This really Frosts me. I earn minimum wage and I'm subsidizing her insurance while I cannot afford any.
If the top 10% of the country controls 70% of the wealth, doesn't it make sense that they would pay 70% of the taxes? Unfortunately that's not the case. The wealthy may pay more income taxes than the poor, but sales taxes, property taxes, and payroll taxes are all regressive taxes which affect the poor disproportionately. Overall, the rich actually underpay taxes.
Ezra Klein breaks it down here:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/
blo...g_the_rich.html
Very inaccurate Spike. Regressive taxation means that the higher level of earnings, the higher the taxation. Thus, by design, the poor and non income earners disproportionatly reap the benefits of government largess. This has to do with the income tax, not wealth tax. I think you misunderstand the concept of wealth. Many of the wealthy are not earning income, thus avoiding taxation. i.e. Paris Hilton, very wealthy, but I bet she puts very little of her wealth on a 1040. Ezra is a smart guy, but has a habit of not doing complete research, especially in topics of health economics. I think he plays to his base, as it were.
Geez, Matt, I was literally crafting my own response, which echoes almost word for word what you posted, when I saw yours.
Nicely done, and Thank You.
I think I completely understand the concept of wealth and I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. You're assuming that most taxation SHOULD be based on earnings, simply because that is how it is now. I'm arguing that that is actually an inethical way of taxing people, as demonstrated by the fact that even though the weathiest 10% of Americans control 70% of the wealth, they only pay 65% of the taxes. Reducing capital gains taxes, increasing estate tax exceptions, etc. are ways of reducing the taxes on wealth, which are typically very progressive.
The payroll tax is clearly regressive, I don't know how you could argue otherwise. The more you make (once you cross the $88,000 threshold), the smaller a percentage of your earnings you pay. The same is true of sales taxes. I can guarantee you that the poor pay a larger percentage of their earnings in sales taxes than the rich do. Property taxes are the same.
I understand the difference between an income tax and a wealth tax. Bob said only the wealthy pay taxes. This is obviously untrue as the wealthy don't even pay proportionately to the wealth that they have.
Oh, and "A regressive tax is a tax imposed so that the effective tax rate decreases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases."
So it seems you don't know what a regressive tax is, based on your definition above.
Thank you
the weathiest 10% of Americans control 70% of the wealth
I know that this is a cherished talking point for you, Spike, but it's silly.
Wealth has nothing to do with income taxes (cf Paris Hilton, et al). Income taxes are levied on, wait for it....income!
What you probably mean to say is that the top 10% of income earners paid almost 2/3 of all income taxes (based on the latest numbers), far out of proportion to their number.
In fact, the top 1% (heck, why stop at 10?) of earners paid over a third of ALL income taxes, and their tax share has actually increased over the years, while those on the lower rungs have seen their income tax liability decrease.
None of which would seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand, which is (IIRC) insurance.
Actually, I think the topic of this post is people relying on the government for health insurance when they should get it themselves.
The post said "Of course only the wealthy pay taxes."
That's lazy and a smear. High earners pay a large amount of income tax, but seeing as how income tax is just one of the many ways our government taxes us, it's not the end of the discussion. And wealthy people who don't work to earn their money pay little in taxes.
I'm not the one bringing class warfare into the discussion, that was Bob. At least he could be accurate in doing so.
SCHIP funds are paid in part by the states, which largely rely on sales and property taxes to generate income, which are clearly not paid only by the wealthy.
Nice try, Spike, but you're busted:
She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month.
Your little rant is a red herring.
Nice try, blaming Bob for your obtuseness, but it doesn't fly.
Spike you missed the point. If you read my posts often enough the clue is usually in the title and tag line.
In this case the couple earns $45k and is somehow able to support 4 kids but claims they cannot afford health insurance at $1200 per month. If that were the case, I would agree. But it appears there are some very rich plans in the $400 range.
That is for all 6 family members.
If they want to take advantage of SCHIP for the kids they can still get coverage on themselves at an affordable price.
Apparently they choose not to.
THAT is my point.
Sorry you missed it.
Wow. A lot of passion in regards to taxes and insurance. Let's try to play nice, boys. I don't want this to lead to a fight behind Dairy Queen after class.
I live in Maine and the premiums are around $1200 for a family of 3. I've paid them and thoroughly researched all possible options. I would have loved to have a $400 premium. It doesn't exist here, unfortunately.
Well written and informative posts. Thanks.
Jerry
Maine is a guaranteed issue state where the state tells the carriers how they must act if they are willing to play in your back yard. That means that healthy people are required to pay more for their coverage in order to subsidize the losses incurred on those who, in a free market, would either pay a higher than normal rate or would be denied coverage.
Maine also requires community rating where everyone in a particular geographic area pays the same rate. Some adjustments may be allowed for age or gender, but no other rating factors are allowed.
In other words, you have the kind of coverage (expensive) that some who are running for office want everyone to have.
Socialism is a wonderful thing. Wouldn't you agree, Jerry?
Hey, a link from "The Corner." You guys are big time, baby!
OMG!
Thank You, Joe! I most likely would never have seen that:
Sundays, I generally check for pending comments a coupla times, at most. Hardly ever check SiteMeter (what's the point, very low weekend traffic).
That is SO cool!!
(How did you find out about that?)
Bob - Personally, I believe risk pooling is fundamental to the definition of insurance.
Any sort of 'solution' to the problems of the current system is going to result in the healthy subsidizing those with preexisting conditions or who otherwise (occupation, whatever) can't get coverage.
Because if they're not subsidized through some flavor of 'guaranteed issue' and 'community rating', they'll be subsidized through some sort of taxpayer-funded approach, and the end result is the same - except that the money moves through different buckets to get to the same endpoint. Some of those buckets, of course, being governmental where bureaucratic fingers can dip into them as they go by.
As for the Frosts, these folks are definitely 'middle class' by any reasonable definition, maybe even upper-middle-class by some. I think it's clear that if the offspring are poster children for SCHIP we've got a problem. That said, all it takes to turn a $400/month policy into a $1200+/month policy (or no policy at all) in the private/small-business world is one parent with a family history of some chronic or potentially expensive condition even if no one is presently ill.
JEM--Good point. We were not informed how this quote was obtained--what was the site? What parameters were entered? Do they match the Frost family's parameters? How does Bob know?
I certainly think it's possible that a family with no history of any significant illnesses could obtain a high-deductible HMO plan for very little money. I find $452 for six people very hard to believe, and it would be nice if Bob would post the source so that we could check his facts. After all, if you're going to chide someone for failing to do research, you should probably allow other people to verify your own.
We were not informed how this quote was obtained
I won't speak for Bob, but this information is easily and readily obtained from a number of sources, none of which would have taken the reporter more than a few minutes to find:
One would be a service like ehealthinsurance. Another would be pretty much any health insurance agent.
It's really not rocket science (which is a good thing for Bob and me).
And JEM, your observation about a $400 plan turning into a $1200 one is misleading and irrelevant: nothing in the article indicates that the Frosts had any such pre-existing conditions.
I'm not a P&C guy, but it occurs to me that the accident cited in the story should have been covered under the auto policy. Any P&C folks care to weigh in on why that appears not to have been the case?
I did look at ehealthinsurance.com, actually, since it's at the top of the Google list. It's not quite as simple as it seems.
First, it asks for the birthdates of all family members to be covered by the plan. Since I obviously didn't have them, and since I'm fairly bad at estimating ages, I stopped there and presumed that Bob had found out through another method. Perhaps he has them, or perhaps he guessed. Either way, it would be good to know so we can check his work.
Just for the heck of it, I went ahead and guessed at the family members' ages. It gave me quite a large number of plans, all at very low prices. Of course, there's a catch: the "monthly cost" link under the price clearly states that the cost is "subject to change based on [the family's] medical history."
Now, I presume that the list price is the lowest possible price--that is, the price you can theoretically get if nobody in your family has a history of anything at all. In this case, the history is quite substantial--lengthy hospitalizations, constant therapy, etc.
So what history did Bob enter when he arrived at these estimates? Did he know the family's full history? Did he guess at it?
No, it's not rocket science--it's actuarial science (if that can be said to be a science), which is not as hard as rocket science but not as simple as a quick glance at a website might imply.
