Who's Afraid of Sick Kids?
When is a twelve-year-old boy with brain damage a threat? When he exemplifies the good a government program can do when it provides health security to middle-class Americans.
Graeme Frost is such a boy, and his existence challenges the notion that health care is a privilege only the wealthy deserve. That's why conservatives are afraid of this little boy.
Conservatives want the popular and successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to fail. They fear that if the government helps sick children, more people will start to believe it can ensure health security for everyone. Here's a newsflash: government can ensure health security for everyone. Governments do exactly that in every other wealthy nation in the world. We just have the bizarre misfortune of living in a country where profit-motives stand in the way of adequate care. (The Rockridge Institute will soon launch its Health Care Security Campaign to thoroughly explore these issues, and you can sign up to be notified when it begins.)
You can see the conservative argument clearly in the way they attack young Graeme Frost. In its essence, it is this:
Health care is a privilege that must be earned. If you earn enough to provide for your family but are denied insurance, you must give up all comfort and security to pay for medical treatment. Sell your house. Let insurance companies snatch your savings. Only when you are destitute will it be appropriate for our government to help.
This is how it is presented on the website of conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, the most prominent flame thrower on this issue:
"But Mark Tapscott's point remains: [P]eople make choices and it's clear the Frost's have made the choice to invest in property and a business, but not in private health insurance. The Maryland-administered version of the federal SCHIP program, by the way, does not impose an asset test on applicants."
There is great practical irony in the conservative position. People of modest means must choose between "investing" in either health care or a home and business. In their world, the parent who goes for a home and business (which provide the child with those other things you need to live like food and shelter) over health care and then goes bankrupt when their child gets sick deserves it because they are bad parents for not providing the health care. The idea that a family should be shackled to an insurance premium instead of being able to better their lives by buying their own home and starting a business is perfectly ok to them.
As a progressive, I believe government can and should provide both protection and security to its people. Programs that work should be encouraged. Especially when they are for those among us who are least able and most in need. We have an obligation to care for sick children.
Besides, the alternative is unacceptable. My colleague at the Rockridge Institute, Glenn W. Smith, pointed out the moral bankruptcy of refusing children the care they need. He asked those who voted against SCHIP:
"What exactly would you say to that schoolroom of children? How could you explain to them that they will have to bear the illnesses and the deaths of their friends without your help or the help of millions of Americans who are willing to help but who you keep at bay by starving SCHIP?"
Will the success of SCHIP embolden us to push for greater health security for all? I hope so.
If you use a web bookmarking service, you can share this entry.
Who is afraid of a sick kid?
I believe you have an incorrect statement. Graeme Frost does not have brain damage. His sister incurred brain damage in the accident.
Tough Choices
I'm also a bit surprised at the conservative reaction, considering the following bit from the article you hyperlinked:
"That would make the Frosts eligible for Maryland's Children's Health Program, which is open to families that earn no more than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $82,830 a year for a family of six."
They might not be in poverty, but they aren't rich by a long shot. They could technically make the choice to liquidate all of their assets, take on multiple jobs, and then take on government aid once they were truly broke. But, what a horrible choice to make. The parents would be run ragged so badly by their extra jobs that they couldn't see their children, their children wouldn't be able to have anything beyond what they absolutely needed, and that family would be emotionally and psychologically ravaged by the experience.
At the same time, what about the people that would take the money from that family. Could you buy this family's house from them in good conscience, knowing the circumstances that have forced them to sell? As a doctor, could you accept full payment for a surgery they required, knowing all the anguish they had to go through to get the money to pay you?
Those kinds of questions make it difficult for me to understand how people can react so angrily to this story.
the politics of fear
The question of being afraid is central to the whole debate between progressives and conservatives. My thesis is that conservatives are going to exhibit fear of anything that threatens their world view simply because they have been living in fear for so long.
Let's go back to the models. Strong father vs nurturing mother. Which instills fear as a mechanism for control? Why is this so necessary an idea in that world view?
Think about the distinction between direct cause and systemic cause. Here is where it all starts. If your world view is built on the simple direct cause model there is an answer to every question (most of the time false). If you are in the systemic cause mode you understand that most complex questions have very difficult answers and you are often forced to operate in the world with a model that needs to be changed continuously as you have new experiences.
Which of these modes of operation intills fear? Here is the paradox. The systemic cause mode is scary. However it does not instill fear as a mechanism for control and, in fact, makes it useless. The direct cause model, on the other hand, never gives satisfactory answers nor satisfactory modes of operating in the world and its adherents are often hurt as a result. Once hurt, fear of further hurt becomes a central factor in their behavior.
The systemic cause world view makes uncertanty a part of life. This, in turn,
allows for the learning of adaptive behavior mechanisms and protects us from blind fear. Hence, uncertanty is scary but not a cause of the kind of fear used by the strong father who aslo lives in real fear.
New! Under-reported
Hi Feministsrfun, (I love your user name, by the way)
Actually, both kids received head injuries. Much of the reporting has focused on the cranial fracture Gemma received, but Graeme had damage to his brain stem.
Here's how it was reported in the Baltimore Sun:
"Bonnie Frost was driving children Zeke, Graeme and Gemma in Baltimore County in December 2004 when the family SUV hit a patch of black ice and slammed into a tree. Graeme sustained a brain stem injury; Gemma suffered a cranial fracture."
"The family relied on SCHIP during the more than five months that the children were hospitalized. Graeme had to learn again to walk and talk, his parents say; he remains weak on his left side and speaks with a lisp. Gemma is blind in her left eye; she has difficulty with memory, learning and speech, and sees a behavioral psychologist to help her deal with her frustration."
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com[…]1&coll=bal_tab01_layout
The article does a nice job presenting how this caring family is being attacked for striking a nerve in conservatives.
Warm regards,
Joe