Dear Michele & Boobs
We get that you think Graeme and Gemma Frost should only have gotten government-funded medical treatment for their head injuries after their parents had sold everything and hit up the grandparents for whatever was still not covered.
Okay? We get that. You would never dream of asking the taxpayers to subsidize you when bad things happen. Never! You are paragons of personal responsibility. You are waaaay high up there on the pure as driven snow peaks of moral choice-making.
But here's what I want to know . . .
Which of these two families would you be willing to see get help from the taxpayers?
(We've already established that there are kids in this world whom you would not want to see covered. I'd just like to know which of these two you would choose.)
Family A has a child who suffers a catastrophic injury. This family has been paying $1200/month (yes, that was the bill) for its private insurance policy.
They work, but not for employers who can afford to give them benefits.
They have savings, because they want their kids to be able to go to college.
Their cars are paid for.
The insurance they've faithfully paid the premiums on does not come close to covering the costs of caring for their child once the acute phase of his injuries is over. The bills will be ongoing for the rest of his life, but just in the first year, they're looking at more than $150,000 that is not covered.
They learn that their child will only qualify for Medicaid if their assets are less than $3,000. They're told that they can keep their house and one car. Everything else must be liquidated and spent on those medical costs before the government will help them.
Family B is in the exact same situation, except that they have blown their money as fast as they earned it.
They also have jobs, but no benefits.
They don't own a house because they just haven't settled down yet. They also don't own a lot of stuff, because they like traveling and they love to gamble.
They're making payments on their vehicles and on their credit cards.
Guess what? They qualify for Medicaid! No problem, the government is pleased to help them out.
I'm guessing that you haven't figured out the point yet, so I'll spell it out. The point, oh furious ones, is that NOBODY should be at risk of losing everything after a medical catastrophe. Trust me, it's sucky enough to watch your child adapt to a brand new disability without having to cash in his college fund to pay for a personal care attendant.
Your feverish determination to make the Frost family pay for its "irresponsible" ways tells me that you don't realize there are plenty of people whose character even you could not fault who are getting screwed like crazy.
The problem, dear Michele and assorted Boobs, is not that somebody might get away with something they haven't earned at your expense.
The problem is that we are all hostage to insurance companies. That ought to make you a thousand times more angry than Graeme Frost's trip to make a radio address, even though he had to do it at 6 am, even though some Democrat wrote it for him, even though Republicans are going to pay a price next fall if they're stupid enough to hold up the veto of the S-CHIP. You're out there stamping your furious little feet because you think it's just not fair. The Democrats told a lie! The Democrats are going to get away with it! Whaaaaaaa!
I'll tell you something about fair if you like, from the perspective of Family A. They're not apocryphal; they're good friends of mine. And they wouldn't grudge Graeme Frost his medical care if their souls depended on it. The country is full of people like them, people related to them, and people who are friends of theirs. That's why you're losing this argument.