Debating an issue takes not only skill, tact, and a bit of savvy verbage, but also facts. You know, those little bits of information that somehow don't seem all too important to many right-wing bloggers these days. After reading yet another sad ( albeit predictable ) tirade from Mrs. Malkin, I asked myself "why does she do it this way"? The answer is simple, because it's easier than facing and addressing the facts.
More below the fold--------->
Out of the six 'blogs' that Malkin has written, she has a problem addressing the issue of healthcare and it's affordability. She favors, as many Right-Wingers do, attacking the messenger.
Here are the 'contextual highlights' from Malkin's diatribes:
( because as we all know, when people on the Right are questioned about what they do/say, CONTEXT is EVERYTHING )
Highlights from her October 8th posting :
-- Attacks on DailyKos comments
-- Predictable jabs @ Hillary Clinton and John Kerry
-- The Frosts had a wedding announcement in the NYTimes in 1992
-- Not addressing the fact that the information she was/is using has been proven false or inaccurate
-- Poor attempts to rationalize that it's 'ok' to 'attack' a family's credibility when it suits your needs
Then, on October 9th, Malkin goes a step further :
-- Says that SCHIP should require 'asset testing' without realizing that that would make things much harder on her family, let alone families in the middle-class demographic
-- Attempts to downplay the emails sent from Sen. Mitch McConnell's office about the Frosts
-- She calls Republicans that don't abuse the Frost story 'weak-kneed' and 'gutless'
-- More smears about John Kerry, with a dash of MoveOn, and Cindy Sheehan for good measure.
Then, there's October 12th :
-- Complaining about a WSJ article on the Frost's ( careful there Michelle, that's Rupert's new baby )
-- Random speculation involving the vehicles they own
-- Citing these questions that need answering:
Are Democrats capable of putting down the human shields and answering the question?
And what about Republicans?
Who represents the truly needy?
Who represents the taxpayers, the future generations, who would be forced to send their hard-earned money to fund a massive, middle-class entitlement expansion?
( and you know what, she doesn't even bother attempting to answer her own questions )
-- A second reminder that Bush is going to VETO the SCHIP bill, and that people need to contact their representatives to make sure this happens
-- Trying to distance herself from the comments made in several blogs/ comment-section by Right-Wingers by saying "I didn't say these things", though she had no problem using them
And finally today :
-- Continued validation of the attacks on the Frost family
-- Still more confusion on the difference between what she calls a 'human shield' and the obvious use of an 'example' of how pathetic our health-care system is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, can you tell me what's missing?
Oh, come on, it's easy.....
What's missing is any type of critical analysis of the health-care industry in the US and how it can benefit everyone that needs it. And yes, everyone needs health-care.
And you know why she's approaching this issue the way she it?
Because, it's easy.
It's easy to do what Malkin does. It's simple to divert attention from the issue at hand and create an entirely seperate non-issue. It's easy to stand in your 'ivory tower' of infalability and speculate on others when you have no frame of reference.
Of course, this really isn't gaining her any new 'fans'. It's all 'preaching to the choir'. Therefore, it has no relavence. The only people that cringe when they see the words 'universal health-care' are people that subscribe to her way of thinking. Only a person like Malkin would equate health-care for everyone with the 'evils' of Socialism.
So, the question stands: Do we really need to take what Malkin says all that seriously? Well, yes, and no.
The only aspect of Malkin's reportage ( and not just on this issue ) that needs to be addressed is that it is a perfect example of what 'not' to do.
She calls her reporting 'journalism'. I'm not even sure what to call it.
She calls the Frost children 'human shields'. I call them victims of a broken system.
So, why should anyone pay attention to me?
Because, just like the Frost family and countless others, I can't afford health-insurance for my family.
I work an average of 50 hours a week and my wife works as a 'temp' for an average 45 hours a week ( our average yearly income is around $40,000 before taxes ). We own three vehicles. We rent a small house for $400 a month. We have a 5 year old in public school. I am partial owner of a small family-farm.
The most basic family-package insurance available to us would be around $600 a month; that's just a little over $7000 a year, for the most basic of coverage. The coverage that that entails is paltry at best. Should anything catastrophic happen to myself, my wife, or our child, ( and we could actually afford decent coverage ) our insurer would either drop us or drag us through months and months of waiting and paperwork; a seemingly endless cycle.
Liquidating some of our various assets would only be a temporary fix. We have no home equity, as we are renters. My wife and I have discussed the limited options that we have, but they only lead to barely affordable 'minimum' coverage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Malkin ( an many others ) are fond of stating that it is a person's 'choices' that put them into situations such as the Frost's are in.
So, what choices are wrong in her eyes?
Owning your own home? Having more than one child? Assuring your child has a good education? Owning more than one vehicle?
Even though Malkin decries the Frost's 'lifestyle' ( or her perception of it ) she offers nothing in the way of suggestions for the family. She more interested in taking things away from them. Typical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I say i'm in the same position as the Frost's? No. Thankfully, myself and my family are healthy. But, what if? That's the one thing that is frightening. What if something like this happened to my wife, or my daughter, or me?
The issue is health-care and making it affordable, not how to rationalize your reasoning of why someone doesn't deserve health-care.
The reality of the situation is that Malkin either doesn't know that, or doesn't care. I'll let you decide which one it is.