"For the Children" Is Not an Impenetrable Shield Anymore

I'm kinda confused why those on the right find it so hard that those on the left are dumbfounded by the reporting on the Frosts since Graeme's radio response to President Bush. This is, after all, an issue about the principle of personal responsibility, something the left has a hard time grappling with (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2007/10/why_did_they_attack_graeme_fro.html). It seems kinda simple to me.

First of all, I know that's Maryland and this is Texas, so I'm sure there's a bit of a difference in the cost of living. But more than $400,000 worth of property and 3 nice/new cars is "modest"?? I don't think so. We have 2 cars, one of which is paid off and one which is brand new, but only ~40% financed thanks to having it's trade-in paid off. We have a 1/4 of the property. I think we're living a bit more modestly. "...the Frosts...are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?" Because those assets are the very means with which they should!! If we were in their predicament, what would we do? Liquidate, as much as necessary to pay the bills. What are assets there for if not to be used, especially in an emergency situation?

And did I read that the Frosts' parents were OK financially? If that's the case, you also go to your family for help. Isn't a major system of support supposed to be the family? This is why some say big government contributes to the erosion of the family.

It's kinda sad that someone as seasoned (don't wanna say old, since I'm getting up there) and experienced as Mr. Dionne still refers to government as just some entity that has money (if you think about it, that's kinda how the left views the affluent; they just have money so higher taxes should result in higher revenue, never mind that that wealth actually has to be created). I say this in reference to his mention of "government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school...(f)ederal money for private schools but not for health insurance?" First of all, the federal government should not be involved in public education. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly implies this. But that's another subject. It is completely legitimate for parents to petition their state governments to be able to use the taxes THEY PAY to fund government schools, to pay for the school of their choice for their children. This is one kinda of choice that the left, ironically, does not favor. The opposition to it is sheer insanity. All schools would become private schools, in a way, but it would still be public education. Liberals continue to miss the boat when it comes to how much better the private sector provides goods than does the public sector.

Finally, I'd love to see where this "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually" figure comes from. My family of 5 pays about a 1/3 of that. It's hard for me to believe that we pay that much less than average.