Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Megan weighs in on Graeme Frost

And misses the forest for the trees.
Apparently Megan didn't talk to Matt and Ezra today, because even they managed to get this (easy) one right. First, the facts of the matter. Megan, as we'll see, is aware, for once, of the reality of the case, and thus had a chance to behave like a human. Instead, she's being her own shithead self.

I'm on deadline, so I haven't been following the ephemera of S-Chip as closely as I might. Apparently the Democrats paraded some kid name Graeme Frost in front of a camera in support of S-Chip. Now conservatives are claiming that the kid is actually affluent, and therefore shouldn't be getting gummint money for health insurance. My thoughts:
On something you "haven't been following", mostly based on conservatives' claims. As always, your thoughts amount to telling us what flavors you've found by shoving your head up your ass, Megan.
1) I told y'all this was going to happen. Maybe next time you'll listen, hmmm?
... Fuck you.
2) Anecdotes, no matter how photogenic, are terrible ways to make policy. It doesn't matter how crappy your public policy is; I guarantee I can find one very telegenic person who is better of under your godawful boondoggle of a system than under almost any other potential system. But argument by anecdote is what we seem to be stuck with, particularly in the realm of social policy affecting children. Isn't democracy marvelous?
Yeah, cause the tale of a kid whose life was, if not saved, made livable thanks to help from the government has no bearing on whether we should support such programs. Putting human faces on issues just makes it seem like folk like Megan are evil for treating health insurance like so much bean-counting. Megan isn't evil, just selfish, lazy, unintelligent, and racist. Oh, wait.
3) If Think Progress's account of the case is basically accurate--the family owns its own business, has a lowerish-middle class income, but lives in a basically nice neighbourhood--this actually raises important issues about benefits that no one is asking. To wit: should we expect families to sell assets in order to qualify for benefits? On the one hand, Medicaid's ludicrous rules keep disabled people in crippling poverty. On the other hand many people, including me, don't want to pay for the health care of someone so that they can stay in their Park Avenue mansion. At some point, it is reasonable to expect people to liquidate assets in order to pay for expenses, rather than expecting society to pick up the tab. But I'm not sure what point is reasonable.
Hmmmm, if only there were rules and regulations about such programs designed to determine whether a family qualifies. Instead, free money. Hell, I got $50k from the state of Maryland to help my kid the other day, and I neither live in Maryland nor have a kid. Thanks, taxpayers! But wait,
I don't think this is particularly interesting as it applies to S-Chip; frankly, I doubt there are enough low-income families with children and sizeable assets to make it even worth debating the issue.
She's "on deadline", and it took her 276 words to reach this point. Oy. After several random tangents, we get the first hint that Megan might be human I think I've ever seen.
Moreover, in the case of children, I'm perfectly content to bias the system towards including too many undeserving children, rather than take the chance of missing too many deserving ones.
Credit where it's due, even though she calls this a problem, she's not going to try to do anything about it. Who says she has no sense of charity.
But wait, for those of you who've followed me this far, we finally come to the point, or rather the missing of it.
5) Reading the comments on this, I have to ask conservatives and libertarians: is this really the hill you think we should die on? I do understand your objections to the program, but an informal survey of swing voters, in their current incarnation as my mother, indicates that this is killing you with the moderates. Save it for national health care next year, is what I'm saying. This debate is framing the issue in a way that is going to make things harder, not easier, when Hilarycare is on the table again.
Notice "libertarians and conservatives" goes from "we" to "you" rather quickly. A small but telling moment. More importantly, instead of telling conservatives to shut the fuck up and stop lying about a crippled kid, and stalking his family, just because he's an active supporter of a program that helped him immensely and is underfunded nationwide, Megan is asking whether it's tactically smart. Conspicuously absent from this post is any sense of outrage or horror. All she cares about is whether this will help Hillary take her money to help sick people. Going after crippled kids, therefore, is ok in Megan's book. I wish I could pretend I'm being uncharitable to her, but the implication is clear. It's ok, just be tactically smart about it.
Megan, on behalf of humanity, thank you for not reproducing. Both because you'd effectively abuse any child you had, and because the rest of us would have to deal with someone raised by you.


Anonymous said...

It's lines like that "Maybe next time you'll listen, hmmm?" that really irk me about McMegan. Why does she have to be so fucking condescending all the time?

Fishbone McGonigle said...

And why oh why does she persist with using the British spelling "neighbourhood?"

I guess that goes part and parcel with the condescension, now that I think about it.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure she started that as a way to subtly brag that she writes for the Economist back when that gig started. You could tell it was deliberate, even though she claimed she "couldn't help it." There were too many instances of akward turn of phrases so she could use words like "savour" and "programme." I don't know if she's one of those morons that thinks it made her look smarter, but actually, quite the opposite. If a couple of weeks into a job that requires regionalistic writing makes you completely forget your education of 30 years prior, you're actually pretty damn stupid. Or should I say "bloody" stupid?