http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mic2IeEUFfc

The following youtube video is of Senator Dick Durbin speaking of me on the floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mic2IeEUFfc

jhkjhkjh: The video will answer your position on the topic.

S.O.

All read here is selling a home — a symbol of stability and family — as a very large, solid example of just one of the sacrifices that must be made.

One might argue that poor people can’t afford short-term health insurance. But is this true? The article mentions that the son is selling the mom’s house to pay the $255K. So we know that her house is worth at least $255K. Even if she had no other money (which is doubtful), she could take a loan out against the house. So clearly she could have paid for the short term health insurance.

Thus, the redistributive argument needs to be tempered. We cannot argue that taxpayers should foot the bill here because she could not have paid for the insurance. Instead, we can only argue that taxpayers should foot the bill here because she may have had to have taken a loan against her house to pay for the insurance. This is a much weaker argument. Many taxpayers don’t have a house; why should they be required to subsidize someone who does?

Also, keep in mind that if this woman were truly poor, she would qualify for Medicaid.

The real argument that you’re making here is that rich people should give money to lower middle class people. Maybe there’s a good reason for that, but if that’s your argument, just make it directly, please.

Last time I checked, issue are not liable for the debts of a decedent.

Of course, you conveniently omitted the next sentence in the article, which tells us that the creditors are pursuing the estate, not “struggling” Mr. Beneficiary.

Or am I being a mere anecdote here?