Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats have missed their last chance at ramming their Socialized Health Care scheme through before people could find out what's in it. Now, as more and more time goes by, people are reading the bills, and coming up with startling (and sometimes scary) discoveries.

Do you suppose the Founding Fathers intended the Federal government to direct families how to raise their children? They certainly didn't put any authority into the Constitution, for the govt to do that.

So why is it in this bill?

(That last question can be asked about nearly every part of the bill, of coourse.)

--------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/Chuc...ret_no_1_in_obamacare?page=full&comments=true

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare

Tuesday, August 11, 2009
by Chuck Norris

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?


(Full text of this article can be read at the above URL)

 

[Pandora]

Are you sure this is in the bill? I keep hearing
people say this isn't really in the bill and that
really is just a lie or exageration.

 

[BigRob]

All of this would be voluntary, as established in both sections.

 

[r0beph]

Seriously? Let me explain. This is an amendment to the Social Security Act. This is amending ALREADY EXISTING emplacements that offer these EXACT services. The language of the bill (which you modified the context to fit your complaint with your clipping of a few choice lines from a context that spans about 20 pages.) lays out that it is ALL voluntary.

DHR/CPS/Mental Health/Several other programs under these agencies (and others) already exist. This addition adds more funding to these services that have been shown to work very well. They often involve teaching english to children who speak foreign languages, Help poor parents get things settled with the new economic detractor of parenthood, and many other great things. To use THIS as a reason to complain about the bill is highly suspect and quite strange really. Stop trying to spin innocent portions of the bill into things they are not, it makes you look very silly.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf read the whole thing if you want, try to keep a wide enough range of attentiveness so that you don't assume context where it doesn't exist because you ignore preceding sections. I've read most of it, although I think I'd rather spend my time reading a mirrored print of the great gatsby.

 

[Little-Acorn]

To use THIS as a reason to complain about the bill is highly suspect and quite strange really.

Not at all. Conservatives don't want the Federal government involved in these things, and will fight hard against any bill that tries to promote its interference.

It's humorous that you point to yet another unconstitutional program (Social Security) as a reason why the Fed SHOULD be involved in such un-government-like programs. Governments are created by men to protect our rights, remember? Not to raise our children for us.

The fact that it's easy to yield to temptation and let govt take over this responsibility, doesn't make it a good thing.

 

[top gun]

Democrats have missed their last chance at ramming their Socialized Health Care scheme through before people could find out what's in it. Now, as more and more time goes by, people are reading the bills, and coming up with startling (and sometimes scary) discoveries.

Do you suppose the Founding Fathers intended the Federal government to direct families how to raise their children? They certainly didn't put any authority into the Constitution, for the govt to do that.

So why is it in this bill?

(That last question can be asked about nearly every part of the bill, of coourse.)

--------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/Chuc...ret_no_1_in_obamacare?page=full&comments=true

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare

Tuesday, August 11, 2009
by Chuck Norris

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?


(Full text of this article can be read at the above URL)

For as long as I can remember we've had this. Where I live it's called Franklin County Children's Services.

No matter how many distortions and Red herrings you throw out it doesn't change the fact that there's been a great need for Health Insurance Reform for years. Now we're just finally going to get something done about it.

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill." What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.

Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.6 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.

If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.8 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.

Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!

The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.

Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.9 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.

Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits. Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care. The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.

We're closer to real health care reform than we've ever been. We need to make sure the truth about health care reform is spread far and wide to combat right wing lies.

 

[Pandora]

All of this would be voluntary, as established in both sections.

is it written using the word voluntary?

 

[KingClovis]

OBAMACARE:

Euthanasea

Forced abortion

Forced sterilization

Death panels

Eugenics

Medically perpetrated genocide and ethnic cleansing​

 

[BigRob]

is it written using the word voluntary?

Yep. Section (a) states "Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

 

[Pandora]

Yep. Section (a) states "Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

Thanks Rob,

I am glad its voluntary, that makes a huge difference but I just dont see this as having anything to do with health care. People are complaining that some dont get health care while others do... no other private health care that I know of offeres this sort of stuff why should the public version.

If all it was was a program to help those get medical help that they normally would not be able to get I would have a hard time saying its bad, its this bloated crap that has nothing to do with health care that makes it just flat stupid in my book.

I think its great that you that you are taking the time to read the bill, and I am sure you will understand it better than I could.

We should pass a law that all bills are readable and understandable by the avarage citizen.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Democrats have missed their last chance at ramming their Socialized Health Care scheme through before people could find out what's in it. Now, as more and more time goes by, people are reading the bills, and coming up with startling (and sometimes scary) discoveries.

Do you suppose the Founding Fathers intended the Federal government to direct families how to raise their children? They certainly didn't put any authority into the Constitution, for the govt to do that.

Yeah...what we need to do is go National with KICKSTART. (so Chuck can finally give-up those embarrassing 3am ads, on T.V.)​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The fact that it's easy to yield to temptation and let govt take over this responsibility, doesn't make it a good thing.

.....But, yielding to paranoia makes much-more-sense....'cause it's so-much-more exciting...right?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

is it written using the word voluntary?

Does this qualify??​

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Thanks Rob,

I am glad its voluntary, that makes a huge difference but I just dont see this as having anything to do with health care.

The text makes it fairly-obvious:​

".....home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children."​