Free Markets, Free People


What Does Parental “Education” Have To Do With Health “Insurance” Reform?

Something that must be kept in mind – while the Democrats are attempting to change the focus of their pending legislation from health care reform to health insurance reform, they’ve not changed the legislation to reflect that.

Of all people, Chuck Norris brings that point home with a vengeance. Unlike our lawmakers, he’s apparently actually read the House bill and found another nugget that is not only costly and none of the government’s business, but has nothing to do with health insurance reform.

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.”

You can read Norris’ fisking of the provision for yourself. He, of course, wants to know why a government agency is being legislated into existence to provide parents with “knowledge of age-appropriate child development” tools and wants to know whose principles and values would drive such teaching – the government’s or the parents. Uh, well, I don’t think you really have to ask, because there’s no reason to send out agents if they’re just going to teach the parent’s values.

The more imporant points are A) this is none of the government’s business and B) it has nothing to do with reforming health care insurance.

Or said another way, you’re being fed a line when the Democrats claim that all they want to do is reform insurance when, as you read the bill, it becomes absolutely obvious that the bill isn’t at all just about insurance reform, but instead about taking more and more control of your life and the lives of your children.

This is the sort of crap that has middle America angry and out protesting. And pretending that this bill is something other than what it is – an attempt to impose more government control over our lives – is only going to feed that anger. This is part of what those protesters are talking about when they say they’re tired of being lied too and tired of being lied about.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

35 Responses to What Does Parental “Education” Have To Do With Health “Insurance” Reform?

  • The only reason I can think of why this would have any bearing on health care is that it might have something to do with early detection of autism. Since autism is a developmental disorder, the parents are usually the first to spot that something’s wrong, if they know what normal development looks like. The earlier they start treatment, the better the outcomes. But autism at a young age isn’t always obvious, especially the “milder” forms like Asperger’s Syndrome (which is what my boys have). One of my sons, it was obvious; the child bit anything that held still long enough and flew off the handle if I took the wrong number of steps to the kitchen. My other son, though, it wasn’t so obvious. He looked like a normal boy, until you realized that he was physically incapable of ever holding still, couldn’t carry on an appropriate conversation, was obsessed beyond all reason with Thomas the Tank Engine and didn’t make eye contact. But I thought all that was normal for a boy, because I’d never had a boy before, and it took his younger brother’s diagnosis for me to think there was anything unusual about him at all.

    Still, though, I wouldn’t have wanted social workers traipsing in and out of my house so that I could find all this out. My experience is that social workers tend to be 21 years old and childless. Lacking their own experience, they just repeat stuff you can find on the internet with a simple search. You get much, much more insight from networking with other moms. If the government really wants parents to learn about child development, they should give grants to churches, parks, and social networking sites.

  • Actually most new parents are relatively clueless on how to raise children, and it’s been proven that home visits and assistance, especially to the poor, increase the health of children and reduce things like shaken baby syndrome and other problems.   Local public health agencies have been promoting this kind of things for years, with it increasing in scope.  It’s good for families.

    • Show me the proof that sending in clueless 21 year old social workers who are fresh out of college and repeating what they’ve heard in a grade-inflated child development class does a BETTER job than talking to experienced-parent neighbors. If you live all by your lonesome in a small metal box and you never get to see anyone besides your child, I can see how you’d benefit from having a social worker come and clue you in as to what a child is and how not to shake it. The rest of us, not so much.

    • Uh huh, and Catholic priests completely understand being married Scott.  They have a comprehensive working knowledge gained through many many months of, like yourself, reading books to experience and learn about these things.
      Like your beliefs about the economy, and the mechanics of global climate operation.

      And God knows, every kid is a little cookie cutter hunk of dough and can be dealt with using standardized formulas delivered by people dropping by for a quick look and then making their recommendations based on their (now)  extensive knowledge of the child and the family dynamics.

      In the real world we have a word for people like that, we call them seagulls.  Because they fly in, shit all over everything, and then fly out again.

      And more to the point Scott, what does this have to do with HEALTH INSURANCE?

    • Actually most new parents are relatively clueless on how to raise children

      ***

      However did we survive before “parental education”? God help us all

      And again, what does it have to do with the current bill being discussed?

    • It’s been proven that surviving gestation increases the health of children too, but oddly, the federal government has a different view about that.

    • The solution is obvious: Spay and neuter the poor.

    • And more to the point on your statement about new parents Scotty boy…I understand you have kids yourself.  Which, EXACTLY, government agency was it that came and taught you how to raise them?

      Let me guess it was the NSA – No Such Agency.

      You arrogant liberal elitest, I was going to question the authenticity of your parents marrige at the time of your birth, but maybe your whacked up leftist beliefs and arrogance aren’t their fault.

    • Actually most new parents are relatively clueless on how to raise children…

      *********
      “Honey, did you leave the internet on?  Because little Scottie found it again.”

      “Scottie.  You know you’re not allowed to play on the internet unsupervised.”

      “But Mom, all my friends are on!”

      “Scottie, we’ve talked about this.  They are not your friends.  They’re just bullies who want to make fun of special people.”
      ************


      Dude.  The government has no business in raising other peoples children!!  WTF is wrong with you???

      • Man, at least 2 beers….I owe you at least 2 beers.

        • What about the other six?
          You expect me to pay for them myself!?  I’m feeling… entitled.

