special kind of callous obliviousness not to see this obvious reality.
Steyn complains about creeping entitlements, but that's not what S-CHIP is. It's a program that offers affordable health care to children of parents who don't make very much money. In other words, it's a program that allows parents to make the responsible choice, to insure their children and protect their family against catastrophe. Without S-CHIP, there would--indisputably--be many more uninsured children out there and many more bankrupt families, which would not only be tragic in and of itself, but would cost society a lot more in the long run.
And finally, even if Steyn's argument was at all relevant to this situation--in other words, even if the Frosts had somehow made bad choices or been irresponsible--how is it at all morally defensible to force their children to pay the price for those mistakes? Remember, we're talking about children here. What possible rationale is there for making children suffer for their parents mistakes, particularly when it costs so little to provide them with coverage.
Steyn is fortunate he grew up in Canada.
Mr Frost works "intermittently". The unemployment rate in the Baltimore metropolitan area is four-percent. Perhaps he chooses to work "intermittently," just as he chooses to send his children to private school, and chooses to live in a 3,000-square-foot home. That's what free-born citizens in democratic societies do: choose. Sometimes those choices work out, and sometimes they don't. And, when they don't and catastrophe ensues, it's appropriate that the state should provide a safety net. But it should be a safety net of last resort, and it's far from clear that it is in this case.Good lord, what an insufferable jerk. Even after knowing the facts, he continues to badly mischaracterize them. Yes, the Frosts choose to send their kids to private school, but they pay almost nothing for it. Their son has a scholarship and the state pays their daughter's tuition because of her special needs (she suffered brain injuries as a result of the accident). And Steyn's claim that Mr. Frost works only "intermittently" is based solely on this line from the New York Times:
. . .I'm not persuaded the Frost family are the best judges of the nation's choices.
Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder . . .It seems to me the author means that Mr. Frost works both as a woodworker and a welder, not that he's some sort of shiftless layabout who only works from time to time. And as the article makes clear, the Frosts bought their 3,000 square foot home (picture here) for $55,000.
But beyond the blatant factual distortions, the whole thrust of Steyn's condescending post is off-base. He seems to be suggesting that the Frosts were irresponsible and the rest of us shouldn't have to foot the bill for their bad choices. But the Frosts were responsible. They signed up for and purchased S-CHIP insurance for their children. And when their children were badly injured in a car accident, that insurance covered the bills, thereby protecting the family from financial ruin. That's the whole point. That's why this family was trotted out as an example of why S-CHIP works.
If President Bush and Mark Steyn have their way, families like the Frosts won't be eligible for this kind of insurance. And given that two of the Frosts children now have severe pre-existing conditions, it will not be possible for them to find private health insurance. It takes a special kind of callous obliviousness not to see this obvious reality.
Steyn complains about creeping entitlements, but that's not what S-CHIP is. It's a program that offers affordable health care to children of parents who don't make very much money. In other words, it's a program that allows parents to make the responsible choice, to insure their children and protect their family against catastrophe. Without S-CHIP, there would--indisputably--be many more uninsured children out there and many more bankrupt families, which would not only be tragic in and of itself, but would cost society a lot more in the long run.
And finally, even if Steyn's argument was at all relevant to this situation--in other words, even if the Frosts had somehow made bad choices or been irresponsible--how is it at all morally defensible to force their children to pay the price for those mistakes? Remember, we're talking about children here. What possible rationale is there for making children suffer for their parents mistakes, particularly when it costs so little to provide them with coverage.
Steyn is fortunate he grew up in Canada.
posted by A.L. at 2:35 PM
14 Comments:
it's the culture of life in action!
just so long as the life in question can leverage religious voters and does not interfere with the pursuit of mindless objectivism and unrestrained capitalism.
so full of compassion, these conservatives.
I think the Bertrand Russel quote in the site header comes into play on this issue. People like Rush, Steynn, et al. just cannot admit being wrong. None of us likes to be wrong; it is an embarrassing an unpleasant experience in some situations. Yet, one excellent test of character is the ability to admit error despite the personal pain it may cause.
What possible rationale is there for making children suffer for their parents mistakes
If I were trying to find something close to intellectual consistency in Steyn's argument, I'd guess that he was basing it off of various example in the Old Testement where the Hebrews slaughtered/enslaved whole populations for the grevious sins of being not-them and worshipping the wrong god. However, I don't think that's it. I think that he has to demonized this family because their story is incovenient to his political views. Therefore, they can't be anything better than shiftless leeches.
Steyn is right. Everybody chooses. And everybody reaps the consequences of their choices. Just like gays choosing their lifestyle - and getting beat up as a result.
I actually sent him an email the night that this kerfuffle broke out, noting (politely) that the kids probably had a scholarship, and the house was probably bought on the cheap such that the mortgage was cheaper than rent in the area.