Granted, there are still substantial questions here--the kids attend an expensive school (perhaps on scholarship), and the family appears to have more resources than their income would suggest. Nevertheless, it's not really appropriate to imply that they could have gotten cheaper insurance when you don't actually know that that's the case. If Bob has somehow obtained a proper estimate, then I apologize for the implication and would just ask to see the parameters he used.
Let's make sure we look at the facts and make sure that everything is clear.
1) The children in the article are are covered with the protection they need. This is very important in my eyes!
2) Using the same zip code furnished by Bob, if the couple is in their early 40's and wanted a Golden Rule copay select (standard 1 rates) plan with the "highly desirable low deductible" of $500 they would owe $582.24 a month.
3) If they took my advice they could sign up for a HSA and reduce that premium 30%-50% with one of the other 6 major carriers here in Maryland. So they could pay $250ish a month and invest the rest by building up a nice health equity nest egg.
4) IF they couldn't qualify (given the reference of some back issues in the article) for underwriting they would qualify for MHIP OR possibly MHIP+ (based on their annual income) and have a guaranteed issue plan for $410.
That would have taken about 10 minutes to discuss with a reporter if I or any other knowledgeable agent here in MD had the chance. But you cannot exactly exacerbate the health care crisis if insurance is deemed affordable can you?
it's not really appropriate to imply that they could have gotten cheaper insurance when you don't actually know that that's the case
Nice goal-post moving, Steven!
You asked where Bob might have gotten his numbers, and I gave you two plausible answers. You didn't like (at least) one of them, so you changed the criteria.
Sweet.
No, I checked out one of them as thoroughly as I could, and I found it to be much more complicated than you suggested. Bob probably didn't obtain his numbers from ehealthinsurance for the reasons I stated--he probably doesn't have the relevant information, and if he had, he probably would have obtained very different results. (Your other suggestion was a health insurance agent. I don't know about yours, but mine is not available on a Sunday night over a holiday weekend for random questions about a hypothetical family in a distant city.)
Seriously, though--what goalposts did I move, and what criteria did I change? Bob's original statement was this:
"$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore. Really? What are they smoking?
"A check of a quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) finds a plan for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays."
Okay, but is the $641 plan available to the Frosts given their history? How do you know? If it's not available to them, it seems rude to ask "what [they are] smoking." Perhaps their $1200 health plan is the best available to them given their history.
In other words, if you are discussing what is available to the Frosts--which is what I thought we were discussing--and if you are going to imply that a cheaper health plan is readily available, then you need to show that you have priced that health plan using the criteria that apply to the Frost family. If there's a $641 plan for a completely different family--one without major health issues--then that's great, it's not exactly relevant to the Frosts, is it? (If you think it is, then how is it relevant?)
Furthermore, if you think that ehealthinsurance.com can provide an estimate for a family like the Frosts, then that's fine. I just want to know what criteria you entered. If, after entering their full history, you came up with a plan that costs $641 or $452, then that's great. I'll happily agree that $1200 is insane. If you can't do that, then--well, I won't spell it out.
All of this is relevant because it affects the people who would qualify for CHIP. Maybe the only families who could qualify would be "middle-income" families who had had a serious medical event. Maybe the Frosts are atypical--from what I've read, they probably are. But that's important to know if we want to understand the utility of CHIP.
Uh, the Prof?
Nice goal-post moving, Steven!
You asked where Bob might have gotten his numbers, and I gave you two plausible answers. You didn't like (at least) one of them, so you changed the criteria.
You can't possibly be serious. Please come to your senses.
You are correct. I know nothing about their medical history. And yes, medical history can change the rates for one particular individual, but unless the entire family has health issues (none of which was reported) that does not preclude the others (in particular the children) from being covered under a more traditional major med.
Instead, this upper income family with the means to raise 4 kids (two in private school), chooses to let the taxpayers provide coverage under a plan intended for the poor.
I didn't know the ages of the parents either, so I plugged them in as late 30's. Since both were 26 in 1992 when they married, I would say I was close to their ages.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...751C1A964958260
But that doesn't matter either since the reporter never bothered to check ANY facts (ages, availability of underwritten major medical, family income for purposes of qualifying to taxpayer funded health cover).
As for the comment on pooling, yes that is a fundamental premise of insurance. The problem arises when you require EVERYONE to subsidize those who have health issues.
We segregate the poor driving risks from the rest of the drivers and charge them a higher premium. The same is done in 36 states where there is a health insurance risk pool. In the balance of the states (except those with guaranteed issue for all) the high medical risk applicants are segregated from the rest of the insureds and surcharged.
I would hope that someone in charge of the taxpayer funded health plan would investigate further to determine if this family truly qualifies for subsidized coverage. But that is probably wishful thinking . . .
J.R. - excellent comments, Thank You!
I absolutely agree with you vis CDHC, but that's another post
Steven & Thers: either you're being deliberately obtuse or you're genuinely clueless. The point, as both JR and Bob have indicated, is that it was the reporter's job to ascertain this information before publishing his little puff piece, on which the Democratic response was based. He had plenty of time to do so; I doubt very much that he was actually researching/writing it on "a Sunday night over a holiday weekend."
Bob--thank you for clarifying that. I had guessed that the Frost parents were in their early 40s, so I was a bit off.
That said, we've established that you came up with the $641 without knowing if such a plan was available to the Frosts. To me that makes it inappropriate to mock them (though perhaps I misunderstood--perhaps the "they" in "What are they smoking?" referred to the reporter.) In any event, your claim that "it appears there are some very rich plans in the $400 range" for all six family members is irrelevant to the Frosts, and probably to most families.
"The_Prof" claimed that "nothing in the article indicates that the Frosts had any such pre-existing conditions." Similarly, Bob claimed that "unless the entire family has health issues (none of which was reported)..." I think we are misunderstanding each other here. I suspect that the Frosts came up with the $1200 estimate based on their *current* situation--that is, their history of major trauma, hospitalizations, etc. We don't know enough about their history to know what they *could* have purchased *before* the accident. I presume the prices would have fluctuated somewhat as each new infant was born.
A few more points:
"[T]his upper income family..."
$45,000 for a family of four is not upper income given that the median income, as listed by the Census, was $48,000 in 2006. (That's the national median; the median for Baltimore, as a coastal city, may be higher.) They may be in the upper level in terms of their overall assets, but income? No, there's no evidence for that.
"...chooses to let the taxpayers provide coverage under a plan intended for the poor."
Choice? They could have sold their house, I suppose, and started renting--that *might* have covered a couple months of inpatient hospital care.
As for the auto policy, I'm certainly not an agent, but I know from my own policy that payments are capped after a certain point. My guess--and it's just a guess--is that two hospitalized kids would hit the cap pretty quickly. Of course, if they have been going without health insurance AND without car insurance that covers medical problems, then that's really crazy.
I do agree that the reporter should tell us more about the family's level of assets. I'd like to know how they're affording an expensive private school, and what their overall mortgage payments are (if they bought their house over 10 years ago, which seems likely, then their payments aren't necessarily as high as one might expct).
I suspect that the Frosts came up with the $1200 estimate based on their *current* situation
Why?
The Frost's obviously had no health insurance prior to the trauma; one is left to infer that the $1200/month premium referred to cover they sought before it occurred. Absent information (in the article) to indicate otherwise, that seems like a reasonable assumption.
But what if they sought cover after the accident? Well, that's akin to calling your local State Farm guy for coverage on your home - while it's on fire. That seems unreasonable, does it not? Then why would seeking health insurance after a claim be any less so?
And it also only applies to the youngster who was injured; presumably (and again, the article is silent as to this) the rest of the family is fine.
What this does prove is that (at least in this case) the MSM is asleep at the wheel in the actual, you know, reporting department.
As to the bigger picture -- i.e. is this the kind of family that should be getting a free ride on the taxpayer -- well, that seems to me self-evident.
First, two of the kids were injured, not just one.
The Frost's obviously had no health insurance prior to the trauma...
It's not stated explicitly, but it does seem like a reasonable assumption.
one is left to infer that the $1200/month premium referred to cover they sought before it occurred. Absent information (in the article) to indicate otherwise, that seems like a reasonable assumption.
As you said, it's not stated explicitly. I drew the opposite inference from the following sentence:
"She and her husband have priced private health insurance, but they say it would cost them more per month than their mortgage - about $1,200 a month."
The accident was 3 years ago, and it sounds to my ear as though the estimates were more recent than that. I know that if I had intended to convey the message that the estimates were older, I would've written something like "She and her husband *had* priced private health insurance, but they *had found* that it would cost $1200/month," etc.
Admittedly, though, this is getting rather nitpicky.
it's not stated explicitly
I think you've stated the whole problem in a nutshell: the "reporter" has left too much to the imaganiation, when it could have been easily verified and stated.
So why would a major party allow itself to be left in such an embarassing situation? We're not a poliblog (political blog); I'm not arguing the politics of the address. But I think it's unfortunate that they relied on this highly questionable "case." Surely there are truly needy folks out there who've fallen through the cracks, and who would not have set off this firestorm.
OTOH, it does point out the value of bloggers as "citizen journalists" who actually take the time to track down the facts that "professional reporters" leave on the table.
I'm not sure, BTW, that you're being "nitpicky;" we each bring to these kinds of issues our own biases and experience. I appreciate the civil tone of our debate/discussion, and certainly hope you'll visit us again.
Steven -
I used upper income based on other sources that point to business assets and relative value of homes in the area.
I don't recall anyone posting tax returns. We have no reason to believe that $45k is any more accurate than the other claims in the article (such as $1200/mo for health insurance).
One other thing. The figures quoted for health insurance were based on assumptions for "a family", not necessarily this particular family. Of course nothing anyone has presented indicates the numbers I used would not apply to the Frosts.
The entire article was designed to rally the troops in favor of the SCHIP program. It achieved that purpose.
But it falls short of anything I would consider credible reporting.
All totaled, you are assuming this family is just a bunch of honest, hard working stiffs trying to make ends meet on a poor woodworkers salary while raising 4 kids (two in private school), living in a neighborhood of $500k homes and owning two businesses. A bit of a stretch even for a liberal.
[EDITED FOR CONTENT] You go see how many of those health plans take kids with serious health realated pre-existing conditions?? f[EDITED FOR CONTENT] IF they even take them...go find out WHAT the going health insurance rate would be for kids with brain injuries!!?? What a bunch of [EDITED FOR CONTENT] 2008 Election is gonna be a BLOODBATH for you dumb losers...Keep it up! It's priceless!!
Let's not even get into the fact that the house they bought 16 years ago for 55k valued now at 280K is mortaged to the 3rd degree to pay off medical debts and other essential costs of living..
You stupid stupid silly little people with no brains!
[Jason: I deliberated for some time even letting this through. In the end, I decided to let IB readers (a generally more intelligent group than the one to which you apparently belong) see how "the other side" debates complex issues. HGS]
Edited By Siteowner
Did you price these policies with the pre-existing conditions of these kids medical conditions? [EDITED FOR CONTENT] I bet they can't even get insurance!
Edited By Siteowner
Conservatives are the stupidest [EDITED FOR CONTENT] on the face of the planet. It's quite apparent you f[EDITED FOR CONTENT] can barely breathe on your own let alone comprehend the fact that the quote engines give you the completely healthy rate, and that until you actually provide detailed information to the insurance underwriters that quote is basically worthless.
The writer of this blog calls it "INSUREBLOG" and doesn't mention this? Calling this blog a [EDITED FOR CONTENT] is a compliment at that point.
[Once again, the "reality based community" demonstrates its intellectual prowess. HGS]
Edited By Siteowner
"One other thing. The figures quoted for health insurance were based on assumptions for "a family", not necessarily this particular family. Of course nothing anyone has presented indicates the numbers I used would not apply to the Frosts."
why does it matter for other families though? the frosts told the reporter how much they'd priced their insurance at, you are choosing to disbelieve. you still haven't said why, in favor of insisting they are.
additionally, you're using the wrong zip code.
http://www.livebaltimore.com/nb/.../nb/list/butch/
Bright -
I used A zip code for Baltimore. Any Baltimore zip would work and generate the same numbers.
It really doesn't matter what the Frost's told the reporter, since most of the report appears to be fiction any way.
You get 3 shots for your quarter. Might as well take a couple more.
You get 3 shots for your quarter. Might as well take a couple more.
I take issue with this for two reasons:
1) I just checked PayPal, and he still owes us a quarter, and
2) He already got two shots, leaving just the one.
Pre-existing conditions might be a reason for the high insurance quote. I have the same problem. The insurer may be afraid one of the kids are prone to a hereditary disease.
While we are debating the costs, did you try one of the bcbs affiliates in Maryland? Try going there [REDACTED] and entering the same zip code (I used 21250 and 41 years) and the premiums come out around 1k a month + potentially 25 to 50% based on medical history. This is for plans with small annual deductibles and in most cases around 80% or less coverage. If they have a lot of medical expenses, this 20% could definitely represent huge sums of money.
Edited By Siteowner
Pre-existing conditions might be a reason for the high insurance quote
They may well be.
But we have no way of knowing, because the "reporter" failed to either do his homework, or share the results with us. Therefore, we can only reasonably conclude that the premiums quoted were fictional.
I can't believe the apathy people show towards something as important as their health.
I carry my own high-deductible insurance, and for a family of two it doesn't cost much more than the car insurance, and it's infinitely more important. I can do without car insurance by using public transportation. However, if I am unlucky enough to be diagnosed with a severe and chronic illness, such as MS or lupus, my treatment options are severely limited by my means of payment. Most specialists will not see self-pays without a hefty upfront check. Many specialists will not accept Medicaid, as the reimbursement is so pitiful it amounts to a financial loss. The ER doctors who I work with - I'm an RN -say they receive about six bucks for each Medicaid patient they see. Six bucks!
I wonder if the Frosts checked out high deductible insurance or just looked at the policies with $10 copays and maternity coverage and decided "nope, too expensive."
I neglected to mention in my previous comment that my insurance, once I meet the deductible ($2,850 for me, around 6k for daughter) pays 100%, including any prescriptions. I can become self-employed and keep my insurance, and I get a nice tax break for my HSA contributions, which will pay for a good portion of my premiums, which are, by the way, comparable to what I'd be paying if was on my job's insurance. And, while the job insurance deductible is obviously much less than what I have now, my out of pocket maximum is much, much higher and my in-network providers are much more limited.
"Therefore, we can only reasonably conclude that the premiums quoted were fictional"
What? I don't see how you could ONLY reasonably conclude the premiums were fictional. Just because the reporter forgets to share a particular piece of data, it doesn't mean that this piece of data doesn't exist and that it becomes a license to demolish other information that might or might not be dependant on this piece of information.
The premise of the article is based on speculation on the age of the family members, the zip code, the medical history, the type of plan we want them to get, when they requested the quote, etc. To reach any conclusion based on such vague data is unreasonable.
When you get a high-deductible insurance plan, you're supposed to take the difference and put that into an account to pay the deductible. That's the fiscally responsible thing to do. Consequently, high-deductible plans are not cheaper. If I made $45,000 a year and had four kids, it would be too risky to get a high-deductible plan if I wasn't socking away the difference in the savings account (which is the whole point of and HSA plan...the tax-sheltered savings account). Where would I come up with the $5000 or $10,000 plus 20% in the event of a major event?
Also, preexisting medical conditions come in many forms, including asthma, birth defects, and numerous things you can't see in a photograph. I know because I have asthma and have been denied insurance coverage. Medical conditions are also people's private business, so why assume they would tell the interviewer if he asked?
You guys act like you know these people, but you don't. Perhaps the interviewer could have done a better job, but until you do the work yourself, not just googling medical insurance rates which are nothing like reality, you're just making stuff up.
I don't believe the $452/mo. premium quote. If such a plan exists, it is Swiss cheese. For example, does it pay for drugs? What's the cap in coverage? Something's not accurate.
I say this because I am single, disabled, and on Medicare. My insurance (through the horrendously mislabeled "Medicare Advantage" plans) will cost me just under $10,000 a year in Seattle, including the cruelly complicated "Part D" prescription coverage.
I was recently informed of all this as part of being forced out of the Washington State risk pool, which I was in until this year. The federal drug "benefit" plus the Medicare "advantage" plan will cause my insurance to go up by 40% this year.
Mind you, I have been continuously insured since birth. I will stay that way if I have anything to say about it. If I have to pay $800 a month in Seattle for one person's insurance, I simply do not believe that a family of four in Baltimore (the East being generally higher cost for almost everything than the West) can get decent insurance for $452 a month.
The health care payment system is going to change whether we want it to or not. The insurance companies are getting away with murder, and so are the medical care providers. The "Part D" plan is a giveaway to the drug companies. This is an ongoing disaster, and as usual the pigs are feeding at that trough and will tell any lie as long as they can keep their snout in there.
I see that the right wingers are now attacking this 12-year-old kid and his parents. It's sad but all so predictable. Republicans and their money is like a grizzly sow and her cubs. He who gets in the way will suffer a horrible outcome.
"It really doesn't matter what the Frost's told the reporter, since most of the report appears to be fiction any way."
regardless, this was the crux of your argument and you've demonstrated that you're loose with your parameters. the article said what neighborhood they lived in. you still haven't told us exactly what your methodology was.
i'm as curious as stephen is.
did you try one of the bcbs affiliates in Maryland?
I suppose I could have found a plan for $1200 per month but what is the point? If solid coverage is available for significantly less than $1200 then why would anyone pay more?
To reach any conclusion based on such vague data is unreasonable
I absolutely agree.
So why did the Democratic address rely on it?
you're just making stuff up
You're absolutely right.
So why did the reporter do that?
I see that the right wingers are now attacking this 12-year-old kid and his parents
Um, no.
While I can't speak for all "rightwingers," I can certainly speak for this blog.
There is no "attack" on a 12 year old or his/her/their family. There is an effort to find the facts, and this means asking the questions that the "professional reporter" failed to.
Get over it.
this was the crux of your argument
Um, no.
The crux -- and it was clearly stated -- is that the "professional reporter" didn't do his/her/its homework, and that it was left to bloggers, et al to do it for him/her/it.
I don't believe the $452/mo. premium quote. If such a plan exists, it is Swiss cheese. For example, does it pay for drugs? What's the cap in coverage? Something's not accurate.
Just because you choose not to believe it does not make it so. Some do not believe a man walked on the moon. Others do not believe the Holocaust occured. Neither of these negate the truth.
I am single, disabled, and on Medicare. My insurance (through the horrendously mislabeled "Medicare Advantage" plans) will cost me just under $10,000 a year in Seattle, including the cruelly complicated "Part D" prescription coverage
And this is the plan many politicians say they want for the rest of us.
Thank you for making point that has been stressed over & over on this blog.
I simply do not believe that a family of four in Baltimore (the East being generally higher cost for almost everything than the West) can get decent insurance for $452 a month
You are not required to believe it. Apparently you have not bothered to check the facts, much like the "reporter" in the story.
You are truly living in a fantasy land. I have a friend who buys her own insurance ten years after a major car crash that left her with severe head injuries, and her high-deductible insurance policy (which covers the bare minimum) is $1200 a month - just for her with no children.
You show me an A-rated plan that covers this entire family INCLUDING those pre-existing conditions from the accident for under $2000 a month, and I'll call you Rumpelstiltskin.
Unless and until you can do that, you owe this family an apology.
If the $45,000 annual income figure is correct, then these kids are already eligible for S-CHIP without the Democrats' proposed expansion of the program. 200% of the federal poverty line for a family of six is $53,600.
Love the blog.
Comments on all the comments above.
First, what difference does it make how spotty a 450 buck insurance plan would be -- it would still be loads better than having no insurance and then expecting other people to pay your bills for you.
Second, what difference does it make if they get a HSA with a high deductable, and then don't save any other money. It would have covered the bulk of this catastrophic accident. And it's loads better than doing nothing and expecting someone else to pay your medical bills for you.
Third, this family is a testament to how the SCHIP program already worked, and didn't need to be drastically expanded. The family decided to spend money on things other than their own health, counting on the rest of us to pay their medical bills. They had an accident, had high medical bills, and we the taxpayers paid for them.
Virtually nobody is pressing to eliminate the program. The two proposals on the table are to keep the program as-is, adding five billion to it, or expanding it to cover $80,000+ families, 25-year-old children, and illegal immigrants, by charging smokers an extra $35 billion dollars for the privilege of their smoking.
Most smokers are not rich people, so the expansion of the program will tend to transfer money from poor people, through a vice they have trouble breaking, to richer people who could afford at least a limited health insurance coverage but would rather spend their money on other things.
Perversely, at this moment if the family had an accident, they would have trouble because of the showdown over the bill. We could have a bill tomorrow that added five billion in funding, and covered this family.
Then those who want to expand the program could push a bill to do so.
But they wouldn't get enough votes, so those who want to EXPAND the program are holding families like this one hostage, denying them health insurance, in the hopes that the other side will have MORE compassion on this family than the proponents, and will give in just to save them.
Just as a hostage-taker counts on the good guys to give them money in exchange for saving the hostages, the SCHIP expansion proponents are holding poor people hostage and hoping the other side blinks before someone gets hurt.
you owe this family an apology
Um, no.
The "reporter" owes all of us one, though, for penning a story which leaves so many questions unanswered. As has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, we don't know whether or not the family had priced insurance before or after the accident, nor whether there were any px conditions to begin with. Thus, we have made the entirely reasonable inference that there were no px conditions, and that the reporter relied on questionable information without bothering to determine its validity.
Jay:
Excellent point. Thank you!
This poster relates the usual bait and switch that insurance companies use with their websites. Assuming NO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS and perfect health - not even a hangnail - those are the payments one might make. Look at the fine print on the site: I'm sure you will find the 'no guarantees for this quote' statement.
This post is really stupid because the family CLEARLY has pre-existing conditions requiring on-going treatment!
Absolutely no one has attacked children here, but I will "attack" the parents by saying: if you have children, you have to provide the necessities for them, and that includes healthcare. The mom could have found a job with benefits - it's really not that hard, I've heard Starbucks offers them - but she choose not to. The couple could have self-insured, but they choose not to. If they've got money for granite countertops, private school and a newer SUV, they've got money for insurance. They just don't want to spend it on insurance, hoping that a)nothing bad will ever happen or b)if it does, the government will take responsibilty for it. Or, rather, the taxpayers.
And, to Jeannie - you're right, when you have a high-deductible plan, you do need to make sure you can cover that deductible. But scraping up even 12k (assuming that you would have a two kids with catastrophic illness like the Frosts, and both kids deduc. was 6K apiece) is way easier that scraping up half a mil, which is I bet the bill they would have been socked with had not the government stepped in. How can you say that coming up with the deductible is harder than coming up with the entire amount?
I wonder if the adult Frosts are still uninsured, or if they are now sufficiently motivated to take care of themselves.
the family CLEARLY has pre-existing conditions
So?
The point is that the article doesn't say that they had any px when they were shopping for the cover, which we can infer took place before the accident.
Really, I'm stunned at the level of hypocricy I'm seeing from the left on this. In any other circumstance, the Frosts would be absolutely vilified for their "poor choices:"
- An SUV?! For shame! Trade that gas-guzzler in for a Prius forthwith!
- Four children? You're kidding! Haven't you ever heard of abortions, or ZPG?
- A private school?! Heaven (or somewhere) forfend! Why aren't they supporting the NEA by sending those tax deductions to public school?
- A slumlord? Hey, he owns an older building, which he rents out (for profit!) instead of donating it for use as a homeless shelter.
- A sleazy business owner, to boot: how come he didn't offer health insurance to his employee?
- And what's the carbon-footprint on a 3,000+ square foot home? Does his family really need to be heating that much space?
Simply. Amazing.
But they fit the meme, so they're off the hook. Apparently, there are no poor, sickly, minority children who could benefit from a program like SCHIP, so we put these folks on a pedestal.
You are 100% wrong on this. As someone who works in the insurance industry I can tell you point blank. The quotes made online are assuming a perfectly health family. The daughter has brain injuries, no health insurance company in America is going to insure that family at the lowest rate, that is a fact.
The right wingers are crying about their $400,000 house that if anyone actually did any research they purchased for $55,000 in a bad area at the time. Hardly wealthy.
Just commenting from my own experience. Both my husband and I have pre-existings and, having shopped the entire US health insurance market, could only find a policy for $4,000 per month. We found lots of lower rates, for which we did not qualify.
Enjoy the way you twist the few facts into a fantasy. Your website is too stupid to ever look at again.
The reason you are stunned at no viliification is that you project your Radical Right behavior on reasonable Liberal people, just like Mr. Coulter.
We have had enough of your hate and don't intend to imitate you!
You are 100% wrong on this.
No, we're not.
There is nothing in the article to indicate that there were any px when the Frost's were shopping for insurance.
Just commenting from my own experience.
Which is fine, but is irrelevant.
Your website is too stupid to ever look at again.
Apparently that's also not true, since you continue to comment here.
We have had enough of your hate and don't intend to imitate you!
Apparently your friends Jason and David didn't get the memo.
I didn't see this posted when I scanned the comments but I believe it is relevant.
As a Controller and CPA with over 10 years in small business, I am intimately familiar with employer sponsored plans. One thing that always causes problems at renewal is trying to compare the renewal quote from the existing health insurance company and the quotes from competing companies that want the business.
One of the unusual and unique items in the insurance field is the concept of "street rates" versus fully underwritten rates. Street rates is the rate you get when you put all your information in on the website. That number is subject to change in the underwriting process.
In Utah for small group policies the insurance companies can only change their initial street rate quote by up to 85%, based on underwriting. On individual policies there is no cap on the increase from street rates.
As such, it would not surprise me to see an individual policy premium have 100 to 150% change between the initial street rate price and the actual premium paid.
That being the case, I don't believe the massive expansion of SCHIP is the way to go. It just causes the insurance market to shrink, limiting competition, and increasing inefficiency. The solution that should be implemented is one that would increase competition and decrease regulation, like what happened in the telecom industry.
Thanx, Brian, for your comments.
It's easy to forget that one of the two major points that Bob was making was that SCHIP has been stretched out of all resemblance to its original prupose (the other being that the MSM is incredibly sloppy).
Thank you for guiding us back on track!
Oh, and one more thing:
The "C" in S-CHIP is supposed to stand for "Children." But , for example, almost half "of Michigan’s funding allotment intended to give poor children health insurance actually went to cover adults."
(Hat Tip: Captain's Quarters)
Do your homework. Your numbers aren't even cooked. They're invented. There's no private health insurance in this country, for a family of six, that runs at the prices you web-quote. Why don;t you post that link where you made your calculations? Ever heard of responsible journalism? Apparently not.
Let's not forget that this is a 12 year old kid. 12 year olds don't buy health insurance, their parents do. Yes it is true that the parents have a responsibility to see to their child's insurance coverage, but in no way is it the boy's fault.
If we followed that logic, there would be no public schools in the United States either.
In medicine we talk about "use effectiveness," and this refers to the effectiveness of a medical treatment in real situations. For example, insulin is almost 100% effective in diabetes, but with compliance issues, medication errors, patients forgetting doses, etc, the use effectiveness is much lower.
It only takes a doctor a few years in practice to acquire the wisdom that some patients will never take their medications right no matter what we do. So we figure something else out, instead of pounding the table and insisting that our patients "be responsible."
The bottom line is that a certain percentage of the population will NEVER have adequate health insurance unless we hand it to them on a silver platter. This is the use effectiveness of health insurance, and I am convinced that there is nothing we can ever do to fix this except guarantee insurance to everyone.
We already do this for everyone over 65. Why is it such a big deal if we do this for everyone under 18? Children cost far less to insure than adults, on average, and keeping them healthy is very beneficial for society. Children eventually work, and pay back their cost to society in spades.
Ever heard of responsible journalism?
Finally, someone that gets it! You are exactly right: that reporter was extremely irresponsible.
Thank you!
um, another weird thing about this main post is the zip code used. unless i'm mistaken, 21250 is a specific zipcode for the UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, where i happen to teach. it is not even in baltimore city. this may be irrelevant to prevailing rates of coverage, but it's interesting that the blogger is complaining about diligence when he put in a zip code that only applies to a university and its residential college students. (I just checked with our media relations department to confirm this fact.)
Bob, your claim that the family could be insured for $452 a month is simply not credible. It's your CLAIM, but that's all.
As for Medicare Part D, the only politicians who say they want it is the Republicans. It is NOT a drug benefit program. It is a government subsidy to the drug companies.
My health care costs will go up by more than 40% when I am forced to join Part D. Who's forcing me? The insurance companies, who have pressured Washington State to allow them to kick me out of the risk pool.
Never trust a Republican social program, and never trust an insurance agent. Bob, you cooked your numbers. They are as phony as phony gets.
Bob, you cooked your numbers
Really? And you know this, how?
Unless you can prove this, you are treading on very thin ice here.
Just because you don't want to believe his numbers doesn't mean they're "phony."
The fact is that it took only a few minutes, with information easily and readily accessible to the public, to find numbers which contradicted those in the story. But there was zero effort made on the part of the "professional reporter" to ascertain this.
Those who choose to believe the Frost's are, of course, free to do so. But the fact that they put themselves out there as representing "poor, underprivileged" folks who couldn't afford insurance, and a "professional reporter" who takes them at their word, leaves them (and the "reporter") open to fact-checking.
I'd like to see the exact details, what kind of plan, what kind of coverage. $640 a month for a family? With a disabled daughter? My husband and I are small business owners who, like the Frosts, must purchase Individual coverage -- we pay $1200 a month in premiums for just the two of us. Our plan is an HMO.
Perhaps Individual Insurance is much, much cheaper in Maryland than it is here on the West Coast. But I can't think of any good, market based reason why it would be.
I'd like to see the exact details, what kind of plan, what kind of coverage
I think we all would, but the "professional reporter" failed to disclose them.
I've been paying $700 a month for an HMO plan for just me, never mind a family. And I just got a notice that it's going to go up to over $800 a month.
In my experience those "search engine" quotes are a crock. You find a good price and get your hopes up, but when you try to apply for the insurance you find out that THAT plan is only available to one-eyed Eskimos with buck teeth. Any insurance YOU can buy is a lot more expensive.
I'm talking about details for the claims made here of a $640 monthly Individual health insurance premium for a family of 6. The claim is absurd. $1200 a month for an individual plan for a family of 6? THAT would be a very good deal indeed.
Most of the people here seem quite naive about the cost of health insurance for the self-employed.
Health insurance is a crapshoot, but I think we can safely assume that this family couldn't have obtained any sort of decent coverage for $452 a month. Bob the wingnut insurance agent hasn't substantiated his claim. Until he does, I'm going by the smell test, and my nose says his numbers are as phony as they come.
Like I say, I've been continuously insured for decades. I don't believe his numbers for one second. It's Bob's claim for the $452, so it's up to him to prove it. Come on, Bob, cough it up!
Let's try this last time for those playing along at home:
A "professional reporter" claims that the Frost's told him that they couldn't find insurance for less than $1200/month.
A blogger proves that a five minute search shows that to be untrue.
No one questions the "professional reporter" who does no fact-checking.
Bizarro-commenters question the blogger who took 5 minutes to determine the validity of the claim.
You can choose to believe, or disbelieve, Bob's numbers. What is indisputable here is that you've all missed the big picture.
Thanks for playing along, game over.
To reiterate for those who tuned in late . . .
I used 21250 for a zip.
I used a prominent quote engine.
I assumed late 30's for the adults. I plugged in kids at ages 12, 10, 9 & 8. This is for A family, not necessarily this particular family. The demographics were reasonably close to this particular family.
Given these parameters the $1200 figure for health insurance is bogus.
I also assumed all were healthy. There is nothing in the article to indicate they applied for coverage before and were turned down or rated up for health conditions.
For those who still think this post is a sham, run your own damn numbers and see what you come up with.
Bob:
I don't know whether you buy your own insurance, but I just did in the state of Virginia for my family of 5, and the fact is that the prices I got quoted online were significantly lower, about one-half, in fact, of what the insurance ended up actually costing once my application was underwirtten. To keep the cost down, in fact, I had to quadruple my deductible.
So your research, while interesting, is actually evidence of nothing. I am sure your reporting is accurate; the fact is that in the real world, as this stuff operates (at least in my experience) is is simply not probative.
And yet, many people have used your "reporting" as proof that this guy is lying about how much his insurance would cost. Hardly. In fact, in my experience, it lend credibility to his numbers.
So, I'd like to ask, do you buy your own insurance? Besides punching a zip code into an online program that bears little relationship to reality, do you have any experience in purchasing insurance for your family?
As a matter of fact Alan, I do have experience buying insurance for my family. For the last 14 years or so since I left the corporate world I have managed my families insurance plan. For the last 32 years I have helped companies large & small, as well as literally hundreds of individuals & families purchase insurance.
If I had to guess, the premium dollar placed with carriers on behalf of my clients over the years is probably close to $50,000,000.
So I guess you can say I have had experience.
As has been pointed out ad infinitum, the demographics used to generate numbers for this article closely resembled this family. I had no reason to pick a fictitious family in OR, CA, NY or any other state. Nor did I see any value in plugging in my own demographics.
The point has been stressed that a family, living in Baltimore with 2 adults (late 30's) and 4 kids in good health can purchase an exceptional plan for less than $500 per month.
YMMV
So, I stumbled on this website and read through the comment thread. Apparently, you missed the key source here, i.e., the actual speech, in which the boy talked about the health issues he and his sister have.
I looked at the site you used. The data there is utterly useless for this situation; coming up with plans based on a healthy family is obviously irrelevant to this situation, and I could find no provisions on the site to generate quotes based on health issues. The raison d'etre of the speech is the inability of the family to get insurance due to the pre-existing conditions of the children! Leaving this out of your research shows willful obtuseness about the entire episode.
So now Bob's backtracking begins. He admits that he used certain assumptions that may or may not be true. He relied on an on-line quote that may or may not be a bail-and-switch offer.
Here's the deal: Bob is just one more wingnut insurance agent with an agenda, willing to tell any sort of lie. He throws a bogus figure out into the wingnut echo chamber, to be repeated by others. Then he scurries back under his rock.
If he's wrong, well so what? He's done his part to smear a 12-year-old kid and the family trying to take care of him. The truth? Who cares? In Bob's world, that doesn't matter. Bob's real grievance here is that the kid is still alive and costing him money.
[BTW, Tilden, nice try on the web-page misdirection. Just because you find that gentleman's politics unattractive doesn't mean you get to "dis" him. Perhaps after you've returned from your own embed in a war zone you'll be qualified to do so. HGS]
Edited By Siteowner
Why is this so difficult to understand?
One of two things is true:
1) The family shopped for insurance before the accident, and claims that the premiums would have been $1,200. The "professional reporter" takes them at their word, when a simple check (either on-line or with an agent) would have shown this to be preposterous. It doesn't matter which quote engine or agent; the point is simply that there was no effort to verify the family's claims. If there were any px at the time, the reporter either didn't ask about them, or chose not to mention that (very pertinent) fact.
Or:
2) The family chose to self-insure prior to the accident (a perfectly legitimate, if risky, way to go) and, afterwards, attempted to buy insurance. Of course, now the premiums will be much higher, which is understandable. By choosing to self-insure, the family made a cost-benefit decision, and must now live with the consequences. I see no reason why the taxpayer should shoulder that burden.
As to the claim that Bob is "backtracking," I suggest you re-read his post (which has not changed in any way from the date of its publication, save for the "Welcome NRO readers" salutation). In it, he says "$1200 per month for a family of 6 in Baltimore." That's all; he did not say "the Frost family" or "a family with multiple health problems." We have no idea whether or not there were any, due to the "professional reporter's" egregious refusal to do even rudimentary fact-checking. The "$1200" fit his world-view, therefore it was, ipso facto, true and accurate.
Scottf, of course, is lying: "I looked at the site you used." Again, re-read the post; there is no mention of which site, because it is irrelevant. Any quote engine would have returned a similar number (or not, but the "professional reporter" failed to do even this much). If he is relying on my comment above, he obviously missed: this information is easily and readily obtained from a number of sources...One would be a service like ehealthinsurance. Another would be pretty much any health insurance agent. Again, any such service or agent would do.
Tilden is simply a moron: "smear a 12-year-old kid and the family trying to take care of him." That's called a straw-man, and is obviously untrue, as is the typical little temper tantrum about not caring whether the child lives or dies. Just because you agree with the "professional reporter's" world-view, and don't mind that he and/or the Frost's made up "facts" on the fly doesn't mean that calling them on it makes us uncaring monsters.
The only smearing here is from the folks whose minds are made up, and resent us for confusing them with facts.
I did run my "damn numbers." The post that related my results, strangely enough, never appeared in this thread. I'll try again.
What I got when I sought online quotes for an Individual Plan in my zip code based on info for me and my husband, was a quote from my own insurer that was more than 1/3rd cheaper than what we actually pay, plus, results from several insurance companies that do not actually offer Individual plans in our state.
Some of those insurers do offer insurance to individuals and families through a state sponsored program for low income workers who do not receive insurance through their employers. These plans are actually Group Plans, not Individual Plans, and that program -- which has a waiting list -- has very strict, low, income requirements. Plus, it can be very impractical for the self-employed/small business owner whose income may flucuate from month to month or quarter to quarter -- they may meet the income eligibility one month, but not the next., etc.
What I got when I sought online quotes for an Individual Plan in my zip code
That's actually a completely different topic, and one we've addressed here at IB.
For purposes of this post, Bob used a quoting engine readily available to "professional reporters" (and, of course, anyone else with web access); and, again, which one is irrelevant.
In general, though, we recommend against relying on them, because they can be confusing (as you have found). Most folks are much better off working with a professional, independent agent who can help them navigate these waters, at no cost to the insured. IOW, it costs no more to use an agent than to go DIY (in fact, going the latter route is often more expensive).
Quoted rates (regardless of the source) and final rates quite often vary (as to other terms of the carrier offer).
So again for clarification:
No one said the quote was about the Frost family.
There was no substantiation in the article justifying the $1200 rate. Since families in Baltimore with a similar demographic can obtain coverage for significantly less than $1200 one has to question if that rate is even valid.
A good reporter would have asked if there were health issues that caused the rate to be so high.
A good reporter would also question why a family living in a neighborhood of $500k homes has to rely on the taxpayer to provide insurance for their kids.
No one has attacked the kid. This has nothing to do with the children. It has everything to do with parental responsibility and acting as an adult.
Almost nothing has been said about the parents lack of insurance. Only that their employer does not provide health insurance. They also indicated they would like to see some form of national health care.
Personally, I think the CHIP program is a good thing . . . but only for deserving families. I also think providing access to free or sliding scale primary care (other than through the ER) is a good thing.
Of course the folks at Minute Clinic agree and they provide ready access to primary care for around $40 . . . about the price of a copay. Many are located in pharmacy's with $4 meds. This is certainly within the reach of most Americans.
Even a lowly woodworker living in a neighborhood with $500k homes.
One last comment, then I'll stop because we're just going around in circles.
First, my last comment didn't appear for some reason.
Anyway, I agree that a good reporter should have checked all this out. The problem with your "reporting", Bob, is that it errs in the other direction. It is being used as proof by Prof. Stern and others, like Mark Steyn, for the erroneous conclusion that the $1,200 figure is preposterous, when it is nothing of the kind, as you yourself concede.
So, I commend you for your reporting, but you didn't do a complete job because you failed to put your reporting in the proper context. People like Prof. Stern and Mark Steyn either fail to grasp that there are frequently huge differences between on-line quotes and actual cost, or are affirmatively misrepresenting the data. Either way, that's not your fault, except to the extent that you failed to make it clear before the meme was able to take hold.
Alan:
I decided to let your comment through because a) you've been fairly reasonable (if obtuse) and b) you raise some interesting (but inaccurate) points.
I'm glad we agree that "a good reporter should have checked all this out." That was pretty much Bob's whole point.
Bob did not engage in "reporting;" rather, he took the time to do what the "professional reporter" apparently hasn't done, namely: Check. The. Facts.
The "conclusion" was not the least bit "erroneous:" we relied on the few facts given in the story to check the claim that a Baltimore-area family could not buy insurance for less than $1,200. As we have consistently maintained, we have not singled out the Frost family's health history, because we don't know it, and because it's not relevant.
Thus, Bob has "conceded" nothing, because there was nothing untoward in what he has posted.
Mr Steyn and I (and as an aside, I am quite flattered to be included in the same breath as Mr S) have never indicated any disparity between quoted and actual prices because it's not relevant.
Finally, there was never anything to "make clear" because there was never anything incorrect about what was posted.
That some folks choose not to believe what we've found out is unfortunate, but has no bearing on the facts.
(Update: We are attempting to contact Mr Brown to see why he apparently took the Frost's claims at face value)
Bottom line, what we have here are two exceptionally irresponsible parents.
They haven't sacrificed for their children yet they demand that WE make the sacrifices for them.
Did they sell their property? No. Did the father close his business and get a job that offered insurance? No. Does the family have televisions, computers, cell phones, microwave oven, cable or satellite television, internet connection? Those are all luxuries that we shouldn't be forced to subsidize. Do they take vacations, weekends off?
I own my own business and put in a minimum 16 hours per day...yet I'm supposed to pay even more in taxes to pay for the past and continued mistakes of others.
No thanks.
the zip is 21231
[This anonymous and enigmatic post comes to us from the world-renowned Johns Hopkins University. Make of it what you will. HGS]
Edited By Siteowner
Saran:
To be fair, according to the (very) few facts available, the Frost's appear to qualify for SCHIP "as is;" that is, with or without the expansions proposed by the WH or Congress.
And we've tried hard not to "attack" them for the choices they've (apparently) made, because the point of Bob's post was really about media accountability rather than the SCHIP program or the Frost's.
We have no idea whether or not the Frost's have all of those "luxuries," but whether or not they do seems to me to have no bearing on the issue at hand.
We do, of course, have our own opinions about those choices, but would prefer to keep focused on media accountability.
Obtuse?
My point was simply that Bob's research, as it is, is being used to reach conclusions it does not support, i.e. the cost of insurance for Frost, specifically.
Best,
Alan
Bob states:
"Of course nothing anyone has presented indicates the numbers I used would not apply to the Frosts."
Wow, quite the load of double-negatives! Actually, it's your job to prove that the numbers you used WOULD apply to the Frosts. Have you done that?
Or is it a legitimate debating tactic to make outlandish assertions and claim they're true unless somebody can disprove them?
Sue:
You have that completely bass-ackwards. The original article claimed that insurance for a family of 6 would cost $1200, but offered no evidence that he had checked this out.
IOW, we simply did the research that the "professional reporter" was supposed to have done.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I'm not sure what you think I'm lying about. I used ehealthinsurance.com; I thought that Bob mentioned he used that in one of the comments, but I now see it was a different poster who mentioned it. Mea culpa, but I don't understand what that has to do with the main point, which is that they can't get affordable insurance NOW (8 years after they sold the business you want them to sell -- c.f. the NYT article) due to pre-existing conditions.
Personally, I think there's an honest debate to be had here about the pros and cons of using tax dollars to subsidize health insurance coverage, but I don't think you folks recognize that your vilification of this family isn't going to strengthen your case in the eyes of most people.
The question is whether S-CHIP is an appropriate means to help ensure children get appropriate health care when market failures, bad luck, or poor choices in the past would otherwise cause their families to suffer significant financial hardship.
I understand the ideological position that "you makes your choice and you takes your chance" and if the choice was bad (oops, skimped on my plan and now it doesn't over my children's health care costs), well, them's the breaks. The whole point of S-CHIP is to handle families like the Frosts -- not destitute families, but also not families like the Frosts were being falsely portrayed (healthy, upper middle class yuppies trying to get out of buying health insurance). Maybe that's really not the best use of taxpayer money (after all, we could be spending it on more agricultural subsidies instead!). But tearing into this family without getting all the facts was just plain vicious.
I am still stuck waiting for a response, what about car insurance weren't the kids involved in a car accident I never had to pay for my injury. even with uninsured drivers
Dee
If this was a single car accident their med pay portion would kick in. Limits on med pay are usually in the $5k range.
If other vehicles were involved the situation is different from state to state.
Post #100!
:>)
How about Bob post the proof and we can all check it? Without it we can draw our own conclusions as to whether it exists.
Well I guess with no proof from Bob it is clear that it does not exist, pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
no proof from Bob
Proof of what?
If you mean the fact that coverage is available for a lot less than $1200, and that this information is readily and easily available to anyone with net access (including, but not limited to, "Professional Reporters"), then you've obviously not read the post (or comments) thoroughly.
"IOW, we simply did the research that the "professional reporter" was supposed to have done."
So you have a specific example of a health plan, with prescription coverage, which will accept this family of six with their preexisting conditions, and cover them for $641 monthly?
The way to show that would be to give specific evidence supporting your claim, such as "The XYZ company at website zzz.com offers their ABC program for $641".
But instead, we have "A check [WITH PARAMETERS UNSPECIFIED] of a [UNNAMED] quote engine for zip code 21250 (Baltimore) [IS THIS THE FROST'S ZIP CODE?] finds a plan [WITH UNSPECIFIED COVERAGE, FROM AN UNNAMED COMPANY] for $641 with a $0 deductible and $20 doc copays."
Is this mysterious plan appropriate for, or even available to, the Frosts? Without any details, we can't know.
which will accept this family of six (emphasis added)
Um, no.
Never said that.
There are community colleges which offer courses in:
a) Remedial English
and/or
b) ESL (English as a Second Language)
I bet there's even one in your community!
Best of luck to you.
OK, The_Prof if you are acting as Bob's mouthpiece. Give us the details of:
a) which site he used to get this information
b) what ages he entered for the family
c) any other information he used
We can then check it ourseleves, I will also run it on 5 other sites myself and let us see what happens.
Without this information I for one will be convinced that it does not exist.
JJ:
As I told a previous commenter, there are community colleges which offer courses in:
a) Remedial English
and/or
b) ESL (English as a Second Language)
I bet there's even one in your zip code!
Best of luck to you!
JJ -
Since you have access to 5 sites why not run your own numbers using the demographics I used (which have already been posted) and then come back and issue a challenge?
I regret that I have to treat you in the same way I did my children when they were young. They would ask a question that I easily could have answered but instead chose to give them the opportunity to learn for themselves. So pretend you are 12 years old and go look it up then report back.
Two quick points.
The subject of the Baltimore Sun article was an event announcement about Graeme Frost's giving the Democratic weekly radio address. It wasn't not an investigative piece about the Frost's finances. As such, there is no reason for the reporter to check the Frost assertion that health insurance would cost them $1200 per month.
Next, having read Bob's post "$45,000 and No Insurance," he starts out writing about the Frost family. Just after the paragraph indicating their health insurance would cost $1200+, Bob questions the cost and give a cost quote much lower. He ends with "Doesn't anyone bother to check the facts?"
To me he is implying the Frost family could also get or have gotten coverage for much less.
TM:
First, thank you for the civil tone of your comments. After the barrage of hate-speak from many commenters, it's a welcome change.
Second, your first point is incorrect: it was the reporter's responsibility to ascertain the accuracy of the claim. As you noted, Bob said nothing in his post about the Frost's finances, because that wasn't relevant. What was relevant is that the reporter took them at their word, without taking the 5 minutes necessary to determine that the $1200 was way out of line. He could then have asked them where they got that number (so far, we're the only ones being asked that, even though we weren't the subjects of a newspaper article).
Your second point is correct: based on the (incomplete, as it turns out) information provided, he did, in fact, find that they could have gotten coverage for much less.
Bob, many people have ran the data and got nothing near your figures. You claimed the journalist was sloppy for taking the Frost's at their word about their quote and then you expect us to take you at your word about your quote.
You accuse me of being a child. If you are telling the truth simply publish your data and we can check it and plug into other sites.
Simple equation, you publish the site, we check and if you are telling the truth. Very simple....
But isn't TruthMonk's point that Bob was disingenuous, at best, and deceptive at worst, by how he did this? Bob is an agent, and he had to have known that the limited information he had on the Frosts would not result in an accurate quote for them.
Shouldn't Bob have at least mentioned this? True, Bob's words can be parsed into a version of truth, but Bob clearly intended for his test to create the impression that health insurance would cost the Frosts less than $1,200.
That's my problem. I accept the reporter should have checked further, and I commend Bob for doing so. But then Bob presented his findings in a way intended to give a particular impression, while remaining technically truthful.
It was truthiness!
Best,
Alan
JJ:
He treated you like a child because you keep asking the same question, over and over, and haven't noticed that it's been answered multiple times.
Alan:
So now, even though you admit that Bob was accurate and forthright, he's being "truthy?"
How does that work?
Never mind, I don't think I want to know.
Well, you asked, so you get to know.
Bob was accurate, but he was not forthright.
Forthright would have been something to the effect of, "According to criteria I entered into a quote engine, health insurance could be obtained in Maryland for a family of six for approximately $450 per month. This does not mean, however, that the Frosts could have obtained insurance for this amount, or that Frost's assertion that insurance would have cost him nearly $1,200 per month was inaccurate."
No, Bob did not affirmatively lie, but given the subject matter and his level of expertise as an agent, he had an obligation, IMHO, to explain more fully exactly what his research showed and what it did not show.
I'm suprised you don't agree.
Alan
Actually, Alan, you have that exactly backwards:
"I was surprised to learn that insurance for what appeared to be a healthy family was $1200 a month. As a professional reporter, I sought to confirm this number by:
a) going to an online quote engine to see for myself
or
b) contacting an insurance agent to confirm that this was, indeed, the going price.
That way, I would know for sure that I had my facts straight, instead of relying on my interviewee's assertion."
We would also have accepted:
"Once I learned that the interviewee's had chosen to self-insure, seeking insurance coverage only after a terrible accident, I set out to determine for myself how much insurance would have cost a reasonably healthy Baltimore-area family of 6 by:
a) going to an online quote engine to see for myself
or
b) contacting an insurance agent for a quote.
I was surprised to discover that a reasonably comprehensive plan could have been purchased for less than half of the number the interviewee's claimed."
Nice try, though.
You're an idiot. Frost and his sister have preexisting medical conditions (in this case severe brain injuries caused by an auto accident). That he necessitates weekly therapy sessions would raise the cost of insurance at least twofold.
And to the person who is "frosted" that they make minimum wage and are "subsidizing" this poor kid's insurance while you can't afford any...if you make minimum wage, you should first thank the Democrats for raising it, secondly- minimum wage earners don't pay income taxes (you don't make enough money) so you only pay local taxes which go toward your schools, police, fire, etc., and thirdly you should apply for medicare (you'd qualify if you really made minimum wage) and you should be glad that the SCIP program is around in case you have kids and can't afford to cover them either.
As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family's home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.
Certainly the Frosts are not destitute. They also own a commercial property, valued at about $160,000, that provides rental income. Mr. Frost works intermittently in woodworking and as a welder, while Mrs. Frost has a part-time job at a firm that provides services to publishers of medical journals. Her job does not provide health coverage.
You're an idiot.
That's the best you can do? I'm disappointed.
Please cite for me where the original article (on which the post was based) said that anyone in the family had any px when they were shopping for insurance.
Oh, you can't? Hmm.
So now who's the idiot?
Your comments about the Frost's finances, while interesting, are irrelevant. In case you hadn't noticed (and it's obvious that you hadn't), the post was about the price of health insurance, not the economic circumstances of a family which owns three cars, commercial real estate, and sends their children to a private school.
JJ -
I am sorry you and "many people" cannot replicate what I did. Michelle Malkin did and she is not (to the best of my knowledge) an agent.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/1...alth-insurance/
"FYI, Golden Rule Insurance currently offers a plan for a healthy Baltimore family of 6 for $190 to $423 per month depending on the plan."
So it begs the question, what are YOU smoking?
So that is your best comeback, "what are YOU smoking?", very inane.
The reason you will not post the site you got the information at is it is flawed and if we check it out we would find that, as for Michelle MalkinI was not asking her but you. As for pre-existing conditions, it is on literally dozens of sites and was reported at that time the article you refer came out. Let me introduce you to Google, you could have checked for yourself. Kind of ironic isn't it, you calling out a reporter for not checking simple facts and you do exactly the same thing.
Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.
JJ:
Since you obviously don't want to be confused with facts, this is the last comment of yours that I'll approve.
One more time, just in case:
The article on which the post was based made no mention of when the Frost's were shopping for insurance. The entirely reasonable assumption was made that they were shopping before there were problems; o/w, we would have had to assume that they were irresponsible parents who had waited until after a claim to seek cover.
That article was pulled by the BS, perhaps because it was such a shoddy piece of work. Regardless, subsequent pieces indicated that the Frost's had chosen to self-insure, and then expected their fellow citizens to bail them out after they had a problem.
BTW, Bob has already indicated (several times) where he got his numbers. It's a shame that you are so blinded by ignorance that you've missed this.
Good day.
My last comment was not posted, and if you have the time, I'm curious why.
I thought I made a fair point, that your responses support Bob by pointing out the shortcomings of the BS reporter (which I have agreed with), but fail to address the central issue of Bob's disingenousness with respect to how he (Bob) presented his information.
While arguably he was technically accurate, he sought to create the impression that the Frosts were lying. May the Frosts were, and maybe they weren't, but Bob simply failed to put his infromation into the proper context.
Did Bob have an obligation to do so, or should it be up to the reader to understand the context? Fair point. I come down on the side of putting all information into as much context as possible, because more honest debate leads to more valid conclusions.
The manner in which Bob communicated his info seemed more focused on winning an argument than in getting at some truth.
Best,
Alan
The_Prof, how come you answer everything that is asked for Bob? Just put the URL and we can all check.
If it was out there on the internet, don't you think Bob should have checked to see if they had px. The fact that he did not is very very shoddy and the fact that as Alan Zimmerman has pointed out at best Bob was being disingenous and your smoke and mirrors are not going to change that.
how come you answer everything that is asked for Bob?
Cause I'm the cute one?
I have one for you:
How come you guys never bother to read the actual posts or previous comments?
Reason I ask is, that information's been posted for, oh, about a week.
OK, so where exactly is?:
1. The URL of where Bob wrote he got the quote. (Not where some other person wrote he might have got it from!)
2. The post where Bob apologizes for his shoddy posting when he got a quote without px when it was widely reported online that they were pricing with px.
I look forward to this documentation.
The URL of where Bob wrote he got the quote
When my children were younger, I found that it was helpful to them when I said "look it up." We always had plenty of reference materials available (and, of course, there's the Web), so it wasn't a particularly arduous task.
You strike me as someone who would have benefited from the same regimen. If you'd bother to read the posts and the comments, you'd see that this information is readily available.
The post where Bob apologizes
There is none, because it's unnecessary. The article (since pulled by the BS, perhaps because of its shoddy workmanship) never stated when the Frost's had done their shopping.
Finally, I'll offer you the same advice that I've offered to several of your fellow ignorami:
There are community colleges which offer courses in:
a) Remedial English
and/or
b) ESL (English as a Second Language)
I bet there's even one in your zip code!
For the benefit of Toni, JJ and others who are either lazy or challenged in reading the English language, let me give you a hint. Follow this link.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yurbft
And for Toni (and other like her) your second question does not even warrant a reply since this has been answered on several occasions already. Let me suggest you start by reading the initial post, then the comments, use a calendar and then Google information on the Frost family then report back. You will see a definite timeline where information on the circumstances of their mystery premium started to fall apart.
As for the $1200 figure, please tell me which family members were applying for coverage, which were rated up, which are turned down due to pre-existing conditions? I would also like an explanation as to why the adults are (apparently) not covered for health insurance.
Personal to JJ:
Your comments are not being "censored."
They are being deleted.
There's a difference.
Notice, too, that not every letter to the editor you submit to your local paper gets published, either.
We're in cahoots.
[Um, JJ, in case you haven't noticed, we moved on from this quite some time ago. While I appreciate the traffic, you might consider cutting back, because I'm concerned that you're going to have a stroke from all your pent-up anger and frustration. At the very least, PLEASE consider switching to decaf. HGS]
Edited By Siteowner
The human life is more dear than any medical pole and the state should go towards to people. This my opinion.
[Alexi: I deleted your link because it's a commercial site, not a blog. HGS]
Edited By Siteowner
nice blog...
Commenting by HaloScan
