Monday, April 09, 2007

PeachCare

From Atlanta:
Michael Post pride themselves on being solidly middle class folks who "thank God every day" for their salvation — and PeachCare for their solvency.

"Without it, we'd be broke," says Michael Post, 38, welcoming visitors into his home.

wife, Connie, 36, is just inside, patiently trying to calm them down.

Financially, the Posts — like many families with kids at their income level — are having a tough time making ends meet.

Until recently, they were making about $48,000 a year. But, in February, Michael Post left a job making $42,000 as pastor of Friendship Baptist Church to become a freelance minister. He supplements his unpredictable income by painting houses and doing odd jobs.

Connie, who has a degree in English, took a job making about $25,000 a year at Casey and Son Horseshoeing School in nearby LaFayette. Now, their take-home pay averages about $850 a week.

"Our income sounds pretty good until you consider all our bills," Connie says. "Especially up here in carpet country, anything over $40,000 is pretty good money. But it's paycheck to paycheck."

Their 1997 teal Ford Winstar is paid off. But they pay $327 monthly for the 2004 red Nissan Frontier pickup beside the van in the driveway. And $750 a month for their mortgage, $250 for high-deductible health insurance for "mom and dad only," about $360 a month for gasoline, $116 for auto insurance, $400 for food, $50 for cellphones, $80 for life insurance, $200 for electricity, $15 for water, $65 for telephone service, $120 for credit cards and $150 for clothes and "odds and ends." That adds up to $2,883 a month.

"That doesn't leave much," Connie smiles. "And that's why PeachCare is such a blessing. We just couldn't do without it."

INSENSITIVITY WARNING! Starting in 5...4...3...2...1...you've been warned!

Has it dawned on these people at any time to live within their means? Taxpayers are subsidizing this family's chosen lifestyle of financial chaos. When you buy stuff you can't afford and have kids you can't afford, then financial disarray will inevitably happen.

Hey, I'm not totally unsympathetic here. I have definitely had my share of financial problems in the past! However, the problems were of my own making, and I had to dig my way out of them, which included quite a bit of tough choices and heartache. I was no "victim", and neither are these adults (the kids are a different story). Gotta have a new truck, cell phones, and credit cards, right?

Well, at least PeachCare isn't being treated like an "entitlement", right? Well...
The House bill, sponsored by Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram), wouldn't affect kids already on PeachCare. But Richardson says that the time has come for parents to take more responsibility, in part through wiser family planning.

"It is the obligation of all of us to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves," he said, adding, however, that PeachCare is too generous and needs to be "reined in as much as possible."

"It was never intended to be an entitlement program, but it's becoming one," he said. "People are rapidly trying to make insuring children as if it were a constitutional right. It is not. The responsibility to take care of children is first with moms and dads. Mamas and daddies are responsible."

Families, he said, ought to decide "how many children do we have, can we afford to take care of any more, and that's what responsible people should be doing. It's expensive to have children."

WHAT?? Personal responsibilty? That's just crazy talk! And what does this Richardson guy mean by "insuring children" isn't a "constitutional right"?? That's not what Shrillary and Silky Pony and Osamabama Jean-François Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) and their ilk have been telling us! I see it in the Constitution, plain as day: "The federal government shall provide free iPods, beernuts, fishing tackle, soy milk, blenders, basketball shoes, plasma TV's, le$bian p0rn, and health insurance to anyone who asks for it." It's right there in the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" clause...see it?

Labels: