Parents of small children, you’re going to want to pay close attention to this one.
Chuck Norris has done something that most people who support the proposed health care bill haven’t done. He’s actually read the bill. He’s read it, and he isn’t happy with what he’s read. Taken from his article at TownHall.com: (emphasis mine)
Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.
While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.
Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.
It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values?Their own? Certain experts’? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state’s mediators would understand every parent’s social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be “voluntary.” Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, “I don’t think I’ll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I’ll go down to the local government offices”? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state “shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families.”
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this “prioritized” training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Government needs less of a role in running our children’s lives and more of a role in supporting parents’ decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right — and government support — to parent them without the fed’s mandates, education or intervention in our homes.
Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That’s why we’ve spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents’ choice.
How contrary is Obamacare’s home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?
Government’s real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn’t raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.
Essentially what he’s saying here is that this health care plan really isn’t about health care. It’s about control. It’s one more area of your life where the government is going to force itself in and try to take over. This is wrong no matter what way you look at it and it needs to be stopped.
August 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I don’t buy Chuck’s analysis Paul. So you will ditch the whole thing because of that! You see there is nothing wrong inherently in trying to support parents to do the best for their kids provided the people doing the supporting understands the inherent dificulties which you aptly highlighted.
I think no single system will be perfect and the principle of attempring to lower healthcare inequalities should be welcomed. What you are worried about relates to the implementation on the ground. Strong leadership from the relevant departments should minimise abuse of the system in the way you described.
Will you just be happy for Obama, or members of his team, to come out and say explicitly that this is not about control. Will you believe him (them)?
I wonder what Chuck thinks about that?
August 12, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Thanks for the thoughts James,
You are right that implementation is exactly what I am worried about, but I am also worried about the supposed strong leadership that will somehow magically minimize the abuse of a system. My question for you would be, can you name one government agency or program that (1) Stays within budget, (2) runs efficiently, (3) weeds about abuse of it’s own system and (4) doesn’t have corrupt politicians over seeing it’s implementation?
Barack Obama said it himself yesterday, and I quote:
And that is exactly right. They are going to set up some half baked, financially bloated plan that tries to jam everyone into a statical demographic and them come into my house and educate me on the best ways to raise my children? Doesn’t anything about this strike you as odd? And why does this all have to happen right now, why can’t we wait to see what his other programs (Stimulus anyone?) do before he spends more money? I have a feeling they aren’t waiting because this is about passing legislation that gets their fingers into as much of our lives as possible.
Government, unfortunately, is a necessary evil that must be tolerated; But I never have and never will support any party, policy or politician that seeks to grow government.
August 13, 2009 at 1:47 am
You are right Paul. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fortunately, I don’t believe this is the road to hell and I will explain why:
Politics can be a dirty game, that is why I don’t partake in it. What is clear here is that reform of the current healthcare policy to address the inequalities inherent in the current system is long overdue. Let me assume we agree on that.
Bill Clinton tried and failed. There are forces (infinitely powerful forces) who have vested interest in the status quo. So when you have a relatively popular leader who is yet to exhaust his goodwill capital, then it offers an opportunity push through the really important reforms. I happen to think healthcare is very important. You see, when you loose your health, you loose almost everything.
Yes, this is not the right time. The economic climate is dire. But in political terms, this is the time to bring in the necessary changes. You and I will probably not choose now but that is why we are not politicians. A politician who really wants change will do so when his goodwill capital amongst the electorate is greatest.
Yes, it is good to point out these failings in the current proposal but this should not be a reason not to support it. You may even be able to make it better.
August 13, 2009 at 8:09 am
Just so it is stated: I want anyone who needs help to be able to get help. Me opposing this health care reform has nothing to do with denying people coverage of any type. As a cancer survivor myself, I’ve been I’m spent more time in doctor’s offices the past 4 years that I would have ever cared too and I’ve been paying very close attention to this health care reform as it is going to effect me in the very near future (preventative medicine and all that). I understand the importance of being sure there is a system in place to assist that need. But this is not how to do it. During my treatments I had to fight (sometimes weekly) with my insurance company and even got a bill sent to collections. Despite this I still maintain a government solution is not the answer. What I would like to see the government go is point the justice system at the abuse and fraud that happens in our health care system and start taking legal actions. I would like to see frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits stop, and I would like to see doctor’s and insurance companies who are “caught with their hands in the cookie jar of illegal behavior” prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That is why we have the law. If government just did this (which should be the only roll it has in this in the first place) I bet we would start to see improvements in the system.
I’ve enjoyed your comments, thanks for posting! I think we both want the same end result, a fiscally responsible, corruption free, and efficient health care system, but we differ on how this can be accomplished. I just don’t see anyway (based on watching what they did to other programs: social security, medicare, affordable housing, etc…) the government can do this.
August 17, 2009 at 4:08 am
Thanks for that.
I think you should make your comments and view more widely know to your government. That may even form an integral part of the reform.
Thanks again