Ezra throws down the gauntlet, and Malkin runs away. Twelve year olds, apparently, are more her level of competition. Though, frankly, I am not sure I blame her. Based on her comments in the Times article about the attack on this family, Malkin’s argument is basically that no one should get any help until they are completely destitute:

But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.

“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”

In Malkin’s world, you should sell your business, sell your home and then when that’s not enough to pay your severely injured children’s medical bills, because it wont be, then and only then can we consider giving you some help. That wrong morally and practically. The Frost’s as a family have been exemplary members of our society. They have worked hard, tried to start their own business, own a home, and done everything they could to improve the lives of their children. They have done everything we have asked of them, and Malkin still wants to leave them destitute and homeless because of a moments bad luck.

Morally, that’s disgusting: you should not have to reduce a person to pauper-y and abject destitution before you deign to assist him. That reeks of viciousness and a clueless sense of privilege unworthy of even the Medicis. Taking away everything a person has, destroying the dreams they have worked for, and eliminating options and possibilities for their children is despicable, especially when the cost of help is so small and the rewards are so large.

As a practical matter, pauperizing people like the Frosts is equally stupid. They are hardworking people who contribute to our economy and our community. Destroying the financially only serves to weaken both for no good reason. If the private insurance market cannot serve these people — and there is no doubt that it cannot serve large swathes of the working and middle class in this country — then it makes sense for the government to step in. The amount we spend on that kind of insurance is a pittance compared to the benefits we receive in return. Families stay together, children get the help they need to lean normal lives, small business owners aren’t forced out of business, and the ranks of the homeless are not increased. When the middle class and working people are provided with the security they need to ride out bad times, they repay society a hundred times over through their contributions to the our economy, culture, and neighborhoods. Frankly, I find it hard to beleive that anyone could argue otherwise with a straight face.

If the choice is between destroying lives or spending a small amount to help people survive health related catastrophes, I think the choice is clear. So, too, does Malkin. Perhaps that is why she is running screaming from the thought of having to face down a health care expert like Ezra Klein.