Not too far down in the comments section a poster by the name of "Bonkers" presents this little nugget:
"Thank you for mentioning the potential loss of their home for medical bills. The insane right has been yammering on and on about how these “affleunt” homeowners should not have been able to receive any government assistance in the care of their critically injured children. No, according to those filthy rejects, people should lose everything they own, even their modest homes and fair-to-middlin’ privately owned small businesses, in order to save their children (or themselves, for that matter). And naturally, their brain dead listeners, most of whom would be in the same spot as the Frosts should they encounter a medical catastrophe, can’t muster the empathy to realize that it could well be THEM next.
What righties really want to make is [s]o that any kind of government aid will only go to the most impoverished of Americans, so that they can THEN snidely call it a welfare program, thereby making it easier to work up their usually attack machines in order to cut funds or close it down altogether."
I rave madly and reference the Harvard study on a nearly daily basis. My spouse has more than once that I "should be on something" for that. So "Bonkers'" first paragraph is familiar terrain for me. I would ammend their comments, likely with their consent, to include those families with insurance because we all know private health care coverage is no better than a New Orleans levee when catastrophe strikes. You'll still go bankrupt.
But that second paragraph. That's the money shot.
Thanks, Bonkers.
And good health to you.
Somewhere out there is a Reservist family in the same situation as the Frosts, I would suspect. Statistically it's within reason to hazard the guess.