          Don’t worry.  I’ll just tell the barkeep to send the bill to that looker over there.

          LOL!  Get it?  … [sigh]  ;)

          Cheers.

  • Chuck Norris’ beard in 2012!

  • “Actually most new parents are relatively clueless on how to raise children, and it’s been proven that home visits and assistance, especially to the poor, increase the health of children and reduce things like shaken baby syndrome and other problems.   Local public health agencies have been promoting this kind of things for years, with it increasing in scope.  It’s good for families.”
    If a community wants it thats fine, perhaps its even a good idea, but not the feds.

  • Can you refuse the home visitation?
    If not, then how is that Constitutional?
    I mean, I know it’s Living Constitutional, but what doesn’t seem as if it’s real Constitutional.

    • Oh!  I’m SURE you’ll be able to refuse them!   And then their teachers will be contacted, or concerned members for the community will enter into the play (that would be the social team you refused entry to) and for the good of the children, your state’s department of child welfare will be contacted, and they’ll, uh, have to investigate your family, up close and personal.

      Under the same premise as the idea that if you’ve got nothing to hide, you should let the police search you, your car, or your house without a warrant.  If you’re a good person, with nothing to hide, WHY would you EVER refuse these helpful visits!  Clearly you MUST have something to hide.

      One or two horror stories about families who refused to comply and be assimilated will help encourage the sheep who don’t want to cause trouble for themselves to come along quietly.

       

    • No problem, we’ll just expand the “snitch@whitehouse.gov” program.

      As for the needs of young parents, I’m not sure that the best option for helping them with raising and caring for their children is sending government bureaucrats to “help.”  Government services always come with strings attached and the workers are likely to be extremely limited in what they can do or say (so as to not offend anyone).  Which means that it will be a program that is effective at only one thing– vacuuming up tax dollars.

  • The Left has long targeted the family.* This goes way back. Note that where they succeed, families begin to cease to exist and family responsibilities are distributed to state bureaucracies. (Cf. the black family after the Great Society; now featuring an illegitimacy rate of about 70%. With the Hispanic illegitimacy rate at about 50% and among whites, now at 30%.) Poverty and family disintegration is a full employment program for bureaucrats, so they must be maintained.

    “Universal” health care is, in fact, a poverty program for a wealthy society that will further infantilize Americans across the board.

    * At one point, during their Progressive Era eugenics craze, the Left targeted the poor family for virtual elimination. Cf. Margaret Sanger.

  • What’s wrong with shaking babies anyway? Erb was shaken and dropped on his head a few times to boot, and he’s just fine!

  • I’m sure they just want to make sure the kids are being taught in a way that ensure they sit down and shutup instead of engaging in the terrorist tactics of questioning our elected officials.

    Although this first round is probably to just gage the scope of the problem.

  • Who wants to fink on Chuck Norris for spreading ‘disinformation’?

    (crickets chirping)

    Yeah, that’s what I thought!

    Seriously, I wonder how many other “New Socialist Man” programs are in this bill. The fact that (as everybody points out) they have NOTHING to do with health care ought to raise an alarm with every American that, indeed, this idea is nothing but a Trojan Horse. Sadly, there are plenty of pinheads who can rationalize it away: so long as the intended result is “good”, then who cares how you get it?

  • Let’s assume Erb is correct, that this is a good idea.
    Why make it a governmental program? I have heard stories on NPR of excellent charities/NGOs doing this sort of work in Harlem. So now, they will be redundant, while folks assigned from the head office in Washington come down to handle the situation?
    Or, more likely, grants will flow to the politically correct community organizers who now get a new revenue stream.
    p.s. And what about the States or local communities handling this? Personally, I think individual states might have some differences on this sort of issue that a federal program will gloss over.

    • Let’s see, where can we get a group of community experts that can quickly staff this agency….
      Sounds like a job tailor made for ACORN to me.

      Let’s see, Administration for Care or Raising of Newborns?

  • We’re such silly freedom-lovers. When will we realize that it takes a village, I mean, Big Government, to raise a child?

    The latest Obama slogan: “All your baby are belong to us.” You have no chance to survive make your time!

    In AD 2009, war was beginning…

  • Of all people, Chuck Norris brings that point home with a vengeance.

    Heh.  Nice.  Well done.
    Because I thought that Chuck Norris did everything with a vengeance.

    My favorite:  If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.

    That’s comedy genius.  I’m still laughing two days later.

    Cheers.

  • The left (correctly) has been very keen on the idea of keeping government out of your bedroom. Nine months later and they want the government crawling all over the house.

    • Nice – So if you foolishly choose to excercise your ‘choice’ and turn it into a child, you WILL raise it according to the approved government teachings.

  • Home visits by government child care experts? Sounds like a great idea to me, but I think the McMartin family (of McMartin preschool fame) or the citizens of Wenatchee, Washington may differ.

  • I thought that the article implied that this *was* supposed to be implemented by the States and agencies on the local level.
    That doesn’t make it good, however, and explains why the bill seems to require them to target particular communities expected to need the service.     The Feds are laying out what the State is required to do.
    The State, to prove that it is adhering to the law and in good old fashioned CYA fashion will make sure that they can show that every effort has been made… and the only proof of that is that familys “choose” to take advantage of the service.     This is exactly how something “optional” on the books becomes “required” in reality.
    A failure of families to request home visits would be proof that services are being denied and those required by law to offer the services will be liable.
     

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet