A Friendly Reminder

Hey, I'm as happy as anybody that so many people are protesting health care in DC. I really am. The fact that 15,000+ people took the time to go downtown today, on a work day, and protest says a lot about their passion and the anger being felt by millions of Americans over the Democrats attempts to bankrupt the country and ruin our health care system.

But this is the easy party. Unless these protesters are willing to put in the grunt work, the long hours, to donate their time, their money, and their sweat to candidates who are willing to fight for their values in Annapolis, in Washington, then it will all be for naught.

My point is that it's real easy to bitch, but it's not so easy to work hard and lead. Our party and our nation needs leaders and workers right now a heck of a lot more than we need protesters...

The Brian Griffiths Minute: 11-09-2009

Mission Creep

A Wall Street Journal editorial from Friday notes the problems with mandated insurance, particularly when it comes to health care in Massachusetts:

My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.

Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.

And why exactly were they being fined by the state? Well, the answer sounds lot like some of the arguments that are currently being made by supporters of Obamacare.....except this was being championed by a Republican Governor:

The turning point was three years ago, when then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney pushed through the state legislature a health-care plan that he promised would provide universal coverage while lifting from the middle-class the burden of having to pay for those who do not have insurance. His argument was that the uninsured drove up the cost of health care for everyone by seeking care at emergency rooms and then skipping out on their medical bills. Hospitals make up for those unpaid bills by charging everyone else more than they otherwise would.

The central plank of the Romney plan was a mandate that required everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for posing a risk to society by walking around without coverage. There would be subsidies for those who couldn't afford insurance, and residents would be required to buy a minimum amount of health insurance, on the grounds that they might buy a policy that doesn't cover the cost of their care and end up skipping out on their medical bills. "We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance, and cars are a lot less expensive than people," Mr. Romney told the Boston Globe in 2006.

Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class—that is, people like us—would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.

Well, needless to say we see that mandated care in Massachusetts hasn't exactly worked our swimmingly for middle class folks up there. The cost of health care continues to skyrocket, people are still not necessarily covered, and middle class tax payers are suffering for the broken promises of bureaucrats and politicians who told them time and again that they wouldn't be subjected to a tax on health care and that health care costs would drop.

Sound like anything coming out of Washington these days?

Anybody of sound mind can see what is coming if the current health care plan is enacted. I have been saying time and time again that the option of health care reform, in the minds of the Democratic establishment in Washington, has little to do with providing better care at lowers costs, and everything to do with the socialization of health care at the federal level. Mandating minimum levels of coverage, to a certain extent, will be the same thing. And there will be a continued mission creep of the federal mandate to ensure that people are steered toward the exact coverage that Washington bureaucrats want, or whatever coverage Congress mandates into law. As Jonathan Adler notes:

If the federal government adopts an individual mandate, Ms. Williams fears her experience could soon replay itself nationwide. She’s right to fear. Once there is an individual mandate, interest groups will flock to Washington seeking to have their preferred treatment or service incorporated into the requirements for acceptable health care plans. Over time, the requirements will grow, and the cost of health care plans for many Americans will increase as a result. Consequently, many individuals who have health care plans that fully meet their needs will suddenly find themselves “underinsured” — and taxed fined as a result.

I can happen here. And it will happen if Congressional Democrats get their way. The Mission Creep has been real in Massachusetts; it will repeat itself at the federal level. The Bureuacuracy needed to run this mess will be nightmarish. Middle class families are going to have to spend more money on health care, turning it over to one bureacuracy (federally-approved health care companies) or another (the Government).

Mandated care, as constructed, is pretty much the enemy of our basic free market economic principles.....and while only tangential to the health care argument, it should give fiscal conservatives a lot of pause when you consider Mitt Romney's likely second try at the White House in 2012.

Health care reform through policy, not pandering

Back in August, I noted that Republicans needed to come up with a health care plan of our own. Fortunately, Governor Bobby Jindal was listening.

Gov. Jindal has to be considered one of the leading Republican authorities on health care, given his support for common sense budgeting and fiscal policy, along with his experience in serving as Louisana's Secretary of Health and the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. Jindal published an editorial in today's Washington Post that listed ten basic Republican tenets of health care reform. Common sense solutions that actually would benefit everyday Americans, such as:

• Voluntary purchasing pools
• Portability of coverage
• Tort Reform
• Coverage of preexisting conditions
• Transparency
• Electronic Medical Records
• Tax-free Health Savings Accounts
• Rewarding healthy lifestyles
• Allowing younger adults to be covered on parents policies
• Refundable tax credits

Jindal's plan, more so than any other plan presented on the national stage, will accomplish what the ostensible goal of health care reform should be; getting more folks covered at a lower price to the consumer.

Of course.....there is a minor hitch in that giddy-up.

Does anybody really think that the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress want any of those things that are listed above? Do they want individuals to be able to buy coverage across state lines, or to take it with them when they move? Do they want taxpayers or businesses to be able to join together cooperatively to purchase coverage at a lower rate? Do they want tort reform, or tax free savings accounts? Of course they don't. The issue of health care, on the national scene, has never been about maximizing the number of people with health insurance while minimizing the price to consumers and taxpayers. Because if that were the goal, some of Governor Jindal's recommendations would be a part of the plan being put forth by Congress.

Instead, what do we see being proposed? Larger government, more bureacuracy, a reduction in the ability of people to purchase coverage without government strings attached....and a fine/tax if the citizen does not want to play ball with the government mandate. And that says nothing of the fact that a system is being proposed that even doctors don't want to see.

Can somebody tell me how any of those things are going to maximize coverage and minimize costs? They aren't, because the Democrats aren't interested in solutions to the health care problem. Just demagoguery at best, or a radical change in American society at worst.

Leaders in Congress would be wise to consider Gov. Jindal's path. Because if the goal is truly "health care for all" this, frankly, is one of the only logical, affordable ways to get there.

If you build it, they won't come

For all of the people who seem to think that all of our nation's health care problems will magically disappear once socialized medicine is on the scene, I give you this:

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

Here is a graph for those of you who might not grok it otherwise:


So riddle me this; if we know that the passage of Obamacare means that we will artificially limit the number of practicing doctors in this country, and we know that through the artificial limit on practicing physicians that the quality of care will be significantly diminished and more expensive due to scarcity.....then what is the value-added to passing this boondoggle at all?

Looks like we might be going towards the DIY work ethic practiced by the British. Somebody get me some pliers....

Riddle me This

Senator Ben Cardin has had his well publicized town hall meetings. So did Congressman Frank Kratovil. Congressman John Sarbanes, not having the guts to hold a town hall in person, decided to have a telephone town hall. Sure, it's a chicken move, but at least we know where he stands on citizen input. And Senator Barabara Mikulski is laid up with a bum ankle. So just about all of the federal officials who represent Anne Arundel County are accounted for on the issue of town halls.

But where or where is Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger? What is Ruppersberger's stance on Obamacare? More importantly, what is his stance on holding town hall meetings to get the input of his constituents on this important matter, and why to date has he not held any town hall meetings?

Inquiring minds want to know, Congressman.

What's our Plan?

You wouldn't necessarily expect the CEO of Whole Foods, possibly the official store of the crunchy granola left, would come out and provide us with a template for a common sense, free market approach to health care reform that makes far, far more sense than the socialized medicine seen in Obama care. But John Mackey does that in the Wall Street Journal with a plan that emphasizes basic ideas such as tax fairness on health plan, removal of barriers for buying coverage across state lines (one of my pet peeves), tort reform, Medicare reform, and cost transparency. It its one of the more articulate alternative solutions that have been put forth recently.

And I think that's one of the more frustrating things for me recently. Certainly, the protests that we have seen pop up against Obamacare and the Democrats attempt at destroying free market health care are a positive sign, and the fact that public support for Obamacare has dropped 21 percent in the past four weeks is a positive sign that the public is getting the message on this regard.

But what alternatives are we as conservatives and Republicans presenting to the American public? Both left and right agree that the current health care system in this country is in major need of reformation. And mainstream Americans agree that the helath plan put forth by Obama and Congressional Democrats is risky, dangerous, and unwise.

So why is our side not offering more alternatives?

There are times when it is proper to stand back and say "no." But conservatives have an opportunity here to present a conservative vision of health care reform in this country. But seem to be more concerned saying no than we are with providing an alternative. Since liberal Democrats tend to be the party of emotion and conservative Republicans tend to be the party of ideas, we are missing an opportunity in this health care debate not only to position ourselves better to win elections in 2010, but an opportunity to build a broad coalition across party lines on major conservative principles that appeal to the majority of American citizens. The ball is on the tee for us, but it doesn't seem like we are ready to

Not a sermon, just a thought....

Golden Oldie

I was just perusing the archives here and found this interesting little reminder about Democratic efforts last year (and I'm looking at you, FSP) to astroturf support of socialized health care about one year ago to the day.

Just a reminder as to who is astroturfing whom these days...

No Warm and Fuzzies Here

To follow on to my previous post about health care records, CNET has a piece on the complete and total lack of privacy provisions built into the health care sections of the Stimulus Package:

What didn't come up during the president's first press conference was how one section of the convoluted legislation--it's approximately 800 pages total--is intended to radically reshape the nation's medical system by having the government establish computerized medical records that would follow each American from birth to death.

Billions will be handed to companies creating these databases. Billions will be handed to universities to incorporate patient databases "into the initial and ongoing training of health professionals." There's a mention of future "smart card functionality."

Yet nowhere in this 140-page portion of the legislation does the government anticipate that some Americans may not want their medical histories electronically stored, shared, and searchable. Although a single paragraph promises that data-sharing will "be voluntary," there's no obvious way to opt out.

"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared--without their consent--with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health records network," said Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, a nonprofit group that advocates health care privacy.

The Democratic politicians pushing this bill have far-reaching ambitions. The legislation (PDF) (on page 244, for the curious) hands to a still-to-be-named health care bureaucrat the "goal of utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014." Selecting official standards will be left to the Department of Health and Human Services (page 265).

The databases will, "at a minimum," include information on every American's race and ethnicity. They will be used for "biosurveillance and public health" and "medical and clinical research," both of which raise privacy questions. They will become part of a "nationwide system for the electronic use and exchange of health information."

Read the whole thing.

I find it incredibly odd, curious, and mind-numbing that the same leftists who decried "corporate welfare", decried the "privacy concerns" from the Bush and Ehrlich years (remember the police spying fiasco?), the people who want to handcuff insurance companies when it comes to denyting coverage for preexisting conditions, and the people who complained about government giving too much power to private entities readily and happily signed on to this boondoggle.

To make a long story short, Democrats in Congress have stripped you of your privacy rights when it comes to health care. You will be tracked from cradle to grave, and there seems to not be a damn thing that you can do about it.

So for those of you out there who voted for Obama, I ask you if you are still glad that you handed our nation's right to privacy away to government bureaucrats and health care companies?

The Beginning of the End?

Ed Fuelener from Heritage made some very valid points about the Stimulus Debacle:

This bill has been advertised as an economic stimulus bill—despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will actually weaken our nation's long-term economic growth. While the stimulative utility of the bill is, at best, questionable, it would unquestionably rewrite the social contract between the American people and their government. For example:

• The bill reverses the bipartisan and highly successful welfare reforms of 1996 and drastically expands the welfare state. For instance, it will start rewarding states for adding people to their welfare rolls, rather than for helping them find gainful employment. And contrary to long-established practice, it will entitle able-bodied adults without children to receive cash assistance.
• It does extreme violence to the concept of federalism—bailing out states that have spent irresponsibly at the expense of taxpayers in states that have been fiscally prudent.
• It greatly shifts the responsibility and power over health care delivery and decision making from individuals to government. Among other things, it would create a new federal health board to decide which medical services are "effective" in America, paving the way for government effectively to overrule the clinical decisions of private physicians.
• It deliberately censors religious speech and worship on school campuses by prohibiting use of any "stimulus" funds for facilities that are used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school of divinity.

The list goes on. These and similar provisions will mean fundamental changes in our society. In many instances, the bill would establish policies that directly challenge widely held American values.

And he makes several valid points. What a lot of Democrats seem to fail to understand is how invasive the Stimulus Package is, not just in the amount of wasteful government spending that it provides, but in the ways that it fundamentally changes the game.