No response, no surprise.
I'm an Aussie. I pay about 3% of my annual income for a government run Medicare program providing basic medical services, hospital care, essential operations etc. Everybody does. People can supplement this by taking out private health coverage for faster treatment in private hospitals, and for discretionary surgery, private rooms etc. EVERYBODY gets health care. Absolutely everybody! The idea that some six year old kid has to suffer without medical care because their parents are poor we would regard as complete barbarism. And this is the way it is in every other civilized country I know of -- New Zealand, France, the UK, Germany etc.
Now, here's the rub. Nationally, we pay about 2/3 per head of population what you do in the US for a service that is 50% better! We are not talking third world health care here. We are talking first class, first world standard health care. You are paying through the nose in your country for an inferior product with the extortionate profits going straight to the bottom line of your big insurance and drug companies. It's criminal! Seriously. It's like having standover criminals at your door on pay day taking a cut or threatening to break your legs. Do you understand that it simply does not cost $5000 to fix a broken arm in other Western countries? You've got crooks running your medical services.
And this has nothing to do with "free market ideals" or "taking personal responsibility" or anything else. I've visited your country a few times and enjoyed it. I have friends and relatives there. ONLY in America and no other developed country is this idiotic ideological nonsense being debated about "socialized medicine". Respectfully, it's intellectual garbage. While we're at it it's worth calling Libertarianism for the bizarre philosophy it is and the damage it is doing to US political debate. This unique American brand of lunacy displays a mindless contempt for government, the same government that provides people with perfectly adequate police and fire fighters but not, apparently, medical services.
When the US gets over handing across huge piles of money to insurance sharks for an inferior service and refuses to punish innocent children for being born to the wrong parents and getting sick can it ever hope to get a decent national medical service. The rest of the world is doing it. It works. Hopefully the US can move that way.
kenj,
It is criminal. There is no question about it. And it is a direct result of people like Mark Styne. We simply have criminals running this country. The right wing of this country is beyond the pale. It is filled with authoritarian sociopaths and the absolute idiots that idolize them. Remember, half of our citizens continue to vote for these people. If I were a citizen of another "first world" country... hell, any country for that matter, I would be preparing for the inevitable eventuality that the US will need to be put down like a rabid dog and probably sooner rather than later at that. We are a rogue nation.
Our people are powerless to stop it mainly because we are cowards who are unwilling to bodily fight for decency and our stated principles (The US Constitution). We are not our founding father's sons and daughters any more.
We will not stop, we will have to be stopped.
Steyn is fortunate that he grew up at all.
"At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.
'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'
'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.
'Both very busy, sir.'
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'
'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.
'You wish to be anonymous?'
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides-excuse me-I don't know that.'
'But you might know it,' observed the gentleman.
'It's not my business,' Scrooge returned. 'It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'"
--Dickens
Mark Steyn joins the another nimrod CNN journalist, Beck, in leaving their brains in the closet. Beck compares the TV show ‘Law and Order’ to advocate war with Iran while Steyn continues to pollute false information about the 12 year old and his family. The nimrod journalists are certainly coming out the woodwork this week and polluting distorted information like wildflower.
You can keep Mark Steyn...and thanks also for adopting David Frum.
Canada is so much better than these pricks. Come to think of it, so is the US.
Clearly the supporters of S-CHIP have the emotional upperhand in this argument and the purpose of putting the Frost kid on is to capitalize on that advantage. Fair enough, that is how the game is played. No worse (and no better) than using the emotional impact of 9/11 to justify a particular policy.
But I am a little confused as to why this particular kid is used to support the expansion of S-CHIP. As I understand it, he was able to get insurance under the old program. Isn't the example that the supporters should be looking for the child who was not eligible for S-CHIP and therefore was denied medical care? So as to illustrate kenj's point that "The idea that some six year old kid has to suffer without medical care because their parents are poor we would regard as complete barbarism."
If the expansion of S-CHIP is a major priority, there must be many examples of children who did not receive needed medical care because their parents were not eligible for the program. Why use an example of a child who was eligible and did receive the care he needed?
Good lord, what an insufferable jerk.
You misspelled "dickhead".
Hope this helps.
MLS, I think they were making the point that it is not only destitute kids who need assistance but middle class families often wrongly tagged by the GOP as capable of paying their own way. This is the point: middle class families need this program. They should not be forced into complete destitution before becoming eligible for government assistance. They also make the case that some illnesses are more serious, requiring lengthier and more expensive treatments that insurance companies are generally not prepared to meet and that the S-CHIP program addresses these deficiencies. If even the middle class can't get adequate health services then the system itself is failing. Steyn and the other critics yelled so loud about the Frost family case because it identifies these failures so clearly as systemic.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home