Most disturbing to me is the new government board that deals with health care. We have already seen time and time again how government intervention into health care leads to disastrous consequences. There are reasons that Europeans who can afford to come to the U.S. for appropriate health care do, and it has a lot to do with the fact that government run health care systems there are ineffective, backlogged, and full of red tape. But this Democratic Congress had potentially changed all that and established a new board that will determine what is best for your health, not you. Does that seem like something you want to see. Do you want a bureacucratic Washington body making decisions for the health care of your parents or kids? Of course not.

Fuelner is right in that this stimulus bill is a dangerous precedent for America; the beginning of the end of the country as we know it. I take solace only in the fact that the American people will see through this charade and see this bill for what it is; a liberal Christmas list designed to take money and freedom away from average Americans...

Economy be Damned

Who's worried about the Wall Street Meltdown? Certainly not Democratic Delegate Heather Mizeur:

No matter who wins the presidential race in November, a national debate on health care is sure to start in 2009, Del. Heather Mizeur said Tuesday.

"It will be a different kind of debate depending on who wins. It seems like every 10 to 15 years we're ready to take this national health care debate on again," said Mizeur (D-Dist. 20) of Takoma Park.

Can you imagine, in this kind of fiscal environment, liberals trying to start a showdown on health care at the state and local level? We already have a situation where government has expanded far, FAR beyond its means. We already have a situation where government cannot afford the spending that has been undertaken at all levels of government. Are Democrats really ready to launch a debate in which they will propose the largest expansion of government social programs in American history knowing that they would need to raise taxes on the middle and working classes to pay for it?

I agree that we need to discuss reforming health care at the national level. But discussion the rapid expansion of government services at a time in which we absolutely cannot afford it is silly and naive. If the Democrats at the state and federal levels really go ahead with this, they will be saying "economy be damned, full speed ahead."

Astroturfing Health Care

FSP is shopping this on its front page in an effort to astroturf the creation of a socialist health care system:

Quite simply, with rising health care costs (including $50 billion per year to pay for insurance industry advertising) being born out by working families and American businesses, health care is a top economic concern. To keep American workers at their best, and to keep American business competitive in the world, something has to change.

Nancy Pelosi has recently declared health care expansion to be #2 on her list of legislative priorities, right after ending the Iraq war. In the past month, tens of thousands of Americans have told us they want quality, affordable health care for all. Now it's time to ask Congress.

So, Congress, which side are you on? Are you with us for quality, affordable health care for all? Or are you with the insurance companies, working to preserve our broken system?

We've set up a quick and easy way for you to contact your Members of Congress and ask them if they support our vision for health care reform. Just click here and enter in your phone number and address. Choose the elected official you want to talk to and in a few moments, we'll call your phone and connect you automatically.

Over the next few weeks, we want to make 100,000 calls to Congress, asking every Member which side they are on. We need your help to do it, so please click here to call!

I'm not really going to get into the idea of public health care, because there is a general consensus that it would be a disaster. But there are a few things that bother me with this, not the least of which is the fact that the author of the piece, Jason Rosenbaum, is employed by the Health Care for America Now group and Isaac chose not to point that out, which is disappointing.

What is not surprising, however, is the fact that the fringe left needs to try and create a groundswell of support for the issue of socialist health care. Because there is no support for it. The general public understands that when you have government run health care, you get government run solutions. The quality of care is diminished. The availability of care is diminished. Even the most important preventative procedures get a patient waitlisted and people resort to their own measures. Think of an HMO on steroids, and that's what the Democratic plan is.

Jon Henke wrote a piece for The Next Right yesterday afternoon that is very timely, given the left's attempt to further ruin American health care:

However, there are three problems with what Krugman claims about Medicare being "immensely popular"...

1. The recipients of Medicare get it, basically, for free. Since they're not paying for it at the point of purchase, it's not surprising that they think it's quite a nice thing.
2. Indeed, a lot of the real costs of Medicare lie in the future. And they are enormous. The costs are being hidden for now, while voters mostly approve of the more tangible benefits. Should voters ever have a chance to make a real cost/benefit trade-off, we'll see just how much they actually value it.
3. But, you might argue, polls show that 76% of Americans approve of Medicare. And so they do. But look what else those polls show about public approval of Medicare...

And that, my friends, is the problem. The most important plank of the Democrats plan is that it is a single-payer system available to everybody. But it is hard to create support for such a system when:

1. The costs of such a system would require draconian tax increases in an economy that cannot handle them;
2. The existing public health system already in place is one of the most reviled programs in government.

As usual, with the left it's about power, not about helping people, the same people who block affordable health care to the poor. The public would be best to ignore the health care solution the left wishes to manufacture support for.

What remains unsaid

The Sun again realizes something that has existed for quite some time:

Maryland's rural areas are likely to have a serious shortage of doctors in coming years, the state's medical establishment has warned.

Two government panels that are preparing recommendations on the problem for the governor and the 2009 General Assembly are studying the conclusions of a report by the Maryland Hospital Association and MedChi, the Maryland state medical society.

The report, known as the Maryland Physician Workforce Study, concludes that a shortage of doctors in rural Maryland is likely to worsen significantly by 2015 as older physicians retire and new ones choose to practice elsewhere.

Of course this is almost identical to an article they wrote in January that said the same thing.

But more troubling is the fact that, like the January article, the Sun provides political cover for the Democrats. What remains unsaid is that t was the Democrats, remember, who objected to Governor Ehrlich's medical malpractice reform during the 2004 Special Session. It was the Democrats who wanted to allow for unlimited caps on lawsuits against doctors and medical practitioners. And it was the Democrats whose obsequiousness to the trial lawyer lobby led them to create a situation like this one, that encourages doctors to pack up and leave the state.

And that's to say nothing about higher taxes...

That's what is pathetic about the Sun's article. The failed medical malpractice reform, combined with higher taxes and higher expenses, are driving doctor's out of the state. Like just about every problem facing Maryland right now, the cause for this one can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic majority...

Boston: Poor doesn't need affordable healthcare

This is just one of those mind-numbingly stupid ideas that only an entrenched big city mayor could dream up:

Mayor Thomas M. Menino embarked on a highly public campaign yesterday to block CVS Corp. and other retailers from opening medical clinics inside their stores, an effort that exposed a rift between Menino and the state's public health commissioner, a longtime ally.

Menino blasted state regulators for paving the way Wednesday for the in-store clinics, which are designed to provide treatment for sore throats, poison ivy, and other minor illnesses.

The decision by the state Public Health Council, "jeopardizes patient safety," Menino said in a written statement. "Limited service medical clinics run by merchants in for-profit corporations will seriously compromise quality of care and hygiene. Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong."

In a separate letter, Menino urged members of the city's Public Health Commission to consider barring the clinics from Boston. CVS executives said they plan to open 25 to 30 MinuteClinics in Greater Boston before the end of the year, although they have not specified how many of those will be within the city's limits.

So...Menino thinks that a large, well known, publicly-traded company is going to invade Boston and provide shoddy health care. And Menino thinks that, though they have no otherwise affordable access to health care, that those of limited means who have health insurance should either crowd emergency rooms for routine care, or go without routine care at all instead of allowing such clinics within the city limits.

Seriously, I cannot possibly fathom what Menino can be thinking. The fact of the matter is that CVS through its MinuteClinic program is trying to enter the Boston marketplace to fill and obvious and existing need for routine health care. If a private company is willing to come in and fill an obvious public health need without the need to spend public funds, there is no possible net loss to the general public. And Menino's arguments that a private company would "compromise quality of care and hygiene" of patients is insidiously moronic when you consider that a lot of the folks who would frequent such a clinic may not be currently getting care at all. Besides, are you telling me that Public Health in Boston is really the gold standard for health care systems?

Menino's aim here seems to have less to do with protecting public health, and more to do with support of ineffective socialized medicine. Unfortunately, once again another big-city Democrat is putting politics and failed social policy above the needs of their citizens.

Breaking news from 2004....

Gee, somebody should do something about this:

Although the state has plenty of doctors, it doesn't have enough who actually see patients - a situation that creates "a silent and growing crisis," the head of the state medical society said yesterday.

The shortages are greatest in rural areas "but are likely to affect most of us by the year 2015," said Dr. Martin P. Wasserman, executive director of MedChi, the professional society for the state's doctors.

MedChi and the Maryland Hospital Association released a study yesterday showing that the state has 179 doctors delivering care for every 100,000 residents. That is 16 percent below the national average of 212.

Lord, you think that the state might need to do something in order to improve the climate for doctor's in this state. It's almost like they need a Special Session of the General Assembly...

Oh, yeah. We had one of those. Democrats responded by ignoring the need for Medical Malpractice reform and instead (what else) raised taxes.

Given the Democrats opposition to medical malpractice reform, and given the Democrats propensity to raise taxes, it looks like Marylanders are going to have to leave the state to get health care in the next 15 years. Doctors look like they are beginning to realize that there is no positive climate for them in this state without significant (albeit not forthcoming) legislative action...

The Ignorance of Vinny DeMarco

As the cigarette tax gets ready to double on Tuesday, Vinny DeMarco proves that in actuality, he doesn't have a clue:

"That's part of finishing the job - increasing the tax on all tobacco products," said Vincent DeMarco, president of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative. "The tax on noncigarette tobacco products would have been a good source of funding for tobacco-prevention programs."

DeMarco said the cigarette tax increase, however, should be praised. "It's great, and they've accomplished a lot," he said of the General Assembly. "Combined with the smoke-free workplace law, those two together are really going to save a lot of people from tobacco addiction. A lot of people are going to be encouraged to quit by the tax."

If you hear about DeMarco from the media and from the left, he's some sort of saint. I've ran into him before and he's just a sleazy lobbyist type. But I never thought he was ignorant and clueless until I read the bolded statement above.

DeMarco's comments about the smoke-free workplace are complete nonsense, as if being in a environment that allowed smoking caused people to become addicted to smoking. It doesn't event sound logical when you say it out loud. There are a variety of reasons people get addicted to tobacco, but they are all involve somebody making the really bad judgment call to start using tobacco products. Being around an environment where others are using tobacco does not make the cigarette jump into your mouth and light itself.

And DeMarco's assertion that people are going to be encouraged to quit by raising the sales tax does not take into account the medical condition we call "addiction." People who are addicted to cigarettes are not necessarily going to take into account the cost-benefit analysis when decided to buy cigarettes, any more than a drug addict is going to weight the cost of jail time against the need for a hit when they are buying heroin on the street corner. Some people are addicted to smokes. That's just the way it is.

DeMarco's comments show a shocking level of naïveté on issues of smoking and addiction from somebody who is an "expert" on health care. The cigarette tax will do nothing to save lives from those who are already addicted to smoking, and is just another way Democrats go out of they way to stick it to the poor.

The Dope Show

I'm hesitant to even give Free State Politics more traffic then they deserve, but since Andrew Kujan has to be smoking dope to come to this cockamamie conclusion, it has to be addressed.

The fact of the matter is that the family in question that is kvetching because they don't have health insurance makes a little more than half as much money as I do. Yet they have three-times as much square footage of livable space as I do in a more expensive community. They also have four more kids than I do. And choose to spend a boat load on private schools.

So answer me this: who are the parents who pay for private schooling? Who are the parents that choose to have a 3,000 square foot house? Who are the parents who choose to work at jobs with no health care? And why the hell should I have to pay for their poor parenting skills? And to why should some dolts who make choices to spend beyond their means deserves to be protected from ridicule by the right because they are "a white male, who is both married and a small business owner with more than 2 children, who sends his kids to private school and drives an SUV?" Particularly when you consider that said subject is knowingly trying to live off of my money, not their own?

So Andrew: who really is undertaking a rectal self-examination in this instance?

I don't think anybody is saying that there should not be certain government assistance for uninsured children. But to fall for this claptrap from the left, trotting out the kids of parents who pay thousands in private school tuition but can't afford medical bills, is beyond ridiculous. It is the very definition of disingenuous, and shows everything that is wrong with the modern fringe left.

Of course, when the modern left is so chicken that it has to hide behind children in order to score cheap political points, you knew all of that already...